homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Scientific Dating Methods and Counter Claims (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Scientific Dating Methods and Counter Claims
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997

 - Posted      Profile for pjkirk   Email pjkirk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
though I like ++ Usher

He was close, but no cigar, as they say...

quote:
Chapter One

Current theories on the creation of the Universe state that, if it was created at all and didn't just start, as it were, unoffi cially, it came into being between ten and twenty thousand million years ago. By the same token the earth itself is generally supposed to be about four and a half thousand million years old.

These dates are incorrect.

Medieval Jewish scholars put the date of the Creation at 3760 B.C. Greek Orthodox theologians put Creation as far back as 5508 B.C.

These suggestions are also incorrect.

Archbishop James Usher (1580–1656) published Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti in 1654, which suggested that the Heaven and the Earth were created in 4004 B.C. One of his aides took the calculation further, and was able to announce triumphantly that the Earth was created on Sunday the 21st of October, 4004 B.C., at exactly 9:00 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh.

This too was incorrect. By almost a quarter of an hour.

The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur skeletons was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet.

This proves two things:

Firstly, that God moves in extremely mysterious, not to say, circuitous ways. God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players,* to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infi nite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.

Secondly, the Earth's a Libra.

*i.e. everyone else

--Niel Gaiman/Terry Pratchet, Good Omens
(May the hosts forgive the semi-long quotation necessary for comedic effect)

--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)

Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Usher was an intersting man, who rose to be ++. A staunch Calvanist, of great learning, he had scouts all around Europe buying books for his library. While he was still +, the ++ chastised him for spending such little time in his diocese, and even when he returned there he spent very little effort on his pastoral duties. Curiously, he was good friends with the local RC +, most unusual for the time. Trevor-Roper wrote a good essay on him, my copy being in Catholics,Anglicans and Puritans , Usher being the Anglican.

By the way, pjkirk , your avatar is one of a series of Leggo characters on the billboard opposite my waiting place on the platform for the evening train home. Such fame!

A post full of tangents....

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Usher was primarily a scholar, who used what at the time were state-of-the-art scholastic tools of textual analysis to attempt to understand the Scriptures to the best of his ability. I often think he would be appalled that those who still support a recent Creation treat him as some sort of spiritual grandfather, they just don't show anything like the sort of scholastic integrity and determination to truly understand Scripture that he had. If his "spiritual descendants" followed his scholastic approach they'd be firmly grasping the results of modern scientific dating methods.

[ 23. December 2010, 06:52: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect that in less than 50 years, much the same will be said about a lot of present day theories and theorists - particularly those who resort to 23 dimension expanations of the state of the universe and its origins. None of it disprovable (see Broinowski) but all of it reached with great intellectual effort.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hey, what did Adam say on the day before Christmas?

It's Christmas, Eve!

(That's a cracker)

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well done Johnny - for giving me a chuckle on the second Christmas Eve in a row.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm wondering whether we can apply U-Pb or K-Ar dating to the joke. It's too old for 14C to be any use.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Usher was primarily a scholar, who used what at the time were state-of-the-art scholastic tools of textual analysis to attempt to understand the Scriptures to the best of his ability. I often think he would be appalled that those who still support a recent Creation treat him as some sort of spiritual grandfather, they just don't show anything like the sort of scholastic integrity and determination to truly understand Scripture that he had. If his "spiritual descendants" followed his scholastic approach they'd be firmly grasping the results of modern scientific dating methods.

quote:
If his "spiritual descendants" followed his scholastic approach they'd be firmly grasping the results of modern scientific dating methods.

And turning their backs of God's revelation?

Do you really think that the 'new' revelation of Science is that secure? Consider how its continual revisions have altered over the last half century.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Do you really think that the 'new' revelation of Science is that secure? Consider how its continual revisions have altered over the last half century.

Yes, that's how science works. It's not a revelation. It's a body of knowledge and theory that grows and changes as new data come in, and better ways of explaining existing data (and predicting data yet to be gathered) are discovered and tested. This is a feature, not a bug.

[ 18. August 2012, 21:49: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Do you really think that the 'new' revelation of Science is that secure? Consider how its continual revisions have altered over the last half century.

The thing is each revision of science builds on what came before. Scientific theories don't ever tear everything down and start again.

If you want to discuss specific examples, you should provide them.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

Do you really think that the 'new' revelation of Science is that secure? Consider how its continual revisions have altered over the last half century.

Such as?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
If his "spiritual descendants" followed his scholastic approach they'd be firmly grasping the results of modern scientific dating methods.

And turning their backs of God's revelation?
No, turning towards the revelation of God. The heavens declare the glory of God. God's power and divine nature are understood from what is made.

Ussher understood that the revelation of God in Scripture is only accurately seen when properly interpreted. He saw the true revelation of God when holding the Bible in one hand and scholastic text books in the other. He considered the scholastic method of textual analysis, the state of the art 'science' of his time, as the best approach. You may disagree that scholastic approaches are useful, but in that case you probably need to reject his date for creation derived by such methods - at least if you wish to be consistent. If the state of the art scholastic methods available to Ussher included more recent understanding of geological sequences, let alone assorted dating methods, he would have probably come up with a different interpretation of Scripture.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

Do you really think that the 'new' revelation of Science is that secure? Consider how its continual revisions have altered over the last half century.

Such as?
Steady state theory of universe?

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
If the state of the art scholastic methods available to Ussher included more recent understanding of geological sequences, let alone assorted dating methods, he would have probably come up with a different interpretation of Scripture.

Perhaps he would have. I'm inclined to think not. My point is that there is one revelation made known to us, the Bible. What we know of the physical laws of the universe have been there all along for discovery but if the two appear to conflict, then one doesn't reject revelation on the grounds of an apparent conflict, one strives to resolve the disconnect either in terms of ones understanding of the Bible or in terms of the conclusions physical evidence seems to point towards. If there is no resolution then 2 Tim 3:14 seems a good principle. You deal in terms of what you are sure of. To me that is the Bible. The jury is out on dating methods.

[ 19. August 2012, 09:07: Message edited by: Jamat ]

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

Do you really think that the 'new' revelation of Science is that secure? Consider how its continual revisions have altered over the last half century.

Such as?
Originally, the Big Bang theory had the universe expanding to point X, then contracting to a BIg Crunch. The latest theories, good enough now to be recognised by a Nobel Prize, have the expansion continuing without end, but the universe growing colder and colder as this expansion continues, ending up in the paradox of being dead but still expanding.

BTW, if the ++ Usher theory was correct, did not the preliminary work on the creation occur on the Sabbath?

[ 19. August 2012, 10:44: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(I was looking at the top threads on the boards, and I wondered what a discussion on Christian Mingle and eHarmony was doing in Dead Horses. Oh. [Hot and Hormonal] [Biased] )

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If that's the reason i keep getting that horrid Christian Mingle ad, i'm going to be very cross. The guy in the ad looks like a pimp and she appears to be nude. Just [Projectile]

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Do you really think that the 'new' revelation of Science is that secure? Consider how its continual revisions have altered over the last half century.

Such as?
Steady state theory of universe?
Despite the common refrain that "science is always changing its mind", there is virtually no bedrock scientific theory (e.g. relativity, Maxwellian electrodynamics, descent with modification, the atomic nature of matter, etc.) that has been overturned in the last hundred years. Part of this can be attributed the vernacular overuse of the term "theory". In the example cited the steady state universe was more an hypothesis than a theory, and was never universally accepted, even in its heyday.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Snore]

'To me that is the Bible.'

Yes, on matters of faith and doctrine. It is not a scientific text-book. The Creation story in Genesis was never intended that way.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Steady state theory of universe?

That was more of an assumption than a theory. What's rather more relevant is that there's no sign that the consensus of cosmologists is going to switch back.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You deal in terms of what you are sure of. To me that is the Bible. The jury is out on dating methods.

The Bible is not self-interpreting. What you have is your interpretation of the Bible, which you cannot be sure of. When the clear and plain facts of nature point against your interpretation of the Bible, then you need to adjust your interpretation, not play fast and loose with the facts. And your anti-science interpretations are really less than 200 years old, so you don't even have the unbroken tradition of the church to back you up.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For instance, is the moon a light in the sky? Genesis 1 says that there are two lights in the sky, a greater and a lesser to give light. Now astronomy, since before we have written astronomy, has claimed that the moon is not a light. It reflects light from the sun. Do we go with secular, or even pagan, astronomy, or do we say that we're going with the Bible. Funnily, enough every Christian theologian that I know of that has commented on the question has said that the Bible accommodates itself to human understanding here. It's not supposed to be taken literally. If the Bible says something that contradicts secular knowledge you assume that the Bible is speaking in a manner accommodated to its original readers. The Bible isn't there to tell us what happened six thousand years ago - it's there to tell us about our lives now.
And up until about the seventeenth century that was the universal reaction of Biblical exegetes confronted with conflicts between secular knowledge and some interpretation of the Biblical text.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[QUOTE] You deal in terms of what you are sure of. To me that is the Bible. The jury is out on dating methods.

I apologise, no offense is intended, but this generated a serious WTF moment for me. Religion is based upon faith, with no demonstrable proof. Science is based upon finding proofs. I can understand religion and science, but not religion or science. Unless one is an atheist.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You deal in terms of what you are sure of. To me that is the Bible. The jury is out on dating methods.

The Bible is not self-interpreting. What you have is your interpretation of the Bible, which you cannot be sure of. When the clear and plain facts of nature point against your interpretation of the Bible, then you need to adjust your interpretation, not play fast and loose with the facts. And your anti-science interpretations are really less than 200 years old, so you don't even have the unbroken tradition of the church to back you up.
quote:
When the clear and plain facts of nature point against your interpretation of the Bible, then you need to adjust your interpretation,
Maybe better stated thus:

When the clear plain facts of the Bible point against your interpretation of nature, then you need to adjust..

Incidentally,The Bible is certainly a guide to living now and part of that is an understanding of what we are and where we originated. We are created moral beings rather than the product of organic progressions that might have occurred another way.

One example of how Science(so called) has in fact changed is that Darwinism has become 'Neo Darwinism'. The gaps in the progression have been 'explained' by the concept of 'punctuated' changes.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Maybe better stated thus:

When the clear plain facts of the Bible point against your interpretation of nature, then you need to adjust..

All well and good, except there are very few plain facts in the Bible - "God is love", "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - and none of them really relate to nature and our scientific explorations of nature at all.

quote:
One example of how Science(so called) has in fact changed is that Darwinism has become 'Neo Darwinism'. The gaps in the progression have been 'explained' by the concept of 'punctuated' changes.
You've not fully understood the difference between Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. Darwin himself recognised that his theory lacked a mechanism - how were traits transmitted from generation to generation, and how were new varients within that transmission mechanism generated. Neo-Darwinism is the result of the synthesis of Darwins insights with the increasing knowledge of genetics.

Punctuated equilibrium is part of neo-Darwinism (though not universally accepted) which describes a very plausible mechanism for the observation that evolution generally happens very slowly, but occasionally substantial changes can occur over very short periods.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"Transitional forms" to be mentioned in 10...9...8...

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
When the clear plain facts of the Bible point against your interpretation of nature, then you need to adjust..

So - if your interpretation of nature has it that the trees of the field don't have hands you need to adjust...?

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Maybe better stated thus:

When the clear plain facts of the Bible point against your interpretation of nature, then you need to adjust..

Jamat, this is ridiculous, I'm sorry. There is more than one way of interpreting the Bible. Dafyd has already mentioned that the moon is described as a light in Genesis 1. We Christians have to deal with the clear plain fact that the moon is not a light, i.e. the Bible is, in a sense, wrong on this specific point.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Bible is also wrong in the order that things were created according to Genesis - the stars and moon come much later than they should do in the order ...

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, no, no. The Bible is not wrong.

The interpretation of the Bible that says the opening chapters of Genesis are an objective account of the precise of the creation of the world, akin to a science or history text book, is wrong.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, no, no. The Bible is not wrong.

The interpretation of the Bible that says the opening chapters of Genesis are an objective account of the precise of the creation of the world, akin to a science or history text book, is wrong.

Indeed so, Alan! This is what I was trying to get at when I said the Bible 'is, in a sense, wrong'.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
When the clear plain facts of the Bible point against your interpretation of nature, then you need to adjust..

There are no clear plain facts of the Bible.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Silent Acolyte

Shipmate
# 1158

 - Posted      Profile for The Silent Acolyte     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
(I was looking at the top threads on the boards, and I wondered what a discussion on Christian Mingle and eHarmony was doing in Dead Horses. Oh. [Hot and Hormonal] [Biased] )

I thought this was finally the thread to get me out of my parents' basement and get me a fox!

Damn.

Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
When the clear plain facts of the Bible point against your interpretation of nature, then you need to adjust..

There are no clear plain facts of the Bible.
In your exalted opinion perhaps. How about this one?

Romans 3:23. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

If there is one indisputable fact of human existence it is that we are terribly flawed. It is a scriptural fact that is undeniable in our experience.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The Bible is also wrong in the order that things were created according to Genesis - the stars and moon come much later than they should do in the order ...

If you say so, it is only from unawareness of interpretive principles. one such 'law' is called the "Law of recurrence". It says that in some passages of scripture there exists the recording of an event followed by a second recording of the same eventgiving more details than the first.

Gen 1:1-2,3 records the creation in chronological sequence. Gen 2:4-25, goes back to the 6th day to provide details of the manner by which Adam and Eve were created.

(Quoted from "The Footseps of the Messiah" by Arnold G Fruchtenbaum, P 6.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Maybe better stated thus:

When the clear plain facts of the Bible point against your interpretation of nature, then you need to adjust..

Jamat, this is ridiculous, I'm sorry. There is more than one way of interpreting the Bible. Dafyd has already mentioned that the moon is described as a light in Genesis 1. We Christians have to deal with the clear plain fact that the moon is not a light, i.e. the Bible is, in a sense, wrong on this specific point.
Well, it depends on your lens obviously though I did not say that there is only one way to interpret.

I do not deny metaphor or sybbolism. However if anyone wants to be precise, Lights are things that give light but not necessarily things that self generate that light the give. The sun and moon both , in a practical sense function as lights, One is self generating, one is not.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
When the clear plain facts of the Bible point against your interpretation of nature, then you need to adjust..

There are no clear plain facts of the Bible.
In your exalted opinion perhaps. How about this one?

Romans 3:23. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

If there is one indisputable fact of human existence it is that we are terribly flawed. It is a scriptural fact that is undeniable in our experience.

Did Jesus sin?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
When the clear plain facts of the Bible point against your interpretation of nature, then you need to adjust..

There are no clear plain facts of the Bible.
In your exalted opinion perhaps. How about this one?

Romans 3:23. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

If there is one indisputable fact of human existence it is that we are terribly flawed. It is a scriptural fact that is undeniable in our experience.

Did Jesus sin?
No

Maybe a look at the context of Romans 3:23 would answer that one. All are justified through the redemption that is in Christ.

The interesting fact that he wrestled with the sin nature and overcame it after being born into all the weakness of our humanity makes him an exception. One could argue he experienced sin without sinning as sin was laid upon him.

He is unique; WE are flawed. So do you really think that cheap shot makes your point? Sin is a reality faced by man. It was even faced by the Christ himself though he did not succumb to it. It is a scriptural fact.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well there might be Job

Job 1:8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

or Enoch

Genesis 5:24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jamat,

There is no proof of the religious claims in the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Pitakas* or any religious texts, there is only faith.

*There are historical events depicted, but this is true of several conflicting religious texts, therefore is not proof of the religions.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I do not deny metaphor or sybbolism. However if anyone wants to be precise, Lights are things that give light but not necessarily things that self generate that light the give. The sun and moon both , in a practical sense function as lights, One is self generating, one is not.

Hmm. I'm sure ancient Hebrew was capable of distinguishing between things that emit light and things that reflect light. Can any Hebrew scholars confirm this?

Certainly in modern English, a 'light' is always understood as something that generates light, no? I'd assume the same is true in ancient Hebrew, and the word 'light' is used to describe the moon simply because they thought it was indeed a light. Why would they think otherwise?

I don't think your argument stands, Jamat, but I realise it's a matter of opinion.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I do not deny metaphor or sybbolism.

But you do. That is exactly what you're doing when you treat a poetic and mythical creation narrative as a historical document. What you really mean is that you accept, out of necessity, that there are some passages where the Bible doesn't mean what the words literally say, but you want to set yourself up as the arbiter of exactly when it's acceptable to treat an account as metaphorical or symbolic.

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I do not deny metaphor or sybbolism. However if anyone wants to be precise, Lights are things that give light but not necessarily things that self generate that light the give. The sun and moon both , in a practical sense function as lights, One is self generating, one is not.

Sure. And bringing someone into being ex nihilo, fashioning them from the dust of the earth before breathing life into them, and causing them to be evolved over millions of years, are "in a practical sense" all modes of creation. It seems to me to be entirely in line with your hermaneutic system that if the burden of a passage is "God created..." one of those modes could stand as a symbol for another of them.

It is only if you think that the passage was written with the specific intent of promoting one of those modes against the others that it would be impossible to read it as symbolic in that way, and since I think the consensus of modern scholarship is that Genesis was composed sometime before 1859, I don't see that it is necessary to believe that it was written specifically to refute Origin of Species.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
When the clear plain facts of the Bible point against your interpretation of nature, then you need to adjust..

There are no clear plain facts of the Bible.
In your exalted opinion perhaps. How about this one?

Romans 3:23. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

If there is one indisputable fact of human existence it is that we are terribly flawed. It is a scriptural fact that is undeniable in our experience.

Did Jesus sin?
No

Maybe a look at the context of Romans 3:23 would answer that one. All are justified through the redemption that is in Christ.

The interesting fact that he wrestled with the sin nature and overcame it after being born into all the weakness of our humanity makes him an exception. One could argue he experienced sin without sinning as sin was laid upon him.

He is unique; WE are flawed. So do you really think that cheap shot makes your point?

I think it does. Mousethief 1, Jamat 0

You've just admitted that your chosen example of a 'plain, clear fact' of the Bible actually requires significant theological interpretation using passages from elsewhere, context, and a deep understanding of the redemptive power of Christ - which is in turn built on our Christian belief in the nature of Christ Himself. Incredibly layered, incredibly deep. And certainly not mentioned anywhere within your 'plain, clear fact'.

Try again. Where are these 'clear, plain facts' that don't require any interpretation?

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As I said earlier, I believe there are places where Scripture speaks clearly and with little space for varying interpretations. Incidentally, "place" in my thinking is more than just a verse or two, or even entire chapters; when Scripture speaks it speaks as a whole, and we can never hear it clearly without starting from the context of the whole of Scripture.

I happen to agree with Jamat that "we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" is a good example of something that Scripture is clear about. There's still scope for different interpretations though; I once met some street evangelists preaching a message that basically was "all non-Christians have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but true Christians are without sin - sins from before their conversion are washed away as though they never existed and with the power of the Holy Spirit true Christians are incapable of sin", I think they were talking bollocks but it was their interpretation of Scripture.

I would say that the Bible is also very clear that God is the creator of all things. What it's extremely unclear about is the mechanism for creation - mainly because the mechanism is a) unimportant and b) too complex for mere humans to understand, let alone be conveyed in a few short chapters.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you say so, it is only from unawareness of interpretive principles. one such 'law' is called the "Law of recurrence". It says that in some passages of scripture there exists the recording of an event followed by a second recording of the same eventgiving more details than the first.

Is this interpretive principle itself a clear plain fact? No. Is it anywhere stated in the Bible? No.
If an interpretation relies on this 'law of recurrence' to make sense then that interpretation is not a clear plain fact.

quote:
Gen 1:1-2,3 records the creation in chronological sequence. Gen 2:4-25, goes back to the 6th day to provide details of the manner by which Adam and Eve were created.
Even allowing for a law of recurrence, that doesn't work because the order of events on the sixth day itself is different in the two accounts, and also because Genesis 2:5 says that there were no plants when Adam was created.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055

 - Posted      Profile for Pre-cambrian   Email Pre-cambrian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I happen to agree with Jamat that "we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" is a good example of something that Scripture is clear about.

Even then saying that Scripture is clear about something is a very different thing to saying that it is a clear plain fact of the Bible, which was what Jamat was maintaining. The latter position depends on agreeing with Paul's opinion that (a) God exists and (b) that sin exists in the sense of a transgression with theological layers that turns it into something different to bad behaviour.

--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."

Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
However if anyone wants to be precise, Lights are things that give light but not necessarily things that self generate that light the give. The sun and moon both , in a practical sense function as lights, One is self generating, one is not.

Wait a sec. Isn't that reinterpreting the Bible to accommodate science, a supposed no-no? It seems neither particularly clear nor plain that 'mirror' is a synonym for 'light'.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
<snip>

Gen 1:1-2,3 records the creation in chronological sequence. Gen 2:4-25, goes back to the 6th day to provide details of the manner by which Adam and Eve were created.

<snip>

Um, no, Gen 1:1-2:3 is not in the right order chronologically - our best understanding now, scientifically, would put those events in approximately this order:
Light - Big Bang - day 1 also includes planet and waters
Stars and planets - day 4
formless void of Earth with waters - day 1
water forms into oceans - day 2
waters alive with living things - day 5
plants - day 3 (as in growing on land)
flying things and crawling things came later
fruit trees come much later
more species and man - day 6

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Gen 1:1-2,3 records the creation in chronological sequence.

Says who? Lots of people read it and did not think it was a chronological sequence.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  8  9  10 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools