Thread: Does Creation Science Give Comfort to the Enemy? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028525

---

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :
 
As some of you know by now, I'm trying to foment a rebellion against the evangelical atheists , but I thought I'd bring up the topic of creation "science" and the damage it has done to the Christian cause and Christian apologetics .
 

---

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
All discussions of Creation vs. Evolution, Creationism, and Creation Sciences, belong on the Dead Horses board. That doesn't mean we can't have a lively and productive discussion of the topic there; just means a change of address. Please place your chair backs and tables in the upright position and enjoy your flight to DH.

Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
In a lot of ways Creationism is a "cargo cult" of modern science, adopting the trappings of scientific inquiry and scientific terminology in order to gain the respect accorded to scientific knowledge in our society. On a certain level it's a tacit admission that belief in miraculous happenings through faith alone is insufficiently convincing, even to adherents. If one considers faith to be crucial to Christianity, the Creationist search for proof or evidence would seem to undermine this.
 

---

Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Creosos,
Thats a very good point imo. Whilst I have to accept that I think Creationism has at least exposed some very bad evolutionary science when it comes to evolution of species.
For example, as a former student of geology I know at the time of great interest in micro fossils that the macro fossil record was being doubted as reliable enough, and certainly not showing enough to support transitional fossils between species. And as for mutation, if one can't reproduce new species 'in tne lab' ist suggests that isnt how it happened in the past.

Darwin always felt the fossil record would as it grew expose transitional fossil record, yet one could argue it has proved the opposite.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To Creosos [sic],
Thats a very good point imo. Whilst I have to accept that I think Creationism has at least exposed some very bad evolutionary science when it comes to evolution of species.
For example, as a former student of geology I know at the time of great interest in micro fossils that the macro fossil record was being doubted as reliable enough, and certainly not showing enough to support transitional fossils between species. And as for mutation, if one can't reproduce new species 'in tne lab' ist suggests that isnt how it happened in the past.

Darwin always felt the fossil record would as it grew expose transitional fossil record, yet one could argue it has proved the opposite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
As some of you know by now, I'm trying to foment a rebellion against the evangelical atheists , but I thought I'd bring up the topic of creation "science" and the damage it has done to the Christian cause and Christian apologetics .

---

quote:

---

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

---

• Attacks on religion featured heavily.
• Incredulity at Young Earth Creationism played a significant part.
• All Christians were characterised as YECcies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I don't think Creation Science is a big problem

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I don't think Creation Science is a big problem

---

Errata: That should read "Intelligent Design".

---

They're the same thing. Just ask any cdesign proponentsists.

Some wag suggested that typo was just a transitional fossil.
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I don't think Creation Science is a big problem

---

Errata: That should read "Intelligent Design".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It is not possible to prove OR disprove God: by "God" I mean a Necessary Cause of Existence in the first place. Beyond that no one can go. The whole universe is a manifestation of the NC's Existence: our own intelligence proves that the NC is intelligent (because intelligence cannot arise from a cause that does not possess intelligence as a trait; that would be ex nihilo). So our existence is defacto proof of ID.

Purpose is another proof: we have purpose, ergo ID also has purpose. What purpose actually is, is the quest of every sapient soul....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
And as for mutation, if one can't reproduce new species 'in tne lab' ist suggests that isnt how it happened in the past.

Darwin always felt the fossil record would as it grew expose transitional fossil record, yet one could argue it has proved the opposite.

---

quote:

---

Not many people have much opinion on Irreducible Complexity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The only answer is yes! Young Earth Creationism does huge harm to Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Creation Science is a different issue. It attempts to create a pseudo-science that attempts, and entirely fails IMO, to make the evidence of an old earth and evolution become evidence for a young earth and fixed species.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Creation Science is a different issue. It attempts to create a pseudo-science that attempts, and entirely fails IMO, to make the evidence of an old earth and evolution become evidence for a young earth and fixed species.

---

Technically that's more of a problem for science than a problem for "the Christian cause and Christian apologetics" as stated in the OP.

---

quote:

---

If one considers faith to be crucial to Christianity, the Creationist search for proof or evidence would seem to undermine this.

---

quote:

---

But, leaning close to him, she spoke in their native language as follows, deriding the cruel tyrant: ‘My son, have pity on me. I carried you for nine months in my womb, and nursed you for three years, and have reared you and brought you up to this point in your life, and have taken care of you. I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being. Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again along with your brothers.’

---

quote:

---

You're not the first to have this thought. About 1600 years ago, Augustine said:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

---

quote:

---

Creation Science is a different issue. It attempts to create a pseudo-science that attempts, and entirely fails IMO, to make the evidence of an old earth and evolution become evidence for a young earth and fixed species.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Alan Cresswell says

quote:

---

Creation Science is a different issue. It attempts to create a pseudo-science that attempts, and entirely fails IMO, to make the evidence of an old earth and evolution become evidence for a young earth and fixed species.

---

How are we defining "science"? In my opinion, "science" is the testing of a hypothesis that can be tested, and reporting the results, regardless of whether the results confirm the hypothesis or not. If the hypothesis can't be tested, then it's not "science".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It is not possible to prove OR disprove God: by "God" I mean a Necessary Cause of Existence in the first place. Beyond that no one can go. The whole universe is a manifestation of the NC's Existence: our own intelligence proves that the NC is intelligent (because intelligence cannot arise from a cause that does not possess intelligence as a trait; that would be ex nihilo). So our existence is defacto proof of ID.

Purpose is another proof: we have purpose, ergo ID also has purpose. What purpose actually is, is the quest of every sapient soul....

---

This sort of confused mish mash is the biggest problem with Intelligent Design and is probably the kind of thing Bullfrog was complaining about. You start with the assertion that what you call the "Necessary Cause of Existence" is unprovable, and then proceed to assert the characteristics of this entity you claim not to be sure exists and do so in a way that invites an infinite regress. (Intelligence arises from an intelligent cause, therefor the NCE must be intelligent. Since the NCE is intelligent, it must therefore have an intelligent cause, which must also have an intelligent cause, which likewise . . . etc.) Then you do the same thing with "purpose", applying bald assertion to an ill-defined term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
There is no regression ("turtles all the way down") when you hold a concept of the Necessary Cause. It is in fact the only Cause that is not itself caused.

Existence in the first place is a FACT: it needs explanation: only the NC explains Existence in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
For the NC to be accurately conceived in the mind, it must be larger than the greatest concept imaginable (the old, exclusive ontological argument -- which cannot be falsified by application to anything else BUT the NC).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aggg:
In both cases it helps to remember that the thinking proceeds from the point of believing that the bible is Truth. Hence you understand measurements of nature by that standard - and reject anything which doesn't fit it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you believe that everything that exists requires an explanation, then either your NC doesn't exist or it requires an explanation.

---

quote:

---

Hence the infinite regress. If you want to special plead against the need of an explanation of the NC you'll need something better than "because otherwise there'd be an infinite regression".

---

quote:

---

How do you measure the size of a concept? For example, which is bigger: democracy or quantum mechanics? And what is the magnitude of the difference? How big is the biggest concept, and how much bigger must the NC be than this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Alan Cresswell says

quote:

---

Creation Science is a different issue. It attempts to create a pseudo-science that attempts, and entirely fails IMO, to make the evidence of an old earth and evolution become evidence for a young earth and fixed species.

---

How are we defining "science"? In my opinion, "science" is the testing of a hypothesis that can be tested, and reporting the results, regardless of whether the results confirm the hypothesis or not. If the hypothesis can't be tested, then it's not "science".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I am not convinced that testing is central to science. At least, I don't think palaeontology is more or less testable than archaeology, but one is science and the other isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
There is no regression ("turtles all the way down") when you hold a concept of the Necessary Cause. It is in fact the only Cause that is not itself caused.

Existence in the first place is a FACT: it needs explanation: only the NC explains Existence in the first place.

---

If you believe that everything that exists requires an explanation, then either your NC doesn't exist or it requires an explanation. Hence the infinite regress. If you want to special plead against the need of an explanation of the NC you'll need something better than "because otherwise there'd be an infinite regression".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:


- I've heard that argument from Creation Scientists, for example as a statement that the Flood explains the geological strata therefore the standard geological explanation is wrong) and failing to recognise the importance of Okhams Razor in determining the liklihood of each theory being correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:


- I've heard that argument from Creation Scientists, for example as a statement that the Flood explains the geological strata therefore the standard geological explanation is wrong) and failing to recognise the importance of Okhams Razor in determining the liklihood of each theory being correct.

---

But what if there was a flood. That would explain it right?
They have other arguments for challenging the standard geological column.
Doesn't the whole thing depend on your theological or philosophical premise..viz: There was a flood...or there wasn't?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Flood deposits would result in a stratigraphy based on either totally random materials (if deposited in turbulant flood conditions) or by size (large boulders at the bottom with fine sediments at the top) if deposited in stiller water. It certainly wouldn't deposit material based on isotope geochemistry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
creationist apologists challenge dating methods which I take it you are referring to by your reference to isotope geochemistry

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
And as for mutation, if one can't reproduce new species 'in tne lab' ist suggests that isnt how it happened in the past.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Dog breeders have been artificially creating new species for centuries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
creationist apologists challenge dating methods which I take it you are referring to by your reference to isotope geochemistry

---

There's a bit more to isotope geo-chemistry than just dating, though that's the most significant contribution to scientific knowledge of our world.

But, if we ignore the use of isotope geo-chemistry as a dating tool, it's still impossible to postulate a physical mechanism which sorts sediments in a flood event according to subtle variations in trace-elements.

And, yes, you could just declare "God did it" and reject any attempt to provide a scientific explanation that fits with a view derived from a particular understanding of the Bible. But, Creation Science tries to postulate such scientific explanations ... and inserting a specific action by God at every other step along a process chain does rather make any attempt to call it science laughable. Which Creation Scientists recognise, which is why they end up with postulating deeply implausible ideas such as the rate of radionuclide decay having been radically different a few millenia ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
"Of the combination of these into a whole,(the destruction of the Earth by water, the rescue of a single man and sed of animals by means of a boat etc)however, we may say without hesitation, it could not have arisen twice independently."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aggg:
In both cases it helps to remember that the thinking proceeds from the point of believing that the bible is Truth. Hence you understand measurements of nature by that standard - and reject anything which doesn't fit it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
regarding the flood I am inclined to trust the scriptures. When you look at ancient history, the Gilgamesh epic for instance, we have another ancient flood story to coroborate scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Big floods are really quite common. There are sunken cities all over the world. Even here in England. There are some sunken plains the sixze of whole countries that our ancestors walked around on - the best-known are the North Sea and (probably, most of) the Black sea but there are many others. The largest is the drowned land between Malaya, Sumatra, Java and Borneo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I've heard theories that the cataclysmic flood that formed the Black Sea may have been the seed for the Mesopotamian flood myths. It certainly would've wiped out "the world" as they knew it.

---

quote:

---

The Black Sea deluge is a hypothesized catastrophic rise in the level of the Black Sea circa 5600 BC due to waters from the Mediterranean Sea breaching a sill in the Bosporus Strait. The hypothesis made headlines when The New York Times published it in December 1996, shortly before it was published in an academic journal. While it is agreed that the sequence of events described did occur, there is debate over the suddenness and magnitude of the events. Two opposing hypotheses have arisen to explain the rise of the Black Sea: gradual and oscillating. The oscillating hypothesis specifies that over the last 30,000 years, water has intermittently flowed back and forth between the Black Sea and Aegean Sea in relatively small magnitudes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
regarding the flood I am inclined to trust the scriptures. When you look at ancient history, the Gilgamesh epic for instance, we have another ancient flood story to coroborate scripture.

---

I have no problem with there having been a flood, and that Genesis includes a narrative that is based on a historical fact. I could imagine how a small group of people and some of their livestock survived on a boat while the world they knew was washed away in a flood.

But, that's a long way from believing that such a flood is a natural mechanism by which the geological column was created and calling it some form of "science" or "geology".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Without blinding me with science about which I am profoundly ignorant, how do you deal with 'the flood could have made the grand canyon' argument or the seemingly obvious idea that 'fossils need to be the result of the sudden immersion and compression created by sediment that is evidenced by floods.'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Is this the wrong place to ask why creationists need to believe the Genesis myth to be literally true?

I am no scientist but I can't pretend that what I see all around me isn't there.

Faith doesn't mean we suspend disbelief as if listening to a fairy story.

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Is this the wrong place to ask why creationists need to believe the Genesis myth to be literally true?

---

If it is a myth there is no fall there is no original sin and consequently no need for redemption. The whole gospel becomes unnecessary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Without blinding me with science about which I am profoundly ignorant, how do you deal with 'the flood could have made the grand canyon' argument or the seemingly obvious idea that 'fossils need to be the result of the sudden immersion and compression created by sediment that is evidenced by floods.'?

---

quote:

---

If it is a myth there is no fall there is no original sin and consequently no need for redemption. The whole gospel becomes unnecessary

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt :
If it is a myth there is no fall there is no original sin and consequently no need for redemption. The whole gospel becomes unnecessary

---

The idea of original sin and a need for redemption for the evil deeds of some people we never met, in the specifics of the 'myth' can be fully rejected as a factual story, and as a very bad idea. Imagine a parent punishing a child for deeds of another child who was alive doing bad things before the other was born!

The need for redemption can be fully accepted as a description of the general fallen nature of all of us humans. I.E. We have not loved others as ourselves, we have not done what we ought and have done what we should not. Redemption is an ongoing, daily process. Least ways it seems to be in my life. And with the present day focus on consumption, brand names, markets and money, while materially rich people are so spiritually empty, it shows how much deeper we are in need redemption I think.
 

---

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
I find very little to disagree with in what you post, no_prophet, other than the apparent attribution of the quote to me, which I hope can be fully rejected as something I posted. I think you'll find that it was originally posted by Jamat, who I'm hoping will eventually stop by to elaborate.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I have plenty of sin to atone for without inheriting anybody else's.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It may be worth having a seperate thread to discuss the Fall in relation to Creationism. To me, the argument is probably the strongest one there is for some form of special creation to be essential to a Biblically informed faith. Paul makes quite extensive use of the myth for developing a model for atonement - the death of one sinless man redeems us from the effects of the sin of one man.

I don't think it's an absolutely compelling argument, but it's the only one that keeps me contemplating whether historical accuracy of the Genesis narratives is a possibly valid approach.

The Fall myth serves several purposes. Probably the strongest is to address the question "why are we like this?" when contemplating the indisputable fact that we're all sinners. Why is it that we all fall short and we're all incapable of living sinless lives? One answer is that we in some sense 'inherit' sinfulness, that our natures inherited from our parents, and the society we live in (also 'inherited' from our ancestors as well as our peers), drives us towards being sinners. We simply can't help it. The Fall myth gives us an answer to the "when did this start?" question. Today, we're more likely to use a myth taken from evolution - we evolved from other animals, and inherit the drive to survive and reproduce. We might even use a myth of "selfish genes".

Another aspect of the Fall myth is that of an earlier Edenic innocence, from which we're now barred. With the promise that in Christ we will eventually reclaim our place in Paradise. I think that's an essential part of a myth that places the "when did this start?" question within human history. Modern myths would actually take that answer out of human history, and even put it as "it's always been this way", removing the need for any earlier perfect state from our mythology. Though we still tend to cling to the perfect future.

I believe it is entirely possible to describe the work of Christ in redeeming us within a modern mythological framework, where we're redeemed from our own personal sins that are in part a result of our inherited biological drives, in part the imperfect societies in which we live, in part our own stupidity and weakness.

What we need to do is answer the question of how the sacrifice of one man can redeem many. We can no longer rely on the argument Paul uses that if the sin of one man can condemn all, then the sacrifice of the one sinless man can redeem all. For Paul, addressing an audience for whom the Fall myth was a part of their worldview, it was a powerful argument. For us, where we no longer live in a world where the Fall myth makes sense, it's a much weaker argument. We need a new apologetic approach, rather than just regurgitating the approaches that worked in different circumstances.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Alan, would our 'animal nature' not explain all this?
 

---

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Alan. You asked about the "Fall"/

How about this perspective?

The Genesis story of the “Fall” is the earliest Biblical attempt to answer the question, “How come evil?”. It was not intended as a once-for-all account of how evil came. It really answers the on-going question of how evil comes.


The basic insight of Gen 3 is that man’s pride will not allow him to be content with the status of creature (and therefore dependent on God). So man yields to the temptation to become god-like and seizes the opportunity to become like God. (The snake in the story is simply the personification of temptation; it is not to be identified with the Devil in later Hebrew thought.) This act of wilful disobedience had widespread consequences.


Does this ‘square’ with what science tells us today? Science uses the category of evolution to explain how things came to be and the Genesis story can be understood using this category of thought. However, it suggests that the “Fall” was not a declension from perfection to sinfulness; rather it is really a “failure to become”.


The argument in evolutionary terms suggests that, up to the point where man emerges as a self-conscious, moral being, all development is automatic and without moral content. When man emerges as a self-conscious being then an additional possibility is held out to him; he is called to attain to the image and likeness of God but this requires his response. The means by which he may do this is through “faith”. Insofar as man refuses to grasp, through faith, the opportunity open to him he is effectively choosing to live out his life at a purely biological level. It is at this level that the self-centeredness which characterises all sin predominates and so evil emerges.


Do these ‘scientific’ explanations square with the Bible? The answer is Yes. The NT uses two words for “life”. One is the word “bios”, from which we get biological. That describes the life we all share by virtue of creation. The other word used for “life” is “zoe” and it is the word used in St John’s gospel to denote “eternal life”. Eternal life is life of a different quality to biological life. Whereas we all have “bios” as a matter of inheritance “zoe” is a gift offered by God and it can only be appropriated by faith. We all have “bios”, like it or not. We do not all have “zoe”.


So Genesis 3 can be understood using scientific as well as Biblical categories of thought. Faithlessness is the common denominator in both accounts. In Hebrew thought faithlessness is shown in man’s refusal to accept the parameters God sets out. In evolutionary thought faithlessness is the rejection of that higher possibility on offer to us.


So the "Fall" is really a "failure to become" As paul says " all have sinned and fallen short" (Romans 3v23) John gives the solution. "to those who believed in His name He gave power to become children of God". How does this sound to you ?
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Alan, would our 'animal nature' not explain all this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Do these ‘scientific’ explanations square with the Bible? The answer is Yes. The NT uses two words for “life”. One is the word “bios”, from which we get biological. That describes the life we all share by virtue of creation. The other word used for “life” is “zoe” and it is the word used in St John’s gospel to denote “eternal life”. Eternal life is life of a different quality to biological life. Whereas we all have “bios” as a matter of inheritance “zoe” is a gift offered by God and it can only be appropriated by faith. We all have “bios”, like it or not. We do not all have “zoe”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Alan, would our 'animal nature' not explain all this?

---

I doubt it. Most other animals don't seem to feel the need for a theological backstory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Alan, would our 'animal nature' not explain all this?

---

I doubt it. Most other animals don't seem to feel the need for a theological backstory.

---

Of course most other animals don't write creation myths either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I am saying that because we evolved from animals we - necessarily - have an 'animal' instinctual side to our natures. We need to overcome or override this to 'become' fully human or Christlike.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Mitrochondrial DNA apparentrly suggests a common ancestress. Eve is a better option than lucy.

I don't think it is a myth. (creation and fall story) I think though that its a shimmering historical haze..but not a myth. I think Genesis tells us what we need to know not what we want to know. I think we can only respect the branches if the roots hold to the ground. I think therefore that evolution has to be wrong as it lets us off the hook morally. I think the prologue to John is a restatement of creation, a backstory to Christ , again based on what we need to know rather than what we'd like to know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Mitrochondrial DNA apparentrly suggests a common ancestress. Eve is a better option than lucy.

I don't think it is a myth. (creation and fall story) I think though that its a shimmering historical haze..but not a myth. I think Genesis tells us what we need to know not what we want to know. I think we can only respect the branches if the roots hold to the ground. I think therefore that evolution has to be wrong as it lets us off the hook morally. I think the prologue to John is a restatement of creation, a backstory to Christ , again based on what we need to know rather than what we'd like to know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I think therefore that evolution has to be wrong as it lets us off the hook morally.

---

I'm not sure evolution "lets us off the hook" so much as it generates a different morality, at least for those who think it could be the basis for morality. The need for continued survival does create an ethos.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Alan, would our 'animal nature' not explain all this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Alan. You asked about the "Fall"/

How about this perspective?

The Genesis story of the “Fall” is the earliest Biblical attempt to answer the question, “How come evil?”. It was not intended as a once-for-all account of how evil came. It really answers the on-going question of how evil comes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If we take the Genesis accounts in a more metaphorical sense then we're left with a problem when we read Paul, or at least that particular apologetic Paul sets out. If there was no single man who because of his pride disobeyed God and so 'infected' the rest of humanity with sin, how then can the analogy that a single man who in humility obeys God 'cure' the whole of humanity work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I think therefore that evolution has to be wrong as it lets us off the hook morally.

---

I'm not sure evolution "lets us off the hook" so much as it generates a different morality, at least for those who think it could be the basis for morality. The need for continued survival does create an ethos.

---

But isn't the question why we needed Christ to redeem us? I wouldn't think the need for continued survival and any ethos it creates is sufficient to explain why we were so badly in need of redemption that it was necessary for the Word to become flesh and live among us. I have a different understanding of the fall from Jamat, but I think I understand his or her theological position. Do you have an idea of the fall that is compatible with evolution, or perhaps a way of reconciling the two?

---

quote:

---

We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods--that they could cease directing their lives to their Creator . . . . We have no idea in what particular act, or series of acts, the self-contradictory, impossible wish found expression. For all I can see, it might have concerned the literal eating of a fruit, but the question is of no consequence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I think therefore that evolution has to be wrong as it lets us off the hook morally.

---

I'm not sure evolution "lets us off the hook" so much as it generates a different morality, at least for those who think it could be the basis for morality. The need for continued survival does create an ethos.

---

But isn't the question why we needed Christ to redeem us? I wouldn't think the need for continued survival and any ethos it creates is sufficient to explain why we were so badly in need of redemption that it was necessary for the Word to become flesh and live among us. I have a different understanding of the fall from Jamat, but I think I understand his or her theological position. Do you have an idea of the fall that is compatible with evolution, or perhaps a way of reconciling the two?

---

quote:

---

We should instead of objectifying the world as ours to manipulate, allow ourselves to become manipulated so that the world can fix itself and ourselves as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

We should instead of objectifying the world as ours to manipulate, allow ourselves to become manipulated so that the world can fix itself and ourselves as well.

---

I like this Bullfrog. But I somehow think that it's the developed world which fails to do this. There are still a few tribes around who do live at one with creation - taking no more than they need. I doubt any are Chrsitian societies - the 'work ethic' seems to take over when society converts to Christianity.

I still don't think there was a fall to be explained. If our self awareness brought about our capacity for good and evil, then it's dealing with that 'advancement' which i the struggle - not a return to an imagined former 'perfection' Unless it's the primitive life I mentioned - living in harmony with creation, Early Native American style?

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I'm not sure evolution "lets us off the hook" so much as it generates a different morality, at least for those who think it could be the basis for morality. The need for continued survival does create an ethos.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But I'm the skeptic who can't see how you can go from "this is" to "this should be". I've yet to see a good argument for that hat-trick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Croesus: "the existence of a common female ancestor isn't a problem for evolutionary theory"

Not a problem for creation either

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But I'm the skeptic who can't see how you can go from "this is" to "this should be". I've yet to see a good argument for that hat-trick.

---

I'm more concerned about what happens when you reverse that logic and insist "this should be, therefore it is", which seems to be the basis for most creationist arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I'm not sure evolution "lets us off the hook" so much as it generates a different morality, at least for those who think it could be the basis for morality. The need for continued survival does create an ethos.

---

I don't understand where this "need" comes from. There is no need for continued survival. Even if we accept the anthropomorphism, the "need" of an individual organism is to reproduce and (if possible) see that its progeny survives. But even there it's more "desire" than "need". Or say rather "hard-wired drive". But "continued survival" is a theoretical construct and certainly not the need of any animal. As such it's hard to see how it can create an ethos.

But I'm the skeptic who can't see how you can go from "this is" to "this should be". I've yet to see a good argument for that hat-trick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Unless we postulate a total disconuity between them then there must be some carry-over from one threshold to the next.

The argument here is that what, at the animal level, has survival value, has a destructive capacity at the humn / community level.

---

quote:

---

And I question whether Christ came to "redeem" us from anything. In my view he came to reveal what is possible for humanity to become. In itself that is a saving revelation. Being truly human himself he revealed what a Spirit-possessed person can become. If that redeems us from what we were ( or are) then great.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:
But isn't the question why we needed Christ to redeem us? I wouldn't think the need for continued survival and any ethos it creates is sufficient to explain why we were so badly in need of redemption that it was necessary for the Word to become flesh and live among us.

---

I think you're assuming the problem in a way that most non-Christians (and more than a few Christians) wouldn't find reasonable.

---

quote:

---

Every human society bends the world around it ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]
If we take the Genesis accounts in a more metaphorical sense then we're left with a problem when we read Paul, or at least that particular apologetic Paul sets out. If there was no single man who because of his pride disobeyed God and so 'infected' the rest of humanity with sin, how then can the analogy that a single man who in humility obeys God 'cure' the whole of humanity work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
There was only one choice for me; to fight the pride of my thinking and the power of my conditioning in order to humble my mind to what the scripture teaches. AKA That there was a special creation, a special redemption and plenty of people and spiritual powers with an agenda to discredit the scriptural message.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Christ himself is recorded as believing in the original couple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Christ himself is recorded as believing in the original couple.

---

I would rephrase this to say that Christ is recorded as speaking in a way that implies belief in the original couple, which I assume was valid for his audience. What strikes me when reading the Gospels is how thoroughly rooted in the one particular culture Jesus was - he was clearly speaking to his immediate audience, starting from where they were.

As Croesus suggests, there is no real evidence to suggest that JC himself believed in the actual existence of Adam and Eve any more than he believed in the actual existence of the Good Samaritan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
As Croesus suggests, there is no real evidence to suggest that JC himself believed in the actual existence of Adam and Eve any more than he believed in the actual existence of the Good Samaritan.

---

Total cop out. To spin it like that you have to say black is white.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
He only believed in a real Good Samaritan because it was a scoop for the Jerusalem Sun on that particular day. It happened.

But Jesus used the story to make a point about the identity of "neighbour".

Whether it was fictional or not is beside the point.

---

Not at all. As Jamat pointed out, if the story isn't literally true then any larger point derived from it is necessarily false as well.
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
As I don't know anyone who takes the parables as being about real people in real situations, I'm bemused by the last couple of comments. It's well known that rabbis do and did teach by way of stories/fables that are not literally true. That's been the case since well before Jesus was born.

The idea that there has to be a literal Good Samaritan, or a real Prodigal Son makes as much sense as suggesting that there had to be a real tortoise racing in real time against a real hare for that one of Aesop's fables to convey something true.

John
 

---

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Agree with John Holding. ( He a cricket umpire by any chance?)

Nonsense to suggest that the incident must be historically true for a point to be made.

Else the genesis parables ( Chaps 1- 3) have got nothing to say
 

---

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
As I don't know anyone who takes the parables as being about real people in real situations, I'm bemused by the last couple of comments. It's well known that rabbis do and did teach by way of stories/fables that are not literally true. That's been the case since well before Jesus was born.

The idea that there has to be a literal Good Samaritan, or a real Prodigal Son makes as much sense as suggesting that there had to be a real tortoise racing in real time against a real hare for that one of Aesop's fables to convey something true.

John

---

I think most people here would agree with that. Most of us would also agree with shamwari's last post.

The problem is that Jamat is insisting that Genesis must be literally true to convey something true and Croesus used the example of the parables to suggest that it ain't necessarily so.

If anyone can explain to me how proposing that Jesus did not believe that everything he said was literally true, is saying that "black is white", I would be grateful.
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
No one denies metaphor; we live and breathe it. But it is contextually suggested. Jesus said "He who made them from the beginning made them.."

What did he say? He said... etc etc.

The problem is did he mean what he said? The burden of proof is on you who assert he didn't, to explain why.

It isn't such a good look to explain it by saying: "It inconveniences my theology" and my evolutionary preconceptions."

When he spoke in parables, the writer indicated it. Not the case here.(Matt19:4, Mk 10:6) In both cases it is a direct quote from Genesis. Ergo: Jesus beleved Genesis.

[ 05. April 2010, 23:41: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
No one denies metaphor; we live and breathe it. But it is contextually suggested. Jesus said "He who made them from the beginning made them.."

What did he say? He said... etc etc.

The problem is did he mean what he said? The burden of proof is on you who assert he didn't, to explain why.

---

quote:

---

It isn't such a good look to explain it by saying: "It inconveniences my theology" and my evolutionary preconceptions."

---

quote:

---

When he spoke in parables, the writer indicated it. Not the case here.(Matt19:4, Mk 10:6) In both cases it is a direct quote from Genesis. Ergo: Jesus beleved Genesis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
It isn't such a good look to explain it by saying: "It inconveniences my theology" and my evolutionary preconceptions."

When he spoke in parables, the writer indicated it. Not the case here.(Matt19:4, Mk 10:6) In both cases it is a direct quote from Genesis. Ergo: Jesus beleved Genesis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
If it is a myth there is no fall there is no original sin and consequently no need for redemption. The whole gospel becomes unnecessary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
When he spoke in parables, the writer indicated it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Parable? Is it not simply teaching by means of a story or an argument from analogy?

What's the deal? When there is a little story and a principle is extracted from it, an indication is being made by the writer. Is it not all part of the back story? Regarding Jesus' references to the original couple, there is no such back story, just an appeal to the authority of scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I repeat, Jesus believed in Genesis- inconvenient as it may be to some.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
You suggest my hermeneutic implies that the one by whom the universe was created is under some misconception about how it operates? Is this not insulting your own intelligence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
When there is a little story and a principle is extracted from it, an indication is being made by the writer. Is it not all part of the back story? Regarding Jesus' references to the original couple, there is no such back story, just an appeal to the authority of scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
You suggest my hermeneutic implies that the one by whom the universe was created is under some misconception about how it operates? Is this not insulting your own intelligence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
You suggest my hermeneutic implies that the one by whom the universe was created is under some misconception about how it operates? Is this not insulting your own intelligence?

---

As Dafyd points out, if you acknowledge that your hermeneutic is insulting to everyone's intelligence, maybe there's something wrong with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
The "something wrong" is that the creation story is wrong. It didn't happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
The "something wrong" is that the creation story is wrong. It didn't happen.

---

So perhaps you could tell us what did happen?

No, thought not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue is the assumptions we begin with. If Christ is the one by whom the worlds were created, (John's gospel ch 1) My assumption is that he knew a thing or two.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
That the 'waters above' belonged to the antedeluvian world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
That scripture never teaches that the moon generates light.

My view is that one takes scripture at face value unless there is a clear editorial or contextual reason not to. One's theological or evolutionary preconceptions are not such a reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Now, that's just being nit picky.(about the moon, I mean.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Genesis, with which I assume you have a modicum of familiarity, tells us that when the flood arrived the windows of heaven opened (Gen 7:11)and it rained for 40 days. In 'The Genesis Flood' by Whitcomb and Morris, it is suggested that this refers to a precipitation of a vapour canopy in the atmosphere which up until this time maintained a more or less constant temperature on the planet. The polar regions were temperate as suggested by the vast animal graves in Siberia. Tropical flora has been found in the systems of frozen mammoths.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
What I assume is that the Scripture clearly states Jesus' role in the creation.

That Genesis is affirmed by Christ as authoritative as is the rest of the pentacheuch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Genesis is affirmed by Christ as authoritative as is the rest of the pentacheuch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
The "something wrong" is that the creation story is wrong. It didn't happen.

---

So perhaps you could tell us what did happen?

No, thought not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
My view is that one takes scripture at face value unless there is a clear editorial or contextual reason not to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
BTW Dafyd I see the two creation accounts as complementary. Many literary genres use the same facts in different ways. Jewish thinking was not linnear like mine or yours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If you say the shadow did not turn back, then you place science over the clear, plain meaning of Scripture.

If you say it did turn back, then you say either:

(a) The earth kept turning in the same way, but God made it look like it turned back. In which case God is a liar.

(b) The earth stopped in its rotation and started spinning in the opposite direction, then stopped again and started spinning the right way again. And nobody noticed, nothing went flying through the air because it had momentum in one direction and the earth had stopped. No lurches in anybody's stomach. In short a planet the size and mass of the earth stopped and it had no effect on anything whatsoever except that one shadow moved backwards. Nobody anywhere else in the earth noticed this contrary motion of the shadows. This is cloud-cuckoo land.

The only conclusion is that sometimes science trumps scripture. And once you allow that foot in the door, all Hell breaks loose.

(to those not in the know: 2 Kings 20:9-11)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
BTW Dafyd I see the two creation accounts as complementary. Many literary genres use the same facts in different ways. Jewish thinking was not linnear like mine or yours.

---

So what you're saying is that our thinking is linear and the Bible's thinking is non-linear, so we shouldn't take the Bible at what we think is face value?
For example, if the Bible says that flowers were made on day three and fish on day five, that doesn't necessarily mean that fish were made two days after flowers? It could mean that fish came into existence millions of years before flowers. Because the Bible is non-linear.

This is the same reason why when the Bible says that the moon is a light, this doesn't mean as we would take to be face value, that the moon is a light, but means that it reflects light - even though the Bible says nothing about reflecting.

---

I don't see your beef really.

I simply think the events happened and were recorded. Chronology does not necessarily matter
 

---

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Who recorded them?

As far as I know there were no tabloid reporters there (at least not until God created the Sun)
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Given the longevity of the antedeluvians, Many generations were alive concurrently. The creation story could easily have been preserved. Some speculate that Moses wrote by special revelation but it is worth remembering that Shem would still have been alive at the time of Abraham. Moses father in Law, Jethro, was a descendant of Keturah, Abraham's second wife. The 40 years in the desert could have been ample time for Moses to complete 'History of Mankind 101'.
 

---

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
Jamat, you're using Immanuel Velikovsky as a reference? Seriously? Seriously dude? seriously????
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
I'll take this nonsequitur tangent about orbital dynamics as an indication that you don't have any textual reasons to refute my prior point about the Biblical position on lunar luminosity or "the waters above". Moving on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If you say the shadow did not turn back, then you place science over the clear, plain meaning of Scripture.

If you say it did turn back, then you say either:

(a) The earth kept turning in the same way, but God made it look like it turned back. In which case God is a liar.

(b) The earth stopped in its rotation and started spinning in the opposite direction, then stopped again and started spinning the right way again. And nobody noticed, nothing went flying through the air because it had momentum in one direction and the earth had stopped. No lurches in anybody's stomach. In short a planet the size and mass of the earth stopped and it had no effect on anything whatsoever except that one shadow moved backwards. Nobody anywhere else in the earth noticed this contrary motion of the shadows. This is cloud-cuckoo land.

The only conclusion is that sometimes science trumps scripture. And once you allow that foot in the door, all Hell breaks loose.

(to those not in the know: 2 Kings 20:9-11)

---

This is indeed an interesting quandry. I believe the bible does not mislead us.

Your analysis of the situation that would occur if the sun in fact stood still is not necessarily accurate.

In 701BC there appears to have been a cataclysmic event, one of several, in which the ancients recorded.

Time forbids lengthy dicussion but if you are familiar with Velikovsky's 'Worlds in collision', you can check that he researched a change in the calendars of all ancient people groups at that time. Hezekiah appears to have doubled the month of Nisan in the year in question (recorded in the Talmud) and latterly, Jews simply added an extra month every few years to keep the lunar calendar accurate.

Cutting a long story very short, it is quite possible that Mars' and Earth's orbits came very close in that year. Remember, the ancients were terrified of the planets. This would have brought the two planets into a huge gravitational altercation resulting in both losing a bit of spin momentum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Without blinding me with science about which I am profoundly ignorant . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
The sun standing still as it did also in Joshua 10, could be accounted for by a shift in orbits and tilt. The earth wouldn't need to stop spinning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally, Croesos, I answered ypour queries..you disagree? So what.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
There is a model created by Donald Paton, Ronald R Hatch and Lauren C Steinhauer who suggest that ancient catastrophes occurred quite often in the ancient world often in October and March around every 108 years or multiples thereof. Their model that Mars could at the point of 'Ahaz's sundial' come as close as 70 thousand miles. If so it would have been 50 times the size of the moon and accompanied by bolide and meteor showers, tidal waves and crustal tides of huge power. The cities would have been flattened. No wonder there are so many legends about Mars, the God of war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
There is no theory. The point of what I wrote is that I believe the Bible is accurate on the points of fact it contains.

---

quote:

---

Donald W. Patten, Ronald R. Hatch and Loren C. Steinhauer. The Long Day of Joshua and Six Other Catastrophes. Seattle: Pacific Meridan, 1973.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I simply think the events happened and were recorded. Chronology does not necessarily matter

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
Jamat,

You'd sound less loony with a simple "goddidit" than making up wild models (or supporting wild models) which further contradict everything we know about natural history and how the universe works. At least relying on a miracle is not disprovable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Jamat, Velikovsky is as lunatic fringe as you can _get_. Come on now. The man had no scientific credentials, and he changed his hypothesis book-to-book. The man was a whack job, a nut case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I simply think the events happened and were recorded. Chronology does not necessarily matter

---

If you're going to say you're taking the Bible at face value, then chronology does matter. Because if taking the Bible at face value doesn't mean that you believe the events occurred in the same order as they're described then it begins to look like it doesn't mean anything.
If you're going to say that accepting the Bible means rejecting evolution, then chronology does matter. If you take the chronology out of the Bible account, what are you left with that contradicts evolution? Pretty much nothing.

You still haven't told Croesos or the rest of us why you don't believe there are windows above the earth holding the rain in even though Genesis repeatedly says they're there and there is no "clear editorial or contextual reason not to" take it at face value.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

There is one detail to add to the 'looniness' you might find interesting. Jonathan Swift in 'Gulliver's Travels' mentions Mars has two moons. At the time no one thought Mars had moons. They did not become visible to astronomers until 150 years later. Was he working from an ancient source? Did that suggest that some time in the past Mars was close enough for them to be visible with the naked eye?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
"High priest status"????? The man was a charalatan!

And btw, I have read one of his books, a long time ago. I forget which one. I was young, but even then I could tell it was a crackpot theory. It doesn't take much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

There is one detail to add to the 'looniness' you might find interesting. Jonathan Swift in 'Gulliver's Travels' mentions Mars has two moons. At the time no one thought Mars had moons. They did not become visible to astronomers until 150 years later. Was he working from an ancient source? Did that suggest that some time in the past Mars was close enough for them to be visible with the naked eye?

---

No. The suggestion that Mars had two moons was first made and published by Kepler in 1610, long before Swift, and was well known in the early modern world. He made the suggestion to fit a geometrical theory which turned out to be quite wrong except for this one accident. When he learned of the observation of Jupiter's four brightest moons, and compared this with the Earth's one Moon, Kepler concluded that Mars must have two moons (by the geometrical progression 1,2,4...).

Of course Jupiter doesn't have four moons, at the last count, it had 63. Kepler's geometrical theories were barking up the wrong tree.

L.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Asaph Hall 1877?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

Jonathan Swift in 'Gulliver's Travels' mentions Mars has two moons. At the time no one thought Mars had moons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Was he working from an ancient source? Did that suggest that some time in the past Mars was close enough for them to be visible with the naked eye?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
There is one detail to add to the 'looniness' you might find interesting. Jonathan Swift in 'Gulliver's Travels' mentions Mars has two moons. At the time no one thought Mars had moons. They did not become visible to astronomers until 150 years later. Was he working from an ancient source? Did that suggest that some time in the past Mars was close enough for them to be visible with the naked eye?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Well to ancient Jewish writers, Chronological order was frequently scrambled. The Gospel of John is a case in point. It is the writer's agenda that dictates the order. The Bible is a collection of books, a library within itself. Each of the 40 writers makes selective and editorial decisions. As a discerning reader, one needs to be as aware of them as possible.

---

So the Bible is to be taken literally, except when it's not. Very illuminating. The practical application of this principle is that the "discerning reader" can simply discard whatever he doesn't like as metaphor while simultaneously promoting his own prejudices as God's revelation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
For instance, genealogies often have holes. A man's son may in fact be his grandson.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
When I said chronology was unimportant, I was suggesting that facts are still facts even if scrambled somewhat. Sometimes, of course, it is important. Many written texts these days are similar in that they are chronologically skewed..not linnear narratives in other words.

I have never denied metaphor. Above, I affirmed it. The concept of the 'floodgates' or 'windows' of heaven is clearly a metaphor to describe what was probably a vapour canopy. The point is that scripture states that waters existed above the earth. That is what I think is true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally, do we really have to revisit the moon thing? I mentioned nit-picky.. perhaps pedantic would be better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
So you're postulating what? That Mars came really close to Earth shortly before 1726 and only Swift noticed it? Or that he was working from "ancient sources" of which no one knew except Swift, and the only use he had for his exclusive use of this ancient knowledge was a single throw-away line in Gulliver's Travels

---

quote:

---

I'd also like to hear an explanation as to how Mars kept its satellites after repeated close exposure to Earth's much stronger gravitational field. Bear in mind that at a 70,000 mile approach the attraction between Deimos and Earth would be almost as great as between Deimos and Mars, depending on where Deimos was in its orbit at the time.

---

quote:

---

So the Bible is to be taken literally, except when it's not. Very illuminating. The practical application of this principle is that the "discerning reader" can simply discard whatever he doesn't like as metaphor while simultaneously promoting his own prejudices as God's revelation.

---

quote:

---

The point is that scripture gives you no reason not to believe that a large body of water exists above the Earth right now. After all, if there were no more "waters above", why would God have to close the floodgates, as described by scripture. And if there are no more "waters above", wouldn't that also mean there are no more "fountains of the deep"?

---

quote:

---

[Yes, I would like to hear a clear, scriptural reason why "light" doesn't mean "light".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
So you're postulating what? That Mars came really close to Earth shortly before 1726 and only Swift noticed it? Or that he was working from "ancient sources" of which no one knew except Swift, and the only use he had for his exclusive use of this ancient knowledge was a single throw-away line in Gulliver's Travels

---

Never suggested this. You are arguing dishonestly. Swift's reference may or may not be from an ancient source or, as Louise suggests it may just have been 18th Century parlance. It was interesting is all. Another piece of hstorical 'DNA' or not as may be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
There is one detail to add to the 'looniness' you might find interesting. Jonathan Swift in 'Gulliver's Travels' mentions Mars has two moons. At the time no one thought Mars had moons. They did not become visible to astronomers until 150 years later. Was he working from an ancient source? Did that suggest that some time in the past Mars was close enough for them to be visible with the naked eye?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

I'd also like to hear an explanation as to how Mars kept its satellites after repeated close exposure to Earth's much stronger gravitational field. Bear in mind that at a 70,000 mile approach the attraction between Deimos and Earth would be almost as great as between Deimos and Mars, depending on where Deimos was in its orbit at the time.

---

I have no idea about orbital mechanics. The possibility of a Martian close-call was mentioned to suggest that 'Ahaz' sundial' could conceivably have happened.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

The point is that scripture gives you no reason not to believe that a large body of water exists above the Earth right now. After all, if there were no more "waters above", why would God have to close the floodgates, as described by scripture. And if there are no more "waters above", wouldn't that also mean there are no more "fountains of the deep"?

---

I never suggested there was a body of water above the earth right now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Yes, I would like to hear a clear, scriptural reason why "light" doesn't mean "light".

---

This has been addressed already. Light, hopefully is available and evident to all whose heads are not totally up their anterior regions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Well to ancient Jewish writers, Chronological order was frequently scrambled.

---

quote:

---

I have never denied metaphor. Above, I affirmed it. The concept of the 'floodgates' or 'windows' of heaven is clearly a metaphor to describe what was probably a vapour canopy.

---

quote:

---

Incidentally, do we really have to revisit the moon thing? I mentioned nit-picky.. perhaps pedantic would be better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
No light shines merely by its own power. The fact that it doesn't does not disqualify it from being called a light. A mirror for instance can function as a light. I presume you've heard of semophore? Even the sun shines by virtue of the reactions continuously occurring in is core. For convenience, we call the result 'sunshine' but since the whole argument is 'moonshine' could we just move on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Conservative scholars use four bases to interpret the Bible. ...

First the 'golden rule' One takes Biblical passages as read unless there is something in the text that indicates that they should be understood some other way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
No light shines merely by its own power. The fact that it doesn't does not disqualify it from being called a light. A mirror for instance can function as a light. I presume you've heard of semophore? Even the sun shines by virtue of the reactions continuously occurring in is core.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
I don't know that I have heard of "semophore". I know about semaphore but am totally unable to see the relevance of people communicating by waving flags at each other to the issue of whether the moon is a light or not. Can you please explain?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
First the 'golden rule' One takes Biblical passages as read unless there is something in the text that indicates that they should be understood some other way. metaphor and symbolism are not precluded by this. but symbols are generally explained when such is intended by the writer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
No light shines merely by its own power. The fact that it doesn't does not disqualify it from being called a light. A mirror for instance can function as a light. I presume you've heard of semophore? Even the sun shines by virtue of the reactions continuously occurring in is core.

---

I don't know that I have heard of "semophore". I know about semaphore but am totally unable to see the relevance of people communicating by waving flags at each other to the issue of whether the moon is a light or not. Can you please explain?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
All four "conservative" bases for interpreting scripture do not arise out of scripture but are imposed upon scripture.

Which is precisely what "liberals" are accused of doing.

And your insistence on context would make more sense if you kept to the context. In context Zech 9 referred to the imminent coming of Zerubbabel (who was of David's line) at the time of the Return from Exile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:


It also seems that none of your four hermeneutic rules would indicate that "light" means anything other than "light" or that there are not literal floodgates in the heavens through which "the waters above" can pour. In fact, your "golden rule" would seem to require a straightforward, face value interpretation of these things, as there is nothing in the context to indicate otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Astounding.

The reason why Jesus didnt mention "the day of vengeance of our God" when quoting from Isaiah was because he didnt agree with vengeance. Nothing to do with spurious time-lag gaps dressed up in dubious theological language,

Jesus told us not to seek vengeance on any number of occasions. Why should he apply that concept to God whilst denying it to God's followers.?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Jamat - I read your posts as saying -

'I want to believe it, therefore I will believe it - whatever I see or hear'

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Conservative scholars use four bases to interpret the Bible. ...

First the 'golden rule' One takes Biblical passages as read unless there is something in the text that indicates that they should be understood some other way.

---

It's probably the case that the discussion of Biblical interpretation may be better suited to one of the Inerrancy/Infallibility threads ... but, there's one big problem with this 'golden rule'. That is, once you admit there are some instances where the 'plain meaning' of the passage is an inadequate approach to understanding what it means, and need to use some other way of understanding it, then you need a significant framework for interpretation to say when you need to look beyond the 'plain meaning'. You need some means of deciding when a passage has a 'plain meaning' and when it doesn't. At that point you'll have some people deciding that a passage can be interpreted with a plain reading, and others that you need to interpret it differently ... all of whom are equally committed to your 'golden rule' of Biblical interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Asaph Hall 1877?

---

Swift didn't possess some arcane knowledge that everyone else lacked until Asaph Hall in 1877. He knew a fashionable 17th-18th notion which, while being wrong on just about every other count, said that Mars had two moons, and was right on that purely by accident, despite the theory behind it being completely wrong.


Let's go over it bit by bit

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

Jonathan Swift in 'Gulliver's Travels' mentions Mars has two moons. At the time no one thought Mars had moons.

---

This is quite simply false. Lots of people, including English contemporaries of Swift, such as William Derham, thought Mars had moons, and two was quite a common number suggested. It traces back to Kepler's theory of two moons which I mentioned. Drawing on Kepler, people thought that the further away from the sun it was, the more moons a planet should have.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Was he working from an ancient source? Did that suggest that some time in the past Mars was close enough for them to be visible with the naked eye?

---

No, he was simply showing off his knowledge of theories from his own time about Mars. 18th century person repeats popular 18th century theory is not some kind of miracle of prophecy.

cheers,
L

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
Or Louise could be right in the first place. I suggest you read http://www.gullivercode.com/wiki/index.php/Swift,_the_Galileo_Code_and_the_Moons_of_Mars to get rid of a few wacky nutjob ideas floating in your noggin.

Not only does the mars idea you posit make no sense, and requires a vast reworking of orbital mechanics, but the impacts of it would be huge! Can you even imagine the impact of a "close fly by" of another planet? Tides would have destroyed cities!

I think you should study the KISS concept for a while....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
You are quite right. Nothing is straightforward. I guess that is why there needs to be all the other rules and hopefully the Holy Spirit as a witness in the church as a corporate body.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Really the choice is whether Swift had some ancient source or he was amazingly intuitive..some kind of psychic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Really the choice is whether Swift had some ancient source or he was amazingly intuitive..some kind of psychic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Swift may well have had an ancient source based on an eye witness account. For that to happen, Mars would have had to had a very close fly by. the sort of thing that the bible suggests happened (though it is really all conjectural and circumstantial) in 701BC, which caused Hezekiah to alter the calendar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I never said light wasn't light; I never said there were literal floodgates in the sky and I never said scripture teaches either of those things nor do I believe them. The 'floodgates' reference is clearly metaphor ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
To my simple mind there can be no such thing as a "plain reading" of Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I never said light wasn't light; I never said there were literal floodgates in the sky and I never said scripture teaches either of those things nor do I believe them. The 'floodgates' reference is clearly metaphor ...

---

If the 'floodgates' reference is "clearly" not to be taken literally, why should the rest of the narrative(s) of Noah's flood?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes.

And the creation myth in Genesis beautifully describes a deep, timeless truth - that God created and sustains all things.

No way does it, by any stretch of the inagination, describe HOW God did/does that.

..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
And the OT myth is that we were created out of dust--seems pretty equivalent to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Genesis does not fit the category of myth that snugly it is not fantastical enough; neither Adam or Eve are heroic and God in the story is precisely what you'd expect God to be. The issue in my mind is not myth but supernaturalism

---

quote:

---

Not to mention sticking a tree with nice-looking fruit in the middle of the garden and saying "do not eat". What did God think would happen? And then God's response sounds distinctly petty to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Mostly Carbon I think. Seems pretty accurate to me

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
I have read any number of creation mmyths from around the world, mythology is something of a hobby of mine. I haven't noticed a qualitative difference between the Genesis myth and any of the others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Genesis does not fit the category of myth that snugly it is not fantastical enough; neither Adam or Eve are heroic and God in the story is precisely what you'd expect God to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
I have read any number of creation mmyths from around the world, mythology is something of a hobby of mine. I haven't noticed a qualitative difference between the Genesis myth and any of the others.

---

Have another look. Genesis has credible people, a credible human relationship; credible human weakness; no superpowers involved on the part of the humans; a credible human environment as in earth air,water and sky.

Now We also have supernaturalism but the supernatural being is not seeking to explain a human circumstance, He is not capricious, salacious or mendacious. He is a being apart from the human weakness depicted. He has a spiritual opposer, again, explicable in terms of supernaturalism rather than of mythical magic. This being uses the body of an animal. this is not so unusual to a supernaturalist. Jesus sent spirits into a herd of pigs after all....Bottom line? Some very real genre conflict.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
This is just a very obvious circular argument, Jamat. Invent a lot of extra tailor-made qualifications for the definition of myth, and you can pretend that since Genesis doesn't meet your newly-coined definitions (made up specifically to exclude Genesis), it can't be a myth.


If you go around telling people that you can show the truth of the Bible through discredited writers like Velikovsky and monumental twits like whoever came up with that Jonathan Swift idea, all you're going to do is drag the Bible into disrepute by association. Your idea of bolstering the authority of Jesus by deciding anything in the Old testament he gave a mention to must be treated as some sort of fact, actually does the opposite. It ends up making the Bible seem to rest on a tissue of crackpottery.

Luckily for you, you're not doing much damage here, as there can't be many of us who haven't read the Bible and who don't know that it's more worthwhile to read than the sad stuff you are besmirching it with by association.

But if you met someone who'd never read the Bible, and started telling them this sort of thing, they'd be justified in thinking that Jesus must be as dodgy as David Icke, since you keep trying to show his trustworthiness from utterly untrustworthy sources which would make any sensible person think twice.

L

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Those, on the other hand, who set themselves up in judgement of the Bible on the grounds that it doesn't suit the liberal humanist agenda cos 'OT Bible God' is sooo judgemental that he can't really be like that, aren't doing any damage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Please note, my point is not that Genesis has no mythical elements, just that it is quite different to other mythical stories in some fundamental ways. I don't see how I'm being circular..overstating a point perhaps on the odd occasion...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

As stated before, Velikovsky's theory is not the issue, it's his research into ancient stories that is impressive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
BTW Croesus, there are many scriptures that suggest cataclysm on the earth in times past if you care to take them at face value. For starters check out Hab 3:3-15. Vs 11 is interesting. Habukkuk was apparently a contemporary of Isaiah and Hezekiah.

---

quote:

---

So he spoke in prayer, and Phœbus Apollo heard him. Down from the peaks of Olympus he strode, angered at heart, bearing on his shoulders his bow and covered quiver. The arrows rattled on the shoulders of the angry god as he moved, and his coming was like the night. Then he sat down apart from the ships and let fly an arrow: terrible was the twang of the silver bow. The mules he assailed first and the swift dogs, but then on the men themselves he let fly his stinging shafts, and struck; and constantly the pyres of the dead burned thick. For nine days the missiles of the god ranged among the host . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Finally, Velikovsky. Well, Louise, In his book 'Ages in Chaos', right at the start on P 2, he actually numbers all the dynasties of Egypt in order. Now you say he is wrong. Can you document that in some way? He lists for instance:
neolithic then Old kingdom (pyramid building period) then he goes on to the first interregnum a dark age that then becomes the middle kingdom, the high point of the culture. This was followed the invasion of the Hyksos and finally the new kingdom which was the times of many of the named pharaohs are listed as part of the 18th dynasty and then the 19th. Where he doesn't know something, he admits it. For instance, he says: "The period of transition from the 19th to the 20th dynasties is obscure."

Perhaps you could look up the book and explain where he gets it wrong in your view.

---

Frankly, seeing as the dynasties are numbered from 1 (or 0 now) to 31, it is hard to see how even the nuttiest of nutjobs could get them out of order.
Amazon would only let me read up to page 28 and I admit that I found very little obviously factually wrong, bearing in mind that he was writing nearly 60 years ago. Nowadays I don't think many Egyptologists (if any) would say that the Hyksos were of an "unknown" race nor that they "ruled over Egypt without mercy", if only because it has been established that they did not rule over the whole country and it is now widely accepted that even the Ancients had imaginations and were capable of creating propaganda.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Joanna, Velikovsky starts 'Ages in Chaos' by giving the traditional dynasties and then their dates on pp.2-3. He produces his own bizarre dating system as the volume proceeds. You can get the whole text here and in a better format here.

He tries (and fails) in 'Ages in Chaos' to identify Hatshepsut with the Queen of Sheba (article by Egyptologist, David Lorton). To do that he has to move her chronologically out of place by about 500 years as he dates Solomon to the 10th century BC. He also tries to identify the Amalekites with the Hyksos, which involves a similarly large helping of chronological fudge. He goes for them being expelled from Egypt and turning up in 10th century BC Israel to fight Joab (Ages In Chaos p.99-101). Basically he has to move Egyptian history out by centuries, ignoring the findings of archaeology, to make his fudge work.

quote:

---

Needless to say, this reconstruction is entirely text-based. There is no stratigraphic evidence from Egypt or the Levant to back up these claims that not only down-date some pharaohs by as much as seven centuries but also reverse the sequence of numerous individuals. Some well-attested pharaohs (such as Ra‘messe VI, 1142-1135 BCE)) are dismissed as controlling only small oases in opposition to the Ptolemies (305-30 BCE); some (such as Psamtik I, 664-610 BCE) are downgraded to Persian satraps.

Even if (like Peter James) we accept that there is something not quite right with Egyptian chronology, it is unlikely to be this fundamentally wrong. Two centuries of archaeology have been devoted to working out the sequence of pharaohs... and although there may be room for squeezing and stretching individual reigns or altering the degree of overlap between contemporaneous rulers, there is not the latitude to make Ra‘messe III (1184-1153 BCE) a contemporary of Philip II of Macedonia (359-336 BCE)!

---

quote:

---

Jamat said - The question then is what the writer (or Moses) thought he was doing. Was he making up a story to explain something? or writing history. I know what my answer ir and I suspect the answers of others her will differ but I think those answers are pretty well wholly dependent on ones preconceptions and world view.

---

Exactly - and you are going into some incredibly tenuous detail to justify your world view.

Why would God hide in such obscure stuff?

I look out of the window and see a marvellous universe.

I feel deep, overpowering awe and wonder at love and life - and I want to give thanks.

I conclude that there is a 'special goodness' behind and through it all - I call this goodness 'God'

Then I look at the way the world works and see that it matches the simplest of scientific explanations in Primary school text books.

So I conclude that the 'God' of love is behind the creation of all things - and that science describes how s/he did it.

That's my world view - and it works well for me.


 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
"The principles of such myth making appear to be that the story must be a good story in its own right, must fill some gaps of knowledge in better and more convincing fashion than could be achieved by direct exposition, and must contain detail of obvious fiction which will mark the story as something other than factual narrative or history."

---

• Night and day without a moon or sun?
• A talking snake?
• Magic trees?
• Carnivores who don't eat meat?
• One of the only two men alive who's afraid of the reaction of other men? And, who managed to find a wife from non-existant people?
• Men who lived impossibly long lives?
• Flood waters 1000s of feet deep?
• Languages being scrambled by divine retribution?

 

---

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
Louise,

Many thanks for that. I am aware that Velikovsky is not reliable (to put it mildly), which is why we do not have his books in the house. I was very surprised at how well he began but the index certainly suggested he went haywire later and I did not want to contaminate my computer by looking further.

Reading Jamat's post, I was reminded of David Rohl but V seems to distort things even further and presumably runs into the same problem that you cannot study Ancient Egyptian history in isolation. I only saw Rohl's first TV show yonks back (and my TV only just survived intact) but having moved Rameses II forward by several centuries, he completely failed to mention how this affected Hittite history

Identifying Akhenaten with Oedipus is a new one on me and excitingly batty. Perhaps I should add him to my collection of pyramidologists after all.

Joanna
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, firstly the 'straw man'. Most who write in this forum have a rationalistic mindset and are deeply suspicious of any supernatural interventionist God. The problem then for them is that the Bible God both intervenes and supervenes. ... Call it a straw man if you want to. However can you honestly deny that what I implied in the comment above is not true? I have come across it on SOF many times.

---

quote:

---

As some of you know by now, I'm trying to foment a rebellion against the evangelical atheists. I thought I'd bring up the topic of creation "science" and the damage it has done to the Christian cause and Christian apologetics

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
I think we've seen some classic examples of how that can happen. The problem with creation 'science' and as we now see, the kind of pseudo-history and archaeology that follow in its wake, is that you end up with - 'Come and see how good the Bible is - all these really ropey discredited theories support it!'.

---

quote:

---

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
The other problem is that education and learning get cast as 'the enemy'. Scientists are 'arch-priests', people who see real problems with the way the OT has been used and interpreted get attacked for a 'liberal humanist agenda' or 'rationalistic mindset'. People on the boards who most certainly do believe in a supernatural interventionist God, get lumped in with the board atheists (who they easily outnumber)- because they know how to work out whether something is bad science or bad history or dodgy theology.

What it ends up doing is opposing research/learning/education to religion - and this is exactly the paradigm which people like Richard Dawkins want to set up too. It plays right into their hands - 'Come and see the ignorance inherent in the religion! Look! Look! They're still citing Crackpot X!' (Remember his ridiculous idea of re-labelling atheists as 'Brights'?)

If people try to back up the veracity of the Bible by supporting the theories of Crackpot X or Y, then it ends up making Dawkins and co look like the guardians of reason and learning and sanity, which is exactly how they think of themselves and exactly how they want other people to see them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Or whether Christianity is an intellectual construct at all. I've heard some people who think that matters of doctrine are secondary to being in community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Or whether Christianity is an intellectual construct at all. I've heard some people who think that matters of doctrine are secondary to being in community.

---

Isn't a community an intellectual construct?

---

quote:

---

I guess the question is whether Christianity is the sophisticated belief of academic theologians or the beliefs of the Christian masses, many of whom do hold anti-scientific and anti-education views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Or whether Christianity is an intellectual construct at all. I've heard some people who think that matters of doctrine are secondary to being in community.

---

Isn't a community an intellectual construct?

---

I don't think so.

ETA: And if it is (if one thinks that everything is an intellectual construct,) "we relate to each other" is a different manner of thinking than "I think that the world was made in seven days."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Or whether Christianity is an intellectual construct at all. I've heard some people who think that matters of doctrine are secondary to being in community.

---

Isn't a community an intellectual construct?

---

I don't think so.

ETA: And if it is (if one thinks that everything is an intellectual construct,) "we relate to each other" is a different manner of thinking than "I think that the world was made in seven days."

---

If that's the case, then why has so much ink been spilled over who is in and who is out of the Christian community, and so much more ink spilled on how Christians should relate to each other? Seems like an awful lot of intellectual effort for something without any intellectual component.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
If that's the case, then why has so much ink been spilled over who is in and who is out of the Christian community, and so much more ink spilled on how Christians should relate to each other? Seems like an awful lot of intellectual effort for something without any intellectual component.

---

People spend all kinds of ink studying nature, yet I don't think atheists think that, for instance, a tornado is an intellectual process.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Just because one can think about something doesn't mean that the thing is reduced to the thought.

Also, the fact that it's not intellectually cut and dried tends to give people more rather than less latitude to think about it.

Finally, I didn't say there was no intellectual component to it, just that it's not totally or fundamentally intellectual. Probably an easy thing to miss for folks who spend nearly all their time in purgatory, but I think that's the reality of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
If that's the case, then why has so much ink been spilled over who is in and who is out of the Christian community, and so much more ink spilled on how Christians should relate to each other? Seems like an awful lot of intellectual effort for something without any intellectual component.

---

People spend all kinds of ink studying nature, yet I don't think atheists think that, for instance, a tornado is an intellectual process.

---

But a tornado isn't created or maintained by a group of like-minded individuals deciding to form a collective community. Pretending that Christians have no more deliberate thought in their heads than air molecules is a degree of ridiucule even I wouldn't stoop to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Just because one can think about something doesn't mean that the thing is reduced to the thought.

Also, the fact that it's not intellectually cut and dried tends to give people more rather than less latitude to think about it.

Finally, I didn't say there was no intellectual component to it, just that it's not totally or fundamentally intellectual. Probably an easy thing to miss for folks who spend nearly all their time in purgatory, but I think that's the reality of it.

---

Once again, we're talking about deliberate human decision-making. How is something produced in that way not an intellectual construct?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Maybe I'm lazy or overworked or something, but I don't think every single action taken by my person every single hour of every day is "deliberately decided." Sometimes I just do stuff. Church is like that. It's not that it's completely thoughtless, but it's not like people go through every single thing thinking it out to the last possible detail before acting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Actually, I would. People aren't really logic machines when it comes down to it. Viewed from a certain distance, we may well resemble air molecules or something like that. It depends on where you're observing from.

Maybe I'm lazy or overworked or something, but I don't think every single action taken by my person every single hour of every day is "deliberately decided." Sometimes I just do stuff. Church is like that. It's not that it's completely thoughtless, but it's not like people go through every single thing thinking it out to the last possible detail before acting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Actually, I would. People aren't really logic machines when it comes down to it. Viewed from a certain distance, we may well resemble air molecules or something like that. It depends on where you're observing from.

Maybe I'm lazy or overworked or something, but I don't think every single action taken by my person every single hour of every day is "deliberately decided." Sometimes I just do stuff. Church is like that. It's not that it's completely thoughtless, but it's not like people go through every single thing thinking it out to the last possible detail before acting.

---

Actually, what you're postulating is that it's completely thoughtless. Air molecules don't think, at any level. Under your theory its perfectly plausible for you to get up one day, go to Mosque for prayer services, and not realize until afterwards (if then) "hey wait a minute, aren't I a Methodist?"

Just because something isn't thought out in exact, mathematical detail doesn't mean that it's not an intellectual process.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
This could be another thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
"The principles of such myth making appear to be that the story must be a good story in its own right, must fill some gaps of knowledge in better and more convincing fashion than could be achieved by direct exposition, and must contain detail of obvious fiction which will mark the story as something other than factual narrative or history."

---

Would that perhaps include any of the following, for example:

• Night and day without a moon or sun?
• A talking snake?
• Magic trees?
• Carnivores who don't eat meat?
• One of the only two men alive who's afraid of the reaction of other men? And, who managed to find a wife from non-existant people?
• Men who lived impossibly long lives?
• Flood waters 1000s of feet deep?
• Languages being scrambled by divine retribution?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue is what Moses thought he was writing.

---

quote:

---

Do you not find it interesting that no other Biblical writer ,in referring to these events, considers them fictional?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
This is something of a tangent, but does it actually say anywhere in the Bible that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or any part of it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
This is something of a tangent, but does it actually say anywhere in the Bible that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or any part of it?

---

Would you accept it as fact if it did?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
This is something of a tangent, but does it actually say anywhere in the Bible that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or any part of it?

---

quote:

---

What are the arguments for Mosaic authorship? First, there are numerous passages in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy that point to Moses as author. For instance, Exodus 34:27 says, "Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.'" In fact, there are references throughout the Old Testament (Joshua, 1 & 2 Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and Malachi) that claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

New Testament writers assumed that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well. In Matthew 19:8 Jesus refers to laws regarding marriage in Deuteronomy and credits Moses with writing them. In John 7:19 Jesus says, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." In Romans 10:5 Paul states that Moses wrote the law. It would be hard not to attribute either deception or error to Christ and the apostles if Moses did not write the Pentateuch.

There are many other internal evidences that point to Mosaic authorship. The writer of Exodus gives eyewitness details of the event that only a participant would know about. The author of Genesis and Exodus also portrays remarkable knowledge of Egyptian names and places. This knowledge is evident even in the style of writing used. One scholar has noted that the writer used "a large number of idioms and terms of speech, which are characteristically Egyptian in origin, even though translated into Hebrew."

Having received training in the most advanced literate culture of the day as well as having access to the Jewish oral tradition make Moses a remarkably able and likely candidate for God to use in documenting the founding of the Jewish nation.

---

quote:

---

Alan Cresswell: Again, it's difficult to know what other people thought when they wrote. I see little evidence that they considered the events to be factual either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Alan Cresswell: Again, it's difficult to know what other people thought when they wrote. I see little evidence that they considered the events to be factual either.

---

Well since most references to the creation story are in the prophetic or apocalyptic parts of the bible you may have a point. There are a few references though.
2 Pet 2:4 and Jude 6 are usually connected with Gen 6, the angels' interfering with the human genealogical line which is often connected with the flood judgement.
2Pet 3:5 refers to the waters of creation. 2 Cor 11:3 refers to the deception of Eve by the serpent.
Hos 6:7 refers to Adam's sin as does Job 31;33. ISTM these references are meant literally.
Lk 3;38 takes the geneology of Christ back to Adam.
Ps 104 is often seen as a poetic version of the creation story and you'd have to say it is very like it.

---

quote:

---

Hawk: unless the writer explicitly states the literal historicalness of the story, rather than merely mentioning it in order to back up their theological point, you are shooting in the dark and it comes down to your personal pre-assumptions alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Psalm 104 is also a pretty direct steal from an Egyptian hymn to the Aten, with some changes to reflect the reality of when it was incorporated into a book of hymns to Yahweh.

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Psalm 104 is also a pretty direct steal from an Egyptian hymn to the Aten, with some changes to reflect the reality of when it was incorporated into a book of hymns to Yahweh.

John

---

Isn't that another chicken and egg claim vis a vis the Genesis flood story is a 'steal' from the Gilgamesh epic?

Who actually knows these things?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Only the most rabid fundamentalist would want to claim that the events recorded in Genesis 1 - X1 are factual and objective accounts of what really happened.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0