Suspicion Against Scientists?

[thomas t]

22 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This first link (here) comments more on the poetic structure and the second (here) looks more at the ramifications of considering a poetic narrative.

Hi One,

thanks for sharing your links. The first link claims Genesis to be a sort of poetry that "is nothing like the poetry we are used to reading today and therefore it is invisible to us.". Actually, I was having in mind a sort of portry that enables the reader to take things metaphorically. So please, you would still need to explain why this ancient "invisible" style of poetry justifies the modern way of thinking that Genesis verses should be taken metaphorically in every two lines or so...

I mean, I also believe that God introduced some stylistic devices in anything he said in the Bible, but this doesn't mean we should never read it in a literal way. God is an artist who just likes to use stylistic devices: 

"How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O noble daughter! Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of a master hand." Song of Solomon 7:1 (bolded mine).

The author of the second link basically claims "the analogy of Revelation" and concludes that, since Revelation is not to be taken historically, Genesis shouldn't be taken historically, either. I don't find this convincing.

He further claims that Hebrews back then didn't have any questions of how the world evolved: "no Hebrew or Israelite back when these stories were told and written down would have even thought to ask such questions. " I consider this to be an unsupported allegation, his speculation.

Thank you for sharing this.

Regards,

Thomas

 

Hi Uber Genius,

ok, but why is the firmament just an "idea"?

I believe this to be literal firmament that was an element of the old creation that existed before the flood.

19 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

or why authors exaggerated about size of armies and military victories rather than just report factually.

which size of armies and military victories do you think are exaggerated?

 

Regards,

Thomas

Edited December 6, 2018 by thomas t
wrong word

[Still Alive]

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

No, it is true of real Christians, period.   No one who loves Jesus looks at any part of the Bible as simply useful, but non-essential or superfluous; they love whole thing.   And they were not arguing over Barnabas,  they were arguing over John Mark.   And that is totally irrelevant here. 

God didn't give us any non-essential information.   If you say otherwise, you're wrong, period.

Semantics. 

Show me where it says in the bible that every word in the protestant canon is essential. And if it's not there, I need to ask you this: Who told you that and why did you believe them?

[Guest shiloh357]

17 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Semantics. 

Show me where it says in the bible that every word in the protestant canon is essential. And if it's not there, I need to ask you this: Who told you that and why did you believe them?

It's not semantics at all. Every word in the Bible is a container of truth and that is true if you are talking about historical narratives or prophecy or doctrinal matter.  Every verse in the Bible is part of a doctrinal whole and for that reason every word contributes the truth of the Word of God.   

I don't need to come up with some silly, pathetic statement that you think has to exist for my statement to be true.   I don't question a single word the Bible says because it is inspired by God who doesn't lie, who doesn't misspeak or ramble aimlessly over things that are unnecessary. 

And if you don't think all of the Bible is essential, then you have a real problem because you are sitting in judgment on a book that is designed to judge you.   You do you think you are to decide which parts of God's revealed wisdom in Scripture?   Which parts do you think you have the wisdom to decide that are essential or not??   It takes a lot hubris against an all knowing God to presume that kind of judgment.   

[Still Alive]

56 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

And if you don't think all of the Bible is essential, then you have a real problem because you are sitting in judgment on a book that is designed to judge you.   

I repeat my earlier questions:

1. Essential for what?

2. Where does any book in the protestant canon say that it or any other book in the protestant canon is "essential", cover to cover. And if it doesn't, who told you that and why did you believe them?

I will explain why I said this is about semantics:

I see the bible as a user manual for the human being. Is every word in a user manual essential? Well, technically, it could be. I don't care about all sections all the time, but when I need a particular section, it becomes essential at that time. An important thing to remember, however, is that though every word in the Protestant Canon is useful for teaching, etc., not one word was written to me. Not one. However, it was ALL written FOR me. That is why the letter to Romans is useful FOR me. It was written TO the church in Rome. However, when faced with the same issues and sub issues they were faced with and Paul addressed in his letter to them, I can glean wisdom for my particular situation by reading what Paul said to the Roman church. 

And you bet I sit in "judgement" of what is in the bible. Every human being with a brain and a spirit should. We are admonished to test the spirits. This, in my opinion, includes the written word (AKA scripture). This is one reason he gave us brains. I don't just switch it off when dealing with the teachings of the authors of the books in the bible. And the most important part of that is not whether or not I believe what they said. It is believing how other people interpret what they said - especially those that created our English interpretations.

Bottom line is that, yes, in a way, I see every word as "essential". But I also see every word in any owner's manual as "essential". 

This is why I call it "semantics". I don't think we disagree, really. I'm just prevented from putting a super fine point on it because I see Christians as free, unlike the followers of other "Books" like Muslims.

Muslims are so strict about the Quran that the reason there is only one version is that they destroyed all others. Christians are not told precisely what to do. Our God gives us guidelines and allows us to apply those guidelines to allow us to choose (on our own, sometimes prayerfully) what to do in all situations. 

So, if you want to use the word "essential", I'll agree that every single word in the bible, when faced with the exactly right situation, is "essential". Yes.

 

Edited December 6, 2018 by Still Alive

[Uber Genius]

23 hours ago, Still Alive said:

Essential for what? And who is saying this is a binary choice - essential vs expendable? How about "essential vs important"?

For my car to function, gas in the tank is essential. Shock absorbers are important.

The context of this discussion is essential vs non-essential Christian Doctrine.

 

Just like the fields of medicine, physics, chemistry, insurance, banking, theology has a special lexicon with terms that have technical meanings that differ from how those terms are used elsewhere. I brought up the distinction of essential/non-essential to get some young earth creationists to stop the ad hominem attacks, strawmen misrepresentations, and appeals to ridicule aimed at individuals who wanted to examine the evidence to all the various views. However the individual I was trying to help was unfamiliar with the technical usage in theology and created a equivocation which has led down a rabbit trail.

Essential Doctrine is usually associated with the doctrines outline in the various ecumenical creeds from the apostles creed to the Nicene creed through the chalcedonian and Ephesian creeds ending in 451 C. E.

Point is holding a YEC view is not considered by any scholar, or Church Historian to be an essential Christian Doctrine. 

 

Rupertus Meldeniu developed a phrase around the first half of the 1600s that read,

 

"In Essentials Unity, in Non-Essentials Liberty, in All Things Charity."

 

Once we determine that holding YEC view is not "Essential," according to the technical meaning of that word in the field of Theology, we can affirm Liberty.

 

Unfortunately instead of comprehending my point, we got an equivocation followed by a strawman, followed by an affirmation that they don't need no edumacation from the likes of me. 

Hope this helps,

 

Edited December 6, 2018 by Uber Genius

[Still Alive]

10 minutes ago, Uber Genius said:

The context of this discussion is essential vs non-essential Christian Doctrine.

 

Just like the fields of medicine, physics, chemistry, insurance, banking, theology has a special lexicon with terms that have technical meanings that differ from how those terms are used elsewhere. I brought up the distinction of essential/non-essential to get some young earth creationists to stop the ad hominem attacks, strawmen misrepresentations, and appeals to ridicule aimed at individuals who wanted to examine the evidence to all the various views. However the individual I was trying to help was unfamiliar with the technical usage in theology and created a equivocation which has led down a rabbit trail.

Essential Doctrine is usually associated with the doctrines outline in the various ecumenical creeds from the apostles creed to the Nicene creed through the chalcedonian and Ephesian creeds ending in 451 C. E.

Point is holding a YEC view is not considered by any scholar, or Church Historian to be an essential Christian Doctrine. 

 

Rupertus Meldeniu developed a phrase around the first half of the 1600s that read,

 

"In Essentials Unity, in Non-Essentials Liberty, in All Things Charity."

 

Once we determine that holding YEC view is not "Essential," according to the technical meaning of that word in the field of Theology, we can affirm Liberty.

 

Unfortunately instead of comprehending my point, we got an equivocation followed by a strawman, followed by an affirmation that they don't need no edumacation from the likes of me. 

Hope this helps,

 

YEC isn't supported nor refuted by genesis either. The six days start in Genesis 1:3. We have no idea how much time passed  between 1:2 and 1:3. 

[Uber Genius]

15 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

YEC isn't supported nor refuted by genesis either. The six days start in Genesis 1:3. We have no idea how much time passed  between 1:2 and 1:3. 

So I think that we have a number of various interpretive theories for Gen 1:1-2:3. I haven't landed on one that is compelling currently. YEC is certainly a live option. 

 

One of the misunderstandings is that if I assert a poetic (Chiasm) struction rather than say a narrative one, that somehow poetry can't accommodate a literal 6-day creation and that is false. I don't hold the YEC as my top of the seven theories due to some common problems with light and dark before the sun, misrepresentations of scientific findings by certain YEC proponents (Gish, Morris, Ham), the eisegesis of the text rather than exegesis. But we can strip all those issues out and still make a case, but I think it is more likely Moses was writing an account that was a nuanced version of accounts he had read from various cultures  during the Mesopotamian Bronze Age. This would explain why accounts that are a 1000 years earlier are so similar. I do think the author retails these accounts to correct the record with info he has received from God.

Bringing us back to the topic of suspicion of science and scientist, YEC and their proponents are directly responsible for these views among Fundamentalists and even Evengelicals.

it is nothing but a rhetorical trick. Impugn the character and one can ignore the argument!

 

But those whom have the benefit of a Logic 101 class understand that the ad hominem attack is fallacious.

 

imagine I am arguing why theism is true. I give cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, moral and transcendent arguments in support of theism. Now imaging that I'm also being treated for severe psychosis with delusional ideations. What does that new fact do to my arguments?

 

Nothing whatsoever! 

 

My my arguments are based on premises and facts that are not effected by the person presenting them in the least.

 

All this condescension does is highlight the lack of education of the person mocking scientists and their beliefs. 

 

This is doesn't mean we need to take scientific pronouncements as gospel. Science knowledge changes over time, and some scientific claims are very-well established and others are dubious.

 

LEt's strive to understand the world God has given us sans conspiracy theories.

[thomas t]

Hi Still Alive,

I still hold to the six-day creationism view, because we are told to only work six out of seven literal days, " For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. " Exodus 20:11

15 hours ago, Still Alive said:

We have no idea how much time passed  between 1:2 and 1:3. 

God told all the spiritually important things for us to know in the Bible. If the gap between two verses in Gen 1 would be substantial in time and not just some hours, then God would have let us know and have accomodated our week accordingly.

Regards,

Thomas

----

Hi Mason,

thank you for your reply of the opening post. I appreciate it.

On 12/5/2018 at 8:43 PM, masonlandry said:

But a lot of the people who have a contention with one.opinion's allegorical reading of the creation account use allegorical understanding themselves in so much of the rest of the Bible, like to determine that Satan was animating the serpent

That's interesting. I don't take the snake allegorically, by the way.

Jesus incarneted and became a literal human man - like all of us. Likewise, Satan somehow showed up in the form of a literal snake, that's what I believe.

I'm not saying he's unable to become a human being, too. But this time he became a snake - somehow.

 

Regards, Thomas

Edited December 7, 2018 by thomas t
spelling

[Still Alive]

1 hour ago, thomas t said:

Hi Still Alive,

I still hold to the six-day creationism view, because we are told to only work six out of seven literal days, " For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. " Exodus 20:11

God told all the spiritually important things for us to know in the Bible. If the gap between two verses in Gen 1 would be substantial in time and not just some hours, then God would have let us know and have accomodated our week accordingly.

Regards,

Thomas

I really don't condemn the thinking of those that think it was six days and those that don't. I'm agnostic on that issue. 

Frankly, I even believe it is possible that there were many, many ages on this planet before the first of those six days and there are many, many ages to come - and our bible only spans a few of them. 

For all I know the earth is like a canvas that is used for a painting, which is whitewashed and used for another painting, and that cycle is repeated thousands of times. And the biblical history and prophesy is but one of those paintings. However, when you peal back our current painting you find below the layer of whitewash under it some remnants of the last painting. We call those Dinosaurs, Neanderthal, etc.  

No, I'm not married to that, but something like that could be going on. There is no reason to believe that the bible contains all information for all ages that ever existed on this planet or any other. It clearly says that now we see as through a glass darkly, so it makes it very clear that the bible doesn't tell us everything - and it is obviously silent about some things. It is not a science book and doesn't claim to be, so a lot of the information about events like creation needs to be taken  with a very open mind, especially when one considers we get it from EXTREMELY old text.

Exactly HOW the earth was created is not part of my theology. That God created it is.

[Uber Genius]

1 hour ago, thomas t said:

God told all the spiritually important things for us to know in the Bible. If the gap between two verses in Gen 1 would be substantial in time and not just some hours, then God would have let us know and have accomod

So we don't have a defense of evil and suffering in our world anywhere in the Bible and yet this objection is the single largest barrier for non-theists across recorded history (at least since 225-250 B.C.E) so why would we expect the author to intuit lack of understanding by readers that would occur thousands of years after writing it?

 

There are currently 7 viable conservative views of Gen 1 account of creation by scholars. So clarity is not an option, which leave "not important," as the other alternative in your rubric. 

 

There is contraversy about the lexical meaning of Bara and Yom both of which are required to nail down a specific interpretive theory for the meaning of the creation account. Structure has elements of anaphora and chiasms, center all to poetry and yet some (non-scholars) claim the language isn't poetic.

Hebrew grammar inveigh's against YEC view presented by Ham, Morris, Gish, yet their version is oft repeated and adopted as the "only theory," by pastors. 

 

There are are even deniers of the framework 2 sets of three days (again not by scholars so much as laymen).

 

So given the elements mentioned above we don't have clarity and are therefore tautologically left with it doesn't much matter in the scope of living out our lives as Christian disciples.