Suspicion Against Scientists?

[Uber Genius]

On October 29, 2018 at 6:43 AM, thomas t said:

The problem that I see with this is that scientists may take offence.

 

I think the problem is much greater than just giving offense to a small percentage of the population.

 

The problem is that Christians and non-Christians alike should have their epistemic (method of gaining knowledge) focus on acquiring true beliefs about the world they live in.

 

We all hold false beliefs. Every time we learn or reverse our position based on new evidence we are eliminating false beliefs (or in some cases no belief) with true beliefs. Why can't our scientists be doing the same project? We would expect that if the world had been created 8000-10000 years ago we would have actual scientists touting experimental data in support of same. 

 

When we we examine argument after argument of YEC educators misrepresenting scientific findings to affirm an accent account of Genesis 1 and 2 that few Evangelical scholars hold, we commit the fallacy of consequentialism. 

 

God is no less creator if he is a primary originator of living organisms, and primary cause of DNA but not secondary. Certainly every Christian would grant that gravity and other physical laws that govern are universe  operate secondarily and continuously without God's intervention. We don't say, when we drop a glass and it falls to the floor, "God caused my glass to fall," do we? Yet we interpret a 3500-yr old document like we had PhDs in Semetic languages and pronounce that knowledge of the culture, and it's poetic use of yom must only be interpreted literally in a fashion that any grade-schooler would interpret it. 

 

Absurd!

 

we need to care about God's revelation more than we do the shedding of false beliefs it seems. Follow the data of science and see what inference best explains those data. Further follow the data of the text of Genesis 1 and 2 and see which inference best explains those data.

 

Let the ad hominems commence.

[thomas t]

Thank you, Uber Genius, for your replies. I hope so much that this thread might do without the ad hominems we see so often.

17 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

just giving offense

In my opinion it is a sin. Mt 7:2 "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you."

 

17 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

Yet we interpret a 3500-yr old document like we had PhDs in Semetic languages and pronounce that knowledge of the culture, and it's poetic use of yom must only be interpreted literally in a fashion that any grade-schooler would interpret it. 

Respectfully, I would prefer not to read it like I had a PhD (I don't have any by the way) but very much in the way grade schoolers would interpret it. ?

If you say Gen 1-2 is poetry, then please show us clearly what poetic elements can be detected therein. For instance: if you read Revelations 5:6, ther's a lamb in the middle of a throne. However, we know, it's Jesus sitting there, because he is the king and not a sheep. Hence, that's why we could (should) interpret "the corners of the earth" (Rev 7:1) metaphorically, too.

18 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

Why then would he misrepresent the "Things that were made," to have the appearance of age?  

if you take galaxies, for example, the reason would be to show us the galaxies. I'm not saying he misrepresenting anything... but if we would only be able to see things younger than 6k years, we couldn't know of one single galaxy, since it takes more time for their light to come to us than just a few thousand years.

So I stay with my opinion that the earth is just a few thousand years old as Bible teaches ... and God, sometimes, gave some things the appearance of age just because he is merciful.

17 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

YEC educators misrepresenting scientific findings

I saw this going on here... (please read my post there), this needs to stop!

 

Regards,

Thomas

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by thomas t
grammar: "any"

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, thomas t said:

If you say Gen 1-2 is poetry, then please show us clearly what poetic elements can be detected therein.

Hi Thomas, 

I've read a couple of interesting comments on this recently. This first link (here) comments more on the poetic structure and the second (here) looks more at the ramifications of considering a poetic narrative. Let me know what you think.

[Uber Genius]

4 hours ago, thomas t said:

If you say Gen 1-2 is poetry, then please show us clearly what poetic elements can be detected therein.

So the topic is not about me producing some justification for a particular view as I said earlier, but rather engaging the data of scripture methodically so as to understand what the original audience would have understood.

Engaing as a "grade-schooler would" is already falsified by your asking me to provide evidence. So grade-schoolers haven't yet learned about rational arguments supported by premises that are in turn explanations of text or things like genre. Grade-schoolers don't know intuitively that ancient books were not only written in foreign languages by authors who read books common to their own foreign cultures. Grade-schoolers are unfamiliar with stylistic features common to Mesopotamian cultures 3000 years ago which explains ideas like a firmament, or why authors exaggerated about size of armies and military victories rather than just report factually. Grade-schooler Havent master interpreting authors who write using metaphorical language and figures of speech let alone elements of speech that have been out of usage for two thousand or more years. 

Cultural, language, grammar, genre, meta thematic-ignorance is no way to engage the scriptures that are divinely inspired and that men have sacrificed their lives to maintain, translate, and expose future generation to IMHO.

A quick Google search entitled poetic elements found in Genesis 1 should yield a treasure trove of research. Good news is that one doesn't have to have a PhD to benefit from their research and expertise. The other good news is one should be able to find scholars in support of both young and old Earth positions. 

There are currently 7 separate theories as to how to interpret Genesis 1, all of which are by Evangelical authors who affirm the inspiration of scripture. 

 

 

 

 

[one.opinion]

24 minutes ago, Uber Genius said:

There are currently 7 separate theories as to how to interpret Genesis 1, all of which are by Evangelical authors who affirm the inspiration of scripture. 

Personally, I agree completely with this statement. Unfortunately, I'm in a rather small minority on this forum. Most believe there is a single way to interpret Genesis 1-3, and anything else is egregious error (at best) or a highway to damnation (at worst). Believe me, I've read these statements here and many others, as well. There are few here that will actually bring themselves to admit that I am a brother in Jesus Christ.

[Uber Genius]

36 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Personally, I agree completely with this statement. Unfortunately, I'm in a rather small minority on this forum. Most believe there is a single way to interpret Genesis 1-3, and anything else is egregious error (at best) or a highway to damnation (at worst). Believe me, I've read these statements here and many others, as well. There are few here that will actually bring themselves to admit that I am a brother in Jesus Christ.

I have run into numerous people whom lack of understanding about how the scriptures came to us and how we exegete rather than eisegete passages. The more mature (both intellectually and emotionally) brothers and sisters recognize that beliefs about origins, or end times, even things like orthodox vs. Catholic, vs. Protestant do not mean much in terms of the core essential truths of Christinity. I try to engage in a way that educates those who want to go deeper, and to at least expose the unintended consequences to some of the poorly researched, poorly thought out views. 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Personally, I agree completely with this statement. Unfortunately, I'm in a rather small minority on this forum. Most believe there is a single way to interpret Genesis 1-3, and anything else is egregious error (at best) or a highway to damnation (at worst). Believe me, I've read these statements here and many others, as well. There are few here that will actually bring themselves to admit that I am a brother in Jesus Christ.

How should we interpret your words?   Should we simply take you at your word that you mean what you say, or are we free to apply whatever meaning we wish and decide for ourselves what you mean?

[Guest shiloh357]

58 minutes ago, Uber Genius said:

I have run into numerous people whom lack of understanding about how the scriptures came to us and how we exegete rather than eisegete passages. The more mature (both intellectually and emotionally) brothers and sisters recognize that beliefs about origins, or end times, even things like orthodox vs. Catholic, vs. Protestant do not mean much in terms of the core essential truths of Christinity. I try to engage in a way that educates those who want to go deeper, and to at least expose the unintended consequences to some of the poorly researched, poorly thought out views. 

We are not in need of any education from you.   As for core essential truths of Christianity...    That implies that there are non-essential truths and that would be a fallacy.

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

How should we interpret your words?   Should we simply take you at your word that you mean what you say, or are we free to apply whatever meaning we wish and decide for ourselves what you mean?

Have I provided plain evidence that contradicts a "face-value" interpretation?

Have I sprinkled clearly non-literalistic language in my post?

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

A quick Google search entitled poetic elements found in Genesis 1 should yield a treasure trove of research. Good news is that one doesn't have to have a PhD to benefit from their research and expertise. The other good news is one should be able to find scholars in support of both young and old Earth positions. 

There are currently 7 separate theories as to how to interpret Genesis 1, all of which are by Evangelical authors who affirm the inspiration of scripture. 

There is no poetry in Genesis 1.  I read Hebrew and am familiar with the structure of Hebrew poetry.   Yes, there are 7 theories, but there is only one valid method of interpretation.   No matter what text we are talking about religious or secular, the only rational purpose behind interpretation is understand the meaning of the text.  The meaning is supplied by the author, not the reader.   When we interpret a text properly we are doing so in the light of the object the author has in view.   

Other means of interpretation are usually meant to get around the literal meaning in order to make room for unregenerate, carnal theories like Evolution or something else.  The last thing secular readers want is the actual meaning of the text.   They want a belief system that allows them to remain comfortable in their preferred view regardless of the truth expressed in the text.