The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

MrPudding · 20-06-2016 09:06PM

J C wrote: »

Hi Mr P

I can see why some marketing guru had a problem with that one!!!:)

That was pretty much the reason. Well, more like the backers didn't want to back a loser.

MrP

J C · 20-06-2016 10:04PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Inerrant in matters of faith not science history or anything else.

This sentence is internally contradictory. If it is inerrant in matters of faith ... it is inerrant in everything.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I know JC thinks it's an older version of the Koran,

I think no such thing!!

tommy2bad wrote: »

dictated by God into man's ear and written down verbatem

Me ... and every Jew and Christian.

Safehands · 20-06-2016 10:53PM

"But if just a single part of it is show to be incorrect then it undermines the rest of it."

J C wrote: »

True.

I have already explained about the actual first couple of days of creation where morning and evening as well as day and night and vegetation were supposedly created before the sun. That cannot happen, so the whole thing is therefore undermined. Yes?

J C · 20-06-2016 11:16PM

Safehands wrote: »

"But if just a single part of it is show to be incorrect then it undermines the rest of it."

I have already explained about the actual first couple of days of creation where morning and evening as well as day and night and vegetation were supposedly created before the sun. That cannot happen, so the whole thing is therefore undermined. Yes?

Eh ... no, actually.
All you need is another source of light (before the Sun was created) to have day and night ... and 'happy' vegetation.
I agree that it might not be all that great if millions of years were involved ... as some Theistic Evolutionists erroneously argue, when they say the days of Genesis were aeons of time ... but it actually was only hours, before the Sun was created (on the fourth day).:)

When I first became aware of this stuff I was as 'gobsmacked' by it and rejecting of it, as some of you guys probably are now.
I was an Old Earth Evolutionist ... Big Banger ... the whole nine yards !!!
I knew there were issues with these theories ... but I thought that they were resolvable and certainly that Young Earth Creationism belonged in the 17th Century with Bishop Ussher et al. !!!
... but how wrong I was !!!:eek:
When, I began hearing about Creation Science and its theories my initial reaction was to dismiss it out of hand ... that is, until I found my challenges to it 'falling on their face' ... and I also found my support for spontaneous abiogenesis and evolution to be equally 'built on sand'.

How I laughed ... and laughed ... at the Young Earth Creationists ... until I ended up with the laugh on me (as an old earth spontaneous evolutionist, which I was at the time)!!!
I was the man who scoffed ... who ended up starting to pray!!!

looksee · 20-06-2016 11:28PM

J C wrote: »

Eh ... no, actually.
All you need is another source of light (before the Sun was created) to have day and night ... and 'happy' vegetation.
I agree that it might not be all that great if millions of years were involved ... as some Theistic Evolutionists erroneously argue, when they say the days were aeons of time ... but it actually was only hours, before the Sun was created (on the fourth day).:)

Are you suggesting god had a torch? What happened to it after the sun was created?

tommy2bad · 20-06-2016 11:39PM

J C wrote: »

This sentence is internally contradictory. If it is inerrant in matters of faith ... it is inerrant in everything.

I think no such thing!!

Me ... and every Jew and Christian.

Nonsense,
But then your next sentence proves my point.
Well not every Jew or Christian or this thread would be a lot shorter!
Still, I admire your valiant effort to defend the indefensible. Real through the looking glass stuff.

J C · 20-06-2016 11:46PM

looksee wrote: »

Are you suggesting god had a torch? What happened to it after the sun was created?

The Bible merely says that He Created light ... on the first day ... probably not a torch ... more like some kind of cosmic luminescence that was a pre-cursor to the Sun and stars.:)

J C · 20-06-2016 11:49PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Nonsense,
But then your next sentence proves my point.
Well not every Jew or Christian or this thread would be a lot shorter!
Still, I admire your valiant effort to defend the indefensible. Real through the looking glass stuff.

Hi Tommy.
The Divine inspiration of the Bible and OT is an article of faith of every orthodox Church and Jew that I know of.

hinault · 21-06-2016 01:30AM

looksee wrote: »

Are you suggesting god had a torch? What happened to it after the sun was created?

The people writing Genesis were apparently aware long before Science was that all matter can only exist as a result of energy or light.

Genesis Chapter 1 verse 3 proves to me that concept that the books of the Bible are divine in their source.

How else could someone writing the book of Genesis hundreds of millions of years ago - heck writing in the 19th century for that matter - know that all matter can only come in to existence as a result of energy?

Harika · 21-06-2016 07:58AM

hinault wrote: »

How else could someone writing the book of Genesis hundreds of millions of years ago - heck writing in the 19th century for that matter - know that all matter can only come in to existence as a result of energy?

By interpreting it afterwards, to fit the actual science? Just a wild idea.

solodeogloria · 21-06-2016 08:02AM

Good morning!

I find myself being on nobody's side here.

I don't know why we are insisting on the Bible being a science book because it obviously isn't.

Moreover, I don't see how or why this helps the atheist with claiming that God (probably) doesn't exist.

The Bible isn't intended to be a science book but rather an account of how God had engaged with His people through time and how God engages with the world today through His Son.

To obsess over the Bible being a science book is to miss the point by a country mile.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

J C · 21-06-2016 08:39AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning

I find myself being on nobody's side here.

I don't know why we are insisting on the Bible being a science book because it obviously isn't.

Moreover, I don't see how or why this helps the atheist with claiming that God (probably) doesn't exist.

The Bible isn't intended to be a science book but rather an account of how God had engaged with His people through time and how God engages with the world today through His Son.

To obsess over the Bible being a science book is to miss the point by a country mile.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Good Morning To God Alone the Glory (solodeogloria)

We're not claiming that the Bible is a science book ... just that science can be used to evaluate the physical evidence for the supernatural creation of life and the historical events recorded in the Bible.
This is a legitimate scientific pursuit, because if life was supernaturally created then the physical signals of such a creation should still be present in living creatures and if the accounts of historical events in the Bible are true, then they should be potentially capable of being verified using forensic science.

robdonn · 21-06-2016 08:46AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Moreover, I don't see how or why this helps the atheist with claiming that God (probably) doesn't exist.

...

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Good morning solodeogloria,

I do not try to wave the lack of science in the Bible as any form of evidence that a God does or does not exist. My only position in this thread is to counter the argument that the Bible gives a scientifically accurate explanation of the evolution of the universe and that science supports the Biblical Creation myth.

J C · 21-06-2016 08:56AM

robdonn wrote: »

Good morning solodeogloria,

I do not try to wave the lack of science in the Bible as any form of evidence that a God does or does not exist. My only position in this thread is to counter the argument that the Bible gives a scientifically accurate explanation of the evolution of the universe and that science supports the Biblical Creation myth.

The Bible certainly doesn't give any hint that God created via any process of evolution ... so I agree with you on that.
However, I disagree with your second point ... because Creation Science certainly does support the supernatural creation of life.

Avatar MIA · 21-06-2016 09:00AM

hinault wrote: »

How else could someone writing the book of Genesis hundreds of millions of years ago...

People? hundreds of millions of years ago... mis-statement? Just checking, because it's hard to tell with ye guys :P

robdonn · 21-06-2016 09:07AM

J C wrote: »

It is patently obvious from even a cursory examination of the information encoded in the DNA within any living cell that it is Complex, Specified and Functional ... to extremely high degrees, actually. The presence of CSFI in living genomes is an objective, repeatably observable (i.e. scientifically established) fact.
What this fact means may well be open to interpretation ... but an Evolutionist denying it has no more credibility in doing so, than a Creationist denying the objective fact that Natural (and Artificial) Selection occurs.

CSFI merely describes a fact about the type of information that is found in living cells. How it came to be there is open to explanation/interpretation ... but the fact that it is CSFI is objectively verifiable.

But the problem with CSFI, as I stated before, is that it is a measure of probability. Is this information complex and specified enough to be considered design? To assess this you would need to factor in known forms of change which the hypothesis does not do. The hypothesis does not take into account "branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection)" as explained by Natural Selection.1

So it is not a case of simply saying that something is simply Complex, Specified and Functional and coming up with an explanation afterwards (you may call this Creation Science, everyone else calls it Bad Science). The properties of CSFI require calculations which include known methods of generation or else it is meaningless.

robdonn · 21-06-2016 09:10AM

J C wrote: »

The Bible certainly doesn't give any hint that God created via any process of evolution ... so I agree with you on that.
However, I disagree with your second point ... because Creation Science certainly does support the supernatural creation of life.

The universe did evolve, even by your own explanation.

It started this way
Then something happened and it changed
Then another thing happened and it changed

Whether you think that God did it over a few days, or that it was natural properties over billions of years, the universe has changed over time. This is called evolution.

Leroy42 · 21-06-2016 09:10AM

hinault wrote: »

The people writing Genesis were apparently aware long before Science was that all matter can only exist as a result of energy or light.

Genesis Chapter 1 verse 3 proves to me that concept that the books of the Bible are divine in their source.

How else could someone writing the book of Genesis hundreds of millions of years ago - heck writing in the 19th century for that matter - know that all matter can only come in to existence as a result of energy?

Where does it show that in the bible?

Harika · 21-06-2016 09:15AM

J C wrote: »

because Creation Science certainly does support the supernatural creation of life.

For our lurkers here: "Creation science" is to science, what "homeopathic medicine" is to medicine. Both are claiming to be working, but it cannot be proven, outside of faith.

robdonn · 21-06-2016 09:26AM

J C wrote: »

I mean the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis that postulates that aquatic unicellular life (Pondkind) evolved into mammals (including Mankind) over millions of years.

Haha, I've never heard it been described like that. :P

OK, so what are the problems with the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection? (Thank you for starting with unicellular life and not making the typical mistake of claiming evolution tries to explain abiogenesis.)

J C wrote: »

If such a thing were to be found, it would obviously eliminate any claim to it's inerrancy and Divine inspiration.

1 Kings 7:23-26 (KJV) wrote:

And he made a molten sea [cauldron], ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

So a circle with a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30. That would make pi equal to 3.

Is the Bible wrong, inaccurate or did God change the value of pi?

J C wrote: »

It does so by pursuing the scientific evaluation of the physical evidence for the supernatural causation of life and the historical events recorded in the Bible. Conventional science precludes itself from doing so.
... and like I have already said, I have no issue whatsoever with Conventional Science doing so ... but Conventional Science should reciprocate by having no issue with Creation Science pursuing research into an area that Conventional Science has (quite legitimately) precluded itself from.

See there is a problem with your explanation, there is no such thing as "Conventional Science". There is just science. It relies on a very specific set of principles which include the search of falsification. You can stack all sorts of evidence to support whatever claim you want, which is what "Creation Science" seems to do, but it means nothing if you're not attempting to falsify it and it stops being science.

solodeogloria · 21-06-2016 09:32AM

Good morning!

Or perhaps the numbers are rounded?

Just a thought.

A key question is what is the Bible for? What is 1 Kings trying to do? Is it a technical manual for telling people how to build pots or is it a history of the kings of Israel and Judah?

Both sides of this argument descend into silliness.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Leroy42 · 21-06-2016 09:40AM

The bible is not a science book, but many people use it as the basis for their understanding of the universe.

Science is not interested in disproving God, it is interested in proving the truth. If that happens to be a God, then wonderful, but currently the evidence available does not support that. Similarly there is no evidence that disproves God, but by its very nature it is very difficult to prove a negative and as stated above, it is a waste of time for science to go down that path as God existence or otherwise will naturally be the outcome of continuing to seek answer.

The problem that religion has is that without the firm believe that the bible is true, that all of it is true, and a true reflection of God and his relationship with mankind, then it inevitably opens it up to questioning, and as we see even from this thread, there are many questions that require a circular leap back to faith to have an answer. It is true because I believe it to be true based on the book, which is true because God 'wrote' it and therefore it is true and as such I can believe it.

It is now, relatively recently, conceded by some that in some respect the OT may not be literal. But then why continue to believe the NT? Or alternatively if you believe the NT, you must by extension believe the OT. You believe that God created the heaven and Earth in six days, you believe that death was only brought about because Eve ate the apple, you believe that Israel is God's chosen people, you believe that God killed everything on earth some 4200 years ago. You believe Moses wandered in the desert for 40 years, you believe God caused multiples occurrences of death and destruction. You believe in the virgin birth. You believe in slavery. You believe that eating shellfish is not allowed. You believe that you can't work on the sabbath. You believe that rich people cannot get into heaven. You believe that adultery is punishable by death. You believe in blood sacrifice.

it is not a take it or leave it menu, it is all or nothing.

Many religions, even today, continue to use the bible as the basis of their stand on issues. When science tries to put forward an alternative idea, such as evolution, the argument is not that evolution makes sense but there are certain unknowns in it, but that the bible does not support evolution and as such evolution is wrong. In one instance you have science trying to find an answer to an unknown, the other is trying to show that the answer already exists and we just haven't asked the right question.

We can now argue about evolution some 150+ years after it was first proposed, but can you imagine the vitriol that Darwin received from Religion at the time. It wasn't that they had any evidence themselves, apart from a singular book, but his 'lack' of evidence was used to portray the whole idea as fanciful.

robdonn · 21-06-2016 09:48AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Or perhaps the numbers are rounded?

Just a thought.

A key question is what is the Bible for? What is 1 Kings trying to do? Is it a technical manual for telling people how to build pots or is it a history of the kings of Israel and Judah?

Both sides of this argument descend into silliness.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

If it was rounded then it is inaccurate, which is one of the options that I provided. :P

Saying that if the Bible is inaccurate or wrong then God does not exist is silly, but that's not what is being debated here.

One party (at least) is claiming that the Bible is scientifically accurate when it can easily be shown not to be, which you seem to agree with.

Leroy42 · 21-06-2016 09:53AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Or perhaps the numbers are rounded?

Just a thought.

Or perhaps the whole story is simply an exaggeration of an existing story to better fit a narrative.

robdonn · 21-06-2016 10:02AM

J C wrote: »

Eh ... no, actually.
All you need is another source of light (before the Sun was created) to have day and night ... and 'happy' vegetation.
I agree that it might not be all that great if millions of years were involved ... as some Theistic Evolutionists erroneously argue, when they say the days of Genesis were aeons of time ... but it actually was only hours, before the Sun was created (on the fourth day).:)

When I first became aware of this stuff I was as 'gobsmacked' by it and rejecting of it, as some of you guys probably are now.
I was an Old Earth Evolutionist ... Big Banger ... the whole nine yards !!!
I knew there were issues with these theories ... but I thought that they were resolvable and certainly that Young Earth Creationism belonged in the 17th Century with Bishop Ussher et al. !!!
... but how wrong I was !!!:eek:
When, I began hearing about Creation Science and its theories my initial reaction was to dismiss it out of hand ... that is, until I found my challenges to it 'falling on their face' ... and I also found my support for spontaneous abiogenesis and evolution to be equally 'built on sand'.

How I laughed ... and laughed ... at the Young Earth Creationists ... until I ended up with the laugh on me (as an old earth spontaneous evolutionist, which I was at the time)!!!
I was the man who scoffed ... who ended up starting to pray!!!

First off, I would like to say that I am not laughing at either you or the YEC hypothesis. It's a massive topic and one that is always worth discussing.

As for an earlier light source, it doesn't make much sense. Not that it isn't possible, at least if you're allowing God to pop things in and out of existence, but why would He make a light source then get rid of it to replace it with another light source? It doesn't seem very efficient.

tommy2bad · 21-06-2016 10:20AM

J C wrote: »

Hi Tommy.
The Divine inspiration of the Bible and OT is an article of faith of every orthodox Church and Jew that I know of.

The discussion is about exactly what its instant about. Most Christians and Jews don't think the bible is instant on everything, only inerrant on matters relating to salvation. So yeah, you are wrong.

Nick Park · 21-06-2016 10:53AM

robdonn wrote: »

If it was rounded then it is inaccurate, which is one of the options that I provided. :P

The silly season has officially arrived.

Every number that we use in everyday language to describe a distance is rounded to some degree. If I tell someone that I live 40 miles north of Dublin then my statement would be considered true by any reasonable person, even if the precise distance is a mile (or millimetre) more or less.

The doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy holds that the Bible uses language in normal ways (e.g. it speaks about the sun rising or setting) just as the rest of us use language. It also uses poetry, metaphors and similes. It also rounds numbers up or down.

The passage in 1 Kings was describing what the Temple looked like. Therefore it gives the dimensions of part of the furniture in cubits (an imprecise unit of measurement which was approximately the length of a man's forearm). No conflict with the idea of inerrancy.

Incidentally, if the Creation passages in Genesis are understood to be extended parables (a common Hebrew literary device) then there is no conflict whatsoever in viewing them as non-literal and still believing in the inerrancy of Scripture.

robdonn · 21-06-2016 11:00AM

Nick Park wrote: »

The silly season has officially arrived.

Every number that we use in everyday language to describe a distance is rounded to some degree. If I tell someone that I live 40 miles north of Dublin then my statement would be considered true by any reasonable person, even if the precise distance is a mile (or millimetre) more or less.

The doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy holds that the Bible uses language in normal ways (e.g. it speaks about the sun rising or setting) just as the rest of us use language. It also uses poetry, metaphors and similes. It also rounds numbers up or down.

The passage in 1 Kings was describing what the Temple looked like. Therefore it gives the dimensions of part of the furniture in cubits (an imprecise unit of measurement which was approximately the length of a man's forearm). No conflict with the idea of inerrancy.

Incidentally, if the Creation passages in Genesis are understood to be extended parables (a common Hebrew literary device) then there is no conflict whatsoever in viewing them as non-literal and still believing in the inerrancy of Scripture.

And I am not claiming that the Bible is trying to be accurate, nor that it is not allowed to round up or down.

J C does not take the Creation passages in Genesis as merely parables, he/she believes them to be accurate accounts of the creation of the universe ( e.g. "days" are actually days). That is what I am debating here.

hinault · 21-06-2016 11:14AM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

People? hundreds of millions of years ago... mis-statement? Just checking, because it's hard to tell with ye guys :P

Depends on how old Earth is.
Genesis is the account of the creation of Earth.

Regardless of how old Earth actually is, the writer of Genesis somehow knew centuries before Science disclosed that matter could only exist through energy.

How did the writer know this?

hinault · 21-06-2016 11:19AM

Harika wrote: »

By interpreting it afterwards, to fit the actual science? Just a wild idea.

By interpreting it afterward?

The writer wrote what he/she wrote long long before science shows that matter can only exist where there is energy.

Your answer doesn't solve how the writer knew this literally centuries before science did.

How did the writer of Genesis know that one had to have energy for matter to exist, long before science discovered this?

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments