The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C · 12-07-2015 10:08PM

Safehands wrote: »

We know for a fact that the Genesis account of creation is wrong and that is the starting point for the whole OT account. It is reasonable therefore, to assume that if the initial few pages are so factually incorrect, the rest of the book cannot be relied on. So describing it as outdated is accurate. So there y'are JC, I know you don't really accept it but so be it!

We'll have to agree to differ on this ... so there y'are Safehands

Safehands · 12-07-2015 11:15PM

J C wrote: »

We'll have to agree to differ on this ... so there y'are Safehands

Wow JC, you have mellowed!

J C · 12-07-2015 11:17PM

Safehands wrote: »

Wow JC, you have mellowed!

Yes.
The enthusism of youth has been replaced with the wisdom of old age!!!:)

Safehands · 12-07-2015 11:20PM

J C wrote: »

Yes.
The enthusism of youth has been replaced with the wisdom of old age!!!:)

Are you sure you haven't just been battered into submission. You took some stick in your time!

J C · 12-07-2015 11:27PM

Safehands wrote: »

Are you sure you haven't just been battered into submission. You took some stick in your time!

I love you all ... and ultimately God is love and love is all that matters.

Safehands · 12-07-2015 11:29PM

J C wrote: »

I love you all ... and ultimately God is love and love is all that matters.

Are you sure this is JC? THE JC?

noddy69 · 23-10-2015 07:56PM

Safehands wrote: »

Evolution takes thousands, even millions of years, so of course no-one has ever seen it. If you believe that the Universe is only a few thousand years old, then naturally you would never believe in evolution, or understand it. However, if you understand and believe that the Universe is billions of years old then you are on the first rung of the acceptance ladder. You have to take that first step. If you can't, then the whole thing goes whoosh... over you head.

Not true: Lab bacteria after a number of generations have evolved in a lab. It may take millions of years for larger creatures as it takes generations for the changes to happen and hence millions of years.

Safehands · 26-10-2015 11:29PM

Original sin, according to people who take the Genesis account literally, infects the souls of all new babies. That sin, according to legend, comes from an act committed by the first man, when he was tempted by a snake and ate an apple. We all know the story. This tale is part of the creation story which does not make any reference to the facts which we know about the world we live in, facts such as the sun is solely responsible for night and day. Morning and evening could not happen without the presence of the sun in our solar system. Do some people deny this fact?

Michael OBrien · 27-10-2015 12:05PM

noddy69 wrote: »

Not true: Lab bacteria after a number of generations have evolved in a lab. It may take millions of years for larger creatures as it takes generations for the changes to happen and hence millions of years.

Changes vary depending on the situation, as well as time. There are plenty of examples of new species of things much larger than bacteria, including flowers and flies. There have also been speciation events outside the lab. Short life spans certainly helps, as you stated, for longer lifespans, noticeable change takes hundreds of generations usually. However in the Russian Silverfox experiment, foxes changed quite a bit, gaining dog like traits, relatively quickly, within a human lifespan easily. Not a speciation event obviously, but very intriguing to see in large longer lived mammals. If continued for a thousand years the effects would be remarkable.

A primary issue with people that deny evolution is they don't grasp (willfully) what it actually means or what taxonomy is. That is why they put up this false division between macro and micro versions of it when in reality macro is just micro over a longer period of time (above species level in taxonomic categorization at least).
The exact same mechanisms involved in dog breeds, agriculture, ring species, bacteria gaining new traits (nylon digestion), etc is all that is needed for an understanding of evolution.
The most common mistakes by creationists are to either deny the age of the earth /universe (pure science denial) or claim there is some magical (bestowed by their god, whichever one they worship) barrier to diversity, which is pure conjecture, because their scripture alludes to it. There is no evidence for either position.
Once someone grasps the basic mechanisms of evolution (mutation, natural selection, sexual selection, viral gene transfer, etc), they have no sound reason to doubt it at all, rejection usually comes from non scientific sources, most commonly religion.
The mountains of evidence for long term evolution is easily attested to both genetically and through fossilization/biodiversity.

Michael OBrien · 27-10-2015 12:14PM

Safehands wrote: »

Original sin, according to people who take the Genesis account literally, infects the souls of all new babies. That sin, according to legend, comes from an act committed by the first man, when he was tempted by a snake and ate an apple. We all know the story. This tale is part of the creation story which does not make any reference to the facts which we know about the world we live in, facts such as the sun is solely responsible for night and day. Morning and evening could not happen without the presence of the sun in our solar system. Do some people deny this fact?

If you read genesis 1, and Job (which is actually older than genesis 1), and think of a flat earth, stationary with a small sun orbiting it, most of the stories make a lot more sense (from a storytelling aspect).
The Joshua 10:13 story also clearly demonstrates that the writers believed the sun orbited the earth.
"So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day."
This story makes no sense in a spinning earth orbiting a million times the mass Sun over 90 million miles away.
Holding the moon too in the sky, is amusingly naive when discussing a planetoid a quarter the mass of the earth about 250,000 miles away.

Isaiah · 30-10-2015 11:19PM

Job 26:7 God “hangs the earth on nothing.” indicates that the Earth is in the void. ie Space.

Job 26:10 "He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness.” This clearly indicates a curved horizon.

Isaiah 40:21-22—Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth"

Michael OBrien · 02-11-2015 04:22PM

Isaiah wrote: »

Job 26:7 God “hangs the earth on nothing.” indicates that the Earth is in the void. ie Space.

Job 26:10 "He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness.” This clearly indicates a curved horizon.

Isaiah 40:21-22—Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth"

Please read them in context and then look up what the word for circle in hebrew actually means (encircle and circle as drawn by a compass).
See the difference.
Isaiah used the word 'ball' in 11:18 ("He will roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you into a large country." in another context so they could have described the earth much more accurately. They never used that word in any context with the earth anywhere in the OT.
A circle is not a sphere.

Isaiah 40:21-22 actually says "22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." This clearly refers to a covering over a flat surface not a sphere. Tents are not spherical, certainly not then.
Also the idea of god being ABOVE the earth is aimed to illustrate his ability to view all the earth, which is impossible in a sphere, but possible in a flat disk.
Now I realise only a small fringe of christians believe the earth is flat due to the bible, so I am not trying to argue that christians believe this today, they have re-interpreted it, but their reinterpretation is forced IMO.

Also Job 26 states " He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. ". Space is not nothing, the earth is not hanging on anything. The bible also claims that the earth is immovable, on pillars and other such statements. These are all false and not matching what we know about the earth.
Of course at the time that Job was written people did what they could to explain the nature of the world. They were not even trying to describe the actual world, but simply praise their god and pass on the messages about serving him, but the way they do so hints strongly at how mistaken they were about the nature of the earth.

JOB 26:10 "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end." KJV. This refers to the power of god, not the earth's shape. It refers to dividing the waters above in heaven from the waters on earth, until the end of days. Further reading supports this.
"11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof. 12 He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding * he smiteth through the proud. "
And before anyone says I am taking these quotes from an atheist site. I don't do that. http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/job/26.html]
Further support for a flat earth is the reference in Job 38:13.
"That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?" KJV.
Followed by "The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment." NIV.
tommery06_383447_1[672744].jpg

Nick Park · 02-11-2015 07:55PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

The bible also claims that the earth is immovable, on pillars and other such statements.

Elephants on the back of a giant turtle, isn't it?

Seriously, I always feel sorry for people who miss out on the wonderful grandeur of poetic language. Life must be so boring when you misunderstand everything to be intended literally.

MrPudding · 02-11-2015 10:01PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Elephants on the back of a giant turtle, isn't it?

Seriously, I always feel sorry for people who miss out on the wonderful grandeur of poetic language. Life must be so boring when you misunderstand everything to be intended literally.

Yeah...

Religious person 1: Mate, have you read this bit? It is crazy...

Religious person 2: Wow. How are we going to sell that, people will never believe that now, what with education and stuff.

Religious person 1: ...Hmmm... Got it. Let's call the crazy stuff poetry.

Religious person 2: Nah, no one will buy that... will they...?

MrP

Peregrinus · 03-11-2015 08:29AM

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah...

Religious person 1: Mate, have you read this bit? It is crazy...

Religious person 2: Wow. How are we going to sell that, people will never believe that now, what with education and stuff.

Religious person 1: ...Hmmm... Got it. Let's call the crazy stuff poetry.

Religious person 2: Nah, no one will buy that... will they...?

MrP

Critical thinking people will buy it readily. Why not?

Dogmatic literalist fundamentalists will not.

It's surprising how many dogmatic literalist fundamentalists there are in the atheist community!

Michael OBrien · 03-11-2015 11:53AM

Nick Park wrote: »

Elephants on the back of a giant turtle, isn't it?

Seriously, I always feel sorry for people who miss out on the wonderful grandeur of poetic language. Life must be so boring when you misunderstand everything to be intended literally.

I have no problem with the idea of such passages being poetic in nature, however the choices for allegory show the mindset of the people at that time.
Christians pretend that these passages have scientific merit and when called on it act like you did, being passive aggressive and insulting.
If someone uses the WRONG allegory when creating poetry, like referring to the earth's features as like that of an impression from a stamp on a clay tablet, then that is still WRONG.
Personally I find that passage one of the most damning passages in this regard, it is hard to get away from it.

Nick Park · 03-11-2015 03:32PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Christians pretend that these passages have scientific merit and when called on it act like you did, being passive aggressive and insulting.

Where did I pretend that Old Testament poetry had scientific merit?

As for being 'passive aggressive and insulting' - do you understand that on a discussion forum people are allowed to respond to your post with a different viewpoint?

I simply pointed out that it must take a singularly obtuse mind (in my experience, the kind possessed by extreme fundamentalists of both the religious and atheistic variety) to take an obviously poetic passage and try to make it literal.

So, for example, the passage in Job 9 that speaks about the pillars of the earth is full of poetic language. Even a child can see that. No serious scholar would suggest that the author was trying to argue a scientific theory that the earth stands on literal pillars, and the book's original readers would hardly have been stupid enough to think that.

steamengine · 03-11-2015 04:34PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Elephants on the back of a giant turtle, isn't it?

Seriously, I always feel sorry for people who miss out on the wonderful grandeur of poetic language. Life must be so boring when you misunderstand everything to be intended literally.

Are you referring to Stephen Hawking's 'Brief History of Time' where a little old lady interrupted a scientist who was describing how the universe works ?

"What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on ?"
"You're very clever young man, very clever," said the old lady, "But it's turtles all the way down.

On a more serious note there is another quote further on when Hawking meets with the Pope.

He (the Pope, my italics) told us it was alright to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God.

Michael OBrien · 03-11-2015 05:57PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Where did I pretend that Old Testament poetry had scientific merit?

As for being 'passive aggressive and insulting' - do you understand that on a discussion forum people are allowed to respond to your post with a different viewpoint?

I simply pointed out that it must take a singularly obtuse mind (in my experience, the kind possessed by extreme fundamentalists of both the religious and atheistic variety) to take an obviously poetic passage and try to make it literal.

So, for example, the passage in Job 9 that speaks about the pillars of the earth is full of poetic language. Even a child can see that. No serious scholar would suggest that the author was trying to argue a scientific theory that the earth stands on literal pillars, and the book's original readers would hardly have been stupid enough to think that.

So "singularly obtuse mind" and "extreme fundamentalists" is not aimed at me in ANY WAY? Good to know.
The atheists that you like to call extreme fundamentalists are responding to the massive amount of creationists that DO take the bible literally. Calling it poetry does not change anything about the criticism by atheists. Poetry still has a root in describing the poet's mindset. If the poet is wrong in his beliefs, his poetry will reflect that.
Yes poetry is involved in the bible, that does not mean the passages I quoted are not a damning reflection on the authors. Also there is a serious error to act as if the modern use of such phrases like "ends of the earth" or four corners" or whatever was the intention of the original writers. Both meanings are not necessarily the same. As science and philosophy progressed the ancient phrases gained new vague meanings over time as they were part of our culture in the West.
So while "even a child can see that" if used today, that offers no support to the use then. Language evolves.

How about telling me about the phrases I went into detail about? What do you think about them.

Nick Park · 03-11-2015 05:59PM

steamengine wrote: »

Are you referring to Stephen Hawking's 'Brief History of Time' where a little old lady interrupted a scientist who was describing how the universe works ?

No, Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels. Much more entertaining than Hawking.

Nick Park · 03-11-2015 06:20PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

So "singularly obtuse mind" and "extreme fundamentalists" is not aimed at me in ANY WAY? Good to know.

If the cap fits, wear it. If you really think that a theological book written in poetic language is purporting to give a scientific description of the universe then the phrases I used will suit you admirably. If, however, you are smarter than that, then they obviously won't. (In which case I won't have to stress that we are not talking about a literal cap fitting your literal head but are in fact using a metaphor).

The atheists that you like to call extreme fundamentalists are responding to the massive amount of creationists that DO take the bible literally.

Can't they respond to them without actually being as daft as them?

Poetry still has a root in describing the poet's mindset. If the poet is wrong in his beliefs, his poetry will reflect that.

Ah, so William Wordsworth actually believed that daffodils tossed their heads while participating in a sprightly dance? That they outdid the waves of the sea in gleefulness? And, indeed, that the daffodils actually imparted physical wealth to the poet?

I wish Mr Browne, my old English teacher, was still alive. I would slap his head for teaching me a load of nonsense about how poets use non-literal language in picturesque ways to create a pleasing effect.

How about telling me about the phrases I went into detail about? What do you think about them.

Let's take Job 38:14

The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.

The context of this verse is that God was reminding Job of his ignorance of nature and the world. It uses highly poetic language to emphasise how Job hasn't a clue why the earth is the way it is, or how phenomena such as the weather occur.

Verse 14 is a simile (according to Mr Browne, that means a comparison that uses the words 'as' or 'like'). It compares the appearance of the earth to the ridges and valleys of a piece of clay that bears the imprint of a seal - actually, quite a wonderful simile if you've ever looked at a globe where the topographical features stand out from the surface. Similarly, the ridges and valleys resemble a wrinkled garment that has been tossed to the floor.

It's certainly an impressive and evocative piece of writing. Of course it makes no attempt to teach science, since that is not the purpose of the passage. The book of Job addresses the age-old question of why bad things happen to good people, not any geological or geographical questions.

Michael OBrien · 03-11-2015 06:57PM

Nick Park wrote: »

If the cap fits, wear it. If you really think that a theological book written in poetic language is purporting to give a scientific description of the universe then the phrases I used will suit you admirably. If, however, you are smarter than that, then they obviously won't. (In which case I won't have to stress that we are not talking about a literal cap fitting your literal head but are in fact using a metaphor).

Can't they respond to them without actually being as daft as them?

Ah, so William Wordsworth actually believed that daffodils tossed their heads while participating in a sprightly dance? That they outdid the waves of the sea in gleefulness? And, indeed, that the daffodils actually imparted physical wealth to the poet?

I wish Mr Browne, my old English teacher, was still alive. I would slap his head for teaching me a load of nonsense about how poets use non-literal language in picturesque ways to create a pleasing effect.

Let's take Job 38:14

The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.

The context of this verse is that God was reminding Job of his ignorance of nature and the world. It uses highly poetic language to emphasise how Job hasn't a clue why the earth is the way it is, or how phenomena such as the weather occur.

Verse 14 is a simile (according to Mr Browne, that means a comparison that uses the words 'as' or 'like'). It compares the appearance of the earth to the ridges and valleys of a piece of clay that bears the imprint of a seal - actually, quite a wonderful simile if you've ever looked at a globe where the topographical features stand out from the surface. Similarly, the ridges and valleys resemble a wrinkled garment that has been tossed to the floor.

It's certainly an impressive and evocative piece of writing. Of course it makes no attempt to teach science, since that is not the purpose of the passage. The book of Job addresses the age-old question of why bad things happen to good people, not any geological or geographical questions.

Yes that much is obvious about the religious element in Job and I never denied that. I actually stated that it was never intended to explain the world scientifically in an earlier post. However that still does not avoid the issues I mentioned. Intent is not the issue. The mindset of the authors is a different thing. The passage clearly demonstrates an outdated worldview.

Also countering creationists involves looking AT the text and what lay behind the decisions in choosing allegory or metaphors or similes. They repeatedly chose FLAT similes every time. Every single time.
Bringing up Wordsworth is a red herring. He was writing for himself as himself and the poetic meaning is understandable.
If he wrote instead that the creator of all flowers spoke that flowers were animals not plants and their brains were in their roots, you might find it harder to justify it as JUST poetry and not a rather mistaken mindset of the poet.
Poetry has layers, both for the listener and the writer. The intent of the writer may match the listener or it may not. The writers of the biblical texts were supposedly giving credit to the way the world works to their god (and the quran is the same in many respects). The point I was making is that they were WRONG in how they chose to do so.

I hope that clears up some of your misunderstanding on my points.

uck51js9zml2yt · 03-11-2015 08:10PM

Since we're talking of creation and how the earth is suspended (or held up on the backs of turtles)

We are missing the obvious quote from Job 26 speaking about God where it says He "hangs the earth on nothing".

Interesting that someone as unscientific as Job got it right!

Really enjoyed Diskworld:)

Nick Park · 04-11-2015 08:38AM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Yes that much is obvious about the religious element in Job and I never denied that. I actually stated that it was never intended to explain the world scientifically in an earlier post. However that still does not avoid the issues I mentioned. Intent is not the issue. The mindset of the authors is a different thing. The passage clearly demonstrates an outdated worldview.

Also countering creationists involves looking AT the text and what lay behind the decisions in choosing allegory or metaphors or similes. They repeatedly chose FLAT similes every time. Every single time.
Bringing up Wordsworth is a red herring. He was writing for himself as himself and the poetic meaning is understandable.
If he wrote instead that the creator of all flowers spoke that flowers were animals not plants and their brains were in their roots, you might find it harder to justify it as JUST poetry and not a rather mistaken mindset of the poet.
Poetry has layers, both for the listener and the writer. The intent of the writer may match the listener or it may not. The writers of the biblical texts were supposedly giving credit to the way the world works to their god (and the quran is the same in many respects). The point I was making is that they were WRONG in how they chose to do so.

I hope that clears up some of your misunderstanding on my points.

I don't misunderstand your points at all. I am simply pointing out that they are invalid.

You are conflating two very different issues - the worldview of the biblical writers, and the issue of what the Bible teaches.

The writers were human beings, and like any human being (including you or me) their worldviews were limited by their incomplete knowledge. Therefore they chose similes and imagery appropriate to their context and audience. That is simply good communication. However, the use of a simile or a poetic metaphor does not, in any way, amount to teaching that the details of the simile are scientifically accurate or literally true.

Then there is the issue of what the Bible teaches. So, in the Book of Job, the use of the simile about the clay and the seal, or the wrinkled garment, are used to teach the truth that Job, in complaining against God, was arguing from a point of ignorance. He didn't even understand how the world works, so how could he presume to understand why God did what He did?

Keeping the two issues distinct is, to be honest, pretty basic in interpreting any ancient text be it the Bible, Homer, Plato or Julius Caesar. Christians, Jews and atheists alike understand this.

For Christians, however, there is an extra dimension. They believe that God inspired the biblical writers, all the while (of course) utilising their normal modes of expression and limited worldviews. So it is quite possible that, through divine inspiration, an author might come out with an insight or a truth that he could not possibly have known from mere observation of natural phenomena or events (prophecy would be an example). But this inspiration is not some kind of mechanical dictation, where the normal figures of speech are magically made scientifically accurate.

Many Christians hold to a much fuller version of inspiration whereby they believe that God also ensured that the biblical writers did not make any errors of fact in the teachings that they wrote. But even they do not claim that poetry, allegory or metaphor should be treated as fact. That, to be frank, would make the Bible read like a legal contract, which would be silly since it is essentially a love story.

I have been a minister in the evangelical side of Christianity for over 30 years. I have met tens of thousands of Christians from various shades of opinion, including the most hardline of fundamentalists and the craziest of TV evangelists. I have never met any Christian who believed that the details of simile, metaphor, poetry or allegory were supposed to be taken as literal statements of fact (for example, that Jesus was literally a grapevine, or that trees clap literal hands). Nor have I ever met any Christian who supposed that the worldview of the biblical writers was scientifically correct.

You are setting up a massive strawman, and, in saying that 'the Bible teaches' that the earth stands on pillars etc, you are quite incorrect. (Strawman is a metaphor. I am not saying you are actually constructing a physical man made of straw. We could go on like this till the sun goes down, assuming that you understand that in referring to the sun 'going down' I am actually using another metaphor since the appearance of the sun descending is actually caused by the rotation of the earth.)

Michael OBrien · 04-11-2015 01:57PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't misunderstand your points at all. I am simply pointing out that they are invalid.

You are conflating two very different issues - the worldview of the biblical writers, and the issue of what the Bible teaches.

The writers were human beings, and like any human being (including you or me) their worldviews were limited by their incomplete knowledge. Therefore they chose similes and imagery appropriate to their context and audience. That is simply good communication. However, the use of a simile or a poetic metaphor does not, in any way, amount to teaching that the details of the simile are scientifically accurate or literally true.

Then there is the issue of what the Bible teaches. So, in the Book of Job, the use of the simile about the clay and the seal, or the wrinkled garment, are used to teach the truth that Job, in complaining against God, was arguing from a point of ignorance. He didn't even understand how the world works, so how could he presume to understand why God did what He did?

Keeping the two issues distinct is, to be honest, pretty basic in interpreting any ancient text be it the Bible, Homer, Plato or Julius Caesar. Christians, Jews and atheists alike understand this.

For Christians, however, there is an extra dimension. They believe that God inspired the biblical writers, all the while (of course) utilising their normal modes of expression and limited worldviews. So it is quite possible that, through divine inspiration, an author might come out with an insight or a truth that he could not possibly have known from mere observation of natural phenomena or events (prophecy would be an example). But this inspiration is not some kind of mechanical dictation, where the normal figures of speech are magically made scientifically accurate.

Many Christians hold to a much fuller version of inspiration whereby they believe that God also ensured that the biblical writers did not make any errors of fact in the teachings that they wrote. But even they do not claim that poetry, allegory or metaphor should be treated as fact. That, to be frank, would make the Bible read like a legal contract, which would be silly since it is essentially a love story.

I have been a minister in the evangelical side of Christianity for over 30 years. I have met tens of thousands of Christians from various shades of opinion, including the most hardline of fundamentalists and the craziest of TV evangelists. I have never met any Christian who believed that the details of simile, metaphor, poetry or allegory were supposed to be taken as literal statements of fact (for example, that Jesus was literally a grapevine, or that trees clap literal hands). Nor have I ever met any Christian who supposed that the worldview of the biblical writers was scientifically correct.

You are setting up a massive strawman, and, in saying that 'the Bible teaches' that the earth stands on pillars etc, you are quite incorrect. (Strawman is a metaphor. I am not saying you are actually constructing a physical man made of straw. We could go on like this till the sun goes down, assuming that you understand that in referring to the sun 'going down' I am actually using another metaphor since the appearance of the sun descending is actually caused by the rotation of the earth.)

I have repeatedly acknowledged from the beginning that the bible does not teach science, or that the authors tried to teach science. I am fully aware what similes are and how they work and have never said otherwise. I also do not appreciate the snide remarks in every post.

You confuse the issue again.
"I have never met any Christian who believed that the details of simile, metaphor, poetry or allegory were supposed to be taken as literal statements of fact" Strawman. I never said that christians believe obvious poetic language like the 'grapevine' as concrete facts, however I was saying that the choice of simile shows the flawed worldviews of the authors. I never said that any christian believes that the earth IS a clay tablet, for example. I said that it shows the mindset of the authors clearly thought that the world was flat when they chose similes like that. This is not surprising since Job is such an old tale, it would be 8th or 9th Century BCE so a flat earth was common enough belief then.
"Nor have I ever met any Christian who supposed that the worldview of the biblical writers was scientifically correct." A nice trick here. If inspired by an all knowing god, many christians think that means the message would have accurate references when attributing power to their god.
Many evangelistic christians have gone so far as to say their god directly controlled the writers (using similes - Writers are like a pen to God) when writing scripture, to try to avoid human error being possible. They believe god cannot lie and perpetuating falsehoods, even tangentially to the main goal, would do that.

My point would indicate that the only inspiration was emotional, not divine. Their internal faith might have made them want to write these fables down, but it did not give them new knowledge about the phenomenons they wrote about when attributing them to god. You seem to agree with me on that when you say your God worked with what the authors already believed.

Again this is a thread referring to Creationism, not general christianity. Bare that in mind. "Many Christians hold to a much fuller version of inspiration whereby they believe that God also ensured that the biblical writers did not make any errors of fact in the teachings that they wrote." The bible is full of errors. Hence my point. "But this inspiration is not some kind of mechanical dictation, where the normal figures of speech are magically made scientifically accurate." Many christians do believe that. Creationists generally do believe that the bible is accurate and would not contain false information, which if your view is correct, it would because your god would be limited in communicating knowledge by the people who wrote it down. The idea that your god cannot correct a flawed viewpoint when communicating is based on what? If its divine inspiration after all. You are prepared to accept the idea of prophecy, which does allegedly EXACTLY that, it gives special knowledge directly to the writers.
This is a case of special pleading.

"We could go on like this till the sun goes down, assuming that you understand that in referring to the sun 'going down' I am actually using another metaphor since the appearance of the sun descending is actually caused by the rotation of the earth." again more strawmen and deliberate snide remarks about what you think I mean.
To go from your last reference. At one stage, the people who wrote that the sun went down actually thought that is what happened. Many religions had that view as they had no idea what the sun was. Joshua 10:13 shows that the author had a rather outdated view of the solar system when he attributed his god's interaction on that day. Poetic to be sure, not however an excuse for the choices made in refering to what happened.
Such language evolved over time so we now intuitively replace the words with what we now know about the solar system.
You are playing a shell game and actively glossing over the issue.

Nick Park · 04-11-2015 11:01PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I have repeatedly acknowledged from the beginning that the bible does not teach science, or that the authors tried to teach science. I am fully aware what similes are and how they work and have never said otherwise. I also do not appreciate the snide remarks in every post.

No snideness, just a bit or robust debating and humour. Maybe you could concentrate on the content of my posts rather than complaining because you imagine something in my tone? I have avoided commenting on the tone of your posts (which demonstrates, I believe, admirable restraint on my part).

My point would indicate that the only inspiration was emotional, not divine. Their internal faith might have made them want to write these fables down, but it did not give them new knowledge about the phenomenons they wrote about when attributing them to god. You seem to agree with me on that when you say your God worked with what the authors already believed.

No, your subjective opinion, without objective evidence, is that their inspiration was not divine. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but unless you provide evidence to demonstrate their inspiration was not divine then it comes across as a faith statement.

Again this is a thread referring to Creationism, not general christianity. Bare that in mind. "Many Christians hold to a much fuller version of inspiration whereby they believe that God also ensured that the biblical writers did not make any errors of fact in the teachings that they wrote." The bible is full of errors. Hence my point. "But this inspiration is not some kind of mechanical dictation, where the normal figures of speech are magically made scientifically accurate." Many christians do believe that. Creationists generally do believe that the bible is accurate and would not contain false information, which if your view is correct, it would because your god would be limited in communicating knowledge by the people who wrote it down. The idea that your god cannot correct a flawed viewpoint when communicating is based on what? If its divine inspiration after all. You are prepared to accept the idea of prophecy, which does allegedly EXACTLY that, it gives special knowledge directly to the writers.
This is a case of special pleading.

The thread is entitled "The Bible, Creation and Prophecy". You made a comment about the Bible. I have pointed out where you are wrong.

If you want the thread to be solely about creationism then you could petition the mods to change the title?

Btw, Creationists still believe that the Bible uses metaphors, similes, parables and phenomenological language.

To go from your last reference. At one stage, the people who wrote that the sun went down actually thought that is what happened. Many religions had that view as they had no idea what the sun was. Joshua 10:13 shows that the author had a rather outdated view of the solar system when he attributed his god's interaction on that day. Poetic to be sure, not however an excuse for the choices made in refering to what happened.
Such language evolved over time so we now intuitively replace the words with what we now know about the solar system.
You are playing a shell game and actively glossing over the issue.

The worldviews of the biblical writers are immaterial. The writer of Joshua described the sun from the standpoint of the people who observed it. That is perfectly reasonable. All of us talk about the sun 'rising', 'setting' and being 'high in the sky'. We talk about a 'full moon' and a 'half moon'. Phenomenological language.

I really do think it takes an extremely dim and unimaginative person to draw from this the conclusion that 'the Bible teaches' that the sun revolves around the earth or any such notion. Again, I have only encountered such nonsense from extreme fundamentalists of the religious and atheistic variety. Both groups seem to be so intent on pleading their case that they lose the basic ability to read and understand literature.

Michael OBrien · 05-11-2015 02:33PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No snideness, just a bit or robust debating and humour. Maybe you could concentrate on the content of my posts rather than complaining because you imagine something in my tone? I have avoided commenting on the tone of your posts (which demonstrates, I believe, admirable restraint on my part).

No, your subjective opinion, without objective evidence, is that their inspiration was not divine. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but unless you provide evidence to demonstrate their inspiration was not divine then it comes across as a faith statement.

The thread is entitled "The Bible, Creation and Prophecy". You made a comment about the Bible. I have pointed out where you are wrong.

If you want the thread to be solely about creationism then you could petition the mods to change the title?

Btw, Creationists still believe that the Bible uses metaphors, similes, parables and phenomenological language.

The worldviews of the biblical writers are immaterial. The writer of Joshua described the sun from the standpoint of the people who observed it. That is perfectly reasonable. All of us talk about the sun 'rising', 'setting' and being 'high in the sky'. We talk about a 'full moon' and a 'half moon'. Phenomenological language.

I really do think it takes an extremely dim and unimaginative person to draw from this the conclusion that 'the Bible teaches' that the sun revolves around the earth or any such notion. Again, I have only encountered such nonsense from extreme fundamentalists of the religious and atheistic variety. Both groups seem to be so intent on pleading their case that they lose the basic ability to read and understand literature.

" because you imagine something in my tone" Yeah, its my imagination that you are constantly derogatory and passive aggressive and snide, sure.

"but unless you provide evidence to demonstrate their inspiration was not divine then it comes across as a faith statement." Like what? The bible is filled with errors and you admitted that the worldview of the biblical OT authors could be wrong. You repeatedly state that that does not matter. If the worldview of the writers is wrong, then how they communicate, poetically or not, will be flawed and misleading. Hardly a good divine goal from an all knowing god that allegedly (a) cannot lie and (b) imposes eternal punishment on those that disbelieve the claims about him.

There is nothing to support the claim that the bible has divine inspiration. You have to go to great lengths to justify the text to avoid that realisation.
(not just you, I mean many christians)

"Btw, Creationists still believe that the Bible uses metaphors, similes, parables and phenomenological language. " A nice trick. Yes Creationists, with varying degrees of acknowledgement, do recognise that the writers of the biblical texts uses metaphors, similes, parables, etc. The EXTENT of that use and what the implications are are a different matter entirely.

"You made a comment about the Bible. I have pointed out where you are wrong." I will admit that the title does include the bible as well, although the thread was started primarily to discuss the viewpoints of creationists and their views on the bible and prophecy. But its a minor point, you are of course free to post your non creationist christian views. I was pointing out that I was responding to the creationist viewpoint and posted a reply to Isaiah, who was using the bible as if it was providing special knowledge about reality.

" Again, I have only encountered such nonsense from extreme fundamentalists of the religious and atheistic variety." Again this is not what is happening. the atheists are responding to christians that make such claims, that the bible has special knowledge, they often misquote it, cherry pick or mislead, this often can impress others that have not read the bible.
The atheist takes them to task on that, showing what is actually being referenced.

Again just because we use phrases today like the "sun setting" to mean "the end of the day" or something like that, does not mean that this was the comprehension of the writers at the time. Pointing this out and showing that the writers had a very dated view of reality that heavily influenced how they interpreted the stories and how they communicated their faith is neither nonsense or showing the inability to read literature. You do realise that I can hold multiple viewpoints on the topic simultaneously and discuss it from all levels depending on the target audience, taking into perspective where they are coming from? That is what an intelligent person is capable of.

Nick Park · 05-11-2015 05:15PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

" because you imagine something in my tone" Yeah, its my imagination that you are constantly derogatory and passive aggressive and snide, sure.

I'm glad that we agree. (See what happens when someone decides to interpret things overliterally).

"but unless you provide evidence to demonstrate their inspiration was not divine then it comes across as a faith statement." Like what? The bible is filled with errors and you admitted that the worldview of the biblical OT authors could be wrong. You repeatedly state that that does not matter. If the worldview of the writers is wrong, then how they communicate, poetically or not, will be flawed and misleading.

You dispute my comment about a faith statement, but respond with another faith statement for which you provide no evidence (that the Bible is full of errors).

Of course it doesn't follow that people with an imperfect worldview are therefore flawed and misleading in what they communicate.

The writer of Job, for example, was communicating that we, in our human ignorance, even of many phenomena in nature, are hardly qualified to determine the motives behind God's dealing with us. That is a theological communication. The fact that the writer may have had an imperfect view about geology or astronomy has absolutely no implication as to whether that theological communication is correct or incorrect.

You wouldn't try your illogical argument in other areas would you? Would you argue that Isaac Newton was flawed and misleading in his theory about gravity because his overall worldview, as demonstrated later by Einstein, was pretty defective?

Heck, even Einstein had a flawed worldview when it came to his (in)famous Cosomological Constant, but that doesn't mean that his Theory of Relativity is flawed and misleading.

Hardly a good divine goal from an all knowing god that allegedly (a) cannot lie and (b) imposes eternal punishment on those that disbelieve the claims about him.

a) Inspiring people to express theological concepts using poetic imagery that made sense to them and their contemporaries would not, in the opinion of any reasonable person, constitute lying.

Imagine you were teaching a young child about soundwaves, and then you heard them explaining it to another child by saying 'it's like the waves at sea" (even though you were aware that they didn't fully understand how waves at sea work.) Should somebody be accused of lying here? Should you, and your pupil, rather not be commended for brilliant teaching, even though both of you have an imperfect worldview?

b) You would be hardpressed to find a Christian (although if you google hard enough you might find one in Mississippi) who believes that God will punish you eternally for not believing the details of a poetic simile in Job to be literally true. In fact, most Christians would happily acknowledge that you can disbelieve lots of claims about God without incurring punishment. Heck, we disagree among ourselves over some detail to do with God all the time - but most of us quite happily acknowledge each other as fellow-Christians nonetheless. That would certainly be true of the vast majority of Christians who post in this forum (including the most fervent Creationists such as JC).

Maybe you should try to listen more to what Christians are actually saying? This forum would be a great place to do that, but you seem to prefer to misinterpret things overliterally and keep flogging dead horses where even the strongest Christian sees no hope of resurrection.

Michael OBrien · 06-11-2015 12:10PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Of course it doesn't follow that people with an imperfect worldview are therefore flawed and misleading in what they communicate.

The writer of Job, for example, was communicating that we, in our human ignorance, even of many phenomena in nature, are hardly qualified to determine the motives behind God's dealing with us. That is a theological communication. The fact that the writer may have had an imperfect view about geology or astronomy has absolutely no implication as to whether that theological communication is correct or incorrect.

But that is EXACTLY what the writer of Job is trying to do. He is making the case that he knows the mind of his god. How is he "qualified" to do so, when he is so ignorant of the very phenomena he is using in his story.

Nick Park wrote: »

You wouldn't try your illogical argument in other areas would you? Would you argue that Isaac Newton was flawed and misleading in his theory about gravity because his overall worldview, as demonstrated later by Einstein, was pretty defective?

Heck, even Einstein had a flawed worldview when it came to his (in)famous Cosomological Constant, but that doesn't mean that his Theory of Relativity is flawed and misleading.

Are you seriously trying to equate science with religion and or ask me if I do? One is a bottom up approach to knowledge, the other claims a top down approach.
Newton's religious worldview did hamper his scientific research and his laws, while useful within limits they are flawed. Not perhaps the best choice.
Einstein's problem was dismissing the cosmological constant he created. Modern science is revisiting that today. His worldview did hamper his conclusions.

Scientists don't get divine revelation (at least not ones that achieve anything noteworthy), they look at reality and work from there. A faulty worldview can contaminate that. Kepler spent years trying to get the orbits of the planets to fit his view of a perfectly designed universe by his god, until he realised his mistake and called himself a fool, dropped that concept and came up with accurate descriptions of Mars far more elliptical orbit of the sun.

Nick Park wrote: »

a) Inspiring people to express theological concepts using poetic imagery that made sense to them and their contemporaries would not, in the opinion of any reasonable person, constitute lying.

Imagine you were teaching a young child about soundwaves, and then you heard them explaining it to another child by saying 'it's like the waves at sea" (even though you were aware that they didn't fully understand how waves at sea work.) Should somebody be accused of lying here? Should you, and your pupil, rather not be commended for brilliant teaching, even though both of you have an imperfect worldview?

Your example is flawed, let me correct it.
"A child called Josh claimed his best friend's (Micha) father Richard (that no one has ever seen) told him how sound works, and told everyone that sound was like bubbles frothing from the sea that wet your head and travel to your heart. Oh and his friend's father will maim and mutilate anyone who does not obey him and his child and accept that they are the most knowledgeable people in the world. If you accept that they are you get to listen to lots more tips and wisdom, in exchange for some pocket money."
A richardite apologetic then says thousands of years later "well that is really scientific, after all the bubbles of foam are on waves, and sound has waves and "soaking" means "vibrations" as they kindof soak into you, and at that time Josh thought the heart was the seat of reason, but now we know its the brain, so that is what the story really means. Amazing and my explanation in no way takes away from the credibility of the story.

An all knowing god that has dire consequences for doubting his existence, allows for obviously poor poetic language that illustrates outdated views, that he knew would result in countless millions of people having additional reasons to doubt him (not just a story, but such failures accumulate throughout the bible). Seems to be a bit short sighted.

Nick Park wrote: »

b) In fact, most Christians would happily acknowledge that you can disbelieve lots of claims about God without incurring punishment. Heck, we disagree among ourselves over some detail to do with God all the time - but most of us quite happily acknowledge each other as fellow-Christians nonetheless. .

Yeah, no wars ever occurred due to disagreements on doctrine and christianity is one happy family.
I disbelieve the claims that a god 'inspired' the writer of job or isaiah or any other book in the bible. I disbelieve in lots of the stories because they don't match what actually happens. That is one of the many reasons I stopped being a christian.
And for the final time, stop pretending I am saying that anyone is claiming NO metaphors or similes exist and every word is to be taken literally. I have NEVER said that. Certain passages are not clear in their meaning and those passages are what I discuss. Pretending I don't understand metaphors or similes or that I think ANY disagreement about anything in the bible sends me to the christian hell, is not my argument.

What is your position on genesis? Are you following along with modern theologians that take adam and eve as purely allegorical or do you have a more 'literal' slant?

Nick Park · 06-11-2015 02:48PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

But that is EXACTLY what the writer of Job is trying to do. He is making the case that he knows the mind of his god. How is he "qualified" to do so, when he is so ignorant of the very phenomena he is using in his story.

No, that isn't true at all.

Have you actually read the Book of Job, because this looks remarkably as if you're making up stuff as you go along?

The writer portrays himself as a narrator, who records a few basic facts about what happened to Job, records the words Job's friends spoke to him, and the words God spoke to Job.

So at no point does the writer portray himself as having superior knowledge. No literary critic, Jewish Christian or otherwise, could conceivably interpret it in that way.

Now, maybe you want to argue that an omniscient God has an imperfect worldview, and is therefore not entitled to use similes that are adapted to the understanding of his hearers? Good luck with that.

Are you seriously trying to equate science with religion and or ask me if I do?

No, but nice try to dodge the point.

I am seriously pointing out that people can have flawed worldviews yet still communicate things that are neither false nor misleading.

Your example is flawed, let me correct it.

One of the more dishonest tactics used on boards.ie is to say "Let me correct what you posted" and then to post something totally different.

If you can't address what I post, then please try not to post what you would like me to have posted.

An all knowing god that has dire consequences for doubting his existence, allows for obviously poor poetic language that illustrates outdated views, that he knew would result in countless millions of people having additional reasons to doubt him (not just a story, but such failures accumulate throughout the bible). Seems to be a bit short sighted.

Even an omniscient God might not imagine that anyone would be so dim as to think that they have to take poetic similes literally.

Yeah, no wars ever occurred due to disagreements on doctrine and christianity is one happy family.

Yeah, let's drag a red herring in.

Yes, people who call themselves Christians have, over the years, done some pretty disgusting things. However, as anyone who has studied history would know, even those who fought on the same sides in those wars still disagreed over many things to do with God - which was my point.

And for the final time, stop pretending I am saying that anyone is claiming NO metaphors or similes exist and every word is to be taken literally. I have NEVER said that. Certain passages are not clear in their meaning and those passages are what I discuss. Pretending I don't understand metaphors or similes or that I think ANY disagreement about anything in the bible sends me to the christian hell, is not my argument.

I'm simply responding to what you post. You keep pushing an unsustainable argument so I point out where it falls apart. Sorry if that irks you.

What is your position on genesis? Are you following along with modern theologians that take adam and eve as purely allegorical or do you have a more 'literal' slant?

Purely from a literary standpoint, the opening chapters of Genesis read very much like an extended parable or allegory (a literary device that occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament). I'm cool with that, but I see no reason to be dogmatic about it. I don't think that it's a matter of life or death (or indeed salvation) if I misinterpret scientific details. The main points of the Creation narrative are that God created everything, that He has a good plan for our life, that we've screwed that up by our choices, and that He decided to fix that problem.

(Btw, it's a common mistake among atheists to think that treating Adam and Eve as an allegory is a modern invention. Try reading Augustine.)

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments