The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

And I know that God rejoices more over the repentant sinner than over the unstrayed, because of a non-existent prodigal son...

Moral stories are virtually never told by reference to history - it's Aesop's Fables, not Aesop's History.

Still, as long as you can't discriminate between 'myth' and 'lies', I can see why you have to believe Genesis is 'history'. All you mean by it, though, is that it is true - the rest follows from your unexamined belief that only the 'historical' is true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The parables were told and understood as parables, not actual histories. Hence we read of them described as parables:
Matthew 13:3 Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: “Behold, a sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them. 5 Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. 6 But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. 7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. 8 But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. 9 He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand...
18 “Therefore hear the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. 20 But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. 22 Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. 23 But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”

Jesus and the apostles never treat the Genesis account in this way. They treat it as history. They refer to it as history. Just as historic as Christ's virgin incarnation, His resurrection from the dead, etc. No indication of any difference in understanding of the historicity of the Torah from that of the Gospels.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

If you do not feel qualified to speak on scientific subjects, then why do you hold fixed opinions about them? Wouldn't your sense of honesty suggest to you that you should not be so fast to make judgments?

I only hold fixed opinions on the veracity of scientific theory that contradicts the Bible. I have no such opinion, for example, on how the universe was stretched out. That it was so stretched out some 6000 years ago is my fixed opinion. Time-dilation, White-holes, Big-Bang - as long as it achieved the result.

Likewise with the biosphere. How we got so many species today is an interesting question: but just how the genetics worked is not something I need a fixed opinion on. Evolution from molecules to man over millions of years is however ruled out by the Biblical account.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

I only hold fixed opinions on the veracity of scientific theory that contradicts the Bible. I have no such opinion, for example, on how the universe was stretched out. That it was so stretched out some 6000 years ago is my fixed opinion. Time-dilation, White-holes, Big-Bang - as long as it achieved the result.

Likewise with the biosphere. How we got so many species today is an interesting question: but just how the genetics worked is not something I need a fixed opinion on. Evolution from molecules to man over millions of years is however ruled out by the Biblical account.

Ah, well that makes a lot more sense. No matter what we tell you, or what evidence we provide, you won't believe it as long as it contradicts the bible. Simple as that. I always believed that was the case with you, i just didn't realise that you were aware of this fact. I think that is perfectly ok, by the way, as long as you keep it to yourself. May i ask why you bother with this thread though?

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again, the author is only a PhD cell-biologist, not a paleontologist.

...who earned his PhD when cell biology was in its infancy; who has no peer reviewed science published of any description (that I can find); who spent his entire professional career teaching and writing populist articles.

So, which is he? A creation teacher or a creation journalist? Because there ain't no way he's a creation scientist!

The sporadic quest continues...:pac:

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Why Young Earth Creationists Must Deny Gravity, Part III

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAUxQjylzc8

Very interesting. Creationists (Ken Ham illustrated) hold to light travelling faster than now, but AiG doesn't.

Seems to me a little more research and a lot less certainy is called for, before trying to rubbish Creationist cosmology.

Even a cursory search of one creationist organisation brought up this:
Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430


Here's an interesting quote from a secular site:
OwlHoot wrote:
> If the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, as recent
> observations indicate, and this continues, then eventually
> space will be expanding at faster than light speed in a
> vacuum (the so-called "Big Rip").

This is wrong in a couple of ways. First, the rate of expansion of space
doesn't have units of speed and hence can't exceed c. Space is already
expanding "faster than light" in some sense: the comoving relative speed of
opposite ends of the visible universe is around 7c. Second, the Big Rip
doesn't refer to exponential expansion but to a different scenario in which
the scale factor goes to infinity in a finite time. This only happens if the
dark energy density increases with time. If the dark energy behaves like a
cosmological constant (constant density everywhere in spacetime), then
eventually it dominates the expansion and you get what's effectively a de
Sitter vacuum. The universe is still perfectly inhabitable in this phase; it
becomes impossible to see or travel to other galaxies, but nothing gets
ripped apart.

-- Ben
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-186905.html

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolution from molecules to man over millions of years is however ruled out by the Biblical account.

Only if one takes the Genesis account literally. Which a lot of (most?) Christians and Jews don't.

Why do you? You say you aren't a scientists, are you a theologian?

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Ah, well that makes a lot more sense. No matter what we tell you, or what evidence we provide, you won't believe it as long as it contradicts the bible. Simple as that. I always believed that was the case with you, i just didn't realise that you were aware of this fact. I think that is perfectly ok, by the way, as long as you keep it to yourself. May i ask why you bother with this thread though?

When I see folk going astray, I'm always glad to point them in the right direction. I might not be able to take them there, but I know where it is.

As for the science, as I've said before: if the evidence seems to contradict the Biblical account, the only honest approach is to say so. I can be confident that further evidence will cast the old in a new light, and all will be reconciled to the truth of the Bible.

But I need not swallow any interpretation as the only one possible, like many evolutionists insist on. Creationist scientists point out the flaws in the evolutionary account and suggest alternatives.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Even a cursory search of one creationist organisation brought up this:
Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430

This is the type of thing that really pisses proper scientists off, this "well we are going to take this finding and apply it to something completely different and just say it also applies" attitude that Creationists take. And Creationists would be well to stop doing it if they want to be in any way taken seriously. Him wrapping it up in a of course it doesn't prove this, but.... style article doesn't add any weight to his position (though it does remind me of Fox News - "We aren't saying Bill Clinton is a child molester, but what if he was ...")

The guy is saying that this allows for the speed of light to be faster in the past thus allowing for the universe to be only 6,000 years old. He is saying this without any support what so ever applied to what he is actually talking about.

This is like saying you can't get from Dublin to Holyhead in 4 hours driving a car, for the creationists to come back and say "Well I know someone who got from Dublin to Limerick in under 4 hours, and the distance is about the same, so that demonstrates that it is possible"

You aren't talking about the same thing. Dublin to Limerick doesn't prove Dublin to Holyhead because there are other factors involved, such as the water. Demonstrate Dublin to Holyhead, not Dublin to Limerick and then apply it to Dublin to Holyhead. That is just stupid.

JC does this type of thing all the time (all Creationists do one imagines), take one thing and apply it to something without any care as to if they are even related.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I only hold fixed opinions on the veracity of scientific theory that contradicts the Bible.

Doesn't matter -- you are holding fixed opinions on things that you know nothing about and that does not make you look like a very open-minded or honest person.

So, rather than endlessly deferring to AiG (or the ICR or COTW) when somebody pokes a hole in whatever the creationists' topic-du-jour is, why don't you simply admit that you do not understand something, that you have no interest in finding out about it (if you really don't), and leave it at that?

You would come across a lot less extreme if you did this.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Only if one takes the Genesis account literally. Which a lot of (most?) Christians and Jews don't.

Why do you? You say you aren't a scientists, are you a theologian?

Yes, I could be called a Biblical Theologian. I take the Bible as my sole source of revealed truth about God, unlike most who call themselves Jews and Christians today. Most 'Christians' and Jews today do not hold to the historic, orthodox view of the Bible (OT or NT). They are neo-Christian and neo-Judaic.

Of course they are free to be whatever they wish, but it is dishonest if they claim to represent the authentic faith. The more honest ones openly renounce the foundational beliefs, claiming to have evolved a higher understanding.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I need not swallow any interpretation as the only one possible, like many evolutionists insist on. Creationist scientists point out the flaws in the evolutionary account and suggest alternatives.

No evidence for any of these tbh. Scientists or 'evolutionists' will typically insist on the most plausible and supported theory and are open to persuasion and being led in different directions... as long as the evidence points the way.

Creationists imagine they are pointing out flaws but they aren't really - at least none that aren't easily dismissed by assessment with the available evidence (hence the distinct lack of published creation science). And the only alternative they ever suggest is the biblical account of creation.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I could be called a Biblical Theologian. I take the Bible as my sole source of revealed truth about God, unlike most who call themselves Jews and Christians today. Most 'Christians' and Jews today do not hold to the historic, orthodox view of the Bible (OT or NT). They are neo-Christian and neo-Judaic.

Of course they are free to be whatever they wish, but it is dishonest if they claim to represent the authentic faith. The more honest ones openly renounce the foundational beliefs, claiming to have evolved a higher understanding.

Dishonest to whom?

You claim Genesis must be literal history, it can't be a poem as the Jews believe, it can't be metaphorical as theistic evolutionists believe.

You reject both these interpretations, and the vast majority of the last 200 years of scientific discovery, to stand firm on your own conclusion that it is a literal history of the Earth.

Yet you admit you don't know very much about the science, and you reject as "dishonest" all the other Christians and Jews who disagree with your particular interpretation, which is a bit rich.

Can you see the issue here?

What makes you so right, so special, that you are correct and everyone else is wrong?

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Doesn't matter -- you are holding fixed opinions on things that you know nothing about and that does not make you look like a very open-minded or honest person.

So, rather than endlessly deferring to AiG (or the ICR or COTW) when somebody pokes a hole in whatever the creationists' topic-du-jour is, why don't you simply admit that you do not understand something, that you have no interest in finding out about it (if you really don't), and leave it at that?

You would come across a lot less extreme if you did this.

You are missing the point. I know the bottom-line, just not how it was achieved. So any theory that ends up with a different bottom-line, I can confidently reject. Any that produces it, may or may not be the correct one.

You are limited in your assessment of a scientific theory by materialism. I have the revelation of God concerning the bottom-line.

To accommodate your materialism, Creation scientists have produced their critiques and research to warn you that your bottom-line lies in Gehenna. That's why I engage in the thread called The Bible, Creationism and Prophecy. :):)

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

This is the type of thing that really pisses proper scientists off, this "well we are going to take this finding and apply it to something completely different and just say it also applies" attitude that Creationists take. And Creationists would be well to stop doing it if they want to be in any way taken seriously. Him wrapping it up in a of course it doesn't prove this, but.... style article doesn't add any weight to his position (though it does remind me of Fox News - "We aren't saying Bill Clinton is a child molester, but what if he was ...")

The guy is saying that this allows for the speed of light to be faster in the past thus allowing for the universe to be only 6,000 years old. He is saying this without any support what so ever applied to what he is actually talking about.

This is like saying you can't get from Dublin to Holyhead in 4 hours driving a car, for the creationists to come back and say "Well I know someone who got from Dublin to Limerick in under 4 hours, and the distance is about the same, so that demonstrates that it is possible"

You aren't talking about the same thing. Dublin to Limerick doesn't prove Dublin to Holyhead because there are other factors involved, such as the water. Demonstrate Dublin to Holyhead, not Dublin to Limerick and then apply it to Dublin to Holyhead. That is just stupid.

JC does this type of thing all the time (all Creationists do one imagines), take one thing and apply it to something without any care as to if they are even related.

I thought the central point would be that if this was true, something that had been sacrosanct as an absolute, unchangeable given - now wasn't.

If such a given can't be relied on, then another look may be needed at possible explanations in cosmology. Certainly the difference is small - but any difference in an absolute constant can imply big differences elsewhere, No?

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again, the author is only a PhD cell-biologist, not a paleontologist.

Actually I remember seeing A creationist palaeontologist on TV once. As far as I'm aware he is the only one of his kind. Alas, I don't know his name but he would certainly be worth looking up if you can find him (he may be able to help with your argument).

wolfsbane wrote: »

In the meantime, let me remind you again of the bigger picture:
That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5543/

Again, nothing more than misinterpreted facts with important bits left out. I really don't know where I should start. If you want me to I will but its gonna take me a while.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Dishonest to whom?

You claim Genesis must be literal history, it can't be a poem as the Jews believe, it can't be metaphorical as theistic evolutionists believe.

You reject both these interpretations, and the vast majority of the last 200 years of scientific discovery, to stand firm on your own conclusion that it is a literal history of the Earth.

Yet you admit you don't know very much about the science, and you reject as "dishonest" all the other Christians and Jews who disagree with your particular interpretation, which is a bit rich.

Can you see the issue here?

What makes you so right, so special, that you are correct and everyone else is wrong?

If it were only me, or even all the creationists alive today, you might have a point. But my position is the historic Christian and classical Judaic one.

Everyone else has moved from that - and should have the honesty to admit it.

A theistic evolutionist who admits his view is not what the Church originally held is being honest. He needs to defend his departure, however, to his fellow-believer and to God. He needs to show how his hermeneutic works with the rest of the Bible.

Killbot2000

wolfsbane wrote: »

I only hold fixed opinions on the veracity of scientific theory that contradicts the Bible. I have no such opinion, for example, on how the universe was stretched out. That it was so stretched out some 6000 years ago is my fixed opinion. Time-dilation, White-holes, Big-Bang - as long as it achieved the result.

Likewise with the biosphere. How we got so many species today is an interesting question: but just how the genetics worked is not something I need a fixed opinion on. Evolution from molecules to man over millions of years is however ruled out by the Biblical account.

How embarrassing! So you treat scientific theories like the pick and mix section of a sweet shop. It doesn't matter to you that the same methods have been used to create the theories that you believe in and the ones you do not.

Here's one for you, the Bible states that a rabbit chews its cud, which is incorrect. So do you go with the evidence that it doesn't or carry on like it does because the Bible says so?

Leviticus 11:6


My main point still stands that a person could use his scientific knowledge as a means to an end; consequently reinforcing the theories of evolution and stratigraphy.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I need not swallow any interpretation as the only one possible, like many evolutionists insist on. Creationist scientists point out the flaws in the evolutionary account and suggest alternatives.

That would be fine if the creationist were able to back up their argument properly, but they never do. To be honest, i think all they care about is keeping people like you convinced and couldn't give a damn about science.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I could be called a Biblical Theologian. I take the Bible as my sole source of revealed truth about God, unlike most who call themselves Jews and Christians today. Most 'Christians' and Jews today do not hold to the historic, orthodox view of the Bible (OT or NT). They are neo-Christian and neo-Judaic.

Of course they are free to be whatever they wish, but it is dishonest if they claim to represent the authentic faith. The more honest ones openly renounce the foundational beliefs, claiming to have evolved a higher understanding.

You know what makes me scoff at this is that every other religon and sub-divisions within the same religion say the same thing about your belief.

'Everybody is wrong except me...'

wolfsbane

Killbot2000 said:

How embarrassing! So you treat scientific theories like the pick and mix section of a sweet shop. It doesn't matter to you that the same methods have been used to create the theories that you believe in and the ones you do not.

So you believe all current scientific theories? Not many scientists would follow you there. What will you do when one is discarded for a better? Pack them all in?

Here's one for you, the Bible states that a rabbit chews its cud,

No, it doesn't.
Check the verse in:
http://www.tektonics.org/TK-LEV.html

My main point still stands that a person could use his scientific knowledge as a means to an end; consequently reinforcing the theories of evolution and stratigraphy.

I agree with the first bit. Substitute creation for evolution and I'll agree with the last bit too.:D

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

You know what makes me scoff at this is that every other religon and sub-divisions within the same religion say the same thing about your belief.

'Everybody is wrong except me...'

And evolutionists same the same...Amazing how religious you all are. So sure you're right. So certain only you have correctly interpreted the evidence. Such great faith! :D:D

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

And evolutionists same the same...Amazing how religious you all are. So sure you're right. So certain only you have correctly interpreted the evidence. Such great faith! :D:D

Not really. Firstly, i take it you refer to me as an evolutionist so i will work with that. When i first heard that 'irreducible complexity' hypothesis from Michael Behe, i seriously considered it. Because I am not bound by faith to evolution i was actually willing to listen to this proposal and i took it very seriously. It wasn't until i heard Kenneth Millers rebuttal that i was able to see the fallacies in Behes (admittedly elegant) hypothesis and was able to reject it.

Thet difference between you and i is that I am able to consider any evidence presented before me on its own merits. It would make no difference to me if Darwinism was proved completely wrong, as long as a rational explanation was provided in its place. But im afraid you are incapable of this type of critical reasoning, as you have so clearly displayed above. So to call my 'belief' in science a religion is severely misguided and frankly idiotic.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

That would be fine if the creationist were able to back up their argument properly, but they never do. To be honest, i think all they care about is keeping people like you convinced and couldn't give a damn about science.

Many fine scientists disagree. They are engaged in such research, e.g:
Van Andel Creation Research Center
http://creationresearch.org/vacrc.html

Ciaran500

wolfsbane wrote: »

Many fine scientists disagree. They are engaged in such research, e.g:
Van Andel Creation Research Center
http://creationresearch.org/vacrc.html

Its not science if they are working towards a predefined answer.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Not really. Firstly, i take it you refer to me as an evolutionist so i will work with that. When i first heard that 'irreducible complexity' hypothesis from Michael Behe, i seriously considered it. Because I am not bound by faith to evolution i was actually willing to listen to this proposal and i took it very seriously. It wasn't until i heard Kenneth Millers rebuttal that i was able to see the fallacies in Behes (admittedly elegant) hypothesis and was able to reject it.

Thet difference between you and i is that I am able to consider any evidence presented before me on its own merits. It would make no difference to me if Darwinism was proved completely wrong, as long as a rational explanation was provided in its place. But im afraid you are incapable of this type of critical reasoning, as you have so clearly displayed above. So to call my 'belief' in science a religion is severely misguided and frankly idiotic.

Thanks for that insight into your position. That being so, I accept you are a non-religious evoutionist. Very commendable.

As to my position, it is not like yours in that I have other absolutely certain information that makes agnosticism about origins redundant. It would not be commendable of me to ignore that.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

The parables were told and understood as parables, not actual histories. Hence we read of them described as parables:
Matthew 13:3 Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: “Behold, a sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them. 5 Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. 6 But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. 7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. 8 But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. 9 He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand...
18 “Therefore hear the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. 20 But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. 22 Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. 23 But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”

Jesus and the apostles never treat the Genesis account in this way. They treat it as history. They refer to it as history. Just as historic as Christ's virgin incarnation, His resurrection from the dead, etc. No indication of any difference in understanding of the historicity of the Torah from that of the Gospels.

First, would you like to prove that? At what point does Jesus say "by the way, this is historically accurate"?

Second, that, again, just demonstrates that you think of myth as fable, and see both as essentially false. It's your specific personal reason, I think, for being a Biblical literalist - it has to either be history, or make-believe, and you won't accept the latter. That dichotomy, though, is not real.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Its not science if they are working towards a predefined answer.

They aren't doing so. They are looking for the mechanisms that explain the answer. Just as evolutionists are.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Many fine scientists disagree. They are engaged in such research,

Should read:

Many fine journalists and former teaching professors disagree for non-scientific reasons. They state that they are engaged in such research but have, thus far, failed to produce even one critically appraised publication.

:pac:

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Many fine scientists disagree.

Given that you do not know anything about science, you are not really in a position to say if one person is or is not, a scientist. Neither are you in a position to make pointed value judgments on whether or not somebody claiming to be a scientist is "fine" at it.

You would be more accurate to say that "many people disagree", though we know that already.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

First, would you like to prove that? At what point does Jesus say "by the way, this is historically accurate"?

Second, that, again, just demonstrates that you think of myth as fable, and see both as essentially false. It's your specific personal reason, I think, for being a Biblical literalist - it has to either be history, or make-believe, and you won't accept the latter. That dichotomy, though, is not real.

cordially,
Scofflaw

He doesn't - neither do we. We relate history and expect folk to take it as such, unless we indicate it is a parable, or a simile or metaphor. Where Jesus deliberately concealed His meaning, the apostles indicated it:
John 2:18 So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”
19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

I accept metaphor has meaning even though not literal. What I don't accept is treating as metaphor what is given as apparent historical narrative. There is no hermeneutic that can account for treating Genesis as myth or metaphor, without treating almost all the history of the Bible the same. That was not how it was understood from the beginning.