The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

thebaldsoprano

Asiaprod wrote: »

Welcome news indeed, have fun:D

Galvasean

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

In fairness, as an agnostic this board seems a lot more even handed and welcoming, so far, than the A&"A" forum.

I was talking about the palaeontology forum. It would be a bit odd to criticize the Christianity forum for referencing God.

thebaldsoprano

Galvasean wrote: »

I was talking about the palaeontology forum.

My mistake. Seems like an odd forum to bring up here though.

Galvasean wrote: »

It would be a bit odd to criticize the Christianity forum for referencing God.

Not from what I've seen

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Gods of all forms have been scurrying away from observant people for a long time -- first off the mountain tops and into the clouds, then off up and into the sky until they reached their current home, a most Einstein-like "other dimension", conveniently beyond the reach of hikers, planes and telescopes.

As long as people insist that there are one or more gods out there, there'll always be other people testing to see if they really are and never finding them. And that's a useful service, even if it's rarely seen as such.

I speak only for the Biblical presentation, but it has always held that the spiritual world is normally unseen, a most Einstein-like "other dimension", e.g.
2 Kings 6:15 And when the servant of the man of God arose early and went out, there was an army, surrounding the city with horses and chariots. And his servant said to him, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?”
16 So he answered, “Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” 17 And Elisha prayed, and said, “LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” Then the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw. And behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I speak only for the Biblical presentation, but it has always held that the spiritual world is normally unseen, a most Einstein-like "other dimension", e.g.
2 Kings 6:15 And when the servant of the man of God arose early and went out, there was an army, surrounding the city with horses and chariots. And his servant said to him, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?”
16 So he answered, “Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” 17 And Elisha prayed, and said, “LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” Then the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw. And behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

Is it so much of a jump to put Creation in that same realm? An abstraction used to describe that which would have been unintelligible to people in the time of Moses?

Galvasean

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

My mistake. Seems like an odd forum to bring up here though.

Long story. i wouldn't worry about it.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Is it so much of a jump to put Creation in that same realm? An abstraction used to describe that which would have been unintelligible to people in the time of Moses?

I don't think they were unable - the technology to explain it would have been missing, but the concept is simple enough.

The reason I can't make the Creation account an abstraction is that it is not treated so in all the rest of Scripture. It is treated as an historical event by Christ and the apostles, whose moral arguments depend on it being so.

If God had wanted to take 6 billion years to finish Creation, I could have no problem with that. But since He told me He took 6 days, I believe that.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

If God had wanted to take 6 billion years to finish Creation, I could have no problem with that. But since He told me He took 6 days, I believe that

Well, technically speaking, since you believe that the genesis story was written by god, all you're doing is saying that you believe your belief. This is not an unsurprising position when you boil it down really.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Well, technically speaking, since you believe that the genesis story was written by god, all you're doing is saying that you believe your belief. This is not an unsurprising position when you boil it down really.

I have no problem with that - I believe God and I also believe I believe God. If you believe me about this, I take it you believe you believe me?

Or is there a 'Mother' to answer to your 'Norman'?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't think they were unable - the technology to explain it would have been missing, but the concept is simple enough.

The reason I can't make the Creation account an abstraction is that it is not treated so in all the rest of Scripture. It is treated as an historical event by Christ and the apostles, whose moral arguments depend on it being so.

If God had wanted to take 6 billion years to finish Creation, I could have no problem with that. But since He told me He took 6 days, I believe that.

Surely the interpretations of Genesis elsewhere in the bible reflect understanding at the time of writing? In the time of Jesus there was little reason to assume that Genesis was either metaphorical or abstract in some other manner. It wasn't until we measured the speed of light that it became clear just how old the universe must be.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't think they were unable - the technology to explain it would have been missing, but the concept is simple enough.

The reason I can't make the Creation account an abstraction is that it is not treated so in all the rest of Scripture. It is treated as an historical event by Christ and the apostles, whose moral arguments depend on it being so.

Again only according to some interpretations of what Jesus said, interpretations that are rejected by most Christians.

What Jesus said still makes sense if one considers Adam to be metaphorical, a fictional concept for the spiritual education of others, rather than a literal historical person.

Someone can say "Remember what happened to the Hare!", without implying that a literal hare actually raised a literal turtle. Or "Remember what happened to the Cat!" without implying that a literal cat was killed by its curiosity.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If God had wanted to take 6 billion years to finish Creation, I could have no problem with that. But since He told me He took 6 days, I believe that.

He didn't tell you anything Wolfsbane :rolleyes:

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have no problem with that - I believe God and I also believe I believe God. If you believe me about this, I take it you believe you believe me?

Ha, ha, but you missed my point.

1. You believe that god wrote the genesis story
2. The genesis story says it took six days
3. You conclude that god it telling you it took six days
4. You tell us that this is your belief.

But the belief you tell us about in (4) is already propped up by belief (1), so if we assume that you're being consistent (!), it's tautologous to point out that "I believe that".

You're going around in very small circles

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Ha, ha, but you missed my point.

1. You believe that god wrote the genesis story
2. The genesis story says it took six days
3. You conclude that god it telling you it took six days
4. You tell us that this is your belief.

But the belief you tell us about in (4) is already propped up by belief (1), so if we assume that you're being consistent (!), it's tautologous to point out that "I believe that".

You're going around in very small circles

I see where you are coming from (I think!). Yes, my other beliefs are based on that first one. I meant no more than that when I originally said, "I believe that". IOWs, since God said it, I believe it.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Surely the interpretations of Genesis elsewhere in the bible reflect understanding at the time of writing? In the time of Jesus there was little reason to assume that Genesis was either metaphorical or abstract in some other manner. It wasn't until we measured the speed of light that it became clear just how old the universe must be.

That would be true if the Bible were merely man's work. But since it is the infallible word of God, it is not subject to error.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

IOWs, since God said it, I believe it.

Still missing the point that you're believing it only because you've previously said that you believe that god said it. A circular belief ain't worth jack, I'm afraid. Here's how it works:



Enjoy!

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I don't think they were unable - the technology to explain it would have been missing, but the concept is simple enough.

The reason I can't make the Creation account an abstraction is that it is not treated so in all the rest of Scripture. It is treated as an historical event by Christ and the apostles, whose moral arguments depend on it being so.
Again only according to some interpretations of what Jesus said, interpretations that are rejected by most Christians.

The first thing we need to do to see if your assertion is right is to determine what Christian means in the original sense. Doing that one discovers most 'Christians' today aren't the same as the originals.

Second, even allowing that all professing to be Christians are so, have we asked them what they think on the Creation/Evolution issue?

Third, are we talking about all Christians over time as well as over the world? Historically, Creation was the Christian understanding of origins.

What Jesus said still makes sense if one considers Adam to be metaphorical, a fictional concept for the spiritual education of others, rather than a literal historical person.

Someone can say "Remember what happened to the Hare!", without implying that a literal hare actually raised a literal turtle. Or "Remember what happened to the Cat!" without implying that a literal cat was killed by its curiosity.

But Christ and the apostle's use of the creation account was not framed in such metaphoric terms. The imperative could only be so if Adam & Eve and the origin of marriage and of sin and death were historical events. Christ did not say, "Look at what happened to Adam & Eve when they married!" He said God made them male and female and gave them to each other forever, not to be parted - therefore His hearers were not to part from their wives. Heavy duty commandment!

No one is going to restrict their actions based on non-events happening to non-persons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If God had wanted to take 6 billion years to finish Creation, I could have no problem with that. But since He told me He took 6 days, I believe that.
He didn't tell you anything Wolfsbane

I know this is a surveillance age, but I doubt even you have the resources to listen in on my spirit.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

But Christ and the apostle's use of the creation account was not framed in such metaphoric terms. The imperative could only be so if Adam & Eve and the origin of marriage and of sin and death were historical events. Christ did not say, "Look at what happened to Adam & Eve when they married!" He said God made them male and female and gave them to each other forever, not to be parted - therefore His hearers were not to part from their wives. Heavy duty commandment!

Would the word of the messiah be lessened in some way if He used a metaphor as the basis of a directive?

wolfsbane wrote: »

That would be true if the Bible were merely man's work. But since it is the infallible word of God, it is not subject to error.

It does not need to be subject to error if your interpretation is simply incorrect. When there is ambiguity as to whether a passage should be taken literally or metaphorically, does it not make sense to refer to you God-given reason in order to guide you? The universe says that it is 13 billion years old. The Earth says that it is 4.5 billion years old. Every time we measure in a new way we get the same numbers back.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Still missing the point that you're believing it only because you've previously said that you believe that god said it. A circular belief ain't worth jack, I'm afraid. Here's how it works:



Enjoy!

Hmm. Your wife says she went out to lunch today instead of eating at home/work. Do you believe her? Depends on what you think of her character. Is she a slut, and might she instead have went to an hotel with someone she picked up? Or is she a faithful wife, one who's word you can depend on?

OK, let's say it is the latter. You believe she went out to lunch. You believe it on the basis of her word to you. But you are saying that your belief she went out to lunch ain't worth jack.

Is there no-one's word you believe? If you don't see it, you won't believe it? I take it you have carried out all the experiments relating to evolution's claim to factuality, and are not depending on anyone's word about it? Otherwise your contributions on the Creation/evolution issue on this thread have all been not worth jack. :pac:

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Would the word of the messiah be lessened in some way if He used a metaphor as the basis of a directive?



It does not need to be subject to error if your interpretation is simply incorrect. When there is ambiguity as to whether a passage should be taken literally or metaphorically, does it not make sense to refer to you God-given reason in order to guide you? The universe says that it is 13 billion years old. The Earth says that it is 4.5 billion years old. Every time we measure in a new way we get the same numbers back.

Yes, no metaphor that I can think of could be used as the model in a directive.

The passage is made distinctly unambiguous by the later use of it by Christ and the apostles. They remove the possibility of a non-historico-grammatical understanding.

One of course could say they were mistaken; but not if one holds to the Bible being the word of God.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Do you believe her? Depends on what you think of her character. Is she a slut, and might she instead have went to an hotel with someone she picked up? Or is she a faithful wife, one who's word you can depend on? [...] Is there no-one's word you believe? If you don't see it, you won't believe it?

You're still missing the point that your original declaration is entirely circular. I give up! I've got beer to drink

Anybody else like to try explain this?

Flamed Diving

robindch wrote: »

You're still missing the point that your original declaration is entirely circular. I give up! I've got beer to drink

Anybody else like to try explain this?

You're not going to convince him, Robin.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

You're still missing the point that your original declaration is entirely circular. I give up! I've got beer to drink

Anybody else like to try explain this?

If God had wanted to take 6 billion years to finish Creation, I could have no problem with that. But since He told me He took 6 days, I believe that.
If [my wife] had wanted to [eat in], I could have no problem with that. But since [she] told me [she ate out], I believe that.

Anyone like to explain the difference?

wolfsbane

Another for you Guidestone fans:
Chillingly consistent application of evolutionby Bill Muehlenberg
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4853

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Another for you Guidestone fans:
Chillingly consistent application of evolutionby Bill Muehlenberg
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4853

Here is another:

Tediously consistent misapplication of evolutionary theory by Creationists by Bill McRedneck

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Another for you Guidestone fans:
Chillingly consistent application of evolutionby Bill Muehlenberg
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4853

What Evolutionary Theory suggests to people is entirely irrelevant to its veracity. Unless you are suggesting that negative consequences of an idea make the idea somehow untrue?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What Evolutionary Theory suggests to people is entirely irrelevant to its veracity. Unless you are suggesting that negative consequences of an idea make the idea somehow untrue?

No. But it does give one pause to consider if this is reality, when our conscience persists in telling us we are worthwhile, sacred even, in the big picture.

Christians have passed beyond even such reasonable doubts, having come to know God experientially and believe His word on this.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

No. But it does give one pause to consider if this is reality, when our conscience persists in telling us we are worthwhile, sacred even, in the big picture.

Evolution says nothing to the contrary. On a side note, why do you assume that your conscience tells the truth?

Galvasean

My conscience is a lying dirtbag! I never listen to him.

Hey, ever notice that conscience is... con-science?

thebaldsoprano

Galvasean wrote: »

Long story. i wouldn't worry about it.

Hhmm, sounds like a chance to ruffle a few feathers...

Galvasean

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Hhmm, sounds like a chance to ruffle a few feathers...

Shh... Don't mention feathers in the context of dinosaurs in the creationism thread! :eek: