The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

kiffer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The notion that the Earth is c. 6,000 years old stems mainly from the work carried out by a certain Bishop James Ussher. Sometime in the 17th Century he sat down with the Bible, looked closely at the genealogies contained within, added one generation to another and came up with a figure. This was a deeply flawed analysis, IMO, but it didn't have a huge impact on the ordinary punter up until quite recently.

Apparently the 6000 year figure has been bandied about for some time now... along with the idea that the world is older than scripture would have us believe...

Augustine of Hippo, ca. AD 419 wrote:

Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.

prinz

Naz_st wrote: »

There is a kind of irony though for those animals who went aboard and were the lucky ones who managed to avoid being killed in the worldwide destruction of the flood only to be burnt on an altar!

I'm sure Noah had a chuckle to himself. :pac:

Would have made a tasty barbecue though.

keane2097

prinz wrote: »

Good one.Great contribution.

Way to evade the point. Let's try again:

prinz wrote: »

If He was all that vengeful and murderous why not kill everyone?

keane2097 wrote: »

Because being vengeful and murderous only requires killing people you don't like - killing everyone indiscriminately is not a requirement.

Vengeful means you punish people for wrongs they have committed against you in the past, murderous means killing people.

Do you still maintain that God's actions were not vengeful and/or murderous?

prinz wrote: »

And due to it's contents, the meaning to be taken, was belief and faith in God and turning away from wickedness, thus ensuring salvation.

Fair enough. I contend that this severely impinges the idea of free will however, since it amounts to follow God or be violently killed.

prinz wrote: »

So what's your point.

No it isn't.

prinz

keane2097 wrote: »

Way to evade the point. Let's try again

And your insinuation that I am in need of a dictionary was what?

keane2097 wrote: »

Do you still maintain that God's actions were not vengeful and/or murderous?.

I never maintained any such thing. If you reread my posts with your own ever-present dictionary, I am sure you will see my original point was to balance the post on the topic. The story of Noah and the Great Flood is not only about death and destruction, but also about salvation and a new beginning. The story makes no sense presenting one side without the other. Read my posts before you try to argue over them.

keane2097 wrote: »

Fair enough. I contend that this severely impinges the idea of free will however, since it amounts to follow God or be violently killed.

Well, that is free will.There's your choice. Follow God or don't. Same as obey the law of the land or don't. You could say the threat of prison is an impingement to free will. Actually knowing the consequences of your actions improves the concept of free will, as it enables you to make a freer decision with foreknowledge of the ramifications.

keane2097 wrote: »

No it isn't.

Is that how you answer the question asked?

ScumLord

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The notion that the Earth is c. 6,000 years old stems mainly from the work carried out by a certain Bishop James Ussher. Sometime in the 17th Century he sat down with the Bible, looked closely at the genealogies contained within, added one generation to another and came up with a figure.

I didn't know that, I thought it was actually in the bible somewhere. If that's the case the creationists really don't have a leg to stand on.

I remember seeing some documentary where they where saying that there was a great flood in ancient times. Not the entire planet but somewhere around the black sea a sea/lake broke into another lake and caused a massive flood. I think it was some show that looked for actual geological events that bible accounts could be based on. They reckoned allot of Gods wrath where actual real world events, making the bible a good account of ancient disasters.

Fanny Cradock

kiffer wrote: »

Apparently the 6000 year figure has been bandied about for some time now... along with the idea that the world is older than scripture would have us believe...

Indeed, the age of the Earth has always fascinated theologians. The notion that the Earth was a few thougsand years old has been contested from very early Christianity.

Ussher's chronology - which he was sure could be dated back to the very day of creation: 22nd Oct 4004 BC, I believe - was granted legitimacy over other chronologies when it was mentioned in the KJ Bible.

darjeeling

This seems like a good opportunity to throw in a question of mine.

Christians who go along with the Creationist chronology often strongly believe that the events of the Book of Revelation are imminent, if not already under way. I remember a poll just before the US elections finding that around 30% of voters expected Armageddon in their lifetime. A recent Creation would seem to fit with the idea that the end of times is near at hand.

In contrast, Christians in churches such as the Church of England, which has assimilated scientific findings on the ancient age of the earth, seem barely to mention Revelation. Given that at the time of the English Civil War everyone thought doomsday was nigh, the change in religious thinking has come recently and has coincided with the scientific age. Has pushing the date for Creation back billions of years, then, been responsible for changing views on eschatology?

Galvasean

I wonder would Noah put 7 or 2 of the feathered dinosaus on the Ark...

prinz

Galvasean wrote: »

I wonder would Noah put 7 or 2 of the feathered dinosaus on the Ark...

Want a bigger wooden spoon to stir with :pac:

Húrin

Glenman wrote: »

Is there any evidence to back-up the theory that the World is only about ten thousand years old which is claimed in the Book of Genisis? Could the story about Noah's Arch be true? Are the Dinosaurs extinct because they could not fit in the arch?

Answer to all the above is probably no.

kiffer

Galvasean wrote: »

I wonder would Noah put 7 or 2 of the feathered dinosaus on the Ark...

My guess is 2 of every bird like reptile and 7 of every reptile like bird...
OR Noah just got confused and let them drown with the unicorns.

DublinWriter

prinz wrote: »

He could always have started again . Fortunately for us He saw something worth saving in humanity.

Well, I hope so, considering he was the one who supposedly created us.

But if he created us in his image, they why are we fundamentally imperfect and sinful?

Hmmm...maybe you'll play the 'free-will' card at this point? I hope so. It's more a house of cards than a single card.

Woger

Nice quote Hurin.
http://aloadofbright.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/misquoting-harris/

prinz

DublinWriter wrote: »

But if he created us in his image, they why are we fundamentally imperfect and sinful?

How about you go somewhere else and learn a bit about Christianity and the Bible? I suggest starting at page 1 since you're obviously lost big time.

Mickeroo

Like Fanny said, accepting the world to be 6000 years old is a pretty recent thing, the notion didnt originate from 20th century america but new earth creationism did, a bunch of brainless idiots started making some noise and it got a bit out of hand,and contiues to do so. The church has always agreed with the geologists on this one, even evolution didn't cause much controversy until the last century.

There is zero evidence to suggest the earth is anything near 6000 years old and anyone who genuinely believes this was probably dropped on their head as a child.

Galvasean

kiffer wrote: »

My guess is 2 of every bird like reptile and 7 of every reptile like bird...
OR Noah just got confused and let them drown with the unicorns.

Well I certainly wouldn't like to be the one who has to decide whether this is bird-like reptile or a reptile-like bird...

kiffer

Galvasean wrote: »

Well I certainly wouldn't like to be the one who has to decide whether this is bird-like reptile or a reptile-like bird...

Clearly that is a bird-like non-avian reptile ... and is only semi-kosher... Noah would have taken 3.5 pairs onto the ark.

Noah wouldn't take any because they were sinful birds ... a little known fact about the dinosaurs is that they were terribly sinful lizards... they didn't believe in God so they had to die by drowning... Trust me I read a chick tract about them once...

prinz

Galvasean wrote: »

Well I certainly wouldn't like to be the one who has to decide whether this is bird-like reptile or a reptile-like bird...

Either way it probably tastes good in breadcrumbs.;)

DublinWriter

prinz wrote: »

How about you go somewhere else and learn a bit about Christianity and the Bible? I suggest starting at page 1 since you're obviously lost big time.

Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot about the whole deal being called off after the incident with the apple and the talking snake. My bad.

Fanny Cradock

Either post in a mature fashion or naff off. :pac: It has been suggested that you actually go off and learn something about what Christians believe. It is good advice.

prinz

DublinWriter wrote: »

Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot about the whole deal being called off after the incident with the apple and the talking snake. My bad.

Yup it was your bad. But glad to see you thought about it, unlike many others.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Perhaps a free-will creation without the possibility of sin is just such an oxymoron, No?

But what about a free will creation without the possibility of flight? or time travel?

Do you not see that morality is related to free-will, but flight and time travel are not?

or omnipotence and omniscience?

They are essential attributes of God, not of free-will.

Why is the possibility of sin needed to avoid the oxymoron and yet many various ways to sin are disallowed.

You confuse the nature of free-will as known before the Fall, and the restraint God puts on sinners now. We do not have the free-will Adam had. We are prone to sin, our free-will chained to our sinful natures. Adam had a sinless nature.

Who knows how many people would sin if they had the ability to do so in powerful ways?

Everyone would plunge to the depths of sin if God did not impart some part of His image to them. Conscience also is a part of His restraint. So too are the circumstances He causes to prevail in our lives.

But back to the possibility of sin being an essential for a free-will creation. Can you describe a truly free-will creation that does not have the ability to sin?

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
He did not create sin, He permitted it.
You dont seem to be getting this: God Created Sin. Before god started creating anything, there was only him, so there was nothing to go against his will, therefore no sin (according to your definition of sin). When he created humanity, he created their nature too, knowing full what their nature would lead them to do. To simplify it, just realise that in order for sin to exist, something needs to exist to sin and god created everything, knowing which of these things would sin and in what way they would do so.

Indeed He did - but that does not mean He created sin. He created the circumstances for sin, as He did for perfect holiness. In making a free-will world, He did that.

So anything god does is righteous? Regardless of what he does? Does that not make righteousness subjective to what god does? So righteousness is just what god does, it has no other meaning?

No, a thing is righteous or it is not. But God is perfectly righteous, so He only does righteous things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, human analogies are limited. But it at least shows how higher/righteous causes can be associated with evil consequences.
But conveniently forgets that these higher causes have completely brought into existence everything that has caused these evil consequences to occur. I think in this particular part of the argument, analogies just miss the point.

You see God creating a free-will world an unrighteous act. I see it as righteous.

wolfsbane

Heard an interview with this guy last Sunday:

Dr. Monton says, "The doctrine of intelligent design has been maligned
by atheists, but even though I'm an atheist, I'm of the opinion that
the arguments for intelligent design are stronger than most realize.
After trying to figure out what the doctrine of intelligent design
actually is, I'll argue that it's legitimate to view intelligent
design as science, that there are somewhat plausible arguments for the
existence of a cosmic designer, and that intelligent design should be
taught in public school science classes."


Bradley Monton is a professor of philosophy at CU Boulder specializing
in philosophy of science, philosophy of physics, probabilistic/formal
epistemology, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of time. One of
his main research areas involves science-based arguments for the
existence of God.


All "Think!" events are free and intended for the public. For more
information, please visit:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/center/think.shtml

wolfsbane

Free online creationist books:

http://creation.com/books-online

Also, I've just got a copy of the new book, The New Creationism: Building Scientific Theories on a Biblical Foundation (Evangelical Press; ISBN 9780852346921):
http://www.epbooks.org/the-new-creationism-p-2034.html?cPath=3&osCsid=fdd6103b8fd74854e2cca7ea64320a06

The author is Paul Garner:
http://www.epbooks.org/author_details.php?aid=755

The book takes as its central theme the work being done by contemporary creationist scholars to restore the biblical foundations of the scientific enterprise and build positive creationist theories in the field of origins.


A superb read so far. And the author has begun a blog to follow up the issues raised:
http://thenewcreationism.wordpress.com/

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Bradley Monton is a professor of philosophy

Philosophy? *Shudder*

While I agree with you that the giving of free will is certainly a very righteous act, I would also say punishing those who use said free will in a manner that displeases you with eternal suffering kind of defeats the purpose.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Heard an interview with this guy last Sunday:

Did you, uhm, actually, like, listen to, like the whole thing? Or, like, did you, uhm, like totally not even, like, listen because he sounded so, like, uhm, annoying?

Anyway, the guy's argument didn't have any science in there whatsoever. He had the old argument from authority in there, the teach the controversy canard, and that was about it. He never explained why ID is science. What a waste of time. Bloody philosophers. :rolleyes:

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Do you not see that morality is related to free-will, but flight and time travel are not?

Morality is the ability to recognise the difference between good and evil and this ability is greatly limited by the experiences and attributes of the individual doing the recognising. Any limitation on the individual is a limitation on the will and morality of the individual.

wolfsbane wrote: »

They are essential attributes of God, not of free-will.

Ultimately, only a will thats is capable of omniscience and omnipotence is truely free.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You confuse the nature of free-will as known before the Fall, and the restraint God puts on sinners now. We do not have the free-will Adam had. We are prone to sin, our free-will chained to our sinful natures. Adam had a sinless nature.

If Adam had a sinless nature then how did he sin? If our freewill is chained, then it is no longer free.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Everyone would plunge to the depths of sin if God did not impart some part of His image to them. Conscience also is a part of His restraint. So too are the circumstances He causes to prevail in our lives.

But those circumstances are what causes us to sin. He causes the circumstances which cause us sin to sin, knowing full well we will sin because of the sin full nature he has given us.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But back to the possibility of sin being an essential for a free-will creation. Can you describe a truly free-will creation that does not have the ability to sin?

God (if by "sin" you mean "go against gods will").

MrPudding

prinz wrote: »

How about you go somewhere else and learn a bit about Christianity and the Bible? I suggest starting at page 1 since you're obviously lost big time.

It is a perfectly valid observation, and not really one that reading the bible would appear to address. The whole "why did god create something imperfect / allow something to become imperfect / blah" question is one that pops up here a lot. Many atheist, myself included, find it to be a very important questions and I personally have not found a satisfying answer to it. Pointing to a document, the meaning of which even its followers cannot agree on, does not really answer any questions.

Also, I find it a bit sad, and somewhat unbelievable that at the time of the alleged flood Noah and his family were the only humans worthy of survival. What was the rough population of the earth at the time? What did the rest of humanity to to deserve wiping out? How could a baby born minutes before dying in the flood have committed such crimes as to deserve death? How could there not have been a single redeeming feature for any human other than Noah and his family? How can you sit there and say that god is perfect when after only a mere blink of time only Noah's family, out of all the humans he created, were worthy of being saved?

I am not sure I can accept the free will argument. It does not even seem to be universal amongst christians on this board. Wolfie does not believe we have free will, but is still quite happy that we are punish for the sins of the father and behaving in a way we have no control over... How does that work? How is that the work of a merciful god?

Showing someone mercy when it is you threatening them with punishment for behaviour you built into them in the first place is notthing to be proud of and certainly nothing deserving of worship.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

It is a perfectly valid observation, and not really one that reading the bible would appear to address. The whole "why did god create something imperfect / allow something to become imperfect / blah" question is one that pops up here a lot. Many atheist, myself included, find it to be a very important questions and I personally have not found a satisfying answer to it. Pointing to a document, the meaning of which even its followers cannot agree on, does not really answer any questions.

There are about 2 billion Christians, do you expect us to agree on everything? If you are genuinely interested in studying these questions from a Christian perspective (rather than arguing with Christians on Boards) there are numerous resources available to you.

MrPudding wrote: »

Also, I find it a bit sad, and somewhat unbelievable that at the time of the alleged flood Noah and his family were the only humans worthy of survival. What was the rough population of the earth at the time? What did the rest of humanity to to deserve wiping out? How could a baby born minutes before dying in the flood have committed such crimes as to deserve death? How could there not have been a single redeeming feature for any human other than Noah and his family? How can you sit there and say that god is perfect when after only a mere blink of time only Noah's family, out of all the humans he created, were worthy of being saved?

Not every Christian believes that the entire earth was flooded or all of humanity was destroyed.

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not sure I can accept the free will argument. It does not even seem to be universal amongst christians on this board. Wolfie does not believe we have free will, but is still quite happy that we are punish for the sins of the father and behaving in a way we have no control over... How does that work? How is that the work of a merciful god?

Again, not all Christians subscribe to this. In fact, I would say that most don't.