The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

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.

I can't see anything wrong with punishing the wicked. I'm sure you agree. It's just that you and God have a different take on the gravity of man's wickedness.

Have you considered that God might be right, and you wrong?

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

I can't see anything wrong with punishing the wicked. I'm sure you agree. It's just that you and God have a different take on the gravity of man's wickedness.

I also think it's a bit rich that he created evil, knowing that people would do it and then punishes them- which was my point.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Have you considered that God might be right, and you wrong?

Nice argument from authority there.
Have you ever considered that I might be real, and God might not be?

Fanny Cradock

pts wrote: »

I hope that is the case, maybe my over exposure to FOX news has given me the wrong impression (probably not though as they are fair and balanced )
If it isn't too theologically complex, or personal I'd love to know on what and why you shifted your position on something you had previously always accepted.

I would agree that dissagreement on the Bible does not alter the truth of God's existence, but I would argue that the unreliability of the Bible as a means of understanding God alters it's usefulness as a guide for living ones life. Further I would argue that the ambiguity of the Bible makes it more likely (in my opinion) that it is a work of man, not God, or men inspired by God.

We have SKY News over here, which is terrible, but infinity better than what I've seen of FOX.

Anyway, in what ways would you think that the Bible is unreliable or ambiguous?

As for my shift (or gradual shuffle), it concerns heaven. I have come to realise that it, clouds, harps and a disembodied existence aren't what is promised in the Bible as the culmination of God's ultimate plan for us. Rather, the ultimate Christian hope, which dates back to the earliest Christians, is about new creation here on earth. It will be a physical reality (not disembodied) in a different type of reality. I believe that this has huge (positive) ramifications upon how Christians interact with the world here and now. I've been inspired by Bishop N.T Wright on this issue.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Surprised-Hope-Tom-Wright/dp/028105617X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239899486&sr=8-1

(You can read a few of the opening pages of the book if you click the link above.)

Genghiz Cohen

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It will be a physical reality (not disembodied) in a different type of reality. I believe that this has huge (positive) ramifications upon how Christians interact with the world here and now. I've been inspired by Bishop N.T Wright on this issue.

You mean like a parallel universe?

Also, a great series of comics (Non-Religious, mostly) did one on Heaven.

wolfsbane

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?

Sorry to be late in joining in.

Yes, there is evidence in support of a young earth; Noah's story is true; No, juvenile dinosaurs would have fitted on the ark - their extinction seems to be down to climatic changes/extermination by man.

A lot of this has been discussed on our thread The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy, where you will be very welcome.

There are two main defenders of a Young Earth there: JC and myself. JC is the scientist, I argue the more theological aspects.

Some resources on Creationism:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://creation.com/
http://www.icr.org/
http://creationresearch.org/
http://www.bryancore.org/
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/
http://trueorigin.org/
http://creation.com/books-online

BTW, the understanding that the earth is young (thousands, not millions of years), the biosphere was created not evolved and Noah was the ancestor of all mankind since the ark - that is the historic Christian concept.

Some Christians developed the idea of a prior creation that was destroyed before this one began some 6000 years ago. That would permit the universe, earth, fossil record to speak of great age. But it would not allow for the present biosphere to be older than the several thousands, nor of course would it allow evolution.

More recently some Christians have allowed evolutionism to persuade them to drop an historical/grammatical hermeneutic when interpreting Genesis. They say it is not meant to be read as history, but as a sort of parable. They have to treat the ark account likewise.

As Wicknight pointed up, where does that leave them with regard to any history in the Bible? On what basis can they say the virgin birth, the miracles, the death and resurrection of Christ are historical? Genesis and all these present themselves as historical narrative. They are quite distinct in their difference in the Bible from prophetic type and parable.

Woger

I'm surprised you didn't include Ray "Banana Man" Comfort.

wolfsbane

pts wrote: »

This is one of the main reasons I'm sceptical to many theist who "know" they are right in their understanding of God. Would it not be more honest to say to people that they believe God has done x & y, and wants z instead of saying they know God's has done and what he (it?) wants. Their understanding of God is mainly based on the Bible (which can be interpreted in many ways) both directly (reading the Bible) and indirectly (from Priests, scholars etc)

Maybe you will agree that a person's beliefs may be fairly accurately determined if we read all he says on a matter? We would likely get things very wrong if we took just one comment, a bit less wrong if we took several, but the more we listen to what they say, the more accurate is our interpretation of their position.

So too with what the Bible says. Sometimes it doesn't say much on something, and there may be several possible interpretations. But when it speaks a lot on a matter, we cannot say the meaning is unclear. We may not like the meaning - but it is clear.

On those matters a Christian has every right to claim he knows God's mind concerning it.

wolfsbane

prinz said:

The story of Noah and the Great Flood as has been pointed out is based upon the Sumerian legend the Epic of Gilgamesh.

How can you say that? That assumes the Hebrews did not have an oral history distinct from those who wrote the Epic, and that God did not speak to them.

Is it not as easy to believe both had an oral history, one more accurate than the other, and that the Hebrews had God reveal the full and accurate story to them?

If people want to accept it as 100% factual fair enough. I on the other hand do not know 1 single Christian who does personally. For the rest of us it is an allegorical tale with many levels.......

I and the dozens of Christians I know intimately believe the account of Noah's Flood to be 100% accurate. From what I gather of the hundreds more I worship with weekly, they do too. Same for most of the Evangelical churches I have encountered. I do realise that such unbelief has penetrated many of the seminaries, and thence to the pulpits.

Again I do not know anyone who holds the story of Adam, Eve and Eden to be historical fact. It is again based on Sumerian legends of the oral tradition passed down for hundreds, and indeed thousands, of years before it was written down as it appears in the Bible.

As above.

If somebody wants to know why 'we aren't perfect beings' etc., they like I said they can feel free to read the Bible and gain an understanding, through their own reflections. Even committed Christians an find bits of the Bible 'troublesome' at times. That's where prayer, study, and deep deep thought can come into play.

Good idea - but it ought not include a presupposition that where the Bible and the current scientific understanding clash, the Bible must be re-interpreted.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

JC is the scientist.

Even amongst all the other nonsense you stated in the last post that has absolutely no basis in fact or reality, this statement still manages to stand out.

wolfsbane

Mickeroo wrote: »

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.

Wrong on both paragraphs. Here's an article that covers both:

What is the most compelling scientific evidence of a young earth?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp

wolfsbane

marco_polo wrote: »

Even amongst all the other nonsense you stated in the last post that has absolutely no basis in fact or reality, this statement still manages to stand out.

That's just your bigotry speaking. Try to be impartial even to those with whom you disagree. JC is a scientist. Deal with it.

prinz

wolfsbane wrote: »

prinz said:

How can you say that? That assumes the Hebrews did not have an oral history distinct from those who wrote the Epic, and that God did not speak to them.

The Hebrews were descendants of Abraham yes? Abraham came from the city of Ur, which was a Sumer city. There is no distinction, Abraham was Sumerian, he was called by God to leave and travel west to Canaan. The histories of both peoples are connected and to a large degree one and the same, until the time of the move.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Is it not as easy to believe both had an oral history, one more accurate than the other, and that the Hebrews had God reveal the full and accurate story to them?

Same as above.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I and the dozens of Christians I know intimately believe the account of Noah's Flood to be 100% accurate. From what I gather of the hundreds more I worship with weekly, they do too. Same for most of the Evangelical churches I have encountered. I do realise that such unbelief has penetrated many of the seminaries, and thence to the pulpits.

I have no problem with that, if you choose to believe in it literally. I on the other hand do not, it does not effect my ability to read the Gospels and understand them literally, as first and second hand accounts of contempory fact. Or other books indeed in the O.T.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Good idea - but it ought not include a presupposition that where the Bible and the current scientific understanding clash, the Bible must be re-interpreted.

I personally do not reinterpret.If I change my understanding of something it is only through much consideration and thought on the issue. My beliefs come from reading the Bible. Current scientific understanding does not influence me in this.

pts

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Anyway, in what ways would you think that the Bible is unreliable or ambiguous?

I would happily concede that I am not as well versed (no pun intended) in the Bible as you and most of the regulars here. However I would argue that the diversity found in the offshoots of the Abrahamic religions would itself show that the Bible (and other holy books) is ambiguous.

I don't believe that one can "prove" or validate a particular interpetation of the Bible. If it could be done I'm sure it would have been done by now. I think both you and prinz are in agreement that most Christians are open to possibility that their particular interpretation on a given belief could be wrong. If that is the case the conclusion I would draw is that the probability of randomly picking the "right" interpetation (if it even exists, maybe all interpetations are flawed) is very small. Therefore it might be better to not use the Bible as a guide on how to live ones life.

A counterargument would be that even though small details may vary the overall principles are similar and therefore the Bible can be used as a guide. However even the 3 Abrahamic religions (which all use parts of the Bible) dissagree on who Jesus was. I would conclude that if such a major detail can be misunderstood then living your life based on a holy book might not be the best of ideas.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As for my shift (or gradual shuffle), it concerns heaven. I have come to realise that it, clouds, harps and a disembodied existence aren't what is promised in the Bible as the culmination of God's ultimate plan for us. Rather, the ultimate Christian hope, which dates back to the earliest Christians, is about new creation here on earth. It will be a physical reality (not disembodied) in a different type of reality. I believe that this has huge (positive) ramifications upon how Christians interact with the world here and now. I've been inspired by Bishop N.T Wright on this issue.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Surprised-Hope-Tom-Wright/dp/028105617X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239899486&sr=8-1

(You can read a few of the opening pages of the book if you click the link above.)

Thanks for the above link. I read the pages Amazon allowed me to read. I always find religious people that think differently about commonly held beliefs can be very interesting (not necessary right, but interesting )
For example I found Rev. Tom Honey TED reflection on God very interesting.

pts

prinz wrote: »

Well, Jonathan Swift was a man of the cloth strange where these ideas come from.

On a more serious note though, I think that "A Modest Proposal" is one of the most clever satires ever written.

pts

wolfsbane wrote: »

So too with what the Bible says. Sometimes it doesn't say much on something, and there may be several possible interpretations. But when it speaks a lot on a matter, we cannot say the meaning is unclear. We may not like the meaning - but it is clear.

In principal that makes sense, and yet there seems to be much disagreement among Christians even on issues which are well covered in the Bible, for example the role of women.

andy1249

The Whole world is awash with flood myths .... every continent has them,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

There are some cracking good yarns around about the commonality of such myths ,

One I enjoyed immensely was Uriels machine ....

http://www.amazon.com/Uriels-Machine-Uncovering-Stonehenge-Civilization/dp/193141274X

I enjoy the odd bit of fantastic fiction.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

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

So? Why does the evidence-free, personal opinion of anyone matter? ID is refuted conclusively by science. Science is not about weighing up the opinions of a variety of authority figures. Mind you, if you were to apply that concept evenly you'd still end up accepting evolution, albeit for completely the wrong reasons.

So, why no love for my explanation of the tree of life? You answered pretty much everyone else and J C has gone all quiet on me again.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's just your bigotry speaking. Try to be impartial even to those with whom you disagree. JC is a scientist. Deal with it.

Is he? Does it matter? He won't even tell us his field or qualifications, so we can't vaguely verify his status as a scientist in the professional sense. But that doesn't really matter- he'd be wrong if he had a degree, PhD or a Nobel prize. It's not about authority but evidence. But I can say this; he's certainly not a scientist in the philosophical sense, that is verifiable just by reading his posts.

You confess to not knowing anything about science, that you cannot assess it and so you have to judge the person rather than the content of what they're saying. Conveniently you seem to judge people who agree with you rather well and so your views are confirmed. That's not how scientists work. The likes of J C are dismissed by scientists on the basis of the bit you claim you have no capacity to judge- the science. The evidence does not support him, much of it directly contradicts him. You'll dismiss that because you don't trust what I have to say on this matter, but the great thing about science is that you don't have to trust me. But hey, we've had this conversation so many times. You're never going to try to look at the evidence in a meaningful way, when it feels so much nicer to look at it through the filter provided by AIG and the like.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Try to be impartial even to those with whom you disagree. JC is a scientist. Deal with it.

JC has claimed to be a scientist, but has said a good number of things that would call such a claim into serious question (such as totally getting the scientific method wrong, a few times).

He also flatly refuses to give any indication of his qualifications (if any) or the field of science he currently works in (if any), under the rather dubious excuse that such information would allow us to identify him and would lead to him being persecuted for being a Creationist. Which is possible I guess if he is in a very specialist field and is one of only a handful working in Ireland, but again I find that rather unlikely.

This is the Internet, people can claim they are anything they like. It is some what unwise to simply accept someone is who they say they are when they haven't demonstrated as such and when they give you plenty of reason to suggest they are not.

Popinjay

prinz wrote: »

Can you tell the difference between the Diary of Anne Frank and the Pied Piper of Hamelin?

Woger wrote: »

Anne Frank existed.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, seems as it's your first time here, I'm going to direst you to the charter. Please read it and adhere to it.

Fanny... Modding the Pied Piper Forum. One disbeliever at a time :pac:

Zombrex

andy1249 wrote: »

The Whole world is awash with flood myths .... every continent has them

Floods would have been a common and very damaging event to primitive cultures, events that they would see as once off without natural explanation. It is not surprising that they get incorporated into these stories, explained as wrath of god style events (gods being the most common concept of human like agents controlling nature)

gaynorvader

I heard from a friend of mine, whom I trust, that there was geological evidence for the flood story. Apparently, many years ago, the Mediterranean Sea flooded. To the tribes of people living nearby, this would've seemed like the whole world was flooding. This could've given rise to the Noah story, not exactly proving it's 100% true, but only very naive people will take everything written in the Bible as 100% fact.

EDIT: ^ Due to glitches in misinterpretations, human imperfections, etc. I'm NOT trying to insinuate that I have knowledge that the Bible is correct or incorrect.

Gurgle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)
The flood story has been around since long before the world was created.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again you miss the distinction between creating free-will and creating sin.

No i have not, the problem here is that you fail to realise that when an omnipotent and omniscient god creates something, he knows exactly what, how, and why it will do anything, and the god must choose to allow anything it does to happen. This means that there is no such thing as free will if an omnipotent, omniscient being exists, as it must make a choice to allow or not to allow every action to happen, it cant miss any action because of its omniscience and as it has the power to change anything, it must make a decision. This removes everything elses freewill (as, ultimately its gods will that does or doesn't allow an event to occur) and it means that everything that does happen is allowed by god, desired by god and caused by god.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is not subjective as God is the creator of all - subjective to me means something not necessarily true in itself, but considered so by a fallible person. All that God declares is true, for He is the infallible Person who created all. If He says something is righteous, we can be sure it is.

So for something to be righteous, god has to say so? This means that it is subjective to gods say, and god being the creator of all just means that everything is subjective to his say. For something to be truly objective, it must be the same for true for everyone considering it, regardless of whether they are a god or not.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I appreciate we can no longer see such a world, but we have God's word about the perfect original.

Gods word which is self contradictory, only god can be truly freewilled.

kiffer

gaynorvader wrote: »

I heard from a friend of mine, whom I trust, that there was geological evidence for the flood story. Apparently, many years ago, the Mediterranean Sea flooded. To the tribes of people living nearby, this would've seemed like the whole world was flooding. This could've given rise to the Noah story, not exactly proving it's 100% true, but only very naive people will take everything written in the Bible as 100% fact.

EDIT: ^ Due to glitches in misinterpretations, human imperfections, etc. I'm NOT trying to insinuate that I have knowledge that the Bible is correct or incorrect.

Off the top of my head...
1, That's not geological evidence for The Flood (global proportions), no one claims that floods, small, large, and massive don't happen, just not magical global ones.
2, The drying and reflooding cycles of the Mediterranean is strong evidence against the biblical time frame, the time taken to dry that much water, the amount of salt and the fact the salt is interbedded with sediments...
3, As far a I am aware the last time the Med. was dry was quite some time ago... not just sometime during the last ice-age, but 6ish million years ago. So no Tribesmen would have been living there at the time (not just cause of the timeframe but also because it's likely to have been a harsh desert)

If your looking for large areas that have been flooded that are likely to have actually had people to see the event I would recommend looking at Doggerland, under the North Sea, all though I think that that wouldn't be the sort of wall of water type rapid-flood that would generate the Flood Myth of the Abrahamic religions but rather more of a subsidence/sealevel change over the course of many years. That said, dry areas below sea level would flood rapidly once sealevels changed sufficiently to breach surrounding areas.

Zombrex

gaynorvader wrote: »

I heard from a friend of mine, whom I trust, that there was geological evidence for the flood story. Apparently, many years ago, the Mediterranean Sea flooded.

It was the Black Sea actually

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

It provides geological evidence for where a myth such as the Biblical Flood could have come from, but of course this isn't evidence for the Biblical Flood itself. This flood rise in sea level would have been devastating to communities living in the area but it certainly didn't wipe out all human kind. There is no evidence that such an evident happened, and given that we know about near extinctions of humans thanks to things like genetic studies, if such an event had happened there really should be.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

It was the Black Sea actually

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

It provides geological evidence for where a myth such as the Biblical Flood could have come from, but of course this isn't evidence for the Biblical Flood itself. This flood rise in sea level would have been devastating to communities living in the area but it certainly didn't wipe out all human kind. There is no evidence that such an evident happened, and given that we know about near extinctions of humans thanks to things like genetic studies, if such an event had happened there really should be.

This could very well give rise to the story. Important to remember though that to the people of these communities the Middle Eastern / Mediterranean area was the whole world. So no suprise that they would interpret a massive flood as 'worldwide'.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Things are moral or they are not. My understaning of them may be imperfect and be a mitigating circumstance, but it still remains immoral if I do it.

You yourself have said that everything god does is inherently moral, so does that mean if i did everything god did, i would be moral? If i ordered the complete annihilation of a group of people? If i set bears on some youths who where insulting an old mans baldness? What if i ordered everyone to worship me as their only true god?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Adam did not need to be able to fly or time-travel to exercise his free-will.

Peoples freewill is determined by there imagination. If someone doesn't think they can do something, or has no knowledge of something, then their freewill may not be directed at doing that. If your will is not informed then it is not fully free.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it all depends on what one means by free-will. God does not have free-will in the sense Adam had. God is not able to sin. But He can do anything that is consistent with His perfectly holy nature.

God is not able to sin because to sin would be to go against god and he is not going to that himself, he needed to create some other things to sin so that he could punish them.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Adam could not speak a universe into being, as God did. Yet most people will agree that Adam's ability to decide and do good or evil was free-will.

So now freewill is subjective? And i think most people would think that Adams ability to decide between good and evil was not freewill, as god would not allow Adam knowledge of good and evil (wouldn't allow him to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) and would tell adam what he could and could not do.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because he was free to do so. He was not like us, prone to sin - yet he chose to do so. The ability is not sinful, the decision to do so is.

But adam had a sinless nature so why would he sin? If he was not prone to sinful, had no sin in his nature then why was he punished when he was tricked by the serpent into eating from the tree? Where is the sin in being tricked by the devil, a far more powerful creation than him?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, if that's how one defines free-will. That's why I always have to give more than a YES or NO to the question, Do you believe we have free-will? I prefer to say our will is free to make the moral choice our natures desire. Because the sinner has a sinful nature, they will by nature never choose to love and obey God.

But we are all sinners, as a result of original sin, therefore we will never choose god by nature, so therefore those that supposedly do choose god aren't really choosing god, they are using the outward appearance of choosing god to accomplishment something for their sinful nature, or they are going against their god given nature, which must be a sin in itself.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The circumstances do not make us sin. We sin because we are sinners by nature. And God did not give us sinful natures; we got them from our originator, Adam.

The circumstances, when created by an ominpotent and omniscient god who knows we will sin, do make us sin.

EDITED TO ADD:
When an omnipotent and omniscient being creates a set of circumstances, it does so knowing the outcome. Therefore the being desires the outcome, otherwise it would not allow it to be. The natures of any other individual involved are merely part of the circumstances, and the all-powerful entity uses the natures (which it created in the first place) as a part of the circumstances to get whichever desired outcome it wants. the circumstances (including the natures) are made, on purpose, to create sin (if that was the outcome) because every outcome that actually happens is desired by an omnipotent omniscient being, should one exist.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

This could very well give rise to the story. Important to remember though that to the people of these communities the Middle Eastern / Mediterranean area was the whole world. So no suprise that they would interpret a massive flood as 'worldwide'.

Well to me the important bit is that there is little reason to suspect that this was an act of God, though it certainly makes sense that the people of these communities would justify and explain it in those terms.

Woger

There are alot of flood myths form all over the world which more than likely resulted from large scale flooding resulting from the end of the last ice age around 12,000 - 15,000 years ago. Did Noahs Ark stop of in Australia (on his way back to Turkey/Armenia) just to leave kangaroos there?