The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

prinz

wolfsbane wrote: »

I think Wicknight has the argument.

If the Flood was merely a natural event, then no truth about God can be argued from it. One could use it as an illustration of an ultimate Judgment to come - all-encompassing, separating saint from sinner, etc. - but one's information about the coming Judgment would have to be based on some other revelation. If the Biblical account of the Flood is only a metaphor, were is the revelation which it is supposed to support?

In the Old Testament there is an historical narrative presentation from the creation of the heavens and earth in Genesis 1 through to the return from the Exile in Babylon. Nowhere in this does it give the suggestion that history has been dropped and metaphor begun. When one starts interpreting what is presented as history as metaphor, one has no way of telling which is which.

Was there an Eden? Were Adam & Eve real people? Noah? Abraham? Moses? Was there an Exodus? King David? Solomon? Daniel?

Into the New Testament: was there a virgin birth? Is Jesus really the Son of God? Was there a Jesus? Did He do miracles? Was He crucified? Did He rise again? Was it all a metaphor used by 1st C. messianics to give hope to an oppressed people?

Unless one can show the doctrinal revelation on which the metaphor is based, one has no right to suggest it is a metaphor. If our understanding of history or science makes us reject the historicity of the account, then let us have the courage to say the Biblical authors were mistaken.

Jesus used parables all the time.Are the stories he told historic narrative? Myabe they were based in truth, perhaps they were examples designed to teach us something. I have no reason to believe that others could not have done the same.

I have lots of reasons to believe that a desert dwelling nomad did not in fact build a ship and fill it with examples of every animal in the world. The story of the flood, the ark, saving some people and saving the animals was present in the Middle East for generations. I have no reason to belive one is 100% truthful narrative and another is not.

As for people's rights? I have every right to interpret the Bible as I wish. One does not have the right to determine that I have or have not that right.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

When Christians say they believe "the Bible" to be true they are speaking about the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

What is the date of earliest surviving manuscript of the New Testament, and how much survived?

gaynorvader

Wicknight wrote: »

What is the date of earliest surviving manuscript of the New Testament, and how much survived?

I don't think that was the point, rather that God made sure that the Greek/Hebrew versions remained accurate through the word of mouth.

Zombrex

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't think that was the point, rather that God made sure that the Greek/Hebrew versions remained accurate through the word of mouth.

I'm curious though. Christians talk about going back to the "original" manuscripts. I'm interested what is the date of the earliest surviving manuscripts, and how much of them have survived.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

What is the date of earliest surviving manuscript of the New Testament, and how much survived?

Here's a couple of links:
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
http://www.laparola.net/greco/manoscritti.php

The earliest surviving manuscripts of the complete NT date to about 350AD. However, the earliest manuscripts were scrolls of each individual book, rather than a compilation of all of them. Fragments of these books have been dated back to 125AD - and some scholars go much earlier.

Also we have quotations from the biblical books in the works of other writers - 86,000 of them in fact. There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, biblical scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.

When Christians say they believe "the Bible" to be inspired, or even inerrant, they are referring to the 'original autographs' - the first manuscripts. Textual criticism is the branch of biblical studies that seeks to establish just what these first manuscripts looked like. This is not as hard as it would seem since there is an amazing consistency between the earliest fragments, the quotes from the Church fathers, and those Hebrew and Greek manuscripts on which our modern translations are based.

Those not familiar with textual criticism often build fanciful theories on the idea that texts must have been greatly corrupted over the space of 100 or 200 years - but everything we know about early scribes and transmissions of scriptures contradicts such notions. For example, at one time the earliest available Old Testament manuscripts dated from 900AD. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered - and it was demonstrated that the scribes had faithfully and accurately transmitted entire books over a period of more than 1000 years.

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If I tried to punish god for doing the same thing to the caanites, then i would be deemed immoral (at least by theists)

Post of the year!

If you try to punish God then you will be deemed to be a nut by atheists - since you are trying to punish a non-existent being, and also by theists - since you are trying to punish an omnipotent being.

Agnostics, however, won't know whether you are an amoral nut or an immoral nut.

O'Coonassa

Danno wrote: »

Sounds harsh, doesn't it. Well it is. It is tough cookies. Jesus made the rules - not me, not you. So to believe in Jesus Christ - you gotta believe in his every word, and that every word can be found in The Bible.

On what authority do you have it that the Bible includes every word uttered by Yeshua? I rather fancy that it doesn't and that there are words attributed to him that cannot be attributed to him as they very clearly contradict each other. Have you ever read any of the books by A.Loisy or anything about the hypothetical Quelle document? Not to detract from the great man in any way but I don't think the NT is to be entirely trusted TBH.

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

Post of the year!

If you try to punish God then you will be deemed to be a nut by atheists - since you are trying to punish a non-existent being, and also by theists - since you are trying to punish an omnipotent being.

Agnostics, however, won't know whether you are an amoral nut or an immoral nut.

God not existing or being omnipotent wouldn't stop me trying to punish him, after all I would go after those that represent him anyway .

(And while i might be still deemed nuts, it wouldn't seem i would deemed wrong for doing so)

AtomicHorror

Caoimhín wrote: »

Nobody really knows what age the universe is.

One theory is that time may have acted in a different way at different stages of the universe's development. The great thing about science is that it is open to revision and new discoveries.

Yes but we know, in as much as it is possible to know anything that the universe it at least 13 billion years old. Revising that figure down by a significant amount is not really on the table any more. Ditto the Earth.

To be wrong in either case would require that we've misunderstood science so fundamentally that even the creationists would have nothing empirical left to work from.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps you can clear up the mystery about them? Last time they came up, the feeling was that he had a certificate in some kind of agriculture-related topic.

No, I will respect JC's stated desire for anonymity, as I would yours if you requested it.

wolfsbane

prinz said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I think Wicknight has the argument.

If the Flood was merely a natural event, then no truth about God can be argued from it. One could use it as an illustration of an ultimate Judgment to come - all-encompassing, separating saint from sinner, etc. - but one's information about the coming Judgment would have to be based on some other revelation. If the Biblical account of the Flood is only a metaphor, were is the revelation which it is supposed to support?

In the Old Testament there is an historical narrative presentation from the creation of the heavens and earth in Genesis 1 through to the return from the Exile in Babylon. Nowhere in this does it give the suggestion that history has been dropped and metaphor begun. When one starts interpreting what is presented as history as metaphor, one has no way of telling which is which.

Was there an Eden? Were Adam & Eve real people? Noah? Abraham? Moses? Was there an Exodus? King David? Solomon? Daniel?

Into the New Testament: was there a virgin birth? Is Jesus really the Son of God? Was there a Jesus? Did He do miracles? Was He crucified? Did He rise again? Was it all a metaphor used by 1st C. messianics to give hope to an oppressed people?

Unless one can show the doctrinal revelation on which the metaphor is based, one has no right to suggest it is a metaphor. If our understanding of history or science makes us reject the historicity of the account, then let us have the courage to say the Biblical authors were mistaken.


Jesus used parables all the time.Are the stories he told historic narrative?

No, they are parables. That's why they are introduced as such, not as history, eg:
Matthew 13:3 Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: “Behold, a sower went out to sow.

Myabe they were based in truth, perhaps they were examples designed to teach us something. I have no reason to believe that others could not have done the same.

They could, but the difference between historical narrative and a story/parable would be plain.

I have lots of reasons to believe that a desert dwelling nomad did not in fact build a ship and fill it with examples of every animal in the world.

Who said Noah was a desert dwelling nomad?

The story of the flood, the ark, saving some people and saving the animals was present in the Middle East for generations. I have no reason to belive one is 100% truthful narrative and another is not.

Yes, the Flood was remembered in various degrees of accuracy all over the world. And many hold to Bible to be in error on many things - but not true Christians.

As for people's rights? I have every right to interpret the Bible as I wish. One does not have the right to determine that I have or have not that right.

You have the civil right to do so, I'm glad to say.

You do not have the moral right to say God's word is in error. He will hold you accountable for that.

But the point I was making is that you do not have the logical/scholarship right to interpret as metaphor what is evidently meant to be read as historical narrative. Just as I do not have the right to interpret this post of yours as metaphor.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the Flood was remembered in various degrees of accuracy all over the world. And many hold to Bible to be in error on many things - but not true Christians.

There's only a limited range of natural disasters to feature in one's tall tales, so really we'd expect loads of deluge myths. But isn't funny how it wasn't remembered by a whole bunch of civilisations? The Egyptians don't mention it, nor do the Olmecs over on the other side of the world. The Mayans do mention a flood, but that was a flood of resin. And funny how a considerable number of civilisations seem to have carried right on existing straight through the time frame specified for the flood. In fact, when you look at the established time lines of human civilisations from 3000BC up to the birth of Christ, there seems to be no point in time at which fewer than two major civilisations were in uninterrupted existence in some location on the Earth. From 2500BC onwards- prime Noah time- there are never fewer than three major civilisations entirely failing to be flooded out of existence.

MrPudding

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There's only a limited range of natural disasters to feature in one's tall tales, so really we'd expect loads of deluge myths. But isn't funny how it wasn't remembered by a whole bunch of civilisations? The Egyptians don't mention it, nor do the Olmecs over on the other side of the world. The Mayans do mention a flood, but that was a flood of resin. And funny how a considerable number of civilisations seem to have carried right on existing straight through the time frame specified for the flood. In fact, when you look at the established time lines of human civilisations from 3000BC up to the birth of Christ, there seems to be no point in time at which fewer than two major civilisations were in uninterrupted existence in some location on the Earth. From 2500BC onwards- prime Noah time- there are never fewer than three major civilisations entirely failing to be flooded out of existence.

Those records are obviously wrong. In the words of the great PDN, concentrate please.

MrP

Mickeroo

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There's only a limited range of natural disasters to feature in one's tall tales, so really we'd expect loads of deluge myths. But isn't funny how it wasn't remembered by a whole bunch of civilisations? The Egyptians don't mention it, nor do the Olmecs over on the other side of the world. The Mayans do mention a flood, but that was a flood of resin. And funny how a considerable number of civilisations seem to have carried right on existing straight through the time frame specified for the flood. In fact, when you look at the established time lines of human civilisations from 3000BC up to the birth of Christ, there seems to be no point in time at which fewer than two major civilisations were in uninterrupted existence in some location on the Earth. From 2500BC onwards- prime Noah time- there are never fewer than three major civilisations entirely failing to be flooded out of existence.

Haven't the Aborigines been around longer than anyone? Although iguess they wouldn't be seen as a major civilisation, longest sustained culture in existence though, somewhere between 40,000 to 70,000 years, and thats just in Australia.

marco_polo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Haven't the Aborigines been around longer than anyone? Although i guess they wouldn't be seen as a major civilisation, longest sustained culture in existence though, somewhere between 40,000 to 70,000 years, and thats just in Australia.

I think he would be referring primarly to cultures that would have had written records from that time, and who neglect to mention the fact that their civilisation was destroyed by a worldwide flood. And then had the cheek to carry on as if nothing happened :pac:.

Mickeroo

marco_polo wrote: »

I think he would be referring primarly to cultures that would have had written records from that time, and who neglect to mention the fact that their civilisation was destroyed by a worldwide flood. And then had the cheek to carry on as if nothing happened :pac:.

Yea i figured, the nerve of them!! :P

PDN

If anyone is interested in discussing the issue please do so.

If others just want to try (and fail) to be smart than I'll lock the thread.

Mickeroo

PDN wrote: »

If anyone is interested in discussing the issue please do so.

If others just want to try (and fail) to be smart than I'll lock the thread.

In fairness, what i said about Aborigines was relevant to the point Atomic Horror made, i wasn't trying to be smart, marco-polo then made a post relelvant to what i said, i acknowledged it in a light hearted fashion....this is a discussion board right?

PDN

Mickeroo wrote: »

In fairness, what i said about Aborigines was relevant to the point Atomic Horror made, i wasn't trying to be smart, marco-polo then made a post relelvant to what i said, i acknowledged it in a light hearted fashion....this is a discussion board right?

Yes it is a discussion board - except for discussing moderators' decisions and instructions.

If you want to discuss the issue then discuss. However, if you want to play smartalek verbal pattycake with other atheists or agnostics then I suggest the Religious Humor thread in the A&A forum.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There's only a limited range of natural disasters to feature in one's tall tales, so really we'd expect loads of deluge myths. But isn't funny how it wasn't remembered by a whole bunch of civilisations? The Egyptians don't mention it, nor do the Olmecs over on the other side of the world. The Mayans do mention a flood, but that was a flood of resin. And funny how a considerable number of civilisations seem to have carried right on existing straight through the time frame specified for the flood. In fact, when you look at the established time lines of human civilisations from 3000BC up to the birth of Christ, there seems to be no point in time at which fewer than two major civilisations were in uninterrupted existence in some location on the Earth. From 2500BC onwards- prime Noah time- there are never fewer than three major civilisations entirely failing to be flooded out of existence.

Even the greatest ancestoral memories are not going to survive everywhere. Local catastrophies and religious developments may have caused the Flood to be not just distorted but obliterated.

As to the civilisations existing through the Flood, it all comes back to dating reliability. The dating is disputed.

wolfsbane

marco_polo wrote: »

I think he would be referring primarly to cultures that would have had written records from that time, and who neglect to mention the fact that their civilisation was destroyed by a worldwide flood. And then had the cheek to carry on as if nothing happened :pac:.

The dating of Egyptian and other civilizations is a matter of dispute.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes but we know, in as much as it is possible to know anything that the universe it at least 13 billion years old. Revising that figure down by a significant amount is not really on the table any more. Ditto the Earth.

To be wrong in either case would require that we've misunderstood science so fundamentally that even the creationists would have nothing empirical left to work from.

The dating methods are in dispute. For example, see the work of the RATE group:
Radiometric dating and old ages in disarray
http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-and-old-ages-in-disarray

Helium evidence for a young world continues to confound critics
http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics

Fanny Cradock

Must resist urge to merge with creationism thread...

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

There aren't any scientists arguing the creationist case. Scientists mark no boundaries beyond which questions may not be asked. Creationists draw the line at questioning scripture.

If you know the truth about something, it is not scientific to pretend you don't. Scientists who believe in creation are happy if you want to waste your time devising an alternate explanation for life, but they see no need to. They want to investigate the details of how creation has developed from Day One.

Whilst there are some people qualified to be professional scientists amongst their ranks, these people seem to have taken up rhetoric and book writing rather than scientific research.

The purpose of the work is spiritual - evangelistic and pastoral. But in carrying that out normal scientific investigations are pursued as they seek to find out how a young earth creation is demonstrated in evidence. I've posted sites that deal with such projects.

You rather make it sound like there are a lot of them too, when the estimated number is somewhere below 1000 worldwide.

Certainly, there are not a lot of them compared with consensus scientists. Hardly suprising given the controversial nature of their claims. It's not just another spat among scientists, but a chasm between naturalism-only and theism as an explanation of the universe.

The research output, none of which is peer-reviewed, is remarkably small even proportional to the number of "scientists" involved. It is dwarfed in funding, scale and quality by literature pitched at the general public and policy makers.

As I said, the purpose of the creationists is not mere scientific advancement, but evangelistic and pastoral - that's where the bulk of the effort must go.

The research that does exist, when examined, is easily refuted even by scientists at undergraduate level.

That of course is disputed.

So it appears to exist merely to reassure those who will not look too closely that the glossier, more colourful works directed at the public are in fact backed up by "the science bit".

The scientific bit is indeed to support the Biblical claims.

So they're philosophically not scientists and practically not scientists. Is there another sense of the word I'm missing?

No, you are just missing the truth about their stated purpose and confusing that with the science they use to support it. And choosing to dismiss their scientific work. Try to separate their religious claims from their scientific argument and give some credit to opposing scientific arguments.

I know the latter is difficult for many scientists. The comedy show, The Big Bang Theory humourously captured this. Two of the scientists were engaged to be married, when in discussion with their friends they find out that one holds to String Theory and the other doesn't. But how would they raise the children? What would they tell them? So it was a deal-breaker and they parted.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Punishing a criminal is not objectively moral, as if i were to imprison a person for a crime, i would deemed immoral, even if the person was guilty, as i'm not a judge, i don't have the authority.

Maybe I am defining subjective in a different sense from you. When I think of subjective morality, I think of an act that is deemed moral by one but not so by another. Their opinion is subjective. The act is either moral or not, ie. objective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They did not need to understand good and evil - only that they were God's creatures and were obliged to obey Him.
But understanding that they where gods creatures and were obliged to obey him is understanding good and evil, as good and evil is simply "following gods will" and "not following his will". By not understanding good and evil, they would not have understood the importance of following gods will.

That is not God's definition. He says they knew His will, but did not know good and evil. Maybe they only knew good. Just how that works the Bible doesn't say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Why He forbad them was none of their business.
Knowing why he forbade them may have prevented them from doing any wrong, and god should have known this, as he created human psychology and would know that there is almost no better way to get someone to do something than to tell them "under no circumstances do that", but not say why.

That is psychology of today, not of pre-Fall times. They had no fallen nature.

But where did evil come from then? If god everything god creates is good, and god created freewill, then surely freewill must be good. Where does evil come from, if not from good?

Certainly, evil arose from good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Let's not get lost here. I was pointing out that Adam's will before the fall is not the same as ours is now. Different does not mean subjective as opposed to objective.
Actually yes it does. If something is one way for one person, and another way for another person, then it is subjective to whichever person is using it.

As above, their opinion is subjective, not the act.

How could they have to ability to win, when the circumstances for their failure where created by an omnipotent omniscient deity who could foresee their failure. When god decided to create them, satan, the world, everything the way he did, they, and everyone since them, has failed. Omnipotent, omniscient gods dont just create a set of circumstances without knowing the outcome, as a result of their omnisience and omnipotence, they decide the outcome, they cant not decide it, as they can see the implications of every circumstance and they have the power to change each one too.

There was nothing that forced Adam to sin. Circumstances did not force him to sin - he was free to sin or not to sin. You confuse God's knowing he would with God making him do so. God permitted him to sin, not made him sin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
God knew what would happen - but that does not mean He made it happen. He permitted it to happen. He allowed them to exercise their free-will. God is god, omnipotent and omniscient. When he foresaw the outcome of the circumstances he was completely in control of, he decided the outcome.

Yes, He decided the outcome would be permitted to happen. That does not mean He made it happen.

Its yet to be shown that he actually gave freewill to adam and eve at all. You've to show how any being can have freewill if that being is under the thumb of an omnipotent, omniscient god.

Seems clear enough to me, for I do not confuse permission with commandment.

But what is holiness? What definition are you using?

Moral perfection. Total absence of sin in the character.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, I don't see how circumstances could make sinless beings sin. They chose to sin, freely.
If you cant see how circumstances, put in place by god, can make sinless being sin, then how can you think that sinless beings would choose to sin?

Because they had free-will, an ability to will to obey God or disobey Him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You are saying God couldn't have wanted His sinless creation to remain sinless and yet have free-will? That means you think free-will must always end in sin. I don't see why.
I think you have completely misread me. I am saying that god must want sin to exist, because sin exists. You might say its a necessary step to some further outcome, but as a necessary step, god must want it to happen.

Want only in the sense of tolerating it while He accomplishes His perfect end. God said Yes to the Fall in order to bring His salvation to its fulfilment. He did not approve of the Fall, but did not let it alter His purpose. Man's sin was overidden by His grace.

But having to make a choice is a product of being in som set of circumstances.

No, it's not. Circumstances may contribute something to one's decision, but they do not determine it.

So circumstances cause "freewill" beings to make the choice. but how "freewill" beings will make their decisions is based on their experiences they got in other circumstances, so therefore circumstances will influence a "freewill" beings choices to good or evil.

Influence, fine. But not determine. And Adam & Eve had so much more going for them than going against them: God's presence, a perfect world vs Satan's suggestion they get more knowledge.

Now to us, these sets of circumstances can seem distinct, but to god, all existence is just a set of circumstances, with one ultimate outcome, with every step of that circumstance purposefully tailored to get the response needed to move onto the next step and the next and so on. One of those responses was sin.

Again, that is a presupposition of yours, that God made them sin. But God works out His end in spite of man's sin.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yeah, that doesn't wash. As I indicated before, HGT is not a significant feature of eukaryote evolution and occurs in exceptional circumstances that are quite easy to spot- typically the only route being via viral genome integration. The quantifiable rarity of such HGT events in eukaryotes actually further supports the relatedness of some eukaryote species- if we can find identical transfer sites in two species at homologous chromosomal loci, the probability that this is coincidence becomes vanishingly small, supporting similarity due to inheritance. Even if we account for all HGT what we get is single-origin tree for all eukaryotes deriving from single-celled eukaryotes and connecting all multicellular species.

The answer to Jerlström's question is a conclusive "no". So, it's still left to creationists to explain what that tree structure means, if it doesn't indicate relatedness by evolution.

I appreciate your interaction with the material. As I'm not qualified to comment on the details, I am happy that anyone who wants to do so can access the creationist sites for their side of the argument.

wolfsbane

marco_polo wrote: »

That is his main his point is it? That if there was no such thing as HGT (or we ignore its effects), then the 'orchard of life' is true. Brilliant :rolleyes:

Isn't it a bit of a problem for him that it is a observed fact of Biology that HGT does occur?

And just to point out that I do not have a PhD in Molecular Biology.

As I read him he said the HG links were hypothesised, ie not proven.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I read him he said the HG links were hypothesised, ie not proven.

If course even if that was the case that the links did not exist you still end with with three single celled 'kind' ancestors.:pac: Bit of a pickle eh?

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

The dating methods are in dispute. For example, see the work of the RATE group:
Radiometric dating and old ages in disarray
http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-and-old-ages-in-disarray

Helium evidence for a young world continues to confound critics
http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics

Really?, because it seems some dating methods are extremely accurate. October 4004 BC wasn't it? Bit of an oddity that we cannot seem to acurately date anything after this point. :rolleyes:

PDN

I'm not sure how we ended up with 2 Creationism threads. Anyone got a really good reason why they shouldn't be merged?