|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 4/26/2008 11:38:42 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: henny
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
For an excellent study of the mythical elements of biblical literature, you can hardly do better than the work of the late Dr. Northrope Frye, author of The Great Code: a Study of the Bible and Literature. Frye was a noted expert on biblical literature who taught at Victoria College, University of Toronto, for several decades.
Frye is very good with William Blake as well. His "Fearful Symmetry" is usually regarded as the corner stone study of Blake's poetry.
I haven't read The Great Code, but perhaps I should.
That's the man. The Great Code is a good read, but it is really preparatory to the follow-up volume Words of Power. It is a tour de force examination of the literary images of the bible as they appear and reappear in the biblical text and subsequent European literature right down to the present day.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 4/27/2008 9:03:06 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
It is. But if you think Gen. 1-11 is historical narrative prose, rather than mythical narrative prose, you must have some criteria for deciding when narrative prose is historical rather than mythical. What criteria do you use to decide that a prose narrative is historical rather than mythical, legendary or plain old fiction? I have no informed opinion because I am not a Hebrew scholar. Are you? However, I have read several Hebrew scholars who show convincingly that the literary genre of Genesis 1-11 is identical to that of Genesis 12-50 based on context, grammatical syntax, original intent and other methods of hermeneutics. Here is a statement from Prof Gerhard Hasel:
quote:
With these limitations of the principle of analogy in mind, it is not sound to reject the creation account as non-historical and non-factual because we know of no analogy at present. Genesis 1 contains singularities that may be perceived to be just as real, historical and factual as the singularities of another kind in the present or the past.
There are good reasons for maintaining that Genesis 1 is a factual account of the origin of the livable world. This record is accurate, authentic and historical. Nothing said about mythology, is there.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 4/27/2008 3:36:41 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
It is. But if you think Gen. 1-11 is historical narrative prose, rather than mythical narrative prose, you must have some criteria for deciding when narrative prose is historical rather than mythical. What criteria do you use to decide that a prose narrative is historical rather than mythical, legendary or plain old fiction? I have no informed opinion because I am not a Hebrew scholar. Are you? However, I have read several Hebrew scholars who show convincingly that the literary genre of Genesis 1-11 is identical to that of Genesis 12-50 based on context, grammatical syntax, original intent and other methods of hermeneutics. Here is a statement from Prof Gerhard Hasel:
quote:
With these limitations of the principle of analogy in mind, it is not sound to reject the creation account as non-historical and non-factual because we know of no analogy at present. Genesis 1 contains singularities that may be perceived to be just as real, historical and factual as the singularities of another kind in the present or the past.
There are good reasons for maintaining that Genesis 1 is a factual account of the origin of the livable world. This record is accurate, authentic and historical. Nothing said about mythology, is there.
I am not a Hebrew scholar, though I am working on that. But I do have a background in literature with some basic knowledge of linguistics.
As far as I know, there are no linguistic or grammatical signals that determine whether a prose narrative is historical or one of many varieties of fiction. Perhaps this is most clearly seen in fiction which deliberately imitates historical reportage. In the novel, Phantom of the Opera, for example, the narrator portrays the story as backed up by historical documentation. There are "newspaper clippings", maps, and other documents attached to the main narration.
If the bookstore placed it in the history section instead of in the fiction section, an unwary purchaser might well think it was historical. Certainly, if some archeologist of the future found part of the text, without a clear indication that it was fiction, it might be taken for history.
But while this is a deliberate imitation of modern-style historical reporting, any narration will be judged on its historicity on factors other than grammar and syntax. Grammar and syntax are so fundamental to communication that they are the least likely factors of a language to determine genre.
Going back to Phantom of the Opera, the similitude of history was not provided primarily by the story itself, but by the pseudo-documentation attached to it. And this gives us a clue as to how we judge the historical value of a text: by multiple attestation of its content from other sources. We grant the historicity of an event when we have physical evidence of it, when we have documentary evidence for it from more than one independent source, and especially when we have documentary evidence from a source that would be interested in suppressing this history.
These are stringent criteria, and 90% or more of the bible does not meet them. Of course, that doesn't mean that so much of the bible is not history. Many ancient texts have been lost. Physical evidence has been eroded, decayed, destroyed. The fact that we have only one text that speaks of Abraham binding his son for sacrifice does not mean the event never happened. It only means we can never verify the event as history. We sometimes have no sure way to determine whether some stories are history or fiction or a combination of both. So, we have to act on faith in many cases.
Nevertheless, we can use some criteria. For example, do references in the story reflect what we do know of the historical period? Take, for example, Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham to bear a child or Abraham mentioning that without a son, his servant Eliezer would be his heir. We know that these customs were part of the legal tradition of ancient Mesopotamia, so although they don't specifically confirm the existence of Abraham, they provide a context in which he could be a historical individual.
This is the sort of thing that does not apply to the earlier chapters. Here we have people without historical contexts, many symbolic objects and images, etiological explanations of experience ("and that's why snakes have no legs") and literary parallels that are clearly mythological in intent apparently used and reworked by the biblical authors in a creative way.
And, of course, it is not just the first chapters of Genesis. The blending of various genres occurs throughout the biblical text right to Revelation. What is clear is that even when the bible contains history, the history is incidental to the purposes of the writers. They were not primarily historians or any sort of objective reporters. They were proclaimers, prophets, poets, preachers, with a message from heaven. And they used whatever came to hand as the literary vehicle of that proclamation.
The point is that the proclamation is true; the revelation of God is true--whether revealed in history or law or poetry or proverb or fictional drama. God is creative. Why should we deny creativity as part and parcel of inspired literature?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 4/28/2008 6:45:00 AM
|
|
|
Bee777
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Look, the Genesis account is written as a historical narrative. It does not always go - first this happened, second this happened, then this happened, and finally this happened. Moses used various literary devices to introduce, clarify, expand, summarize, and creatively present the factual history of origins. In Genesis 1, the record clearly states that God created specific things on specific days. In other parts of Genesis, the record reads more like a story of factual events which moves from one scene to another. One must use the context, grammatical constructions, literary style, and original intent of the human author to correctly interpret the Bible. This is called proper exegesis or hermeneutics.
DRMARK
that Genises website didn't help me at all, in fact it brought up more questions.
So basically I'm seeing that if we do not take the Bible literally as in this happened and then that, we will not get to the bottom of this.
Please can you give me a link that proves and explains why we cannot take the occurrences in Genesis literally ? This also means that we will not find many of our answers in this book of Life. Which I cannot accept.
The genesis website you referred me to says that after the tower of Babel different groups and cultures resulted. As in the Africans and the Asians as well as Caucasians. ( I think they mean as they illustrate in their picture )
How is this even logically possible ? I read their article on race and no answers there.
What I'm trying to say is there has to be a logical Biblical account for all the races in the Bible. I do not want this to become a racial discussion at all, I just want to find where God says " where we all originated from " ?
For us all to come from one man and one woman just doesn't make sense at all to me.
The word " logos " keeps coming to mind. Word means logos and that is how we should think when we know symbolism isn't being used.
Mt 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
Thanks for all your help I'm going to keep searching................
Blessings
< Message edited by Bee777 -- 4/28/2008 6:54:43 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 4/28/2008 10:25:36 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bee777
What I'm trying to say is there has to be a logical Biblical account for all the races in the Bible. I do not want this to become a racial discussion at all, I just want to find where God says " where we all originated from " ?
Just curious about this statement. The bible is not intended to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many things it doesn't reference. So why must it give an account of racial origins?
quote:
For us all to come from one man and one woman just doesn't make sense at all to me.
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 4/28/2008 12:58:42 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
So basically I'm seeing that if we do not take the Bible literally as in this happened and then that, we will not get to the bottom of this.
Please can you give me a link that proves and explains why we cannot take the occurrences in Genesis literally ? This also means that we will not find many of our answers in this book of Life. Which I cannot accept. No Bee, it is not "literal" interpretation that is important, it is correct interpretation. We have to read the text using common sense and spiritual discernment. The Bible is not a newspaper article or police report of everything that happened from one minute to the next to the next. It is a collection of different kinds of literature which God has given us to understand more about him and His creation.
The Book of Genesis is written entirely in the style and intent of a historical narrative account. Do you believe that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were real people used by God for His perfect purposes? Then you should also believe that Adam and Eve were real people in the same way since they are referred to in the same way in Genesis. Moses wrote down the historical facts in his own style as inspired by God. Sometimes they follow a strict timeline - like day 1 to day 6. Sometimes they jump around like any good storywriter might do to keep our attention. Don't be confused into reading every word in perfect order because you think that is "literal" interpretation.
Perhaps this article on hermeneutics (the proper interpretation of Scripture) will be helpful to you. God bless your endeavors as you seek to draw closer to Him through reading His Word!
quote:
quote:
For us all to come from one man and one woman just doesn't make sense at all to me.
Agreed. For us to all have the possibility of being saved through one Man just doesn't make sense either, but we Christians believe that wonderful truth, don't we! It's not about what makes sense - it's about what God tells us is true!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 4/28/2008 1:30:17 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3985
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
So basically I'm seeing that if we do not take the Bible literally as in this happened and then that, we will not get to the bottom of this.
Please can you give me a link that proves and explains why we cannot take the occurrences in Genesis literally ? This also means that we will not find many of our answers in this book of Life. Which I cannot accept. No Bee, it is not "literal" interpretation that is important, it is correct interpretation. We have to read the text using common sense and spiritual discernment. The Bible is not a newspaper article or police report of everything that happened from one minute to the next to the next. It is a collection of different kinds of literature which God has given us to understand more about him and His creation.
The Book of Genesis is written entirely in the style and intent of a historical narrative account. Do you believe that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were real people used by God for His perfect purposes? Then you should also believe that Adam and Eve were real people in the same way since they are referred to in the same way in Genesis. Moses wrote down the historical facts in his own style as inspired by God. Sometimes they follow a strict timeline - like day 1 to day 6. Sometimes they jump around like any good storywriter might do to keep our attention. Don't be confused into reading every word in perfect order because you think that is "literal" interpretation.
Perhaps this article on hermeneutics (the proper interpretation of Scripture) will be helpful to you. God bless your endeavors as you seek to draw closer to Him through reading His Word!
quote:
quote:
For us all to come from one man and one woman just doesn't make sense at all to me.
Agreed. For us to all have the possibility of being saved through one Man just doesn't make sense either, but we Christians believe that wonderful truth, don't we! It's not about what makes sense - it's about what God tells us is true!
Bee, don't skip Article XXII, if you do read the Chicago Statement, which, BTW, is just one one of several methods of interpretation.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 4/29/2008 5:17:17 AM
|
|
|
Bee777
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bee777
What I'm trying to say is there has to be a logical Biblical account for all the races in the Bible. I do not want this to become a racial discussion at all, I just want to find where God says " where we all originated from " ?
What did he leave out up until that point ?
Also I found Genesis 5;1 This is the book of the generations of ADAM...............
This may be the answer if he is talking about the whole Bible, but not if he is only talking about that chapter ?
Also just curios, what does he also not make reference to ?
DRMARK
Thanks for the link I will read it and get back to you, it looks very interesting.
quote:
For us to all have the possibility of being saved through one Man just doesn't make sense either, but we Christians believe that wonderful truth, don't we! It's not about what makes sense - it's about what God tells us is true!
That does make sense to me though as Adam was just a man, JESUS is the son of God, He is part of the trio. So no problem there.
quote:
Do you believe that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were real people used by God for His perfect purposes? Then you should also believe that Adam and Eve were real people in the same way since they are referred to in the same way in Genesis.
Yes I do believe that and that is how I am looking at them, which is my point exactly " not all nations can come from two people only "
We must therefore try find these other creations so as to avoid incest.
And I don't " buy " the argument that the incest law wasn't written yet .
Hebrews 13;4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge ...................................
Bed Strong's Number: 2845
Original Word Word Origin
koivth from (2749)
Transliterated Word
Koite None
Definition
1. a place for laying down, resting, sleeping in
1. a bed, couch
2. the marriage bed
1. of adultery
3. cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful
1. sexual intercourse
Hebrews 13;8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Thanks for all blessings and help
Blessings
Bee
< Message edited by Bee777 -- 4/29/2008 8:40:09 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/5/2008 8:23:32 AM
|
|
|
Bee777
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
Hi
I have read on all these different type of interpretations of " how to read the Bible "
and found it all quite eye-opening.
When i discussed this with a few fellow Christian friends there response was that the Bible was written for a shephard as well as an intellectual man. If you had to read the Bible in the way these intellectuals tell you to the simple man will never understand it.
Basically all these intellects do in the end is make the word of God null and void and end up teaching " Doctrines of men '
I must say i do agree with him on this so I will read the Bible as it is written, I know symbolism is used as i know there are no actual beasts with 10 heads etc and will stick to " logos '
This passage comes to mind.
Mathew 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
and yes, i do read the whole chapter and put it in context.
Thanks for your help but that is my stance on all of this as i am a simple (wo)man and I believe all that Christ does say in his Bible.
Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/5/2008 8:29:53 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Thanks for your help but that is my stance on all of this as i am a simple (wo)man and I believe all that Christ does say in his Bible. We are all mere simpletons in the presence of an Omniscient God! Continued blessings to you, Bee777, as you draw closer to the Lord by reading His Word!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/5/2008 9:09:00 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bee777
Hi
I have read on all these different type of interpretations of " how to read the Bible "
and found it all quite eye-opening.
When i discussed this with a few fellow Christian friends there response was that the Bible was written for a shephard as well as an intellectual man. If you had to read the Bible in the way these intellectuals tell you to the simple man will never understand it.
What your friends are overlooking is that it was written for shepherds who lived 3000 years ago. Not for a simple man of the 21st century.
Unfortunately, it does take some study to understand today what the simple understanding of an ancient shepherd was.
We have to understand, for example, that the simple man of today knows a great deal more about the extent and structure of the heavens than the ancient shepherd did. That for the ancient shepherd the sky was a firmament i.e. a solid dome or tent-like structure above the earth, not the vast expanse of space with all its galaxies that the simple man of today takes for granted. That for the ancient shepherd, planets were stars, not the satellites which orbit stars (so the earth was not a planet) Also, many ideas the ancient shepherds took for granted are strange to us today. Ritual purity, for example, was important to them, but has almost no place in modern thinking.
It is a wonder and a marvel that many of the most important ideas in scripture are plain and simple to all ages i.e. God is love. Christ died to save sinners. Love God and love your neighbour. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
But getting into detail does require studying what would seem simple to the shepherds of the bronze age but is alien to the simple man of today.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/5/2008 1:46:32 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3985
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bee777
Hi
I have read on all these different type of interpretations of " how to read the Bible "
and found it all quite eye-opening.
When i discussed this with a few fellow Christian friends there response was that the Bible was written for a shephard as well as an intellectual man. If you had to read the Bible in the way these intellectuals tell you to the simple man will never understand it.
What your friends are overlooking is that it was written for shepherds who lived 3000 years ago. Not for a simple man of the 21st century.
Unfortunately, it does take some study to understand today what the simple understanding of an ancient shepherd was.
We have to understand, for example, that the simple man of today knows a great deal more about the extent and structure of the heavens than the ancient shepherd did. That for the ancient shepherd the sky was a firmament i.e. a solid dome or tent-like structure above the earth, not the vast expanse of space with all its galaxies that the simple man of today takes for granted. That for the ancient shepherd, planets were stars, not the satellites which orbit stars (so the earth was not a planet) Also, many ideas the ancient shepherds took for granted are strange to us today. Ritual purity, for example, was important to them, but has almost no place in modern thinking.
It is a wonder and a marvel that many of the most important ideas in scripture are plain and simple to all ages i.e. God is love. Christ died to save sinners. Love God and love your neighbour. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
But getting into detail does require studying what would seem simple to the shepherds of the bronze age but is alien to the simple man of today.
So, it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a smart person to go to heaven?  Silly me, wasting my time on college.
Additionally almost no one could read and almost no one that could read had access to the scriptures and NOBODY had access to all the 66 books comprising the Bible for centuries after the last book was penned.
And NOBODY has access to original texts.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/6/2008 4:21:05 AM
|
|
|
Bee777
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
Thank you DRMARK and Blessings to you also.
Gluadys........ I am not disputing that. I am disputing the way some say don't take it litrally. That is a paraphrase of that, that is just a story etc etc..
Cow.... I think it's a rich man not a smart man, unless you are saying a rich man is a smart man ....????
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/6/2008 1:09:59 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bee777
Gluadys........ I am not disputing that. I am disputing the way some say don't take it litrally. That is a paraphrase of that, that is just a story etc etc..
Frankly, I don't know what "take it literally" means as I have never seen anyone hold consistently to a literal interpretation of the bible.
Then my other questions still apply.
What is so all-fired important and valuable about a literal as opposed to a non-literal interpretation?
Why do people have such negative feelings about stories?
Why would God not inspire stories when they are one of the best ways to present a teaching in a way even a child can understand and remember?
And what makes people think stories don't have literal meanings?
Do people even know what they are saying when they say "take it literally"?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/6/2008 2:29:26 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
What is so all-fired important and valuable about a literal as opposed to a non-literal interpretation? Tell us, gluadys, do you read a newspaper story regarding a recent event "literally" or do you look for hidden allegorical meanings and poetic symbolism and imagery? Surely, you can identify a "figure of speech" as such and understand its usage in the text. So, what "figure of speech" is represented by six uses of "evening and morning the first through sixth day? What symbolism is represented by eight repetitions of "God created according to their kinds"? Exactly how does the literary style of Genesis 1-11 differ from the historical narrative account written in Genesis 12-50? Do you even know what "taking it literally" means?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/6/2008 2:29:44 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3985
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bee777
Cow.... I think it's a rich man not a smart man, unless you are saying a rich man is a smart man ....????
I was making a joke.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/6/2008 3:40:17 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Tell us, gluadys, do you read a newspaper story regarding a recent event "literally" or do you look for hidden allegorical meanings and poetic symbolism and imagery?
Non-literal interpretation does not necessarily involve allegorical meanings. Allegory is only one type of non-literal composition and the word tends to be overused in this conversations as if one were asserting that everything non-literal is an allegory. Also, generally speaking there is nothing hidden about an allegorical meaning.
quote:
So, what "figure of speech" is represented by six uses of "evening and morning the first through sixth day?
None.
quote:
What symbolism is represented by eight repetitions of "God created according to their kinds"?
None.
quote:
Exactly how does the literary style of Genesis 1-11 differ from the historical narrative account written in Genesis 12-50?
What particular characteristics identify a narrative as historical? When you can identify these in Genesis 12-50, we can then see if they also turn up in Gen. 1-11.
quote:
Do you even know what "taking it literally" means?
I know what I mean by "taking it literally". I don't know what you mean by "taking it literally".
Consider this question. Was the snake in the garden literally Satan? Please explain your answer.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/6/2008 4:05:25 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
No Bee, it is not "literal" interpretation that is important, it is correct interpretation.
So why have you settled on an interpretation that contradicts everything we know about the universe?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 5:15:23 AM
|
|
|
Bee777
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bee777
Cow.... I think it's a rich man not a smart man, unless you are saying a rich man is a smart man ....????
I was making a joke.
LOl Cow I know you were, was just playing along :)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 11:24:01 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
So why have you settled on an interpretation that contradicts everything we know about the universe? 1) I've not "settled on an interpretation"! I've read the plain-sense meaning of the historical narrative account of origins and certain unavoidable conclusions result from that reading.
2) Nothing in the Bible contradicts observational science!
3) Your definition of "know" is preposterous! Please show me observational data on the beginning of the universe, on the origin of terrestrial life, on the first appearance of H sapiens. Only a fool or a psychotic would declare that we "know" definitive scientific causes of these historical events!
4) We all have the same evidence to work with. I choose to interpret the evidence through assumptions guided and supported by the authoritative, inerrant Eyewitness account of origins. Others choose to interpret the evidence through fallible, ever-changing, totally naturalistic hypothetical assumptions - that's their problem, not mine!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 11:41:27 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
1) I've not "settled on an interpretation"! I've read the plain-sense meaning of the historical narrative account of origins and certain unavoidable conclusions result from that reading.
One of those conclusions is that everything we have learned about the Universe has to be wrong in order for the Earth to be young, a recent global flood, and separately created species.
quote:
2) Nothing in the Bible contradicts observational science!
And nothing in Loony Toons cartoons contradicts physics, right?
A literal interpretation does contradict everything we know about reality. Period. There is no avoiding it.
quote:
3) Your definition of "know" is preposterous! Please show me observational data on the beginning of the universe, on the origin of terrestrial life, on the first appearance of H sapiens. Only a fool or a psychotic would declare that we "know" definitive scientific causes of these historical events!
We know, definitively, that the Universe is billions of years old, that there was not a recent global flood, and that divergent species share a common ancestor. This knowledge is as firm as the placement of the planets in the solar system.
quote:
4) We all have the same evidence to work with. I choose to interpret the evidence through assumptions guided and supported by the authoritative, inerrant Eyewitness account of origins. Others choose to interpret the evidence through fallible, ever-changing, totally naturalistic hypothetical assumptions - that's their problem, not mine!
I choose to use assumptions that are supported by the evidence. You choose to ignore any evidence (99.999% of it) that contradicts your conclusion. You are wrong. Face up to it and be a man.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 1:04:05 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
One of those conclusions is that everything we have learned about the Universe has to be wrong in order for the Earth to be young, a recent global flood, and separately created species. Everything we haved learned? You mean "everything we have brainwashed our students into accepting the religion of naturalism"! Speak for your brainwashed self, Method.
quote:
A literal interpretation does contradict everything we know about reality. Period. There is no avoiding it. There's no avoiding the fact that you have no observational data of the origin of any of the three facts of reality I listed. Thus you fall back on the faith-based statements of your religious worldview. Period.
quote:
We know, definitively, that the Universe is billions of years old, that there was not a recent global flood, and that divergent species share a common ancestor. This knowledge is as firm as the placement of the planets in the solar system. People observe planetary placement every day. No one but God observed any of the untestable hypotheses regarding origins. Do you comprehend the phrase "definitively know"? Obviously not!
quote:
I choose to use assumptions that are supported by the evidence. You choose to ignore any evidence (99.999% of it) that contradicts your conclusion. You are wrong. Face up to it and be a man. I am unable to continue meaningful dialogue with someone who cannot separate faith-based assumptions from observable evidence. Have a nice day, Method.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 1:16:41 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
I am unable to continue meaningful dialogue with someone who cannot separate faith-based assumptions from observable evidence.
Good. Talking to yourself is always a bad sign.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 1:22:42 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Everything we haved learned? You mean "everything we have brainwashed our students into accepting the religion of naturalism"! Speak for your brainwashed self, Method.
Yes, everything we have learned. Everything we have learned about physics, biology, geology, etc. Everything.
quote:
There's no avoiding the fact that you have no observational data of the origin of any of the three facts of reality I listed. Thus you fall back on the faith-based statements of your religious worldview. Period.
The observational data of light originating from galaxies billions of light years away is fact. Everything we know of physics tells us that the Universe has to be billions of years old. Period. Accept it.
quote:
People observe planetary placement every day.
People observe galaxies billions of light years away every day. People observe geologic formations that impossible for a young earth everyday. People observe genetic similarities that just scream "common ancestry" every day.
quote:
No one but God observed any of the untestable hypotheses regarding origins. Do you comprehend the phrase "definitively know"? Obviously not!
I am talking about history, not origins. Our knowledge of the history of the Universe definitively rules out a young earth, a recent global flood, and separately created species. The only reason that people hold on to these ideas is because of religious convictions. Period. And they do so in completely contradiction to the evidence.
quote:
I am unable to continue meaningful dialogue with someone who cannot separate faith-based assumptions from observable evidence. Have a nice day, Method.
What are these faith-based assumptions? I bet you can't name one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 2:54:17 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
What are these faith-based assumptions? I bet you can't name one. You state: "The observational data of light originating from galaxies billions of light years away is fact." This "fact" requires the unprovable assumption (thus faith-based) that the velocity of light has remained constant for "billions of years". Please PM me your banking info for electronic funds transfer.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
