"What time is"

Discussions on a ranges of philosophical issues including the nature of truth and reality, personal identity, mind-body theories, epistemology, justification of beliefs, argumentation and logic, philosophy of religion, free will and determinism, etc.
User avatar
bbyrd009
BANNED
Posts: 546
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:48 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Ft Myers, FL

Re: "What time is"

Postby bbyrd009 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:00 am

Yes, I agree, God can never have a new thought of something that would one day He would make become reality.
yikes, how did you guys ever get there?

And yet, we have not Jesus or His apostles asserting ANY of it to be problematic and not God-given.
Hmm, seems like we have plenty of seeing and not seeing going on, though. I think I came not to bring peace, but a sword is kind of saying that the Bible will cause problems, by association. If none of It is problematic, then you will agree with my interpretations, since i love Jesus. Not meaning to imply that any Scripture is wrong, but the letter kills. There are many other passages to reflect upon in this vein. A man who is physically uncircumcised, but who fulfills the law, will judge you who are a lawbreaker in spite of having the letter of the law and circumcision. Several others.
"Creation is continuous, and never stops."

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3188
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: "What time is"

Postby neo-x » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:11 am

You just contradicted yourself! You don't doubt, BUT.... some aspect of it is impossible? If it is impossible, then it is not God's word. OR maybe, and far more likely, is you have either misunderstood the meaning OR you have bought into an inaccurate scientific understandings. Of course, we know that the Creation accounts have multiple possibilities based upon the wording - which many evangelical scholars agree upon.

Maybe it isn't God's word, like diction you know, maybe there's an error in storytelling and copying. At least on the part that there is evidence against. Or if it is, its allegorical, though I highly doubt that. Creation account, not accounts to you, cannot have multiple possibilities, it can have several based on opinions but those are mutually exclusive. The only thing that makes sense enough is what is written is how it was supposed to be read. There is no merit to think otherwise scholars or no scholars. That is what you must believe thought to justify the scientific evidence you want to put in those stories.

Jesus said SCRIPTURE is God-given. And He confirmed what was considered Scripture. The Apostles quoted so much of the Old Testament that you can almost assemble if from just the NT quotations. So, what you assert means that we should doubt large portions of what they and Christ is recorded to assert is Scripture.

Non-sequitur! And a strawman. You only doubt with good reason. Doubt is a great thing. You should doubt if you have reason enough to doubt. I have evidence enough to doubt that Adam and eve weren't first humans. My doubt doesn't spring from my fondness to doubt. There's a difference, which you have so far been incapable to understand. I don't care who wrote what, if evidence says otherwise I must respect the evidence as well. I can't turn a blind eye, or distort the scripture like many people to fit to my understanding of science.

And you know that isn't correct - DEPENDING upon how one interprets it. Adam and Eve might well have been created LONG after God first created the first man - however and by whatever process that might have taken. I say by miraculus fiat - you, likely, by evolution. But God's line, could have come much later with the creations of Adam & Eve - and long after mankind was created. The text does allow for this - READ it. You also know the issues surrounding the "days" of creation, and how other passages show it need not require 24 hours. You also should know that miraculous creation could also account for the very same fossil evidences.

There is no solid interpretation besides the one that you can read. That's the whole point that the text doesn't allow for others at all. I hope you retract the liberties you have taken with the whole interpretation thing, that's a much horrid disgrace to the scriptures, Diminishing what it says.

The days issue is again not an issue at all. They are days and that's just it. That's the only way that has good reasons to read it. Just because you can read it another way doesn't mean that you should. You have to ignore scripture that goes back to the creation days which is terrible because you keep a straight face while doing it because for some reason you are convinced that you could.

But the main issue is that nothing could exist without God creating it.

We agree there generally.

But your main problem seems to be you read so much Scripture as literalist where it suits you, but not where it doesn't.

Give me an example of where I did that. I don't recall it.

Maybe faith in Jesus isn't so critical? Maybe it's okay to do all manner of whatever sins, and the texts are just the moralizing of some mens' human sensibilities that they incorporated into the texts.

This is silly. Sorry, I am not saying you are silly, but these are. I think you should perhaps reread my post(s).

Neo: So you actually believe that Jesus confirmed the O.T...then you must also believe that the world was created in 6 days, and the sun and moon stood still when Joshua prayed?

Only one without any theological training would assume such literalisms.

You mean you don't believe that the story is true of Joshua praying the sun and moon to stop? How do you understand it then?
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: "What time is"

Postby Jac3510 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:12 pm

Jac, just wanted to let you know that I fixed your first quote. You had it attributed to Philip, but neo actually said it.
Thanks,
Rick

Neo-x wrote:then you must also believe that the world was created in 6 days, and the sun and moon stood still when Joshua prayed?

What, what? Ditto neo, here. You don't believe that the sun and moon stood still?

Only one without any theological training would assume such literalisms.

At bare minimum, retract this. I have a LOT of theological training and I don't see any reading other than "such literalisms."

edit:

Wow, from the main site:

    Atheists claim that the Bible teaches geocentrism, the idea that earth is the center of the universe and that everything orbits around it. One example given is the long day of Joshua, where the sun stood still to provide more daylight. The Bible says that Joshua prayed to God and God performed a miracle.22 The text makes it clear that Sun "stopped in the middle of the sky".23 We still use phrases like the "Sun rose", "Sun set". There is no English (or Hebrew) phrase indicating that the earth rotates until the horizon covers the Sun.
And my respect for the intellectual veracity OEC (of the Day-age variety) just dropped even more. Sheesh.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5051
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: "What time is"

Postby Philip » Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:33 pm

Neo: There is no solid interpretation besides the one that you can read. That's the whole point that the text doesn't allow for others at all. I hope you retract the liberties you have taken with the whole interpretation thing, that's a much horrid disgrace to the scriptures, Diminishing what it says.

The days issue is again not an issue at all. They are days and that's just it. That's the only way that has good reasons to read it. Just because you can read it another way doesn't mean that you should. You have to ignore scripture that goes back to the creation days which is terrible because you keep a straight face while doing it because for some reason you are convinced that you could.


Neo, with those statements, you have placed yourself above many scholars who have and give good reasons for their opinions, and they totally disagree with your assertions. And MANY qualified scholars agree that there are good reasons to see the Genesis texts, concerning the time issue, as referring to a very long period of time. So, your Biblical, Hebrew and Greek linguistics and ancient cultural knowledge exceeds so many people who have spent their professional careers studying this issue? You have zero credibility to put yourself above so many of such levels of knowledge and training!

Philip: But the main issue is that nothing could exist without God creating it.


Neo: We agree there generally.


GENERALLY??? So there are physical things that didn't ultimately originate with God's creating? Do tell!

Neo: But your main problem seems to be you read so much Scripture as literalist where it suits you, but not where it doesn't.


Um, I could say that about you. Do you really believe all of Scripture is meant to be taken literally? Can you not see and understand the nuances and genres? We, today - ALL people - speak figuratively, even as we reference literal things. That has never changed. Seems you want it all to be black or white - all literal, allegorical, etc. It doesn't work like that - and you know it!

Philip: Maybe faith in Jesus isn't so critical? Maybe it's okay to do all manner of whatever sins, and the texts are just the moralizing of some mens' human sensibilities that they incorporated into the texts.


Neo: This is silly. Sorry, I am not saying you are silly, but these are. I think you should perhaps reread my post(s).


I am saying you are often throwing out the baby with the bath water (you don't like). Scripture is replete with so many references to things you deny, and uses them to illustrate points almost all Christians take as God's word. You can't just go in surgically and remove such things without also calling in to doubt the theological truths which are immediately and deliberately juxtapositioned with them. But that is exactly what you are doing.

Neo: So you actually believe that Jesus confirmed the O.T...then you must also believe that the world was created in 6 days, and the sun and moon stood still when Joshua prayed?


I've not studied the passage with Joshua sufficiently, so I won't comment on that. But again, your assertion concerning the days is simply not backed by the views of many, many qualified scholars. And relentlessly repeating that will not change it.
And you've also not addressed the parallels with the ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation myths. The precise wording is VERY close, EXCEPT WITH KEY THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES. And so you believe Moses was recording precise scientific understandings to a people who didn't even know the earth was round, and "floating" in space? These were pre-scientific age people. So, you've got two very real possibilities that scholars reference. And the same terminology is used elsewhere concerning days, completed sequences, etc. Um, a day requires a sun and a moon, does it not? And yet, right away, we realize something is different about this text. And so with all of these things, you throw out Genesis and Adam and Eve because of what - because you think evolution is a well-proven fact that means these accounts are not about real people or a real couple who fell into sin and needed a Savior? What of our inherited sin nature - just mythical literature? It's all intertwined with great FOUNDATIONAL theological truths - and yet you are quick to dismiss it? And you are ASSUMING that the two Genesis creation accounts are both including the Creation of Adam and Eve. But it doesn't SAY that, does it???!!!

I'd like to know, Neo, when foundational theological teachings are inherent in a passage you find to be purely fictional - what do you do? I mean, if the passage isn't TRUE, then why would you think ANY of it is? And, again, how do you decide what is Scriptural truth and what is not? And if it is a huge mish-mash of portions of truth, all blended with some great imaginative stories and mythical tales (see NOT true), then that tells me God doesn't care about what happens to His Word and truth - again, with the great and misleading dangers inherent in that. But does THAT appear to be what the great thrust of the ONLY view of Scripture is across the ENTIRE Bible???!!! Precisely the opposite is the assertion across the entire Bible! That's just irrational to believe such tripe! Clearly, you don't believe God protected His word, and you believe He allowed it to be mingled with many untruths and outright fictions. Wow!

And please also address how we have not ONE recorded passage that any prophet, Apostle, or Jesus cast doubt upon ANY passage of the OT! What was in that first century OT is not in doubt. Are you going to tell me that all of these things you say are not true, that are in so many passages, and yet we have not of God's messengers saying even one word about this? It's a big deal to YOU, to me, to all Christians, to people who have many doubts about the Bible, and yet the very people who were God's prophets, who walked and talked with Jesus, have not a word of caution or direction on this matter???!!! Do you really find that credible? Look at the passages where Jesus confirmed His views of the OT, The Law and the Prophets. They are intertwined with many other key theological truths and teachings. So, do you throw those out as well? Do you really think God has put us in such a position of uncertainty? And so much of your doubts appear due to your unshakable faith in evolution and concern that the "days" of Genesis could not have been meant as long period of time. What if you wrong? Again, you are hyper-focused upon processes and time, and yet are willing to dismiss so much of Scripture that makes those issues minuscule, in comparison.

I think it is exceptionally foolish to cast aside Scripture because you THINK your scientific understandings negate any possible interpretations accept the only ones you want to allow - this, despite a multitude of Bible scholars who vehemently disagree with you. A) You are unqualified in comparison, and B) science cannot disprove Scripture - although you appear to think it does. What if you have either problems with your scientific understandings, OR with your Scriptural interpretations. Does it seem rational, knowing that either of those things can be a problem, for the reaction to this to be just DISMISS THE SCRIPTURE, as if it can't possibly be true? That is REALLY dangerous!

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8573
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: "What time is"

Postby Kurieuo » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:25 pm

Re: Joshua's long day, interestingly there are sources throughout different nations around the world, China, Egypt and others of a long day where the Sun didn't go down. I'm sure searching online will turn up some results.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8573
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: "What time is"

Postby Kurieuo » Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:40 pm

Jac3510 wrote:Wow, from the main site:

    Atheists claim that the Bible teaches geocentrism, the idea that earth is the center of the universe and that everything orbits around it. One example given is the long day of Joshua, where the sun stood still to provide more daylight. The Bible says that Joshua prayed to God and God performed a miracle.22 The text makes it clear that Sun "stopped in the middle of the sky".23 We still use phrases like the "Sun rose", "Sun set". There is no English (or Hebrew) phrase indicating that the earth rotates until the horizon covers the Sun.
And my respect for the intellectual veracity OEC (of the Day-age variety) just dropped even more. Sheesh.

I think these more obvious instances, Scripture which would make one thing the Earth is flat or that the Sun moves around Earth, are great to analyse and consider for those who subscribe to Scripture as a source of truth.

In this regard, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with exactly above? Perhaps you might navigate around such differently. I myself consider the ICBI Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

    ARTICLE XIII: TRUTH
    We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
    We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose.
    We further deny that inerrancy is negated by biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
RC Sproul's official commentary notes:
    Observational descriptions of nature. With respect to natural phenomena it is clear that the Bible speaks from the perspective of the observer on many occasions. The Bible speaks of the sun rising and setting and of the sun moving across the heavens. From the perspective of common observation it is perfectly appropriate to describe things as they appear to the human eye. To accuse the Bible of denying planetary motion would again be to impose a foreign perspective and criterion on the Scriptures. No one is offended when the weatherman speaks of sunrises and sunsets. No one accuses the weather bureau of seeking to revert to a medieval perspective of geocentricity or of falsifying the weather forecast by speaking of sunsets and sunrises. Those terms are perfectly appropriate to describe things as they appear to the observer.
Such provides a good basis to work from when it comes to Scripture. In particular, there is nothing necessarily wrong with our using language to describe truth of appearance rather than the reality of such. While science is more exact in describing mechanisms that underpin appearances, nonetheless appearances are also truth. No one would admonish the weather guy for using the terms "sunrise" or "sunset" despite such being scientifically inaccurate.

Indeed, in many respects, language appears to be a largely metaphorical affair, if not entirely so, comprised of descriptors of common ideas or concepts with which we're familiar or can understand. This even goes back to Platonic thought, realism and the like i.e., does "dog" exist in a real form somewhere such that animal which resemble "dog" form are correctly called a "dog".

So then, it seems to me unreasonable to challenge the veracity of Scripture based upon words which merely describe the truth of appearance, make use of idioms and the like. I think you'd more agree with what I am saying here than not, so I'm not sure why you reacted to what you quoted of the article on main site.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3188
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: "What time is"

Postby neo-x » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:25 am

Sorry Phil, long post but given that you launched into so many inquiries about me that I had to respond. It took me two and a half hours so hope some of it is good enough for your questions.

Neo, with those statements, you have placed yourself above many scholars who have and give good reasons for their opinions, and they totally disagree with your assertions. And MANY qualified scholars agree that there are good reasons to see the Genesis texts, concerning the time issue, as referring to a very long period of time. So, your Biblical, Hebrew and Greek linguistics and ancient cultural knowledge exceeds so many people who have spent their professional careers studying this issue? You have zero credibility to put yourself above so many of such levels of knowledge and training!

Oh wonderful, you are now going to appeal to authority? I can put names of eminent scientists thoroughly siding on evolution and a universe without god, page after page of it...and then accuse you of the same. Would you agree that's acceptable?

Religious scholars have always differed and will always do that. The church hasn't got a lot that they all agree on the dot. There are many attempts to understand Genesis, I can understand that I agree with the analysis, well most of it anyway. But where I think scholars could be wrong about is when they assume that such and such hidden meaning was meant by the author. That is nuts. The Bible clearly expects the story to be taken literally; otherwise it makes no sense. Languages grow with time. If the original days were ages, and that is what the Jewish authors believed, then they would have had referenced it as such in the later writings. That's what is important, but it says again and again, days. Infact, no one thought of them as ages except for the last 100 years or so. There is no authentic tradition that places days as ages before that. Oh! St. Augustine didn't believe them as days...or that's the argument put forth by some. But the truth is he thought of it as instant creation. He didn’t think days were meant as ages either.

The concept of days as ages was introduced because, without it, it made it impossible for the scriptures and science to say the same thing. When the first fossils were found of creatures gone extinct it was a problem for the creation account. Without time, the fossil record and extinct creatures were impossible to explain. The view at the time was that every creature was made after its kind and as is and that no creature could go extinct or ever had gone extinct.

The fossil record of dinosaurs and later Darwin's findings were seminal in maturing the idea of days as ages.

Neo: We agree there generally.

GENERALLY??? So there are physical things that didn't ultimately originate with God's creating? Do tell!


By generally I mean we differ on the interference of direct creation. If you use the word "ultimately" then I don't disagree.

But on that note, let me ask you, what's the purpose of a 400 billion galaxies if all God wanted to do was save one species among ten million on one little planet, in one galaxy, i.e. minus the 399.999999999 billion ones not to mention the 100 billion stars and solar systems in our own galaxy. On a planet so small that it's not even visible via naked eye if you pass Neptune in our solar system. Which is to say a lot given that Neptune is pretty close compared to, say, our closest star.

So what is going on? why create so much and then not use even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of it? waste product? what do you think?

Um, I could say that about you. Do you really believe all of Scripture is meant to be taken literally? Can you not see and understand the nuances and genres? We, today - ALL people - speak figuratively, even as we reference literal things. That has never changed. Seems you want it all to be black or white - all literal, allegorical, etc. It doesn't work like that - and you know it!


Which shows me either I miswrote or you misread me. I know the nuances and genres and thats the reason why I insist that there's no other way to read it. Oh, you are now going to appeal to speaking figuratively what happened to your argument about a God who could not allow his scriptures being handled without care or is not capable of preserving it? I ask you now if such figure of speech and confusing language was to be added, was God ok with it? Doesn't it contradict your belief? You keep changing goal posts.

When I say something like Adam and Eve could not be first humans or something of the kind that the story has some elements which are wrongly put down, you say "foul" and you give the reason as to being that God is concerned and all powerful and couldn't allow any of the such to happen to his Word. You have given the same, infact the same argument, in each of your posts to me on the topic in many threads.

But when a writer adds confusing language or words only related to their own culture and understanding and somehow so vague that they can mean many different things, which you propose they did, that's ok with God because there is nothing wrong with confusing people?

So God is okay if you add figures of speech of your own language and not ok when you add a little more. Contrary to your claim, your belief demands that either all be perfect or nothing. The bible is inerrant or it isn't. Either God is the ultimate author or he isn't. Either it's all true to a dot or it isn't. Either Jesus confirmed all of it or didn't. That's the black and white you have. So I ask you if it's like that as you say it is then God either made things clear as they are or he didn't. I know of no reason why he wouldn't. And you say he didn't but practically you have a very vast open margin for interpretation.

I don't think you realize your double standard.

The point you need to focus on, though is that we know the genres and naunces, and with good reasons, we can then understand which is which. And let me put forth here that there is nothing, and I reiterate nothing in Genesis that says it's anything else than what it says it is. There is no indication of a double meaning or hidden meaning. And there is nothing which suggests that what is written is not true or should be taken figuratively. Infact, when I say I love you with all my heart. The statement uses the figure of speech but never alludes to anything that says it's not true. The core of the statement is true besides the figure of speech.

So given the genesis account you can say some of it is a figurative or double defined text but it can't be open to all sorts of meanings. You must see that. How poor an author would be if he did not know that what he was writing would cause mass confusion? Why not define it a little precisely? So his own audience would know what it meant. If "yom" had many meanings then it lies on the author to know when and where its to be read the correct way. How much simpler can he be when he did exactly that? "evening, morning, day" that is in fact roughly all we can read in the sentence of the six days of creation in the original genesis account. The rest of the language is added in translation because we either can't understand all of it or can't read it properly.

I understand your conviction to read the scriptures as an authority. I respect that Phil, but please understand the problems and your own double standard.

I am saying you are often throwing out the baby with the bath water (you don't like). Scripture is replete with so many references to things you deny, and uses them to illustrate points almost all Christians take as God's word. You can't just go in surgically and remove such things without also calling into doubt the theological truths which are immediately and deliberately juxtapositioned with them. But that is exactly what you are doing.

Phil, what is hard to understand? I told you already there scientific evidence, rather very strong actually that says otherwise on the point. I have to look at things which stand out to me. May be you deny the evidence and that's fine with me. We can disagree but don't misrepresent me. I didn't remove anything surgically and made sense of it. Infact, my whole position is that I can't make sense of it because I didn't do patch-work with the scriptures to make it fit my understanding. I respect them as is. I can't make sense of it in a cohesive way and that's my struggle I do struggle with it often.

What theological truth have I denied? And which authority do you refer to on your theological truths, given that many churches and denominations have their own versions of it?

I've not studied the passage with Joshua sufficiently, so I won't comment on that. But again, your assertion concerning the days is simply not backed by the views of many, many qualified scholars. And relentlessly repeating that will not change it.
I'm sorry I gave you reasons before in the past and in this post as well, it's simply dishonest to say otherwise.


And you've also not addressed the parallels with the ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation myths. The precise wording is VERY close, EXCEPT WITH KEY THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES. And so you believe Moses was recording precise scientific understandings to a people who didn't even know the earth was round, and "floating" in space? These were pre-scientific age people. So, you've got two very real possibilities that scholars reference. And the same terminology is used elsewhere concerning days, completed sequences, etc. Um, a day requires a sun and a moon, does it not? And yet, right away, we realize something is different about this text.

My question is what did Moses believe? or to make it easier for you what's more likely that he believed? A heliocentric system or a geocentric one? I can think without blinking an eye what he likely did. What do you think?

Weighing both options either 1) he understood that the Earth revolved around the sun and lied about it or 2) he believed exactly what he wrote.
I tend to go with the latter because Moses would have had no reason to believe the former.

And so with all of these things, you throw out Genesis and Adam and Eve because of what - because you think evolution is a well-proven fact that means these accounts are not about real people or a real couple who fell into sin and needed a Savior?


I don't need to appeal to ToE as a whole to say that actually. The process of dna mapping gives strong, and I would like to use the word "concrete" actually, but the evidence is solid anyway that no two people could have started the human race.

I'd like to know, Neo, when foundational theological teachings are inherent in a passage you find to be purely fictional - what do you do? I mean, if the passage isn't TRUE, then why would you think ANY of it is? And, again, how do you decide what is Scriptural truth and what is not?

I can appreciate the point which it's making. Though I give up inerrancy right away. I am aware of that, but inerrancy isn't my issue. If it makes sense even on a miracle scale, the text is what it is, and there is no evidence to the contrary, why should I not accept it? I do accept it.

So imagine, what if we find Jesus' body tomorrow. It will be hard to be Christian anymore because there would be evidence that Christianity is potentially false. Now come back to a smaller scale, the Adam and eve first couple. The evidence is clear, can't be two people. How do I square that with scripture? I don't or can't. I can't allegorize it because the scripture shows me no merit to do so. In fact, it's my respect for the same scriptures that I don't call Adam and eve allegorical. It's clear that they aren't. And to do that is just wrong. And mind you, the evidence, on the other hand, isn't like an arbitrary science thing that two people can't produce the bio-diversity in humans. We know because of variation and mutations and NS that populations do that on a whole. That's evidence which must be refuted and not by a single line that "I don't believe it so it's false".

Now I don't find evidence against other things in the scripture and I don't have a problem with it. But like I said if Jesus' body is found, we might as well wrap the whole thing. You tell me in face of evidence how do you handle things? What if tomorrow I find that my son isn't my son, but someone else's because a DNA test shows it how do I square that with my belief that this child is my son whom I loved for years as my own? Evidence says otherwise. You must see that it is better to accept the truth than beat around it for sentimental reasons.

And please also address how we have not ONE recorded passage that any prophet, Apostle, or Jesus cast doubt upon ANY passage of the OT! What was in that first century OT is not in doubt. Are you going to tell me that all of these things you say are not true, that are in so many passages, and yet we have not of God's messengers saying even one word about this? It's a big deal to YOU, to me, to all Christians, to people who have many doubts about the Bible, and yet the very people who were God's prophets, who walked and talked with Jesus, have not a word of caution or direction on this matter???!!

Exactly, because they all believed the same thing. That Adam and Eve were first humans and beget all mankind, the original couple etc. And the same way they all meant days as days and not ages. That is why no one ever clarified it either in later passages that the Genesis days are not days but ages, because no one really believed they were ages.

They are intertwined with many other key theological truths and teachings. So, do you throw those out as well?

Please be specific on the theological truths so I can discuss with you in detail and explain my position.

Do you really think God has put us in such a position of uncertainty?

I think spiritually doubt is our natural state. I mean that's why you have to have faith. It's opposite of doubt and hard to have when you are in doubt. It naturally means to believe things not yet seen. So we are naturally in doubt and must have faith in God to overcome it. The natural state then is, of doubt. Plus we are called to test things, to have doubt, so it's not entirely a bad thing either.

But if we're talking about scriptures you have no choice but to really blame your authors, instead of God, authors who, as you say it, took the liberty of inserting hidden and double meanings, figures of speech etc and didn't clarify things. I mean that's what's causing confusion in the first place and is a key item of your belief on days being ages etc.

When I say there's no way of reading Genesis otherwise, I am infact, not confusing anyone. I know my view on reading scripture and I have reasons for doing so. On the contrary, you keep talking about different scholars, interpretations, double meaning words, the possibilities of many scenarios. Who is causing confusion?
Many meanings cause confusion. A single meaning doesn't confuse at all. And if you believe your own argument then you should see why the account must be read one way. Why would God have it in so many ways? It's just like you said why would God cause confusion or uncertainty?

And so much of your doubts appear due to your unshakable faith in evolution and concern that the "days" of Genesis could not have been meant as long period of time.

Sorry, again, you're misrepresenting me. I stated it's solid evidence and good hermeneutics with proper reasons and merit. Not faith in evolution and days etc.

What if you wrong?

I could be wrong, no doubt about it, but at least I am honest and consistent in my query and research. I hold myself to this standard. If you are going to be wrong, be wrong with proper, honest reasons. It's still better than being wrong for the wrong reasons, which I think you are.

I think it is exceptionally foolish to cast aside Scripture because you THINK your scientific understandings negate any possible interpretations accept the only ones you want to allow - this, despite a multitude of Bible scholars who vehemently disagree with you.

I think it's foolisher, if you can pardon the expression, to not hold evidence in regard when you have it. Evidence is not someone's "understanding" or "thinking" Phil, when a killer leaves his finger-prints or DNA in blood on a crime scene, it not just forensic persons' understanding or thinking that the DNA belongs to that one person. It can be examined. The whole point of evidence is that it needs no one to stand in its corner. It is self-evident when examined. The same way we have evidence and it is evidence which is still to be refuted. You need to get your terms right.

A) You are unqualified in comparison,

I am not sure what would make someone qualified in your eyes...and not that I advertise it but I do have a doctorate in theology. But to be honest, degrees are only good if you have good reasons for your arguments otherwise as the saying goes, even educated people can spew nonsense and in my view do it many times. If I could I would ask a lot of your scholars their reasons and merits and explain mine and see how they make sense. Nothing wrong with that in my view. I am open to be convinced, show me good evidence or merit or reason and I will certainly weigh it in.

science cannot disprove Scripture - although you appear to think it does.

It did with the Adam-Eve story. Sorry, it is what it is.

Does it seem rational, knowing that either of those things can be a problem, for the reaction to this to be just DISMISS THE SCRIPTURE, as if it can't possibly be true? That is REALLY dangerous!


The only real danger is to not test things when they are so self-evident to you. My current position is really struggling on some of the creation account as I am still trying to think if there's a way that these opposites could make sense. I have failed so far because I don't think patchworking the scriptures has merit or a good hermeneutic to fit my preferred view.

You find it dangerous, I find it honest. On that note, I do remember fondly the time when just like you I used to say, even on this forum, many times, that science can't disapprove scripture.
Last edited by neo-x on Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:09 am, edited 3 times in total.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3188
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: "What time is"

Postby neo-x » Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:03 am

Jac3510 wrote:Jac, just wanted to let you know that I fixed your first quote. You had it attributed to Philip, but neo actually said it.
Thanks,
Rick

Neo-x wrote:then you must also believe that the world was created in 6 days, and the sun and moon stood still when Joshua prayed?

What, what? Ditto neo, here. You don't believe that the sun and moon stood still?

Only one without any theological training would assume such literalisms.

At bare minimum, retract this. I have a LOT of theological training and I don't see any reading other than "such literalisms."

edit:

Wow, from the main site:

    Atheists claim that the Bible teaches geocentrism, the idea that earth is the center of the universe and that everything orbits around it. One example given is the long day of Joshua, where the sun stood still to provide more daylight. The Bible says that Joshua prayed to God and God performed a miracle.22 The text makes it clear that Sun "stopped in the middle of the sky".23 We still use phrases like the "Sun rose", "Sun set". There is no English (or Hebrew) phrase indicating that the earth rotates until the horizon covers the Sun.
And my respect for the intellectual veracity OEC (of the Day-age variety) just dropped even more. Sheesh.


To add to what Jac referenced from the main site...languages are largely a reflection of a culture. Languages don't drop from the sky. The reason there's no way of saying such a phrase about earth and the sun is because they didn't think that the earth revolved around the sun. Hence there was no expression needed. You can't blame the language for something you can't explain while also maintaining scriptural consistency and having different meanings all at the same time.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: "What time is"

Postby Jac3510 » Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:21 am

Rick, I reviewed the thread. Neo said the first line about the moon standing still here:

viewtopic.php?p=218018#p218018

Phil said the second one about theological training and assuming such literalism here:

viewtopic.php?p=218032#p218032

I'm fairly certain my question/point still stands.
Last edited by Jac3510 on Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17310
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Living in Parricide just north of Jacob's bosom

Re: "What time is"

Postby RickD » Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:34 am

Jac3510 wrote:Rick, I reviewed the thread. Neo said the first line about the moon standing still. Phil said the second one about theological training and assuming such literalism here:

viewtopic.php?p=218032#p218032

I'm fairly certain my question/point still stands.

Yes. I only corrected the first, which you attributed to Philip.

I was just fixing that part. It's had nothing to do with your overall point. :D
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: "What time is"

Postby Jac3510 » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:10 am

That's fine, Rick. I don't want the point to get lost in who said what. As I read the discussion, neo asked phil if he believed the sun actually stood still, which would create a massive host of scientific problems. Neo simply says it didn't really happen as written, but that's hardly a problem for him, as he's long ago and rather publicly given up inerrancy. So he's honest and consistent on the matter.

My frustration is with Phil's reply. Rather than asserting that, yes, as an inerrantists he does believe the sun stood still, he wrote that off as a "literalism" that no one with theological training would assert. The implication is that an educated reading of the text would show that the sun did not really stand still as the text suggests and so there is no scientific problem. In fact, that the text doesn't suggest this at all . . . just our misreading of it, so there's even more no scientific problem.

And to that, again, I say, really?!? This is the lengths he's going to go to? And does he represent DA thought more generally on this? I wouldn't have thought so, but given the main site, then I have to assume it. So that's my frustration. It's just dishonest with the text.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17310
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Living in Parricide just north of Jacob's bosom

Re: "What time is"

Postby RickD » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:10 am

Jac3510 wrote:That's fine, Rick. I don't want the point to get lost in who said what. As I read the discussion, neo asked phil if he believed the sun actually stood still, which would create a massive host of scientific problems. Neo simply says it didn't really happen as written, but that's hardly a problem for him, as he's long ago and rather publicly given up inerrancy. So he's honest and consistent on the matter.

My frustration is with Phil's reply. Rather than asserting that, yes, as an inerrantists he does believe the sun stood still, he wrote that off as a "literalism" that no one with theological training would assert. The implication is that an educated reading of the text would show that the sun did not really stand still as the text suggests and so there is no scientific problem. In fact, that the text doesn't suggest this at all . . . just our misreading of it, so there's even more no scientific problem.

And to that, again, I say, really?!? This is the lengths he's going to go to? And does he represent DA thought more generally on this? I wouldn't have thought so, but given the main site, then I have to assume it. So that's my frustration. It's just dishonest with the text.


Jac,

I see what you're saying. Hopefully Philip will clarify.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5051
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: "What time is"

Postby Philip » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:24 am

My frustration is with Phil's reply. Rather than asserting that, yes, as an inerrantists he does believe the sun stood still, he wrote that off as a "literalism" that no one with theological training would assert. The implication is that an educated reading of the text would show that the sun did not really stand still as the text suggests and so there is no scientific problem. In fact, that the text doesn't suggest this at all . . . just our misreading of it, so there's even more no scientific problem.


Uh, if you re-read my comment, I said I wouldn't comment upon Joshua and the sun passage as I haven't properly studied it. But as I clearly believe in the miraculous and that God spoke a universe into existence, I don't doubt it that it may well be a literal truth. As a defender of inerrancy, of the ORIGINAL writings, I believe ALL of Scripture is TRUE. However, that doesn't mean I know how those truths all played out, or whether some that are thought to be literal in an obvious way, instead, had other types of meanings and function, per the various genres of Scripture.

But my main assertion is that Scripture is so comprehensively woven that you can't CREDIBLY cherrypick and reject certain parts of it just because you THINK our modern knowledge proves it impossible. How could one surgically extract the truth from such comprehensive writings? Almost as if you could reverse engineer a cake and remove all of the sugar or whatever. Impoosible! So many such things Neo rejects as pure myth or poetic or whatever fabrications are intertwined with foundational theological truths, and so if you throw them out, you logically have to doubt what they are interconnected with, not just in a particular passage, but as also so utilized across Scripture. And I find that has horrific implications for anyone believing the Bible contains God's word. Now as to HOW various things were actually true, whether literal in ways we would expect, or symbolic, allegorical / metaphorical, etc., well, reasonable people can reasonably have understandable debates over such passages and their related issues.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: "What time is"

Postby Jac3510 » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:40 am

It's your preorgrative, of course, to respond however you like or don't like, Phil. But it's just as much mine to say that, in my assessment, what you've just written is dishonest. Your language in response to neo's point was that it was a "literalism" that people with theological education wouldn't adhere to. On that, you are factually incorrect. To say, now, that you just aren't going to comment on it after the fact . . . the way I see it, too late, you already did.

And, again in my own view, the underlying point still stands. I think Neo's basic assertion is right. I wish you would reread your own words. You do NOT get to cherry pick which parts to read literally and which ones not to based on what "you THINK our modern knowledge proves it impossible." That's my basic objection to the DA view of Genesis 1. You're reading is simply, completely, entirely hermeneutically invalid. Deem is at least consistent in his abuse of the text. You're original response hinted at that same consistency.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 7202
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: "What time is"

Postby PaulSacramento » Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:08 am

A good theologian will accept that God CAN make the sun stand still.
He also needs to address IF the literary genre and context dictates that God MUST have did just that, OR if it may have been a metaphor or hyperbole, or whatever.

IMO, in the literary genre, God did make the sun stand still and I have no issue with God being able to do just that.
So.


Return to “Philosophical Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest