Book Of Enoch And The Flat-earth

[LouisBooth]

"It is something you must take on faith. "

Yup, just like science

 

[Jerry Smith]

By definition, no. By definition, scientific findings are accepted only on the basis of evidence. By definition, beliefs of faith are accepted in the absence of evidence.

 

[LouisBooth]

"By definition, beliefs of faith are accepted in the absence of evidence."

YOu forget that science is BASED on 3 things taken IN FAITH. thus Science has its basis on faith, just like most beliefs do So my statement stands

 

[Jerry Smith]

What 3 things taken IN FAITH? I can only think of one - that the natural world is understandable (i.e. that the basic principles that applied yesterday continue to apply today, and will continue to apply tomorrow.)

Apart from that single article of faith, we are left with nihilism. Our acceptance of that article of faith is very easy, and very well-rewarded, and with very tangible rewards.

 

[LouisBooth]

1. you exsist
2. the universe exsists
3. you can relate to the universe in a meaningful way

3 is a little like what you thought. Tangilbe huh? according to what? see my point?

 

[Jerry Smith]

1. you exsist
2. the universe exsists
3. you can relate to the universe in a meaningful way

These are three assumptions that science requires to operate, and are taken a priori. Therefore, to reject science, you must reject one or more of these assumptions. To do so leads to nihilism. Believers and non-believers alike share an aversion to nihilism, so yes, we have a shared faith in these assumptions.

3 is a little like what you thought. Tangilbe huh? according to what? see my point?

Well, you are correct. Still, while science rests on these assumptions (or on "faith," as you have it, scientific findings rest on evidence. It is possible to take a lot of assumptions (whether or not they have any benefit, such as avoiding nihilism) and build up a world view that is internally consistent. The question, I guess, is what would be the point? Why not rest your faith either on these premises alone, or on these together with the core beliefs of the religious system you are most comfortable with, and avoid having assumptions of faith that actually outweigh evidence?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Zadok

Care to explain to me why?

You obviously don't know a metaphor from a simile from a literal declarative statement. That's why.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Trinai
I didn't say it was worthless either. It's just not canon. That's a very big distinction there.

IMO Enoch has a lot of good material in it, and much of it may be reliable and inspired. How much of it, I have no idea. Jude and Peter referred to it as if it were inspired. But I've never studied the history of the book, so I don't know how close what we have today is to what Peter and Jude had.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Zadok
Do you believe everything your church tells you to believe, or do you bother thinking for yourself?

I don't know. I called my church to see if I believe everything they tell me to believe, but nobody answered. Is it ok if I get back to you on this tomorrow?

 

[Cyclo Rider]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
By definition, scientific findings are accepted only on the basis of evidence.

Like the evidence that says only intelligence can create intelligence?
Like the evidence that says only life can create life?

That's what science says. Anything else is a faith.

By definition, beliefs of faith are accepted in the absence of evidence.

... which describes your Darwinian beliefs perfectly, but doesn't make them any less frightening when applied to a human society.

 

[Didaskomenos]

What would be so bad about the Hebrews not knowing the earth was round?

I believe that the Hebrews did think the earth was flat, and it is evident in the Scriptures (unless you want to contort the Bible to fit your silly idolatrous views of it). So what if the Bible shows that its direct authors didn't understand physical creation all that well - it doesn't make God any dumber, you know. He would know the truth whether his people did or not. And was his concern in giving us the Bible to clue us in on as much Creation as he could fit between the lines - or isn't Christianity about our relationship with our Creator?

Do only Christians have the ability to discover anything about the physical world we live in? This arrogance is what not only turns off non-believers (who are lovers and seekers of truth), but also irks God something fierce ("God opposes the proud").

God never said that all non-believers were idiots and had no truth - else why would Paul quote secular poets (and theologians!) to make his points? And why would Jude 1:14 quote the "apocryphal" book of Enoch?  Similarly, God never said that all believers would automatically know everything about the physical world. He just said it doesn't matter from an eternal perspective what believers think about the physical world - for we are not of this earth. But we are to value truth, whether it's arrived at by atheists, pagans, or Christians.

I'm going to trust God, not the Bible.  "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."  It never says it's supposed to be useful for science.  What good would that do?  If your faith is in the Bible and not the God authorized its production, your earth is flat after all.

 

[chickenman]

cyclo, the master of hot air

Like the evidence that says only intelligence can create intelligence?
Like the evidence that says only life can create life?

what evidence was that again?

 

[Plan 9]

Every evening, the weatherman tells me what time the sun is going to "set" and when it will "rise" the next morning. Isn't some of this a matter of perspective? 

 

[Jerry Smith]

Wow Cyclo! It seems you hold some opinions very strongly!

Originally posted by Cyclo Rider
Like the evidence that says only intelligence can create intelligence?

So far, there is no evidence that intelligence can create intelligence. Humans, being the only intelligent organisms on the planet, have so far failed in that endeavor. At the same time, even if there were evidence that intelligence could create intelligence, would this be good evidence that no natural process could? Let me answer that: no.

Like the evidence that says only life can create life?

The evidence we have so far does show us that all living organisms do get here by reproduction of parent organisms, yes - but then that is very strong evidence of evolution, when taken with the further fact that most of the organisms that live on earth now do not appear in the fossil record until some time after the first, (now mostly extinct) organisms that appeared in it. Coupling the law of biogenesis with the fossil record's long-term pattern of divergence of new and more modern forms, together with observed instances of evolution and speciation, throwing in the evidence from comparative anatomy, biogeography, paleobiogeography, and genomic studies, and you have strong evidence for evolution... The point that "only life can create life" is only the "starting point" of the evidence for evolution!

That's what science says. Anything else is a faith.

I agree with you (at least on this second point), which is one major reason that I accept evolution. And I do so in spite of the fact that I expect science to eventually show that under certain circumstances, chemical self-replicators can turn into very primitive life. On the first point - I reckon there is a lot of study to be done there. Einstein's folks produced an intelligent baby, but I don't think they did it by spending a lot of time in the library if you know what I mean!  

... which describes your Darwinian beliefs perfectly, but doesn't make them any less frightening when applied to a human society.

It is somewhat frightening to think that someone would hijack the science of the Modern Synthesis of evolution and 'apply it to society'. If they really understand it, they will realize that it cannot be directly "applied" to society, even though its findings can be used to illuminate some sociological events that are not well understood, I suppose. If they don't really understand it, then we would be all better off if they didn't make the effort to apply it to society. I imagine you would agree that this could be the case in religion as well as science. Did Jim Jones understand religion correctly?

 

[Lanakila]

The old flat earth argument again. This gets frustrating to post the same scriptures over and over, have the same argument come up repeatedly.

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Obviously God knew the earth was circular. The word translated circle is "khoog" which literally means roundness. This was written aroung 700 BC when scientists said the earth was flat.

Job 26:7  He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

This scripture in Job clearly describes the picture of the earth from the moon if you can remember. The Egyptians said the earth was flat and held up by 5 pillars. The Greeks believed that Atlas was supporting the earth on his shoulders. These were the scientific theories popular at the time Job was written.

Ecclesiastes1:6,7 The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.
 7.  All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. 

This is the water cycle that was not discovered for centuries after Ecclesiastes was written.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Lanakila
The old flat earth argument again. This gets frustrating to post the same scriptures over and over, have the same argument come up repeatedly.

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

If you think that's frustrating, wait until you find out the evolutionists have been quoting that same verse as evidence for a flat earth (because a circle is not a sphere). What they'll refuse to acknolwedge regarding any verse is 1. Obvious use of metaphor, simile, and other poetic language, and 2. The fact that the Hebrew could be translated as sphere, too.

 

[LouisBooth]

"These are three assumptions that science requires to operate, and are taken a priori. Therefore, to reject science, you must reject one or more of these assumptions. "

Exactly, A Priori statements are taken ON FAITH, that they are true. Science's basis lies in faith. so again, my statements stand

"Well, you are correct"

Wow, first evolutionist every to admit that science is a faith based tool..wow...I'm astounded. LOL The point is (if I was making it) if faith is allowed to be the basis of science, then why not the basis of creationism? Evidence taken in the light of faith in a supreme creator. I would go farther with this but its wayyy off topic.

 

[Jerry Smith]

The assumptions of science have been more productive than the assumptions of faith in producing results that allow us to predict, explain, and manipulate what appear to us to be natural processes.

I don't know if the assumptions of faith have been more productive in other areas, but I simply have not seen any area where it has been more productive, so I do not make those assumptions. I happily make the assumptions of science, because they are simple, elegant, and necessary. If I should discard them, then I should, of logical necessity, not be afraid of stepping out in the street in front of perceived on-going traffic. I like being afraid of that. (Presumably I have that particular fear because fears of this nature enhance my chances for survival and reproduction... )

 

[Jerry Smith]

Wow, first evolutionist every to admit that science is a faith based tool..

yep- but with the inevitable caveat that the "faith" of science is faith in the reliability of natural evidence...

 

[chickenman]

The old flat earth argument again. This gets frustrating to post the same scriptures over and over, have the same argument come up repeatedly.

aaah yes, its frustrating to have to debunk the same erroneous arguments time and again. Guess thats part and parcel of defending biology