Biblical literalism and the story of creation

[Skaloop]

IOW, Occam's Razor?

No.

 

[Hespera]

IOW, Occam's Razor?

Apply Occams R. and walking on water is just a story, along with the other implausible things in that historical novel.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apply Occams R. and walking on water is just a story, along with the other implausible things in that historical novel.

My point is this though: you have the story of Jesus walking on water --- clear, simple, and undeniable.

If your goal is to show that the Bible and science are at odds with each other, why not demand how this was done, rather than pick something that the Bible doesn't expressly mention and go after that?

If you're not going to accept Jesus walking on water, you're surely not going to accept creatio ex nihilo.

 

[Hespera]

My point is this though: you have the story of Jesus walking on water --- clear, simple, and undeniable.

If your goal is to show that the Bible and science are at odds with each other, why not demand how this was done, rather than pick something that the Bible doesn't expressly mention and go after that?

If you're not going to accept Jesus walking on water, you're surely not going to accept creatio ex nihilo.

You can surely be sure that i dont accept all sorts of things that you do.

I wouldnt ask how something that didnt happen was done. Makes no sense.

As for goal, no that is off in a couple of ways. I dont have a "goal' here, and to the extent that there is a difference between science and the bible, that doesnt need me to show it.

Also, of course, from my pov, I'd say that bible is at odds with science; so is astrology. I would not say that "astrology and science are at odds with eachother" as it implies some sort of parity.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can surely be sure that i dont accept all sorts of things that you do.

I wouldnt ask how something that didnt happen was done. Makes no sense.

As for goal, no that is off in a couple of ways. I dont have a "goal' here, and to the extent that there is a difference between science and the bible, that doesnt need me to show it.

Also, of course, from my pov, I'd say that bible is at odds with science; so is astrology. I would not say that "astrology and science are at odds with eachother" as it implies some sort of parity.

I didn't mean "you" in second-person singular --- I meant "you" in second-person plural --- as in "you guys".

 

[atomweaver]

If your goal is to show that the Bible and science are at odds with each other, why not demand how this was done, rather than pick something that the Bible doesn't expressly mention and go after that?

Faulty premise yields faulty conclusion.

 

[Bombila]

Or walking on water?

Why is it that non-literalists are always asking for explanations for such things as Embedded Age and creatio ex nihilo, and not the obvious walking on water?

It's easier to accuse someone of making up terms than it is to accuse them of having faith in something that goes against nature, isn't it?

As Skaloop notes, embedded age and ex nihilo are not even plainly stated in the Bible. At least the story of Jesus walking on water is actually there in plain words.

And I can even think of a very ordinary explanation for what the fishermen saw, although it would be strange local fishermen wouldn't know about local sandflats - perhaps there had been a recent storm which moved the sand. Any one who lives on a coast where there are sand or mud flats far out into the water has seen this illusion, of someone appearing to stand on the water while other people, even a couple feet away, are over their heads deep. Even the faltering of the man who joined Jesus, but sank when his faith waned for a moment, is explicable - the edges of such sandbanks are often very soft and will flow away with an awkward step or misplaced foot.

We know you have faith in things that defy nature, if they were real, AV, there's nothing to disagree on there, except to say we don't. But when you persist in trying to show ways in which the things you believe could be true within reality as we know it, by using carefully cherry-picked bits of reality (as when you use the measureable age of the earth, billions of years, as evidence God made it look old, but it really isn't old), it just seems deceitful to us.

 

[Hespera]

I didn't mean "you" in second-person singular --- I meant "you" in second-person plural --- as in "you guys".

I am pretty sure it comes out the same either way.

But it would help clarity if when addressing a person you indicate that you actually arent addressing them.

 

[BananaSlug]

Several reasons come to mind:

Judgment --- we are going to receive rewards according to how we conducted our lives here, based on God's Word.

There are several of God's judgments throughout the Bible. Maybe Adam and Eve were a metaphor for early humanity!

God is not the author of confusion, and wouldn't start His Word out with allegory, then switch to literalism.

But he has no problem with "embedded age".

In almost every case, the Bible alerts the reader to a passage that is not literal.

So I guess "His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born." (Rev. 12:4) was meant to be literal? I didn't see an alert in the Bible that told me it wasn't.

God places a high emphasis on knowing His creation. As [the late] Henry Morris points out in his Defender's Study Bible, if you study the questions He asked Job, every question has to deal with His creation. Most people think God was chiding Job for not understanding why God was allowing him to suffer; but that's not the case. God was chiding Job for not understanding that He was instrumental in creating everything.

Creating through evolution is still creating.

There is no reason to assume Genesis 1 was written non-literally. The only ones who have trouble with a literal interpretation are the ones who hold science up higher than God.

Or the Christians scientists who know God created the laws of science for us to use (I guess you like to ignore Romans 1:20). I guess we don't need doctors since all we have to do is pray and sacrifice pigeons.

A figurative Genesis 1 allows for all sorts of heresies; from aliens seeding the earth, to abiogenesis kick-starting plant and animal life.

Abiogenesis in a descriptive process. It doesn't say anything about a God being present or absent.

As J Dwight Pentecost points out, interpreting Genesis 1 figuratively allows the mind of the reader to become the authority for what happened back then; whereas a literal Genesis 1 forces those even hostile to the Bible to confess that It is against evolution, panspermia, and other heresies.

I didn't realize that evolution was heresy. I guess believing Christ dying for you isn't enough to be a Christian. You heard it here, Christians who accept evolution are heretics. Christians who accept Germ Theory (I'm assuming it covers any scientific theory) are heretics.

God used Genesis 1 as a template for modeling the workweek prescribed in the Ten Commandments.

Literalism not required for that.

Occam's Razor

Some of the crap made up to try and support creation nullify Occam's Razoor.

The Holy Spirit bears witness in me that Genesis 1 is literal.

And it bears to others that it is figurative. Weird how the Holy Spirit keeps telling people different things.

 

[AV1611VET]

As Skaloop notes, embedded age and ex nihilo are not even plainly stated in the Bible. At least the story of Jesus walking on water is actually there in plain words.

Skaloop didn't have to 'note' that --- I made it clear in the way I worded my post --- qv the word 'obvious'.

And I can even think of a very ordinary explanation for what the fishermen saw, although it would be strange local fishermen wouldn't know about local sandflats - perhaps there had been a recent storm which moved the sand. Any one who lives on a coast where there are sand or mud flats far out into the water has seen this illusion, of someone appearing to stand on the water while other people, even a couple feet away, are over their heads deep. Even the faltering of the man who joined Jesus, but sank when his faith waned for a moment, is explicable - the edges of such sandbanks are often very soft and will flow away with an awkward step or misplaced foot.

That's cute --- but it doesn't answer my request.

I clearly said walking on water --- no smoke, no mirrors, no illusions, no 'thought He did - but didn't'.

You see --- we believe Jesus walked on water.

You guys believe Jesus "walked on water".

There's a difference --- but you guys are unwilling to challenge us on it --- favoring instead, challenging us on things that are not documented expressly [let me say it again w/ emphasis:] expressly.

And again --- I think I know why.

You know we'll come back with a faith-based answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am pretty sure it comes out the same either way.

But it would help clarity if when addressing a person you indicate that you actually arent addressing them.

I could do it the way the King James Bible does it --- 'ye' vs 'you' --- but people complain about how It's written, not realizing that the King James is easier to understand than the NIV, which uses 'you' vs 'you'.

You are a perfect example of the confusion the NIV (and other translations like it) perpetuate.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are several of God's judgments throughout the Bible. Maybe Adam and Eve were a metaphor for early humanity!

Maybe both?

So I guess "His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born." (Rev. 12:4) was meant to be literal? I didn't see an alert in the Bible that told me it wasn't.

You didn't, huh?

Try this:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Do you know what that highlighted portion is saying?

Creating through evolution is still creating.

Yes --- it's called creatio ex materia, as opposed to creatio ex nihilo.

 

[AV1611VET]

And mythological.

Then challenge us on it --- I dare you to.

 

[Bombila]

AV, the faith based answer is not a problem. I already said that, in the rest of the post you partially quoted.

"Jesus walked on water" is something you believe happened for real and was a miracle. It's in the book. You believe it, plain and simple.

I don't believe it. I think it is a myth, maybe even a myth based on something that did happen, that some people misinterpreted.

You're not pretending there is any trickery involved, or that modern science somehow supports 'how it was done'.

But embedded age, that is not in the book. It is something teased out of nebulous wording and not based on faith, but based on pretending that modern science, in this instance geology, is wrong because it's right. it is an assault on the whole idea that we can find out how things work by studying them.

It seems dishonest, though I must add I don't think you are a dishonest man at all. I think you are probably, on some level, a little bothered by putting such a theory forward. I suspect you don't really like it that much, but are too much wed to the concept to take a second hard look.

Given God in the first place, straightforward miracles are to be expected. Manipulating stone so it will appear to be billions of years older than it really is, is not straightforward. It is out of character, the game of a lesser god than the one you claim to worship.

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems dishonest, though I must add I don't think you are a dishonest man at all. I think you are probably, on some level, a little bothered by putting such a theory forward. I suspect you don't really like it that much, but are too much wed to the concept to take a second hard look.

You're pretty close with this paragraph, Bombila --- I'm on record as saying I would much rather be a YEC, but can't quite bring myself around to it.

Until someone convinces me Embedded Age is wrong --- I'll stick to it.

I have a hard time believing Adam was zero years old when he got married.

(Did you see my thread where I was 'YEC for a day'?)

 

[Skaloop]

Skaloop didn't have to 'note' that --- I made it clear in the way I worded my post --- qv the word 'obvious'.That's cute --- but it doesn't answer my request.

I clearly said walking on water --- no smoke, no mirrors, no illusions, no 'thought He did - but didn't'.

You see --- we believe Jesus walked on water.

You guys believe Jesus "walked on water".

There's a difference --- but you guys are unwilling to challenge us on it --- favoring instead, challenging us on things that are not documented expressly [let me say it again w/ emphasis:] expressly.

And again --- I think I know why.

You know we'll come back with a faith-based answer.

I think another issue is that if there was ex nihilo creation and embedded age, we are living on an ex nihilo creation with embedded age. It's at least possibel to investigate this creation, and see it right here, right now.

The walking on water thing was a one-off occurence from 2000 years ago. We can't exactly examine that claim, but we can examine the ex nihilo creation that has embedded age. So that has a more immediate and direct presence.

And how exactly would one challenge the walking on water thing? I say it didn't happen. Is that challenge enough? I would have a few questions about it, though, that perhaps you could answer. Did he walk on it as if it were a solid surface, or did he sink into it as if it were soft (like, say, sand)? When he walked, was he propelling himself as we do when we walk on land, by pushing back against the surface? If so, how did he create friction against the liquid water to propel himself forward? Did the bottoms of his feet get wet? Was he supporting himself on the surface of the water (with his powers) or was he strengthening the surface tension to support his weight?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's at least possibel to investigate this creation, and see it right here, right now.

Not, it's not --- as my Apple Challenge demonstrates --- 1.

 

[Bombila]

You're pretty close with this paragraph, Bombila --- I'm on record as saying I would much rather be a YEC, but can't quite bring myself around to it.

Until someone convinces me Embedded Age is wrong --- I'll stick to it.

I have a hard time believing Adam was zero years old when he got married.

(Did you see my thread where I was 'YEC for a day'?)

You have a hard time with Adam being 0 years old, but not with Jesus walking on water.

If Jesus (God) can walk on water when he chooses, miraculously, why can't Adam have been created miraculously as a full grown man?

I missed your YEC for a day thread, but I can see how it would be easier than your current situation.

But it would be even easier if you were an OEC - most of your problems with science would disappear along with your embedded age theory.

You believe God said it took Him a week to make everything, and therefore it was a week like our week. Others believe 'a day is as a thousand years' to God - maybe they're off by a few billion. And maybe it is not possible to understand how God created. Just maybe, all we can understand are the things we discover that are recorded by the earth and the universe, which are true things in accordance with the natural laws we have discovered.

Inspired or not, the men who wrote down what they believed God told them to had to use human words to convey that vision. Maybe human words are inadequate tools for the job, and it is unimportant to God that humans take anything from those words wrt the manner in which creation proceeded. Perhaps all God intended about that was that the humans understand that He is Alpha.

 

[Hespera]

I could do it the way the King James Bible does it --- 'ye' vs 'you' --- but people complain about how It's written, not realizing that the King James is easier to understand than the NIV, which uses 'you' vs 'you'.

You are a perfect example of the confusion the NIV (and other translations like it) perpetuate.

So do YOU mean ME this time when you say YOU are a perfect example.....?

Because I am not a bit confused by the NT or the OT either. I see them for what they are, its you (AV) who is confused.

And I dont think for a minute that jesus walked on water.

Why dont you quit sweeping up everyone in sight and saying they think or believe whatever you decide to claim they think?

 

[Skaloop]

Not, it's not --- as my Apple Challenge demonstrates --- 1.

I'm not saying we can necessarily find evidence for ex nihilo creation or embedded age. Only that we can look at this ex nihilo creation with embedded age. There may not be anything for us to find, but it is here to investigate, and as such subject to our curiosity much more than a long-ago event that left nothing physical to investigate.

Also, could you please answer my questions about walking on water.