A Pondering of the Peculiar

[CabVet]

I am one of the objective evidence.

No, you are a person sitting behind a computer.

 

[CrazyChimera]

No, you are a person sitting behind a computer.

Aren't we all?

 

[bhsmte]

This is the same as saying that you do not understand the answer. Bad excuse.

Not quite.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course there are many objective evidences to support what the Bible says. A LOT !

Go ahead and provide a list of objective evidence to support the bible.

 

[anyathesword]

Let me ask you a question.

Since you deny the evidence provided by science in favor of the bible, what is it about science that cause you to reject their findings?

Science that is proved by experiments, I'm all down with; science that is evolution science, no thank you.

I'm not convinced with the lack of fossils links, missing or intermediate.

And the dating methods are not great and carbon 14 half life is 5750 years or something, meaning that all carbon would of been gone by now, but it still exists in diamonds!

Andthe deliberate refusal to look at the biblical evidence for the way life appeared.

 

[Black Akuma]

Science that is proved by experiments, I'm all down with

Nothing is 'proved' in science.

And experiments are done with evolution all the time.

I'm not convinced with the lack of fossils links, missing or intermediate

What do you consider a 'fossil link' to be? What would an intermediate between, say, frogs and salamanders look like, in your opinion?

meaning that all carbon would of been gone by now, but it still exists in diamonds!

I'm pretty sure new carbon can be made. There's no reason for us to expect it to be completely gone.

And the deliberate refusal to look at the biblical evidence for the way life appeared.

Such as?

 

[46AND2]

I'm pretty sure new carbon can be made. There's no reason for us to expect it to be completely gone.

Cosmic rays from the sun bombard the earth and react with Nitrogen atoms to produce new carbon in the atmosphere.

As for carbon in diamonds...this isn't true. What was measured was residual carbon in the AMS.

 

[46AND2]

And the dating methods are not great and carbon 14 half life is 5750 years or something, meaning that all carbon would of been gone by now, but it still exists in diamonds!

You must think scientists are idiots. Ridiculous that they didn't think of something so simple, yes?

 

[Sayre]

Probably that it doesn't match up with the bible.

Sarah, in other posts you have defended a nonliteral reading of the bible and mocked those who read it for science. So why are you now claiming it is possible for the bible to not line up with science? If it doesn't teach science (makes no scientific claims) - there is nothing to line it up against!

 

[Sayre]

Cosmic rays from the sun bombard the earth and react with Nitrogen atoms to produce new carbon in the atmosphere.

As for carbon in diamonds...this isn't true. What was measured was residual carbon in the AMS.

I did not know that .

I know I owe you a reply to something but I can't remember where. Feel free to point it out to me otherwise I'm going to spend an hour trolling through past threads .

 

[Mr Strawberry]

And the dating methods are not great and carbon 14 half life is 5750 years or something, meaning that all carbon would of been gone by now, but it still exists in diamonds!

Google isotopes. If you did chemistry at school you will have heard of them. They explain what you are misunderstanding.

 

[biggles53]

Science that is proved by experiments, I'm all down with; science that is evolution science, no thank you.

Let me ask you the question that others seem to dodge...

Much of modern medical procedure and medicines have been developed directly through the application of evolutionary theory.

Would you deny a loved one of yours the necessary medical care if it involved these processes...?

Would it be a "no, thank you", even if their life was at stake...?

 

[46AND2]

I did not know that .

I know I owe you a reply to something but I can't remember where. Feel free to point it out to me otherwise I'm going to spend an hour trolling through past threads .

No worries. I believe this is what you are talking about:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7800468-10/#post64921867

I forget which threads I'm participating in sometimes, too. 'specially right now since I'm involved in so many discussions.

 

[Sayre]

Ok, I'll take a little different approach...

Can you give me an example of one or two of places in the bible that you feel are in error, and how you came to that determination?

Is it mostly like the sections which scholars generally recognize as interpolations, or are there things you have come across on your own that you question?

Ahh yes this convo - thank you.

I don't think that inerrancy is the right question to ask. The bible is a very human book.

I do not believe that the history of the Exodus is correct. It doesn't match history at all. So in that sense, it is in error, but only if you believe that it intended to teach literal history. I disagree that historical literalism was the intent of the writer, and I disagree that history in pre-enlightenment times was supposed to be considered as a conveyance of facts of the time gone past.

So does that mean that the exodus passages are in error? Depending on how you interpret the intent - then yes.

That's just one example.

I think Jonah is satire. Funny, funny satire. I think it is wrong if the intent of the author was to convey history because it simply didn't happen.

I guess for me it boils down to understanding intent, and that is difficult to do and to defend. If the authors intended to convey scientific fact or historic fact then half of the old testament is flat out wrong.

 

[46AND2]

I did not know that .

I know I owe you a reply to something but I can't remember where. Feel free to point it out to me otherwise I'm going to spend an hour trolling through past threads .

In fact, the diamonds are used SPECIFICALLY FOR determining the instrument background quantities. They are run through the AMS as blanks to determine how much residual carbon is in the system.

There are a couple of other very minor ways that new radioactive carbon is produced, but the cosmic rays is the consistent production that the carbon dating method is based on. The others are localized and only affect the readings when present with the sample, in situ, that is being tested. Scientists have accounted for this, and know how to avoid it when selecting their samples. Unfortunately, this doesn't stop creationists from using examples of this to try and refute the method, despite the fact that the only reason they know about it is due to the experiments scientists conducted to understand what to avoid when conducting carbon dating tests.

 

[46AND2]

Ahh yes this convo - thank you.

I don't think that inerrancy is the right question to ask. The bible is a very human book.

I do not believe that the history of the Exodus is correct. It doesn't match history at all. So in that sense, it is in error, but only if you believe that it intended to teach literal history. I disagree that historical literalism was the intent of the writer, and I disagree that history in pre-enlightenment times was supposed to be considered as a conveyance of facts of the time gone past.

So does that mean that the exodus passages are in error? Depending on how you interpret the intent - then yes.

That's just one example.

I think Jonah is satire. Funny, funny satire. I think it is wrong if the intent of the author was to convey history because it simply didn't happen.

I guess for me it boils down to understanding intent, and that is difficult to do and to defend. If the authors intended to convey scientific fact or historic fact then half of the old testament is flat out wrong.

Do you understand the New Testament to be more historical in nature?

 

[bhsmte]

Science that is proved by experiments, I'm all down with; science that is evolution science, no thank you.

I'm not convinced with the lack of fossils links, missing or intermediate.

And the dating methods are not great and carbon 14 half life is 5750 years or something, meaning that all carbon would of been gone by now, but it still exists in diamonds!

Andthe deliberate refusal to look at the biblical evidence for the way life appeared.

Ok then. You asked me about the bible before and how much I knew.

Well, I have read the bible in bits but what I have done much more extensively, is study the NT scholars and NT historians opinion on the content and the historical reliability of the content. When I did this investigation, I cam to the conclusion the bible was not near as reliable as I was led to believe. I have listed the reasons I came to this conclusion numerous times on this board and wont' repeat again in this post. Bottom line, the bible is not a credible source of accurate information in my opinion and there are no contemporary accounts to support the bible, nor is their objective evidence that can support it. If you believe it, you must take it on pure faith.

So, you don't feel the evidence for evolution is credible and I don't feel the bible is a credible source of evidence for much of anything.

 

[Sayre]

Do you understand the New Testament to be more historical in nature?

Yes I do. However, the gospels I believe is a type of literature called bioi. Essentially a greek term for biography. I think that bioi arranged content by theme, not necessarily in chronological order. I also think that a bioi has to be faithful to the character of the person it describes, rather than being faithful to the nitty gritty details of the stories that form part of the biography.

You might like to skim this article:
Errantly assuming inerrancy in history

cliff notes:

The evidence supports Gary Dorrien’s observation:

Luther and Calvin both referred to Scripture as an ‘infallible’ or ‘unerring’ rule of faith, but for them the attribution of infallibility to scripture referred to its trustworthiness in all things necessary for salvation, not the precise accuracy of it historical or phenomenal accounts.

Gary J. Dorrien, The Remaking of Evangelical Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 19.

A committed proponent of inerrancy, Charles Ryrie was frank in his admission that “A survey of the history of the doctrine of inerrancy shows that the discussions concerning its importance belong to the modern period.”

The fact of the matter is that no ancient Church council ever debated the issue of inerrancy, let alone pronounced favor of it. No ecumenical creed even addresses the issue––not the Apostle’s Creed, not the Nicene Creed, not the Athanasian Creed. None of the Reformed confessions that Calvin College adheres to asserts Scripture’s inerrancy, but rather its “sufficiency.”

Inerrancy is a strange modern beast.

 

[46AND2]

Ok then. You asked me about the bible before and how much I knew.

Well, I have read the bible in bits but what I have done much more extensively, is study the NT scholars and NT historians opinion on the content and the historical reliability of the content. When I did this investigation, I cam to the conclusion the bible was not near as reliable as I was led to believe. I have listed the reasons I came to this conclusion numerous times on this board and wont' repeat again in this post. Bottom line, the bible is not a credible source of accurate information in my opinion and there are no contemporary accounts to support the bible, nor is their objective evidence that can support it. If you believe it, you must take it on pure faith.

So, you don't feel the evidence for evolution is credible and I don't feel the bible is a credible source of evidence for much of anything.

Indeed, what I find...amusing...is that creationists assume that many of the complaints we have about the Bible are derived from anti-Christian commentary. On the contrary, most of my Biblical studies are taken from Christian and Jewish scholars. Creationists don't realize how liberal most of them are in their Biblical interpretations.

 

[46AND2]

Yes I do. However, the gospels I believe is a type of literature called bioi. Essentially a greek term for biography. I think that bioi arranged content by theme, not necessarily in chronological order. I also think that a bioi has to be faithful to the character of the person it describes, rather than being faithful to the nitty gritty details of the stories that form part of the biography.

You might like to skim this article:
Errantly assuming inerrancy in history

cliff notes:







Inerrancy is a strange modern beast.

So...you seem to contemplate the reliability of the Bible in general, and especially the Old Testament, based, in part, on how it stands up to the reality that we see in God's creation. i.e. no literal flood, no 6000 years, no mega long lifespans, etc.

But at some point there is a disconnect, where you believe things that don't jive with what we know about reality...walking on water, rising from the dead, etc.

How do you justify, for yourself, what claims you are willing to suspend your dependence on reality for?

I mean, there is not any more physical evidence for the resurrection, or walking on water, than there is for a flood.

Would you say that it boils down to the fact that the claims of Jesus haven't been DISPROVEN, like the flood and young earth?