Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Jimmy D]

Seems we live in an odd 'age' where someone who believes what the Bible says is called a "fundamentalist". Further, it would seem odd that if these events from Genesis and the OT were somehow untrue or allegories that Jesus would not have referenced the creation of Adam & Eve, being male and female in the beginning at their creation (Matthew 19:4), that He would go on to reference Jonah being in the belly of the great fish in His own time he would spend in a tomb (Matthew 12:40), and further go on to reference Noah in likeness to His 2nd coming (Matthew 24:37).

If I were a scribe or a pharisee back in Jesus' day, I'd have laughed Him right out of the synagogue if these events never happened, that they were just allegory. There is not a record of this - so we can only conclude that even the hypocrites of the day believed these events really happened. Further, these would be the worst references Jesus could have ever made if they didn't actually happen... as if to say, "Oh hey, remember when God blotted out all the life on land with a flood, like it says in my Father's word, but didn't really happen... yeah, that's what it's going to be like when I come back for My church... like a thief in the night baby, be ready!!" People would just be like [shoulder shrug], "not sure what's wrong with this guy, must've spent too much time out in the sun."

God was there when these things happened, it's in His word, and it seems Jesus (the word made flesh) was a bit of a "fundamentalist" when it came to the Father's word.

Your colourful imaginings have no bearing on the accuracy of modern science... or anyone else's interpretation of the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your colourful imaginings have no bearing on the accuracy of modern science...

Neither does this:

 

[NobleMouse]

What about the science that supports biological evolution and the age of the Earth though? Do you believe those are lies?

Science? Let's add some honest perspective here. Even if the world were say 6k-10k years old, there are no written records going back more than about 5k years ago. There's no direct support for thousands of years old OR billions of years old. Now, scientists don't believe in billions of years or evolution because they are stupid - to the contrary, they believe these things based upon the conclusions they've drawn from research, lots of research and a lot of hard work. Does that mean they are right? Well... no. As sincere as the efforts have been, they can be sincerely wrong.

If I told you something was a billion years old, and say I concluded this based upon a method where I know that something that happens in the present happens at a certain rate and if we look at the evidence left with this 'something' that shows that a billion years has passed and I know this because I have measured the evidence and mathematically calculated the amount of time that would have to pass given the present rate to arrive at what I see as the evidence, that is what scientists are doing. What this is, is an inference... they didn't directly see it happen, the evidence didn't come with a label saying "Made 1x10^9 B.C.", it's a linear extrapolation of what is currently seen. Now, what I haven't told you is that the mathematical model has assumptions built into it... first, one assumes a constant rate, also one assumes they know the original conditions of the evidence, and also one assumes they know that there has been no contamination during the entire billion years that the evidence has been there. I've also not told you until now that within the evidence, there are other measurements of it that give contradictory ages of only thousands of years old.

So, within science there is evidence for a young earth and no evolution, AND there is evidence for an old earth and evolution, science doesn't have a definitive answer - so it really is pointless and irrational to base one's belief and arguments for/against solely on the basis of what scientists believe (right now, subject to continue on changing after you and I are dead). Agree?

I've used this example in other threads: Do you believe Washington crossed the Delaware river? Why? There's no 'scientific' evidence. Oh sure, there were supposedly eye witness accounts and it was written down as a historical record of what happened, but what about 5,000 years from now (should people still be around then)? Will people be doomed to not believing the events recorded because they cannot indirectly corroborate the written records with scientific evidence?? You and I can believe that Washington crossed the Delaware because it was a historical event, regardless of whether we find a fossilized footprint near the bank of the river left behind from Washington's boot or not. In the same way, God gave a historical account of creation. We weren't there to witness this so His Holy Spirit inspired those who wrote these events down, in order that we may know what happened. Yet for God, we have a higher standard - that scientific conclusions must unequivocally support only what is in the Bible in order that we might believe? There is no sense (nor faith) in that. We've heard that Christianity is not a blind faith - there IS scientific evidence for many of the events in the Bible, but there won't be for everything. Either we choose to believe or we choose not to believe.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sorry, to actually answer your question: I believe what science asserts (regarding creation) has been propagated by some to support a lie. Though, it may not have originally been intended to deceive, many have been deceived.

 

[Speedwell]

Neither does this:

What does that have to do with science? Are you saying that scientists thought that hydrogen wouldn't burn? Or that they lied to engineers about it?

 

[NobleMouse]

Your colourful imaginings have no bearing on the accuracy of modern science... or anyone else's interpretation of the bible.

Nonsense. Many people believe the earth is young and that evolution is not true...
Pew Research - read it
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/

While I can appreciate opinions, if you want me to take yours seriously make more of an effort to back them up. Also, what modern science believes today will continue to change - the word of God will not.

 

[Speedwell]

In the same way, God gave a historical account of creation. We weren't there to witness this so His Holy Spirit inspired those who wrote these events down, in order that we may know what happened.

So how do you know that God's sole purpose in inspiring the creation stories of Genesis was to provide us with a 100% factually accurate history of our origins?

 

[AV1611VET]

What does that have to do with science? Are you saying that scientists thought that hydrogen wouldn't burn? Or that they lied to engineers about it?

What brainiacs put hydrogen in there in the first place?

 

[Speedwell]

What brainiacs put hydrogen in there in the first place?

Engineers. Scientists knew that hydrogen was inflammable, they told the engineers that it was inflammable, but the engineers thought they could get away with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Engineers. Scientists knew that hydrogen was inflammable, they told the engineers that it was inflammable, but the engineers thought they could get away with it.

You were there?

 

[Aman777]

Why is it important to argue whether Genesis One or Genesis Two is the definitive account of creation when we know from evidence that neither of them have any bearing on reality?

If you have the proper interpretation, it's easy to understand. Beginning at Genesis 2:4, the narrative takes us BACK to the events of the 3rd Day/Age of Creation. From there to the end of Revelation, the details of the creation identify which of God's 7 Days of Creation is being spoken of.

The first 34 verses of Genesis provide an outline of ALL of the rest of the Bible. The details concerning the 7 Days are contained in the rest of the Bible. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

"The Genesis contrasts are contradictory.

False. It's your interpretation which is wrong. Would you like me to refute you Scripturally?

 

[Speedwell]

You were there?

I didn't have to be there. Hydrogen was discovered and its properties (including inflammability) described 1671 by scientist Robert Boyle. By the time engineers began using it in airships two hundred years later its properties were widely known and understood, and the question of its danger in airship use was the subject of much discussion.

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't have to be there. Hydrogen was discovered and its properties (including inflammability) described 1671 by scientist Robert Boyle. By the time engineers began using it in airships two hundred years later its properties were widely known and understood, and the question of its danger in airship use was the subject of much discussion.

I've got many more you can ponder:

*

This one is called: Chernobyl Basketball

ETA: Image wouldn't copy.

 

[NobleMouse]

You mean like me? Hahahahaha.

My apologies, I just looked at your profile more closely and see that you identify yourself as an Atheist. I generally have engaged with TE and OEC proponents on this topic, but fundamentally you and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Not sure we can find a common ground, but am happy to discuss further, if you are interested.

-_- not sure what you mean by that. 6 day creation, which occurred 6,000 years ago. Unless you think creation only stopped yesterday, your suggestion doesn't make any sense. Also, aside from naming humans specifically, Genesis doesn't go into all that great of detail about the animals created "after their kinds", with "kinds" itself being so ambiguous I've heard people claim it is as specific as subspecies or as broad as family.

See Genesis 2:1-3. Gid did finish creation. This does not mean that things do not continue to go on or that He's done working, just that the specific acts of creating (John 1:1-3) did have a conclusion. I think when you say my suggestion doesn't make any sense, it is because you are viewing scripture through the filter of modern scientific views and assertions. Within creation research, the term kind is linked to Baraminology (bara = created, min = kind) and it is a similar process/study/rigor as the systematics applied within taxonomy classification. The difference is that instead of just looking for possible linkages between living organisms, it also looks for where gaps are apparent - where boundaries exist that life forms do not cross (a little more context from a non-creationist source below):

https://ncse.com/library-resource/baraminology

For example, dogs are a created kind and there can be a great variety/hybridization of dogs; however, scientists don't see evidence either in the fossil record or in living dogs today where they are developing feathers, flippers, beaks, wings, etc... - there are "boundaries" that prevents dogs from producing anything other than... dogs. This isn't even what is really important, we'll get to that down at the bottom.

My population of Triops longicaudatus certainly isn't like how the species normally is.

Something tells me the reason you don't believe in God has nothing to do with Genesis or Triops longicaudatus.

Like I said before, "kind" is extremely ambiguous. No one seems to agree exactly what it means, but the most common claim I have heard is that it is analogous to genus. But unless you think it refers to phylum or class, that ark is going to have a significant shortage of space. But if you think it was such a high level of classification, then it poses a problem in terms of the diversity we see today in the extreme. Evolution would have to go at a pace so rapid we'd observe stuff akin to a pig giving birth to a rabbit.

How much research have you done on baraminology. The ark could have fit 2 of every kind, and there is enough time for variations within each kind over the past 4,500 +/- years... speciation has been seen over just a few generations in isolated populations (ex. finches with larger beaks). Again, this isn't even really all that important... moving on.

That's the thing, I don't view the bible as being the words of a deity any more than the following is:

I declare every Tuesday to be Taco Tuesday- God.

This is where it occurred to me that maybe you don't believe in God then I looked at your profile.

See how easy it is to claim that a deity said something? Have you ever noticed that when the OT mentions people speaking with god that it is usually a very small number of people, not an entire crowd? Have you ever wondered why?

I don't know anybody willing to martyred for Taco Tuesday - though I think we can all agree that Taco Tuesday is a good idea. NOBODY is willing to die for something they believe is a lie and any opportunity or minuscule shred of a way to avoid death, we'd all prefer it. Please bear in mind that the thousands upon thousands that have been (and continue to be) martyred for their faith in God is not because of some flippant man-made notion simply invented to help scared people sleep better at night. It appears that God chooses to work through people, that is His way... and this doesn't seem to have been a poor approach as almost every obscure part of the world has heard of Christianity and has over 2 billion today who claim to be Christians. God wants a personal relationship with His children, not a broadcast and impersonal voice booming from a distant platform. Some of His children are called to be prophets as is referenced in the OT - and others were called to be in other roles.

The questions you really need to be asking isn't around what scientists believe (or don't believe) or what some misinterpret as discontinuities between Genesis 1 and 2; but what is it that really has driven you away from wanting to be with the One who made you, and why you continue to reject His love for you today.

 

[Brightmoon]

Baraminology ? You’re joking right? No one with any understanding of genetics, (who isn’t being delusional like a few creationists with PhDs) , takes that pseudoscience nonsense seriously. And unlike sarah I am a Christian

 

[NobleMouse]

No, it's just that people believe different things about "what the Bible says."

Well, we have a pretty good idea what Jesus believed from what He is quoted as having said.

It doesn't seem "odd" to everyone.

Well, Jesus seems to have believed it and the Bible is about Him, soooooooo.... yeah, to believe something about the Bible that is different than how Jesus Himself viewed it - would be "odd". In fairness, I cannot say 100% definitively that Jesus did or did not believe certain things, but in the presence of evidence that He did believe these events really happened, and in the absence of evidence that He did not believe these events really happened...

Figurative interpretations of the Genesis stories are almost as old as the book itself.

I'll stick with how Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc... seem to have viewed these events. Your references to figurative interpretations of Genesis, I'm sure, originate from those who had a propensity to doubt God's word. Everything that is from scripture (OT & NT) support these events as actual, historical events.

Of course they did--there was simply no other information available about what had actually happened. The question is, did they all believe that the 100% factually accurate historicity of Genesis was the most important thing about it? People didn't write that kind of history in those days so there is no reason they would have expected it of the Bible, even a divinely inspired Bible.

From a biblical creationist perspective, I would say that the historicity of Genesis is also not the most important thing about it. I think the most important thing is that it establishes who God is, that He made everything and us, it establishes why we have a sin nature and where it comes from, and that from the beginning there was a plan of redemption and restoration from our sin, motivated by a perfect love for us, from a perfect and loving God. That said, there's no reason to assume that in order to convey these truths, God needed to make up events that didn't happen, tell of people and lineages that didn't really exist, and allegorize that which can be easily understood as actual, historical events. One would ONLY jump through all the hoops and distortions of scripture IF they prefer what scientists believe about the past over what God has already revealed in His word.

Between God and scientists, only one of them was there in the beginning, only one of them is purely good, holy, and true; only one of them actually has the power and ability to create, and only one of them has never had to keep changing and revising their word. No matter what anybody here believes or doesn't believe, we ALL know who I am referring to here. Just like God's love, His truth is an inescapable vice and no scientist, no person, no power or principality can ever render that truth void or null or loosen its grip. Perception is reality, and so we all come here with different versions and beliefs of "reality" but only one is right. I'll go with the One who made everything and whom all things are made through rather than be tossed about with every wind of false doctrine that passes by from the philosophers (scientists) of our day.

 

[NobleMouse]

Baraminology ? You’re joking right? No one with any understanding of genetics, (who isn’t being delusional like a few creationists with PhDs) , takes that pseudoscience nonsense seriously. And unlike sarah I am a Christian

Okay, so you've taken the position that the man-made study of a field of science (genetics) by philosophers ("PhD" being a doctorate in philosophy) is somehow more relevant than God's word. It would seem what you believe is driven by scientific intellectualism... so think about how you would explain the science behind Jesus raising people from the dead and performing many other miracles as evidence of His truly being the son of God (the word of God, made flesh) - these were supernatural events (outside of the natural laws of physics). All things were made through Him [Jesus] and by Him (John 1:1-3), and we know God is spirit, so anytime physical matter is produced by the word of an all-knowing, all-powerful Spirit is a supernatural event (creation was supernatural).

Science aside, is your issue really with baraminology, or is it with not believing God's word because you think what the philosophers of our day are saying (about events they never saw) is more relevant and true? I think it is the latter. Science is not the answer (whether it is in favor of God's word or in favor of man's ideas of billions of years and evolution), the answer is in God's word. Your faith does not come from the reading of results from things like radiometric dating and similarities in genomes, you faith comes from the hearing of God's word, right?

I sense you may want to delve into what is "reality" though, so I'll paste a snippet from post #897:

Between God and scientists, only one of them was there in the beginning, only one of them is purely good, holy, and true; only one of them actually has the power and ability to create, and only one of them has never had to keep changing and revising their word. No matter what anybody here believes or doesn't believe, we ALL know who I am referring to here. Just like God's love, His truth is an inescapable vice and no scientist, no person, no power or principality can ever render that truth void or null or loosen its grip. Perception is reality, and so we all come here with different versions and beliefs of "reality" but only one is right. I'll go with the One who made everything and whom all things are made through rather than be tossed about with every wind of false doctrine that passes by from the philosophers (scientists) of our day.

God bless -

 

[Speedwell]

Well, we have a pretty good idea what Jesus believed from what He is quoted as having said.


Well, Jesus seems to have believed it and the Bible is about Him, soooooooo.... yeah, to believe something about the Bible that is different than how Jesus Himself viewed it - would be "odd". In fairness, I cannot say 100% definitively that Jesus did or did not believe certain things, but in the presence of evidence that He did believe these events really happened, and in the absence of evidence that He did not believe these events really happened...

He made it reasonably clear that when He quoted or referred to Scripture he was quoting scripture, not directly referring to the events which gave rise to Scripture. He used Scripture exactly as a modern clergyman would use Scripture, whether a liberal or a hard-core fundamentalist. So no, you have no way of knowing if His use of Scripture amounted to an endorsement of your interpretation, that the Bible is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of divine plenary verbal inspiration. None of thse doctrines were heard of before the Reformation and its introduction of the pernicious notion of Sola Scriptura; certainly they were unknown in Jesus' day.

I'll stick with how Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc... seem to have viewed these events. Your references to figurative interpretations of Genesis, I'm sure, originate from those who had a propensity to doubt God's word. Everything that is from scripture (OT & NT) support these events as actual, historical events.

A baseless and offensive slur--as is to be expected.

From a biblical creationist perspective, I would say that the historicity of Genesis is also not the most important thing about it.

That is certainly not the impression you and your coreligionists give, rather, one gets the feeling that you think it is the only important thing about it--as if the Bible was intended to give us a 100% factually accurate and complete history of the world from creation to the last trump.

I think the most important thing is that it establishes who God is, that He made everything and us, it establishes why we have a sin nature and where it comes from, and that from the beginning there was a plan of redemption and restoration from our sin, motivated by a perfect love for us, from a perfect and loving God.

Which is exactly what the rest of Christendom finds in it, and we don't need your interpretation to get us there.

That said, there's no reason to assume that in order to convey these truths, God needed to make up events that didn't happen, tell of people and lineages that didn't really exist, and allegorize that which can be easily understood as actual, historical events.

But that is not your claim, which is not about the events described in the Bible, but about the text of the Bible itself. I certainly would not maintain that the Bible contains no history or that the stories were not based on real persons and events.

One would ONLY jump through all the hoops and distortions of scripture IF they prefer what scientists believe about the past over what God has already revealed in His word.

Another slur. I'm sorry, but I think your interpretation is shallow and theologically inadequate and would not subscribe to it under any circumstances, even if all the conclusions of modern science about our origins were to be overturned tomorrow.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know anybody willing to martyred for Taco Tuesday - though I think we can all agree that Taco Tuesday is a good idea. NOBODY is willing to die for something they believe is a lie and any opportunity or minuscule shred of a way to avoid death, we'd all prefer it. Please bear in mind that the thousands upon thousands that have been (and continue to be) martyred for their faith in God is not because of some flippant man-made notion simply invented to help scared people sleep better at night. It appears that God chooses to work through people, that is His way... and this doesn't seem to have been a poor approach as almost every obscure part of the world has heard of Christianity and has over 2 billion today who claim to be Christians. God wants a personal relationship with His children, not a broadcast and impersonal voice booming from a distant platform. Some of His children are called to be prophets as is referenced in the OT - and others were called to be in other roles.

How many Christians have been willing to accept martyrdom for the doctrines of literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretabilty or plenary verbal inspiration?

 

[AV1611VET]

How many Christians have been willing to accept martyrdom for the doctrines of literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretabilty or plenary verbal inspiration?

Why?

You writing a book?

John Foxe beat you to it.