Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[NobleMouse]

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.

If you can support this view from scripture, I'm willing to listen - so far it is conjecture at this point. Again, in the presence that Jesus cited these events in successfully defending arguments from scribes/pharisees intended to try to trap him, as well as in future reference to real events that would come to pass (His death and resurrection and His second coming - which I assume you believe will also happen) the more reasonable conclusion is that these are real events.

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

Provide scriptural support to the contrary - I'm all ears.

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

What I gave was my opinion, I cannot speak for how you interpret the opinions of others.

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.

If you believe the Bible is about real persons and events, how many generations do you feel were skipped then between Adam and Christ? Would literally have to be thousands upon thousands - seems unlikely.

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.

Can you support that one would not naturally interpret, say a day (yom) as not being a day by reading the text or that Jonah wasn't really in the belly of a great fish for 3 days, or that the flood of Noah's time really wasn't intended to blot out all the life on land? I suggest walking into a Sunday school classroom with young children and reading these passages to them and see if their first reaction is that the days were really "billions of years", that the reference to Jonah was just a myth, or that the flood certainly didn't happen and there was never an ark with 2 of every kind of animal, that it is just an artifact of creation myths from other cultures of the time - this will probably give you the most "pure" answer. Then you can go to a college campus and see how the views have changed. It's not because the Bible changed in what it is saying between age 7 and 20, it's because these kids are being influenced between point A and point B to interpret it differently.

Go read the commentaries of study bibles on these passages - see if they're all saying none of this really happened and that they should just be treated as allegory/figurative. Here's just one source on Jonah 1:17 to get the ball rolling:

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/jonah/1-17.htm

Look at all the shallow and theologically inadequate commentary...

 

[Speedwell]

Why?

You writing a book?

John Foxe beat you to it.

Well, according to you, martyrdom is proof of doctrine.

 

[Brightmoon]

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...


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.


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.

Whatever flips your cookie!

My issue is with the applied ignorance aka evolution denial . Bronze Age ignorance, superstition and misogyny isn’t part of my faith as I trust the Creation that God actually made ( nature) rather than some superstitious ignorant Bronze Age pseudoscience in a holy book. By the way , science used to be called natural philosophy and that’s where PhD for scientists came from

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, according to you, martyrdom is proof of doctrine.

Only if the person died claiming to be an eyewitness.

After that, martyrdom is proof of belief.

For example, Shem can be martyred for believing the Flood was global.

I can be martyred for the same reason.

But do you see a big difference in Shem's martyrdom and mine?

 

[Brightmoon]

Only if the person died claiming to be an eyewitness.

After that, martyrdom is proof of belief.

For example, Shem can be martyred for believing the Flood was global.

I can be martyred for the same reason.

But do you see a big difference in Shem's martyrdom and mine?

yes there’s a difference. You’d be doing it out of WILLFUL ignorance because the knowledge that the flood never occurred has been around for almost 300 years and Shem supposedly lived in the Bronze Age

 

[Speedwell]

If you can support this view from scripture, I'm willing to listen - so far it is conjecture at this point.

Why do I have to support it from Scripture? What about linguistics, literary analysis, archaeology, anthropology?

Provide scriptural support to the contrary - I'm all ears.

You said,
"Your references to figurative interpretations of Genesis, I'm sure, originate from those who had a propensity to doubt God's word."
You can prove that with Scripture?

If you believe the Bible is about real persons and events, how many generations do you feel were skipped then between Adam and Christ? Would literally have to be thousands upon thousands - seems unlikely.

Nobody knows, not then or now. That's why the story was written as an etiology.

Can you support that one would not naturally interpret, say a day (yom) as not being a day by reading the text or that Jonah wasn't really in the belly of a great fish for 3 days, or that the flood of Noah's time really wasn't intended to blot out all the life on land? I suggest walking into a Sunday school classroom with young children and reading these passages to them and see if their first reaction is that the days were really "billions of years", that the reference to Jonah was just a myth, or that the flood certainly didn't happen and there was never an ark with 2 of every kind of animal, that it is just an artifact of creation myths from other cultures of the time - this will probably give you the most "pure" answer. Then you can go to a college campus and see how the views have changed. It's not because the Bible changed in what it is saying between age 7 and 20, it's because these kids are being influenced between point A and point B to interpret it differently.

What if we discovered, based on tangible and convincing archaeological and other evidence, that around 10,000 BC a man saved his family, his animals and a reasonable selection of local wild fauna from a catastrophic glacial flood on a barge or raft of his own construction. And further, that there is no doubt he prepared for this disaster because he was convinced God had warned him about it. Christians, Jews and Muslims worldwide would rejoice at the discovery of Noah. How would you deal with it? Call it a lie of Bible-hating scientists?

Go read the commentaries of study bibles on these passages - see if they're all saying none of this really happened and that they should just be treated as allegory/figurative.

LOL! I'm not saying it, either.

 

[AV1611VET]

yes there’s a difference. You’d be doing it out of WILLFUL ignorance because the knowledge that the flood never occurred has been around for almost 300 years

When was it last looked for?

If you say almost 300 years ago, why haven't scientists looked again with their upgraded junk?

And if you say they just recently looked, then why would I be martyred for claiming something that hasn't been shown otherwise yet?

 

[AV1611VET]

What if we discovered, based on tangible and convincing archaeological and other evidence, that around 10,000 BC a man saved his family, his animals and a reasonable selection of local wild fauna from a catastrophic glacial flood on a barge or raft of his own construction. And further, that there is no doubt he prepared for this disaster because he was convinced God had warned him about it.

I'd say that discovery can take a long walk on a short pier.

 

[Brightmoon]

When was it last looked for?

If you say almost 300 years ago, why haven't scientists looked again with their upgraded junk?

And if you say they just recently looked, then why would I be martyred for claiming something that hasn't been shown otherwise yet?

anyone with a decent high school earth science class could show you that

 

[AV1611VET]

anyone with a decent high school earth science class could show you that

Does that mean I'll have to wait to get an answer from you?

 

[Speedwell]

I'd say that discovery can take a long walk on a short pier.

That's OK. Most Christians would think it proved the Noah story to be true.

 

[NobleMouse]

Whatever flips your cookie!

My issue is with the applied ignorance aka evolution denial . Bronze Age ignorance, superstition and misogyny isn’t part of my faith as I trust the Creation that God actually made ( nature) rather than some superstitious ignorant Bronze Age pseudoscience in a holy book. By the way , science used to be called natural philosophy and that’s where PhD for scientists came from

THAT... is a satisfactory answer. While I disagree with ToE, at least you are honest to admit that your view is on the basis of scientific assertions.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's OK. Most Christians would think it proved the Noah story to be true.

Most Christians would use the NIV ... what's your point? consensus of opinion rules?

 

[NobleMouse]

Why do I have to support it from Scripture? What about linguistics, literary analysis, archaeology, anthropology?

A number of those sources are highly influenced by the assertions of secular science, so no, they're not valid. Also, it's too simplistic to just "read words" without understanding the context to whom it was written, why, when, by whom, etc... This is why many who provide commentary on the Bible and have devoted their life to the study of it turn not only to archaeology, but also Lexicographers, Hebraists, historians, also specifically Jewish historians and Greek historians, and theologians... a holistic approach. As such, many of the world's leading Lexicographers and Hebraists recognize Genesis as historical narrative. And to your point on linguistics, the syntax also supports Genesis as historical narrative as it does not show many of the typical markers used in the Hebrew language for denoting poetic form and does contain many of the typical markers used for denoting actual narrative.

You said,
"Your references to figurative interpretations of Genesis, I'm sure, originate from those who had a propensity to doubt God's word."
You can prove that with Scripture?
Nobody knows, not then or now. That's why the story was written as an etiology.

The idea Genesis is written as etiology is probably something you picked up on BioLogos' website, whose express mission is to convince people that Genesis is not to be taken as a historical account in favor of supporting modern scientific views... how noble. Unlike BioLogos, the view that Genesis IS historical narrative is not an isolated view of an organization like Answer in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Creation.com, Creation Ministries International, etc... it is supported and understood by those with no organizational or scientific affiliation, but by those who have actually studied the culture, the context, and the language.

Also, how bizarre that Genesis would be a myth, then that God declare one of 10 commandments be to set aside a day to be holy and rest... and how often? Coincidentally, we find it is to be 6 days of labor with the 7th day to be a day of rest. Sounds familiar... (Exodus 20:11).

What if we discovered, based on tangible and convincing archaeological and other evidence, that around 10,000 BC a man saved his family, his animals and a reasonable selection of local wild fauna from a catastrophic glacial flood on a barge or raft of his own construction. And further, that there is no doubt he prepared for this disaster because he was convinced God had warned him about it. Christians, Jews and Muslims worldwide would rejoice at the discovery of Noah. How would you deal with it? Call it a lie of Bible-hating scientists?

Several thoughts:
1) - Tangible/convincing will always be subjective
2) To date anything back to 10,000 BC one would have to rely, again, on assumptions like radiometric dating/tree rings/varves/ice layers/etc... and these have all been shown to rely on assumptions and been demonstrated to derive inaccurate dates.
3) So far this has not happened, so this remains an unseen hypothetical but am happy to revisit this, should it actually happen.

LOL! I'm not saying it, either.

So you're back to believing the accounts from the OT are historical then? My experience has been that these discussions do not lead to anyone's change of heart or attitude, so you'll continue to believe the assertions of scientists and I'll continue to believe the God's word on creation actually happened.

 

[Job 33:6]

Several thoughts:

2) To date anything back to 10,000 BC one would have to rely, again, on assumptions like radiometric dating/tree rings/varves/ice layers/etc... and these have all been shown to rely on assumptions and been demonstrated to derive inaccurate dates.

This actually isn't true.

What should be noted is that, there is no evidence for continents moving thousands of miles in the time of an alleged year long flood. And quite the contrary, there is evidence against this happening. We can thank your buddy bible research tools for pointing out things like complex burrow networks and angular unconformities, ductile deformation of rock and the casual motion of life throughout time, walking around casually, leaving things like nests with eggs, and footprints showing that prehistoric life was casually roaming around.

Aside from all this, we also have basic physics. You cant move an entire continent thousands of miles, and have its energy not completely annihilate anything that lies before it. But here we are with things like regional metamorphosis of rock, indicating regular temperature and pressure conditions in the earth caused by slow moving continents.

So, to get to the punchline, here is what we are going to do.

Now, we know that the continents were not moving super fast in the past. Because all evidence points against this, whether its physics, chemistry, geology, biology, geobiography etc., everyone is well aware that there is no evidence for super fast moving continents, only slow moving ones. And as we have concluded, young earthers such as kurt wise, have no idea what they are talking about (he believes that a single wave can deposite sediment in the shape of an offset angular unconformity, which blatantly defies physics), but the other 99% of us do. So, here is what we can do next.

So, if we know that continents drift at perhaps 3 centimeters per year, and if there are 254 million centimeters between the midoceanic ridge and south america....

Lets look at your statement again

"To date anything back to 10,000 BC one would have to rely, again, on assumptions like radiometric dating/tree rings/varves/ice layers/etc"

But, lets do the math...

10,000 years multiplied by 3 centimeters per year, well, the continents would only be 30,000 centimeters away from the mid oceanic ridge, at most, if the earth were hypothetically just 10,000 years old. And this would be assuming that pangea existed at the beginning of time, which of course we have plenty of evidence showing that it wasnt the first or even second super continent to even exist.

In order for continents to be 254 million centimeters apart, at a rate of motion of 3 centimeters per year, a minimum age for earth since the time of pangea would be...254 million divided by 3 = 84 million years old.

Now, this doesnt have to be a precise number. It doesnt even have to be even in the ball park, because the number is multiple orders of magnitude, far beyond anything even close to a 6000 year old earth.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, back to the point here, you said that "to date anything back to 10,000 bc, we would have to rely on radiometric dating", but in reality, there are many fields of science, and basic concepts of logic in physics and chemistry, that show us that we can date the earth back far far older than 10,000 years, without even taking radiometric dating into consideration at all.

But, no offense to you, people who arent familiar with geology (such as yourself) probably wouldnt be aware of how much we know about the earth and how old it is, beyond just radioactive dating.

But, just to put the icing on the cake here, when we did discover radiometric dating, we soon found that indeed....

Radioactive dating did actually give us correlating dates that identified the separation of south america from africa, as having occured between 80-120 million years ago (depending on what part of each continent you test). Which just so happens to match todays rates of continental drift, which just so happens to coincide with todays observed laws of physics and chemistry, which just so happens to make perfect sense given the presence of overturned angular unconformities in the late silurian, and complex decapod burrows of the jurassic and instances regional metamorphosis and many many many other lines of evidence which all point toward an old earth.




Is it all a coincidence? No of course not. The earth is old and thats all there is to it. And Radiometric dating is just a drop of water in the ocean of indicators and evidence.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ultimately, reality indicates that the earth is extraordinarily old.

And this is clearly understood, just as it is clearly understood that a rock is harder than say...a pillow.

@NobleMouse

So ultimately, you have to choose between reality, in which rocks are harder than pillows, or your interpretation of scripture which contradicts reality, in that you believe it says that pillows are harder than rock.

Your beliefs are truly separated and contradictory to reality.

So will you choose to live, perhaps with a closed heart, separated from the reality of Gods creation (earth)? In your own bubble, where reality will never make sense? In a world where you will never understand how regional metamorphosis occurs or how complex burrow systems could form or...how physics works, or how chemistry works...? Surely you understand that the same physics and chemistry that has allowed us to land drones on mars, and put mankind on the moon, is the same physics and chemistry that allows us to understand physics of the old earth. Just as kinematic equations are used in and laws of gravitation are used to put people on the moon, they are also used to understand the kinematics of mountain collisions and the gravitation and isostatic properties of continents while drifting. We know our mathematics and physics and chemistry works, and we know that it accurately describes reality and how reality works.

In your world, or rather in the world of young earth creationism, nothing makes sense. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology etc. none of it makes any sense.

Is this how you want to live out your life? In a world where nothing makes sense?

 

[Speedwell]

So you're back to believing the accounts from the OT are historical then? My experience has been that these discussions do not lead to anyone's change of heart or attitude, so you'll continue to believe the assertions of scientists and I'll continue to believe the God's word on creation actually happened.

LOL! I never said otherwise. The issue is about the nature of the historical narrative describing those events. I don't care that much about the science as a reason for rejecting your interpretation; scientific theories are subject to change and the Bible has other, more important things to tell us anyway. I am satisfied that the authority of Scripture depends on its divine inspiration, not on your genre determination.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL! I never said otherwise. The issue is about the nature of the historical narrative describing those events. I don't care that much about the science as a reason for rejecting your interpretation; scientific theories are subject to change and the Bible has other, more important things to tell us anyway. I am satisfied that the authority of Scripture depends on its divine inspiration, not on your genre determination.

Did the land go dark from 12:00 - 15:00 the day Jesus was crucified?

And looking up, could they see the constellation Aries?

 

[Speedwell]

Most Christians would use the NIV ... what's your point? consensus of opinion rules?

No, they wouldn't. Most Christians don't even speak English,

 

[AV1611VET]

No, they wouldn't. Most Christians don't even speak English,

Hmmm ... point taken.