Oklahoma: OK to say dinos co-existed with humans

verysincere · Mar 1, 2013

46AND2 said:
If that is the case, then there would not be a single word in the Hebrew/Greek text that is used for multiple meanings.

Are you prepared to make that claim?

I have a wall of hermeneutics and exegesis textbooks and I can assure you that even very few fundamentalists institutions pretend that there is a legitimate Law of First Mention.

It is a good example of TRADITION seeping into the Church and then gets mistaken for actual Biblical revelation and/or wise hermeneutical procedures. Even common sense would negate such a law because it false presumes chronological and authorial precedence. I could just as easily establish a "Law of Last Mention" -- and claim that because revelation is progressive, the BEST use of a word is the final occurrence when its full meaning has finally been disclosed. (Doesn't that sound pious?)

Indeed, it is a good example of the kind of popular fallacies which get started in those little unaccredited Bible schools built around the personality of some TV preacher or popular IFCA pastor with a big bus ministry that gives him big attendance numbers. I sometimes had home-schooled undergrads who would come into my theology courses with various "pseudo-pop-theology" backgrounds filled with such "rules" and "laws". I'd ask them and discover that their parents had gotten "textbooks" from some TV ministry or a local parochial school. The authors were usually unknown and untrained. I've heard that the Internet has made this sort of "training" even more problematic in recent years.

Very sad, actually.

AV1611VET · Mar 1, 2013

46AND2 said:
If that is the case, then there would not be a single word in the Hebrew/Greek text that is used for multiple meanings.

Are you prepared to make that claim?

The law states that an interpreter should look for how the word was used the first time it is mentioned, then in subsequent usages of the same word, it will usually be used the same way.

If used differently, the context will be clear enough that one can see the difference.

For example, in almost every instance where the Bible speaks allegorically, the Bible alerts the reader -- either just before, or just after -- that the passage is/was allegorical; whether as a parable, or as a vision, or as a dream, or whatever.

In the few instances where it doesn't, such as the Tabernacle in the Wilderness being a "parable" of Jesus Christ, the Bible will explain it to the reader later on (such as in the book of Hebrews in the New Testament, which explains the Tabernacle as a picture of Jesus Christ).

AV1611VET · Mar 1, 2013

46AND2 said:
Then why would the length of time Noah spent on the ark matter at all for the context of "eretz"? Would not a year long Mesopotamia localized flood fit your "one of a kind" requirement?

No, the context is all wrong.

There are many things that don't fit the story properly if taken as a local Flood, that fit perfectly if the Flood is global; including such things as how long it took to build the Ark, the calling of the animals to the Ark from all over the world, the Ark being above the mountains of Ararat, the family being on the Ark for a year.

In addition, common sense should raise some eyebrows as well; such as where the retaining walls were during the Flood, why birds had to board the Ark, and why the residents of Mesopotamia couldn't have just left the area (they had 120 years to run).

Occam's razor should rule over this one.

46AND2 · Mar 1, 2013

AV1611VET said:
The law states that an interpreter should look for how the word was used the first time it is mentioned, then in subsequent usages of the same word, it will usually be used the same way.

If used differently, the context will be clear enough that one can see the difference.

For example, in almost every instance where the Bible speaks allegorically, the Bible alerts the reader -- either just before, or just after -- that the passage is/was allegorical; whether as a parable, or as a vision, or as a dream, or whatever.

In the few instances where it doesn't, such as the Tabernacle in the Wilderness being a "parable" of Jesus Christ, the Bible will explain it to the reader later on (such as in the book of Hebrews in the New Testament, which explains the Tabernacle as a picture of Jesus Christ).

Sounds more like a rule of thumb to me than a law...and not a particularly good one at that.

Context ambiguity, combined with common sense and logic should trump this *law* every time.

46AND2 · Mar 1, 2013

AV1611VET said:
No, the context is all wrong.

There are many things that don't fit the story properly if taken as a local Flood, that fit perfectly if the Flood is global; including such things as how long it took to build the Ark, the calling of the animals to the Ark from all over the world, the Ark being above the mountains of Ararat, the family being on the Ark for a year.

In addition, common sense should raise some eyebrows as well; such as where the retaining walls were during the Flood, why birds had to board the Ark, and why the residents of Mesopotamia couldn't have just left the area (they had 120 years to run).

Occam's razor should rule over this one.

Occam's razor indicates that there was never a global flood, AV. I don't think you appreciate just how impossible it is to explain the geology of the earth with the global flood you support in mind.

I wish I could express to you just how thoroughly the global flood is dismantled by geologic evidence. But the subject matter is too vast to adequately lay it out here.

Anyway, I have to get up early for work tomorrow. Time for bed.

AV1611VET · Mar 1, 2013

verysincere said:
I have a wall of hermeneutics and exegesis textbooks and I can assure you that even very few fundamentalists institutions pretend that there is a legitimate Law of First Mention.

It is a good example of TRADITION seeping into the Church and then gets mistaken for actual Biblical revelation and/or wise hermeneutical procedures. Even common sense would negate such a law because it false presumes chronological and authorial precedence. I could just as easily establish a "Law of Last Mention" -- and claim that because revelation is progressive, the BEST use of a word is the final occurrence when its full meaning has finally been disclosed. (Doesn't that sound pious?)

Indeed, it is a good example of the kind of popular fallacies which get started in those little unaccredited Bible schools built around the personality of some TV preacher or popular IFCA pastor with a big bus ministry that gives him big attendance numbers. I sometimes had home-schooled undergrads who would come into my theology courses with various "pseudo-pop-theology" backgrounds filled with such "rules" and "laws". I'd ask them and discover that their parents had gotten "textbooks" from some TV ministry or a local parochial school. The authors were usually unknown and untrained. I've heard that the Internet has made this sort of "training" even more problematic in recent years.

Very sad, actually.

I'm not really interested in your anti-establishment rants -- not when you have to appeal to another language to make your points in English.

You might make a good Timothy Leary, but you're no J. Vernon McGee; not by a long shot.

I'm not impressed in the least by your sub-standard speeches in tongues.

As Paul put it ...

1 Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

You might impress the Platos of Alexandria around here, but I'm from the school of Antioch.

God declared Egypt off-limits to Old Testament saints ... remember?

That's why they had to kidnap Jeremiah to get him down there.

Don't bring your Egyptian baggage around me, it stinks.

AV1611VET · Mar 1, 2013

46AND2 said:
Anyway, I have to get up early for work tomorrow. Time for bed.

Have a good night, 46, and I hope you have a good day at work tomorrow.

dad · Mar 2, 2013

CabVet said:
Saw these news today, I am simply speechless:

"As American science students struggle to compete with the global competition, Oklahoma is moving forward with a law that could ban Biology teachers from failing students who argue that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. The state legislator’s committee in charge of education standards has approved a law that would forbid teachers from penalizing students who argue against widely accepted scientific theories, such as evolution and climate change."

Source.

Maybe if it were illegal to teach kids that dinos lived before man, it would be better. It will be one day. What a glorious day that will be.

Jig · Mar 2, 2013

dad said:
Maybe if it were illegal to teach kids that dinos lived before man, it would be better. It will be one day. What a glorious day that will be.

Should it be illegal to teach your child that a specific philosophical worldview is correct, as opposed to other views?

You're heading down a dangerous slippery slope. If one philosophical worldview can be banned, then so can yours.

Or do you suppose we instead teach pure agnosticism and promote absolute neutrality?

Subduction Zone · Mar 2, 2013

Jig said:
Should it be illegal to teach your child that a specific philosophical worldview is correct, as opposed to other views?

You're heading down a dangerous slippery slope. If one philosophical worldview can be banned, then so can yours.

Or do you suppose we instead teach pure agnosticism and promote absolute neutrality?

I don't know about philosophy, I think you are trying to stretch the definition a bit if you call evolution philosophy.

I do agree that child abuse should be illegal:

Lawrence Krauss: Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse - YouTube

Jig · Mar 2, 2013

46AND2 said:
Lol. The source you cited just stated that it could have either meaning. So, it is YOUR interpretation that it MUST mean planet earth concerning the flood, rather than realizing that verysincere could very well be correct, and the passage could be consistent with a localized flood AND scientific findings that no global flood ever happened.

Actually, the Hebrew word being discussed has more than two meanings. However, I have never stated that my interpretation and definition of this word is anything but a personal interpretation of the literary context and lexical evidence. Instead, I have only cited support that my reading of the Genesis text is possible.

I can respect someone who comes to a different opinion, but it doesn't appear that anyone wants to respect my opinion. I guess they are not looking to merely agree to disagree. This is probably because, in that situation, my position is still a valid possibility.

In other words, you choose tradition over evidence.

Have you not been listening? This is not even a proper statement!

I choose to believe my interpretation (which also happens to be the traditional reading of the text) over other interpretations.

Stop using the word 'evidence' as if only one interpretation of it is possible.

Jig · Mar 2, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
I don't know about philosophy, I think you are trying to stretch the definition a bit if you call evolution philosophy.

I do agree that child abuse should be illegal:

It is not abuse to teach a child a philosophical worldview.

Also, you can't state that 'evolution' is not a philosophy without first defining what you mean by 'evolution'. Even as a creationist, I also believe in evolution (biological life is not static!) - but I don't subscribe to many of the assumptions made by proponents of Darwinistic evolution.

TheReasoner · Mar 2, 2013

Jig said:
It is not abuse to teach a child a philosophical worldview.

It is if said "philsophical" view is a lie. Then it can, as is the case with creationism, render the child unable to get a good education. Land a good job. Get somewhere meaningful in life - and not necessarily because of discrimination. In some cases, as is the case with creationism, this harm can come from the "philosophy" rendering the person adhering to it, incompetent.
Furthermore, when a philosophy as you call it is later on proven to be wrong to said child, whether he/she is then an adult or not, can lead to an existentialist crisis. In other words it could and often does confer a very real psychological trauma. So YES, it is very much child abuse.

Jig said:
Also, you can't state that 'evolution' is not a philosophy without first defining what you mean by 'evolution'.

Now now. I think you are being a bit dishonest. I think you are well aware what he means by evolution, I am not convinced you know what biological evolution IS. Though I am sure you think you have it nailed down. But no, in general there is no need to define it. It is quite well defined by the theory of evolution.

MrsLurking · Mar 2, 2013

Jig said:
A
Stop using the word 'evidence' as if only one interpretation of it is possible.

Stop ignoring the fact that over time erroneous interpretations of the evidence are put aside and the attested, confirmed interpretation which explains the data is formalized as an accepted theory. The Theory of Evolution, for example, is the only interpretation of the data which science discusses because there is no other interpretation which has survived 150+ years of attempts at falsification.

2=2=4 because that is the very best interpretation and there is no contrary evidence. No, other fields of science are not the same as a mathematical proof but after the evidence has been studied and the theory tested for so long and without any flaws coming to light, we accept the realities of science---even if they "threaten" the cherished beliefs of some.

OllieFranz · Mar 2, 2013

Jig said:
Stop using the word 'evidence' as if only one interpretation of it is possible.

While I agree that if you accept that supernatural causes (including the Creator God) are as much a part of the world as natural causes, then things do not have to have happened exactly the way science reconstructs the events. Science would posit that the wine that came out of the water jugs at the Wedding went into those jugs as wine (or as grape juice, if wine can ferment in that kind of jug). But we have testimony that it was water that went into the jugs. A supernatural agent (Jesus) intervened in the natural process, you are using

Likewise, All of the thing we see, and for which science posits a billions-year history could have been created much later with elements that were already mature, etc. But we would have no way of knowing that without a reliable witness. Worse, we would have no way, other than witness testimony (or transcripts or summaries of such testimony) of knowing whether there was one or more such "Last Thursday" creations.

So far, I'm with you. You say you have such a witness for a 6,000 year ago Creation event, Fine, show it to me. You show me Genesis 1 (and maybe some scattered verses that refer back to the events in Genesis 1-3). And I say that while I believe that Genesis, like all of the Bible, is indeed inspired of God, you are using the phrases "God's truth," and "God's words" as if only one interpretation oh it is possible. Stop it.

Jig · Mar 2, 2013

TheReasoner said:
It is if said "philsophical" view is a lie.

You might not find a particular philosophical position logical or appealing, but at the end of the day all worldviews are subjective. Have you ever studied epistemology? You cannot call any particular worldview an absolute lie, because you don't have absolute knowledge. However, you are allowed to assume and form an opinion. This cannot be the basis for a child abuse claim though.

Now now. I think you are being a bit dishonest. I think you are well aware what he means by evolution, I am not convinced you know what biological evolution IS. Though I am sure you think you have it nailed down. But no, in general there is no need to define it. It is quite well defined by the theory of evolution.

I took many science classes in college - from biology to astronomy. All were infused with secular evolutionary ideas. I've had a healthy dose of proper education on this matter taught by a professor who believed in such theories.

You are the one being dishonest in saying that the term 'evolution' is not used broadly in science. It must be defined to be properly understood in context.

Do I believe dogs can evolve into different breeds. Yes.
Do I believe single-celled organisms evolved into dogs. No.

In both instances I used the term evolve, but they implied different ideas.

Subduction Zone · Mar 2, 2013

Jig said:
It is not abuse to teach a child a philosophical worldview.

Also, you can't state that 'evolution' is not a philosophy without first defining what you mean by 'evolution'. Even as a creationist, I also believe in evolution (biological life is not static!) - but I don't subscribe to many of the assumptions made by proponents of Darwinistic evolution.

Actually I do believe it is up to you to define what you mean by "philosophy" first. You do not seem to be using a standard definition.

At least it looks like you don't think that creationism is a philosphical worldview because it is still child abuse to teach creationism to children. If adults want to pollute their minds with that junk it is fine with me. As the saying goes it is a free country.

AV1611VET · Mar 2, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
At least it looks like you don't think that creationism is a philosphical worldview because it is still child abuse to teach creationism to children. If adults want to pollute their minds with that junk it is fine with me. As the saying goes it is a free country.

Thankfully, the law doesn't agree with those who think teaching children creationism is a form of child abuse.

RickG · Mar 2, 2013

Jig said:
You might not find a particular philosophical position logical or appealing, but at the end of the day all worldviews are subjective. Have you ever studied epistemology? You cannot call any particular worldview an absolute lie, because you don't have absolute knowledge. However, you are allowed to assume and form an opinion. This cannot be the basis for a child abuse claim though.

I took many science classes in college - from biology to astronomy. All were infused with secular evolutionary ideas. I've had a healthy dose of proper education on this matter taught by a professor who believed in such theories.

You are the one being dishonest in saying that the term 'evolution' is not used broadly in science. It must be defined to be properly understood in context.

Do I believe dogs can evolve into different breeds. Yes.
Do I believe single-celled organisms evolved into dogs. No.

In both instances I used the term evolve, but they implied different ideas.

How would you explain the geologic fossil record then. Did all those different species suddenly pop into and out of existence over 4 billion years? If evolution is false, then why are there no Precambrian rabbits? Why are there no Devonian dinosaurs? Why are there no Jurassic elephants? Etc., etc., etc.......

Subduction Zone · Mar 2, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Thankfully, the law doesn't agree with those who think teaching children creationism is a form of child abuse.

Wow! AVET is pro child abuse too.

Someday it might be. Are children property? Perhaps some day children will be able to choose their own religion.

Oklahoma: OK to say dinos co-existed with humans

Exegete/Linguist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Undefeated!

Christ Follower

Regular Member

Christ Follower

Christ Follower

Former christian, current teapot agnostic.

Retired Biblical scholar; Verysincere's wife.

Senior Member

Christ Follower

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Similar threads