Lets ask Venn!? OEC vs YEC

GBTG · Dec 6, 2017

Let’s ask Venn?

OEC vs YEC according to Venn Diagrams!

In an attempt to change the nature of our argument, I want to apply syllogism to this discussion to hopefully make clear some of the points between the two. Before we begin I would like to start with a few examples. Venn Diagrams give a visual reference to understand the difference between logical and illogical conclusions. In the second statement below no conclusion is actually given, as such the presenter of this type of argument wants you to think that by implication, therefore some A’s are C’s. This is illogical, in some cases A and C might be mutually exclusive, and in other cases they may be synonymous, but they can’t be both at the same time. This form of argument is used to make one appear correct when in fact they are being deceptive. The first example is the correct logical example as the major subject (first listed) is also the major subject of the conclusion. In the second example the minor subject (second listed) is used in the conclusion, which makes any conclusion illogical as there is no correct relationship to the major subject.

Logical:

First All A’s are B’s and some A’s are C’s:

All snakes are reptiles, some snakes are venomous animals:

Illogical:

All A’s are B’s and some B’s are C’s:

All Eagles are birds, some birds are flightless birds: Conclusion Ostrich!

Now lets move on to the subject as hand!

Syllogism for God:

1. Perfect

2. Logical (illogic is fallibility which is imperfect, therefore mutually exclusive to perfection)

3. Wise (all knowing, lacking wisdom is imperfect also mutually exclusive to perfection)

While I think we could go on about all the aspects of God these 3 will suffice.

(God)

Now lets move on to Gods Word the Bible.

John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was God, and the Word was with God.

God’s Word therefore is infallible as he is perfection; the Bible is perfect in its original form.

Therefore The Bible is perfect in its original form; man has translated God’s Word and used the Bible to come to an understanding.

In syllogism: A is B, A translated to C, Some A is D

Conclusion: God and the original text are perfect, some of the translation is accurate (no specificity is given to the percent accurate/inaccurate); our (Man’s) understanding has some perfect ideas from God or his Word, some biblical translation ideas, and some ideas outside the context of the Bible.

It is important that one understand that the area’s inside are not meaningful other than to represent the idea. Half of a circle inside another circle does not mean 50% of that idea or population is represented, rather its just showing that the two are related or in agreement in some fashion. I drew disproportionate circles to shows this as an example. Now if the ENTIRE circle is inside one of other circles as the snakes’ example above, this DOES represent that the whole idea or population must be related or in agreement. Or if the Whole circle is out side another circle this means the two are mutually exclusive or no relationship can be found.

Example:

Therefore our focus is on making accurate arguments using correct relationships to the ideas.

Now lets move on to OEC vs YEC and atheism while we are at it…

#1: Perfect translation of the Bible and perfect science that agrees.

#2: Perfect understanding of the science that agrees with the Bible.

#3: Imperfect science that does not agree with the Bible, that we think we understand but there are some translational problems.

#4: Perfect Bible translation and understanding, omitting science. (This is where YEC professes to be.)

OEC: Is an attempt to understand the perfect science and translations that agree with the bible that we can understand and acknowledges that we may fail. To stay in the middle takes lots of time in the Bible and application of those things that AGREE. For those things that disagree we look at the science of the translation to see where there might be a discrepancy. OEC’s understand that we will never fully understand fully the proper translations, no everything about science, or God, because we are human. This is the least arrogant or most humble Christian. (speaking as a former YEC).

YEC: Is an attempt to understand the word of God omitting the science that exists, creating new science that fits the translations they understand, and knowing that some of those translations may be imperfect.

Atheism: is an attempt to understand the Universe without taking into the consideration the science that agrees perfectly with the Bible, and omitting translational problems all together as they don’t consider the Bible or God relevant.

No matter how this is drawn, you cannot make the bias of omitting science and those things that God created logical from a YEC argument:

Lastly God created free will, so the possibility of atheism is a choice man can make inside everything God created!

Let the games begin!

Warm regards, GBTG

Ancient of Days · Dec 6, 2017

I get what you are saying but the whole problem lies in how you view the evidence. We all have the same evidence its just some choose to look at it through biblical glasses and some without. What can be said that hasn't already been said, " there is nothing new under the sun"

GBTG · Dec 7, 2017

There is something new under the sun, because we can now show relationship to an idea, this allows us to see which argument is the better argument. You may look up dualism according to C.S. Lewis, as his argument demonstrates that one idea always prevails over another idea. Just like polytheism is less logical than monotheism.

Warm regards, GBTG

Dan Brooks · Dec 11, 2017

GBTG said:
Let’s ask Venn?

OEC vs YEC according to Venn Diagrams!

In an attempt to change the nature of our argument, I want to apply syllogism to this discussion to hopefully make clear some of the points between the two. Before we begin I would like to start with a few examples. Venn Diagrams give a visual reference to understand the difference between logical and illogical conclusions. In the second statement below no conclusion is actually given, as such the presenter of this type of argument wants you to think that by implication, therefore some A’s are C’s. This is illogical, in some cases A and C might be mutually exclusive, and in other cases they may be synonymous, but they can’t be both at the same time. This form of argument is used to make one appear correct when in fact they are being deceptive. The first example is the correct logical example as the major subject (first listed) is also the major subject of the conclusion. In the second example the minor subject (second listed) is used in the conclusion, which makes any conclusion illogical as there is no correct relationship to the major subject.

Logical:

First All A’s are B’s and some A’s are C’s:

All snakes are reptiles, some snakes are venomous animals:

View attachment 215611Illogical:

All A’s are B’s and some B’s are C’s:

All Eagles are birds, some birds are flightless birds: Conclusion Ostrich!
View attachment 215612
Now lets move on to the subject as hand!

Syllogism for God:

View attachment 215613
1. Perfect

2. Logical (illogic is fallibility which is imperfect, therefore mutually exclusive to perfection)

3. Wise (all knowing, lacking wisdom is imperfect also mutually exclusive to perfection)

While I think we could go on about all the aspects of God these 3 will suffice.

(God)

Now lets move on to Gods Word the Bible.

John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was God, and the Word was with God.

God’s Word therefore is infallible as he is perfection; the Bible is perfect in its original form.

Therefore The Bible is perfect in its original form; man has translated God’s Word and used the Bible to come to an understanding.

In syllogism: A is B, A translated to C, Some A is D

Conclusion: God and the original text are perfect, some of the translation is accurate (no specificity is given to the percent accurate/inaccurate); our (Man’s) understanding has some perfect ideas from God or his Word, some biblical translation ideas, and some ideas outside the context of the Bible.

View attachment 215614
It is important that one understand that the area’s inside are not meaningful other than to represent the idea. Half of a circle inside another circle does not mean 50% of that idea or population is represented, rather its just showing that the two are related or in agreement in some fashion. I drew disproportionate circles to shows this as an example. Now if the ENTIRE circle is inside one of other circles as the snakes’ example above, this DOES represent that the whole idea or population must be related or in agreement. Or if the Whole circle is out side another circle this means the two are mutually exclusive or no relationship can be found.

Example:

View attachment 215615

Therefore our focus is on making accurate arguments using correct relationships to the ideas.

Now lets move on to OEC vs YEC and atheism while we are at it…

View attachment 215616
#1: Perfect translation of the Bible and perfect science that agrees.

#2: Perfect understanding of the science that agrees with the Bible.

#3: Imperfect science that does not agree with the Bible, that we think we understand but there are some translational problems.

#4: Perfect Bible translation and understanding, omitting science. (This is where YEC professes to be.)

OEC: Is an attempt to understand the perfect science and translations that agree with the bible that we can understand and acknowledges that we may fail. To stay in the middle takes lots of time in the Bible and application of those things that AGREE. For those things that disagree we look at the science of the translation to see where there might be a discrepancy. OEC’s understand that we will never fully understand fully the proper translations, no everything about science, or God, because we are human. This is the least arrogant or most humble Christian. (speaking as a former YEC).

YEC: Is an attempt to understand the word of God omitting the science that exists, creating new science that fits the translations they understand, and knowing that some of those translations may be imperfect.

Atheism: is an attempt to understand the Universe without taking into the consideration the science that agrees perfectly with the Bible, and omitting translational problems all together as they don’t consider the Bible or God relevant.

No matter how this is drawn, you cannot make the bias of omitting science and those things that God created logical from a YEC argument:

View attachment 215617
Lastly God created free will, so the possibility of atheism is a choice man can make inside everything God created!

Let the games begin!

Warm regards, GBTG

So you're saying that the YEC view is not supported by science whatsoever? That seems like a presuppositional bias to me.

redleghunter · Dec 11, 2017

GBTG said:
Let’s ask Venn?

OEC vs YEC according to Venn Diagrams!

In an attempt to change the nature of our argument, I want to apply syllogism to this discussion to hopefully make clear some of the points between the two. Before we begin I would like to start with a few examples. Venn Diagrams give a visual reference to understand the difference between logical and illogical conclusions. In the second statement below no conclusion is actually given, as such the presenter of this type of argument wants you to think that by implication, therefore some A’s are C’s. This is illogical, in some cases A and C might be mutually exclusive, and in other cases they may be synonymous, but they can’t be both at the same time. This form of argument is used to make one appear correct when in fact they are being deceptive. The first example is the correct logical example as the major subject (first listed) is also the major subject of the conclusion. In the second example the minor subject (second listed) is used in the conclusion, which makes any conclusion illogical as there is no correct relationship to the major subject.

Logical:

First All A’s are B’s and some A’s are C’s:

All snakes are reptiles, some snakes are venomous animals:

View attachment 215611Illogical:

All A’s are B’s and some B’s are C’s:

All Eagles are birds, some birds are flightless birds: Conclusion Ostrich!
View attachment 215612
Now lets move on to the subject as hand!

Syllogism for God:

View attachment 215613
1. Perfect

2. Logical (illogic is fallibility which is imperfect, therefore mutually exclusive to perfection)

3. Wise (all knowing, lacking wisdom is imperfect also mutually exclusive to perfection)

While I think we could go on about all the aspects of God these 3 will suffice.

(God)

Now lets move on to Gods Word the Bible.

John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was God, and the Word was with God.

God’s Word therefore is infallible as he is perfection; the Bible is perfect in its original form.

Therefore The Bible is perfect in its original form; man has translated God’s Word and used the Bible to come to an understanding.

In syllogism: A is B, A translated to C, Some A is D

Conclusion: God and the original text are perfect, some of the translation is accurate (no specificity is given to the percent accurate/inaccurate); our (Man’s) understanding has some perfect ideas from God or his Word, some biblical translation ideas, and some ideas outside the context of the Bible.

View attachment 215614
It is important that one understand that the area’s inside are not meaningful other than to represent the idea. Half of a circle inside another circle does not mean 50% of that idea or population is represented, rather its just showing that the two are related or in agreement in some fashion. I drew disproportionate circles to shows this as an example. Now if the ENTIRE circle is inside one of other circles as the snakes’ example above, this DOES represent that the whole idea or population must be related or in agreement. Or if the Whole circle is out side another circle this means the two are mutually exclusive or no relationship can be found.

Example:

View attachment 215615

Therefore our focus is on making accurate arguments using correct relationships to the ideas.

Now lets move on to OEC vs YEC and atheism while we are at it…

View attachment 215616
#1: Perfect translation of the Bible and perfect science that agrees.

#2: Perfect understanding of the science that agrees with the Bible.

#3: Imperfect science that does not agree with the Bible, that we think we understand but there are some translational problems.

#4: Perfect Bible translation and understanding, omitting science. (This is where YEC professes to be.)

OEC: Is an attempt to understand the perfect science and translations that agree with the bible that we can understand and acknowledges that we may fail. To stay in the middle takes lots of time in the Bible and application of those things that AGREE. For those things that disagree we look at the science of the translation to see where there might be a discrepancy. OEC’s understand that we will never fully understand fully the proper translations, no everything about science, or God, because we are human. This is the least arrogant or most humble Christian. (speaking as a former YEC).

YEC: Is an attempt to understand the word of God omitting the science that exists, creating new science that fits the translations they understand, and knowing that some of those translations may be imperfect.

Atheism: is an attempt to understand the Universe without taking into the consideration the science that agrees perfectly with the Bible, and omitting translational problems all together as they don’t consider the Bible or God relevant.

No matter how this is drawn, you cannot make the bias of omitting science and those things that God created logical from a YEC argument:

View attachment 215617
Lastly God created free will, so the possibility of atheism is a choice man can make inside everything God created!

Let the games begin!

Warm regards, GBTG

Perhaps comparing the natural to supernatural might have been a simpler model to start out with which might lead to a more compelling discussion.

NobleMouse · Dec 11, 2017

Dan Brooks said:
So you're saying that the YEC view is not supported by science whatsoever? That seems like a presuppositional bias to me.

I think there is a great deal of scientific support under the YEC view as well as the OEC view and so to your point, bias and perception will greatly influence which view we believe has more credibility. For me, and as most in the forum here know by now, I believe the earth is approx. ~6,000 years old; however, understand others have different opinions on the topic and like my own, have scientific conclusions backing up their position.

GBTG · Dec 11, 2017

Dan Brooks said:
So you're saying that the YEC view is not supported by science whatsoever? That seems like a presuppositional bias to me.

You are correct I was hoping for some dialogue so left two points of contention (illogical arguments) within the Venn Diagram, First the whole of the OEC in my first example completely falls within the perfection of the Bible which it cannot. Instead the OEC portion should be made to move or shift right into #3 from the example as some of the OEC falls more with understanding of Science and focuses on possible translation errors to make corrections, so that science and the Bible can agree. This is not to say that some science does not perfectly line up with the original Bible, translation, and understanding. So the OEC circle would have to partial share #3.

You are right that the first diagram does indeed disregard that YEC does acknowledge some science as accurate. Here is a new diagram that should be accurate for all arguments.

This new diagram demonstrates the following argument. YEC's believe or understand that the Bible and therefore most of the translations to be near perfect. From this understanding they conclude that science is supernaturally directed by God because he is supernatural (we can lump supernatural with perfect Bible as they are of one accord), and with God anything is possible. As such conflicts with the science of man are rendered inconsequential, as God is perfect and one need not concern themselves with the particulars, because if God wanted too, he certainly could have! For those science process that conflict wit the Bible, new YEC science is needed to get the science right according to the Bible.

This is illogical as I could ask for the same answer with the following question:

If God is perfect and He can do anything... Can He create a boulder that He could not lift?

A Venn diagram for this is illogical as the idea is mutually exclusive. This does not demonstrate that God is imperfect but, rather how the question was posed is imperfect. YEC's retreat to supernatural to rectify those things that God has created (everything) that dose not align with the Bible, presuming that their translation is perfect or infallible. Dinosaurs are a problem for YEC, no matter how you look at dinosaurs they are way older than 6000 years. I can ask the question above in another way:

Did God create the dinosaurs and hide their bones to confound man, supernaturally?

The problem with this reasoning, as the Venn diagram shows is that God created everything, he gave man dominion over everything (except intellect and science), and told us to be wise (application of knowledge) using his word the Bible as the basis.

Which is the better question:

a) Did God create the universe and everything within said universe to prove he is supernatural?

or

b) Did God create the universe and everything within it, with the understanding that man could recognize that the whole of the universe is supernatural, based on those things we can discover that he created?

Warm regards, GBTG

Dan Brooks · Dec 11, 2017

GBTG said:
Dinosaurs are a problem for YEC, no matter how you look at dinosaurs they are way older than 6000 years.

Did you know that there have been dinosaur bones found with liquid plasma still in them? That doesn't make them seem very old to me. And these were found by secular scientists, and they didn't like it.

GBTG · Dec 11, 2017

You mean the Christian scientist like myself that is an OEC, that happened to make the discovery?

"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was 'powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.'

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. 'They treat you really bad,' she says. 'They twist your words and they manipulate your data.' For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. 'If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.'"

-Smithosian interview with Mary Schweitzer

From another interview with LiveScience:

"The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.

The research, headed by Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, explains how proteins — and possibly even DNA — can survive millennia. Schweitzer and her colleagues first raised this question in 2005, when they found the seemingly impossible: soft tissue preserved inside the leg of an adolescent T. rex unearthed in Montana.

'What we found was unusual, because it was still soft and still transparent and still flexible,' Schweitzer told LiveScience."

Thank you for providing me with a perfect example of the Venn diagram above. YEC's twist science and make a mockery of intellectual Christians (sorry NobleMouse

), and cause me twice as much work when I am trying to evangelize to fellow scientists. You don't get to pick the science and choose what is accurate in scripture or science. It is either true or its not. I will state this as many times as need be stated YEC is a BARRIER to SALVATION for an educated person in this day and age! It cannot be supported logically as I have once again demonstrated here!

Warm regards, GBTG

NobleMouse · Dec 12, 2017

I've begun packing my lunch inside dinosaur bones every day. If those things can keep soft tissue around for 65+ million years then surely they can keep my "sammach" good all the live long day. Silliness aside...

When is it believed that dinosaur fossils were first discovered? Most sources I find point to the 17th century. Why is it then that numerous cultures around the world (European, Asian, North & South American, etc...) have legends and tales of giant lizards/great dragons that pre-date early discoveries. How is it that the descriptions of these dragons match up with the fossil record? How is it that they perceived these beasts as having scales, long teeth, long tails, bat-like wings... all before Paleontology became a branch of science.

Interestingly, the Bible also makes reference in the book of Job to what sounds like a dinosaur - a behemoth drinking up the rivers and having a tail like that of a cedar (like a Sauropodomorpha).

Do only the uneducated believe what the Bible describes and what is corroborated by societies separated by thousands of miles of land and water? What we believe is driven by our presuppositions, our perceptions, and our biases and seems to have little bearing as to one's level of education.

GBTG · Dec 12, 2017

@NobleMouse

I love you brother, but you need to take that scripture (all scripture) in context. This is God asking Job about dinosaurs which God made at the same time as man (creator of DNA). I normally would not share this much scripture, but all of this is relevant to this argument! I highlighted the quotes in pink to demonstrate that God is showing Job things which he did not know, the showing or telling is highlighted in red. I fully agree that God is describing a dinosaur, but also understand that when God shows Job, he is humbled because he has never seen the likes of a dinosaur before, he says so in Job 42:3! Also there is plenty of metaphor in regard to using a dinosaur as reference (hence why Job had to be shown, no prior knowledge).

God’s Challenge to Job
6 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said:

7 “Now prepare yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer Me:

8 “Would you indeed annul My judgment?
Would you condemn Me that you may be justified?
9 Have you an arm like God?
Or can you thunder with a voice like His?
10 Then adorn yourself with majesty and splendor,
And array yourself with glory and beauty.
11 Disperse the rage of your wrath;
Look on everyone who is proud, and humble him.
12 Look on everyone who is proud, and bring him low;
Tread down the wicked in their place.
13 Hide them in the dust together,
Bind their faces in hidden darkness.
14 Then I will also confess to you
That your own right hand can save you.

15 “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; (God is showing Job, and describing his attributes as Job has know personal knowledge of such a beast)
He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips, (God is once again showing Job, with more descriptors)
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God;
Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
20 Surely the mountains yield food for him,
And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.
22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;
The willows by the brook surround him.
23 Indeed the river may rage,
Yet he is not disturbed;
He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,
24 Though he takes it in his eyes,
Or one pierces his nose with a snare.

Continuing on...

Job 41

1 “Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook,
Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower?
2 Can you put a reed through his nose,
Or pierce his jaw with a hook?
3 Will he make many supplications to you?
Will he speak softly to you?
4 Will he make a covenant with you?
Will you take him as a servant forever?
5 Will you play with him as with a bird,
Or will you leash him for your maidens?
6 Will your companions make a banquet of him?
Will they apportion him among the merchants?
7 Can you fill his skin with harpoons,
Or his head with fishing spears?
8 Lay your hand on him;
Remember the battle—
Never do it again!
9 Indeed, any hope of overcoming him is false;
Shall one not be overwhelmed at the sight of him?
10 No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.
Who then is able to stand against Me?
11 Who has preceded Me, that I should pay him?
Everything under heaven is Mine.

12 “I will not conceal his limbs,
His mighty power, or his graceful proportions.
13 Who can remove his outer coat?
Who can approach him with a double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face,
With his terrible teeth all around?
15 His rows of scales are his pride,
Shut up tightly as with a seal;
16 One is so near another
That no air can come between them;
17 They are joined one to another,
They stick together and cannot be parted.
18 His sneezings flash forth light,
And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lights;
Sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke goes out of his nostrils,
As from a boiling pot and burning rushes.
21 His breath kindles coals,
And a flame goes out of his mouth.
22 Strength dwells in his neck,
And sorrow dances before him.
23 The folds of his flesh are joined together;
They are firm on him and cannot be moved.
24 His heart is as hard as stone,
Even as hard as the lower millstone.
25 When he raises himself up, the mighty are afraid;
Because of his crashings they are beside themselves.
26 Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail;
Nor does spear, dart, or javelin.
27 He regards iron as straw,
And bronze as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee;
Slingstones become like stubble to him.
29 Darts are regarded as straw;
He laughs at the threat of javelins.
30 His undersides are like sharp potsherds;
He spreads pointed marks in the mire.
31 He makes the deep boil like a pot;
He makes the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 He leaves a shining wake behind him;
One would think the deep had white hair.
33 On earth there is nothing like him,
Which is made without fear.
34 He beholds every high thing;
He is king over all the children of pride.”

42 Then Job answered the Lord and said:

2 “I know that You can do everything,
And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.
3 You asked, ‘Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 Listen, please, and let me speak;
You said, ‘I will question you, and you shall answer Me.’

5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You.
6 Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes.”

I think "...things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.", sums up how much Job knew about dinosaurs, pretty well. He definitely was never told about such a creature, nor seen one personally. Making light of or comparing dinosaur bones to a thermos demonstrates a fundamental disregard of that which this scientist discovered, as the soft tissue and the components within, specifically iron made the preservation possible. Can your "sammach" preserve itself, aptly described silliness... Moving on, lore about such creatures as dinosaurs could come from a multitude of sources. By that logic do we one day hope to find a unicorn, vampire, or werewolf? Lastly, I am not saying education is a prerequisite for faith. I am saying that the educated in society know enough to recognize fallibility and illogical when encountered, making YEC a barrier to salvation.

Warm regards, GBTG

NobleMouse · Dec 12, 2017

GBTG said:
@NobleMouse
...
I think "...things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.", sums up how much Job knew about dinosaurs, pretty well. He definitely was never told about such a creature, nor seen one personally. Making light of or comparing dinosaur bones to a thermos demonstrates a fundamental disregard of that which this scientist discovered, as the soft tissue and the components within, specifically iron made the preservation possible. Can your "sammach" preserve itself, aptly described silliness... Moving on, lore about such creatures as dinosaurs could come from a multitude of sources. By that logic do we one day hope to find a unicorn, vampire, or werewolf? Lastly, I am not saying education is a prerequisite for faith. I am saying that the educated in society know enough to recognize fallibility and illogical when encountered, making YEC a barrier to salvation.

Warm regards, GBTG

Hello GBTG, thank you for sharing this! What from these passages gives you the impression that Job is being shown a creature that did not exist at the same time as Job? Job 40:15 indicates the behemoth was made along with Job, as in by the same creator, inhabiting the same world. Nothing here explicitly tells me this has to have been from a different time.

The words from God and the responses from Job fit just as well if the dinosaur is either something Job has seen before but not observed the inner parts, or something Job has not seen before but exists at the same time - you and I also have not seen every created thing that exists right now on the earth. If one has a bias towards deep time, the verses are interpreted as different time, I understand that, but the words themselves do not mandate this conclusion.

Your argument against multiple, independent, cultures all having a similar ideas of what we know as dinosaurs is based on speculation and conjecture - how amazing that this lore was a good guess for one culture, such a guess by two is amazing, by three seems spooky and now definitely questionable as being a guess, by four or more now seems very unlikely a guess. The fact is these legends exist, the fact is we find soft tissue in dinosaurs, the fact is a dinosaur is being shown to Job and there is no context here that God has transported Job back in time or is being given a hallucination of some historic beast. There is plenty of evidence in support of dinosaurs coexisting with humans:

Dragons in History | Genesis Park

Now, for every evidence I can bring up in support that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, you can just as easily dismiss with your own sources that say they didn't. The point here, I'll make by clarifying your last statement:

"Lastly, I am not saying education is a prerequisite for faith. I am saying that the secular educated in society know enough to recognize fallibility and illogical when encountered, making YEC a barrier to salvation."

Barriers are formed by what we're taught and 2/3 of the world doesn't even believe Christianity is the one true religion. Do you suppose this is because they find the 'logic' of Christianity to be fallible or instead because they were taught that their religion is right and Christianity is wrong and so believing what they were taught creates a filter in which Christianity appears illogical/fallible? If you're taught billions of years, big bangs, evolution, that God doesn't exist and all events in all of history are the result of natural phenomenon that can simply be explained given enough time and research, then yeah most of the Bible seems illogical and in fact the 1+ billion atheists in the world are counting on it. I believe this is consistent with your Venn diagrams. Thoughts?

GBTG · Dec 12, 2017

Sigh… I am hoping that sometime in the near future you are going to have an Ah-ha moment.

In regard to Job and the word "along" if you look in your English translation bible that word should be italicized, this word was added to give coherence to the English translation, it does not say "along" in the Hebrew text. I also accounted for the "along" example as God made all DNA and dinosaurs had DNA, so he did make the code for us at the same time. As God said in the Hebrew "made with you" We did not exist at the same time, as Job demonstrates with his reply to God. Or why would he state to God, after God describes the dinosaur "...things too wonderful for me, which I did not know."?

40:15 in the Hebrew: "behold, please, behemoth, which, I, made do, with you, grass, as the ox, he-is-eating"

Back to definitions and Venn:

Secular: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

In other words, unbiased by the Bible. Why is it somehow bad when a secular view or secular scientific conclusion AGREE’s with the Bible? Just because the conclusion is derived without the Bible, does not mean that it is inherently bad or untrue! This is what secular science would call an independent verification. This independent verification gives more credence to biblical accuracy, not less credence to biblical accuracy. We will cover disagreements with the Bible and science later, for now lets define agreements.

#1

Unless you disagree?

#2

Or do you conclude that All secular science is directly contrary to the Bible, given that it does not use the Bible as a foundation of understanding?

#3

Or just some of it?

#4

Independent secular education with no biblical influence will ALWAYS align with the Bible, if the Bible is TRUE and the secular education is also TRUE. Because truth has to agree, as all truth is truth not just SOME truth.

#5

Please respond with the #’s of the Venn diagrams on which you can agree. Please state your disagreement with those you don’t agree and I will fix them to account for your argument. We will get to your Atheism argument but I want to have an agreed upon foundation prior.

Warm regards, GBTG

PS sorry for the "because" typo I was in a hurry and did not have time to fix the label in the diagram.

NobleMouse · Dec 13, 2017

GBTG said:
Sigh… I am hoping that sometime in the near future you are going to have an Ah-ha moment.

In regard to Job and the word "along" if you look in your English translation bible that word should be italicized, this word was added to give coherence to the English translation, it does not say "along" in the Hebrew text. I also accounted for the "along" example as God made all DNA and dinosaurs had DNA, so he did make the code for us at the same time. As God said in the Hebrew "made with you" We did not exist at the same time, as Job demonstrates with his reply to God. Or why would he state to God, after God describes the dinosaur "...things too wonderful for me, which I did not know."?

40:15 in the Hebrew: "behold, please, behemoth, which, I, made do, with you, grass, as the ox, he-is-eating"

The text (whether in Hebrew or in English) does not suggest a separation of great time (to the tune of 10's of millions of years). I asked you what from these passages gives you the impression that the behemoth is from a different time than Job and above you've provided Job 40:15 and Job 42:3. What from these passages gives affirmation of a great separation of time?

Simply not knowing of something does not automatically correlate to millions of years - you assume this response from Job means millions of years because you accept what is taught in secular science as to when dinosaurs existed on earth. Secular science has given you the framework and context, and so you interpret the Bible within that paradigm. If I believed dinosaurs existed millions of years ago then I would certainly interpret these passages the way you do, it is logical. Since I believe the beasts of the field were created on day 6, with man, I naturally do not form this conclusion. Now, if the text said something like "Behold the behemoth, which I made long ages ago before man..." then this would of course raise a red flag that I need to reevaluate how I am understanding the creation account in Genesis. The problem with trying to argue against the idea of a young creation using Biblical passages is that no where in all of the Bible are millions or billions of years conveyed. The Hebrew written language can certainly convey years and many years - do we not read in Genesis 5:5 that all the days of Adam were 930 years? If long ages were present at creation, long ages could have and would have been written.

Back to definitions and Venn:

Secular: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

In other words, unbiased by the Bible. Why is it somehow bad when a secular view or secular scientific conclusion AGREE’s with the Bible? Just because the conclusion is derived without the Bible, does not mean that it is inherently bad or untrue! This is what secular science would call an independent verification. This independent verification gives more credence to biblical accuracy, not less credence to biblical accuracy. We will cover disagreements with the Bible and science later, for now lets define agreements.

#1

View attachment 216110

Unless you disagree?

It is not bad when a secular view or secular scientific conclusion agrees with the Bible. In fact, the two views should be consistent and by in large are on many topics. What you're glossing over is that things like billions of years, big bangs, and macro evolution are not observed in science, they are all inferred. These mostly arise out of uniformitarianism assumptions - that rock lays are laid down 1 at a time, slowly, that radioactive decay rates have always been constant, that common physical traits means common ancestry, etc... all very nice and uniform, but also all not very accurate. Natural events have been shown to lay down many rock layers very quickly, decay rates have been accelerated as much as a factor of a billion, and what scientists are learning today about how DNA works is that the required addition of meaningful new genetic data for macro evolution to occur, does not happen. Science is always changing as more is understood and new information comes to light. Scientists of every era have touted about how they have discovered and unraveled some mystery - at one point scientists believed the earth was a few million years old, then a hundred million, hundreds of millions, a billion, 2.5 billion, 4.5 billion, etc... Do you honestly think science has arrived at the 'end' with all hidden mysteries of God now converging to revelation by secular science here at the end of 2017? If there are hundreds of year or more ahead before the rapture, then let me assure you that these 'truths/facts' of secular science will remain on their current continuum of perpetual change and when all else fades away, what will remain, unchanged, is the word of God.

#2

View attachment 216111

Or do you conclude that All secular science is directly contrary to the Bible, given that it does not use the Bible as a foundation of understanding?

Studying fossils, identifying the species, etc... is all good science. Secular scientists then exit the science room and walk over to the story telling room when they infer things that have never been and cannot be observed, recreated, or tested/falsified. YEC scientists also cannot fill in the holes of what cannot be observed; however, do not need to make up a plausible story; God already told the story - it is His story, so naturally any story that contradicts His story must be an incorrect story (for the Christian that is; obviously for those with other beliefs the story can be anything plausible that they want it to be).

#3

View attachment 216112

Or just some of it?

Just some of it. I understand why secular scientists believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old, whe they believe the earth is 4.55 billion years old, why they believe the grand canyon took millions of years for a river to be carved out, why they believe dinosaurs existed for hundreds of millions of years then went extinct approx 65 million years ago. These conclusions are not from the Bible, they are not from men and women who believe the Bible gives a reliable historic account of the beginning of creation, they do not have a bias that God's word is correct; and as such, since there is no bias towards that which is held as true and profitable for teaching then it is of no surprise to me that this lack of bias has produced conclusions that do not align with the Bible.

#4

View attachment 216113

Independent secular education with no biblical influence will ALWAYS align with the Bible, if the Bible is TRUE and the secular education is also TRUE. Because truth has to agree, as all truth is truth not just SOME truth.

Yes; however secular education is not always true. Truth only comes from God. God is perfect. All people are fallen and imperfect. Therefore, all that is taught within any education system/paradigm will not perfectly align with the Bible. I think you may be getting a little sideways in your truth/all truth arguments here. All truth is truth and will agree (as I pointed out, nowhere in the Bible do we see contradictory passages asserting long ages of time; also, multiple sources in the Bible give the assertion of a young creation so while specific details on topics like DNA and fossils are not given, it seems that there are very good indicators that the broad assertions from scripture are all true and all consistent, as would be expected); however, secular scientific assertions are often updated, changed, and rejected (this is empirically true within the history of secular science), so the assertions from secular science cannot be all truth; however, there can be some truth in them. When secular science makes assertions about certain physical laws (gravity, acceleration, force, mass, etc...) these are observably true and do not contradict what is known to be true from the Bible, so there is definitely some truth.

#5

View attachment 216114

Please respond with the #’s of the Venn diagrams on which you can agree. Please state your disagreement with those you don’t agree and I will fix them to account for your argument. We will get to your Atheism argument but I want to have an agreed upon foundation prior.

Warm regards, GBTG

PS sorry for the "because" typo I was in a hurry and did not have time to fix the label in the diagram.

I would say I generally agree along the lines of diagrams #4 or #5. There are certainly truths that do exist that the Bible does not touch on specifically (such as DNA); however, the Bible gives an account of the beginning of the universe, the earth, and life - where we came from, where we are, and where we're going. There are questions we should ask ourselves about assertions made by secular and YEC science, alike (examples below):

- Can God create a dinosaur as part of the 'beasts of the earth' on day 6? Yes
- Can Job have not been aware of a dinosaur Adam named at creation? Yes
- Can God create what He said He created, within the framework of 6 days? Yes
- When God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds" does this line up with the idea that life shares atoms in common with those found in non-life from the earth? Yes
- Does what we know about DNA line up with living creatures multiplying according to their kinds? Yes
- Does the idea of similarities in DNA across all life line up with God creating living creatures according to their kinds? Yes
- Does the idea of a generic living molecule evolving into all the diversity of life we have today line up with living creatures multiplying according to their kinds? No (because it suggests that kind is not distinct and has been crossed many times throughout history)
- Does the idea of a billion+ years to transform from a single molecule to man align with man being created in God's image on day 6? No (because it suggests man was not made in God's image, but that man was the result of millions/billions of years of random mutations and natural selection)
- Does the idea of dinosaurs being created hundreds of millions of years before man and going extinct 65 million years ago align with the beasts of the earth being created on day 6, then man being created in God's image on day 6, then God bringing every beast of the field and bird of the air to be named by man? No (because it suggests man was not present to name all the beasts of the field and birds of the air).

Sorry, I'm afraid no epiphanies or ah-ha's for me today, except as are revealed by the truth of God's word.

GBTG · Dec 13, 2017

@NobleMouse

In regard to the implication of time, you initially brought up this scripture to show that Job was made "along" with the behemoth (dinosaur). I gave the whole scripture to point out that God was telling Job things that he did not know. You may go back to Job 38 through 42 if you wish, as everything God speaks of is something that Job did not know. I never mentioned time, I was pointing out that God is showing things to Job, to which Job is unfamiliar. Likewise I was showing that the word "along" is added and not literally correct. Both of these show that your initial argument about Job and dinosaurs being on earth at the same time is invalid. Lastly Job states this fact as he does not know of such wonderful things. These are the words (and truth of God) of the Bible in context, which I also gave in the Hebrew to show the absence of "along".

Time is another matter altogether, lets tackle that one later, for now lets deal with the agreement diagrams.

You were quite verbose in your explanations, I think I can sum them all up accurately into one Diagram, let me know if you can agree totally with this:

To fix the diagram I shifted the biblical truth circle over:

In as few words as possible and without getting into other arguments that we will cover, can you agree with this diagrams conclusions? If yes just state yes, if no then please briefly say why.

Warm regards, GBTG

Dan Brooks · Dec 13, 2017

NobleMouse said:
The text (whether in Hebrew or in English) does not suggest a separation of great time (to the tune of 10's of millions of years). I asked you what from these passages gives you the impression that the behemoth is from a different time than Job and above you've provided Job 40:15 and Job 42:3. What from these passages gives affirmation of a great separation of time?

Simply not knowing of something does not automatically correlate to millions of years - you assume this response from Job means millions of years because you accept what is taught in secular science as to when dinosaurs existed on earth. Secular science has given you the framework and context, and so you interpret the Bible within that paradigm. If I believed dinosaurs existed millions of years ago then I would certainly interpret these passages the way you do, it is logical. Since I believe the beasts of the field were created on day 6, with man, I naturally do not form this conclusion. Now, if the text said something like "Behold the behemoth, which I made long ages ago before man..." then this would of course raise a red flag that I need to reevaluate how I am understanding the creation account in Genesis. The problem with trying to argue against the idea of a young creation using Biblical passages is that no where in all of the Bible are millions or billions of years conveyed. The Hebrew written language can certainly convey years and many years - do we not read in Genesis 5:5 that all the days of Adam were 930 years? If long ages were present at creation, long ages could have and would have been written.

It is not bad when a secular view or secular scientific conclusion agrees with the Bible. In fact, the two views should be consistent and by in large are on many topics. What you're glossing over is that things like billions of years, big bangs, and macro evolution are not observed in science, they are all inferred. These mostly arise out of uniformitarianism assumptions - that rock lays are laid down 1 at a time, slowly, that radioactive decay rates have always been constant, that common physical traits means common ancestry, etc... all very nice and uniform, but also all not very accurate. Natural events have been shown to lay down many rock layers very quickly, decay rates have been accelerated as much as a factor of a billion, and what scientists are learning today about how DNA works is that the required addition of meaningful new genetic data for macro evolution to occur, does not happen. Science is always changing as more is understood and new information comes to light. Scientists of every era have touted about how they have discovered and unraveled some mystery - at one point scientists believed the earth was a few million years old, then a hundred million, hundreds of millions, a billion, 2.5 billion, 4.5 billion, etc... Do you honestly think science has arrived at the 'end' with all hidden mysteries of God now converging to revelation by secular science here at the end of 2017? If there are hundreds of year or more ahead before the rapture, then let me assure you that these 'truths/facts' of secular science will remain on their current continuum of perpetual change and when all else fades away, what will remain, unchanged, is the word of God.

Studying fossils, identifying the species, etc... is all good science. Secular scientists then exit the science room and walk over to the story telling room when they infer things that have never been and cannot be observed, recreated, or tested/falsified. YEC scientists also cannot fill in the holes of what cannot be observed; however, do not need to make up a plausible story; God already told the story - it is His story, so naturally any story that contradicts His story must be an incorrect story (for the Christian that is; obviously for those with other beliefs the story can be anything plausible that they want it to be).

Just some of it. I understand why secular scientists believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old, whe they believe the earth is 4.55 billion years old, why they believe the grand canyon took millions of years for a river to be carved out, why they believe dinosaurs existed for hundreds of millions of years then went extinct approx 65 million years ago. These conclusions are not from the Bible, they are not from men and women who believe the Bible gives a reliable historic account of the beginning of creation, they do not have a bias that God's word is correct; and as such, since there is no bias towards that which is held as true and profitable for teaching then it is of no surprise to me that this lack of bias has produced conclusions that do not align with the Bible.

Yes; however secular education is not always true. Truth only comes from God. God is perfect. All people are fallen and imperfect. Therefore, all that is taught within any education system/paradigm will not perfectly align with the Bible. I think you may be getting a little sideways in your truth/all truth arguments here. All truth is truth and will agree (as I pointed out, nowhere in the Bible do we see contradictory passages asserting long ages of time; also, multiple sources in the Bible give the assertion of a young creation so while specific details on topics like DNA and fossils are not given, it seems that there are very good indicators that the broad assertions from scripture are all true and all consistent, as would be expected); however, secular scientific assertions are often updated, changed, and rejected (this is empirically true within the history of secular science), so the assertions from secular science cannot be all truth; however, there can be some truth in them. When secular science makes assertions about certain physical laws (gravity, acceleration, force, mass, etc...) these are observably true and do not contradict what is known to be true from the Bible, so there is definitely some truth.

I would say I generally agree along the lines of diagrams #4 or #5. There are certainly truths that do exist that the Bible does not touch on specifically (such as DNA); however, the Bible gives an account of the beginning of the universe, the earth, and life - where we came from, where we are, and where we're going. There are questions we should ask ourselves about assertions made by secular and YEC science, alike (examples below):

- Can God create a dinosaur as part of the 'beasts of the earth' on day 6? Yes
- Can Job have not been aware of a dinosaur Adam named at creation? Yes
- Can God create what He said He created, within the framework of 6 days? Yes
- When God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds" does this line up with the idea that life shares atoms in common with those found in non-life from the earth? Yes
- Does what we know about DNA line up with living creatures multiplying according to their kinds? Yes
- Does the idea of similarities in DNA across all life line up with God creating living creatures according to their kinds? Yes
- Does the idea of a generic living molecule evolving into all the diversity of life we have today line up with living creatures multiplying according to their kinds? No (because it suggests that kind is not distinct and has been crossed many times throughout history)
- Does the idea of a billion+ years to transform from a single molecule to man align with man being created in God's image on day 6? No (because it suggests man was not made in God's image, but that man was the result of millions/billions of years of random mutations and natural selection)
- Does the idea of dinosaurs being created hundreds of millions of years before man and going extinct 65 million years ago align with the beasts of the earth being created on day 6, then man being created in God's image on day 6, then God bringing every beast of the field and bird of the air to be named by man? No (because it suggests man was not present to name all the beasts of the field and birds of the air).

Sorry, I'm afraid no epiphanies or ah-ha's for me today, except as are revealed by the truth of God's word.

I like and agree and find your post informative and useful, and I declare it a winner!

NobleMouse · Dec 15, 2017

GBTG said:
@NobleMouse

In regard to the implication of time, you initially brought up this scripture to show that Job was made "along" with the behemoth (dinosaur). I gave the whole scripture to point out that God was telling Job things that he did not know. You may go back to Job 38 through 42 if you wish, as everything God speaks of is something that Job did not know. I never mentioned time, I was pointing out that God is showing things to Job, to which Job is unfamiliar. Likewise I was showing that the word "along" is added and not literally correct. Both of these show that your initial argument about Job and dinosaurs being on earth at the same time is invalid. Lastly Job states this fact as he does not know of such wonderful things. These are the words (and truth of God) of the Bible in context, which I also gave in the Hebrew to show the absence of "along".

The idea of Job existing at the same time as dinosaurs on the basis of God's word is not invalid.

Time is another matter altogether, lets tackle that one later, for now lets deal with the agreement diagrams.

Why so hung up on diagrams? You seem bent on presenting intersecting and concentric circles as if these will bring to light some hidden truth that cannot be ascertained from the straightforward study of God's word. Lest you get you or myself tripped up in 'circular' reasoning, how about we present our positions and back them up with logical facts that supports our stance? If you think you've got a good biblically-based argument for asserting millions/billions of years and deep time, I would be interested to hear it; otherwise, we'll move on to what the source are for you accepting millions/billions of years.

Being as succinct as I can on the topic of dinosaurs (and the idea works across the board): I believe man and dinosaurs lived at the same time because the Bible says so. This belief, I believe, is also affirmed by what is being found in the fossil record (soft tissue), presence of C-14, as well as non-biblical historic records (legends/tales).

Reiterating more generally: Across the board, I believe the Bible is true, and there is scientific evidence that affirms these truths, as well as other sources of non-biblical historic records. Ultimately, the Bible is always true. Whatever circles line up with this statement, that's the diagram to use.

GBTG · Dec 15, 2017

First the title of this post states it's going to be about Venn diagrams, if you don't like it you don't have to participate. Just like your TV you can change the channel .

Second the circles give a simple, easy, way to view an argument, which I had hoped to provide enough examples to understand. If you don't understand them I would be happy to provide more examples.

Venn diagrams are useful to show the validity of an argument. Lets take the current argument of Job being made "ALONG" with Dinosaurs. I already demonstrated, this quotation or reference is ADDED to give context to the TRANSLATION from the ORIGINAL HEBREW. Therefore quoting or using this particular word is invalid or (MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE) as its NOT in the original Hebrew text which I also gave. You are very dogmatic about scripture, but you won't concede even when the scripture demonstrates a poor translation. Instead of writing this I can give it as a diagram to show the validity.

I also gave Job 38-42 as reference, to demonstrate the fact that God shows up in a whirlwind before Job, and shows Job a great many things. Things that took place in Genesis, rain, snow, the gates of death, the behemoth, the leviathan... All of the things, Job was unaware of, as he states this when he answers God, which I also quoted. These are not my examples they are God's, the Bible says this, it's why I gave all the scriptures to give context, which I also quoted. In this defense I never brought up time, but rather showed this as a poor example of Job (any man) being "along" with dinosaurs (see diagram above if you still want to argue this point as biblical).

If this discussion continues, we will get to time and the dinosaurs but we still need a reference of agreement from the diagrams in my previous post.

Lastly I hope to demonstrate the validity/invalidity of YEC/OEC and by default Atheism, through Venn diagrams, so that the relationships and conclusions are accurately represented. Again the title of this thread.

Regards, GBTG

GBTG · Dec 15, 2017

This did not get added to the above post for some reason?

NobleMouse said:
Ultimately, the Bible is always true. Whatever circles line up with this statement, that's the diagram to use.

Agreed my brother that is the point of this thread! I just want you or any YEC to help me with the accuracy of the circles!

Regards, GBTG

NobleMouse · Dec 18, 2017

GBTG said:
First the title of this post states it's going to be about Venn diagrams, if you don't like it you don't have to participate. Just like your TV you can change the channel .

I think that is a fair call-out. I have attempted to draw a Venn diagram and hopefully it will come through as an attachment in the post here (never tried attaching a file):

In this diagram (first attempt), the large yellow circle represents all that is true (as would come solely from God and there is nothing that is untrue that comes from Him). While this is drawn as a finite circle, I am of the belief that we will never fully know God as He is infinite and His truth is therefore infinite - this will be part of the joy of spending eternity with Him > learning and discovering more of this truth, forever. While God's truth is infinite, there is a boundary and everything outside of this boundary (the white space) is that which is not true. Biblical truth fully resides within the yellow circle as the Bible is fully true and it contains no error. That said, the Bible is not everything there is to know about God, so it is drawn smaller (though none of these circles are to scale - keep in mind). YEC scientific assertions largely fall within what is true (as the belief is that the Bible is an accurate, historical account), though it is possible some assertions may be untrue due to our imperfect human nature. What I could not accurately represent was that the circles of Biblical truth and YEC Science would heavily overlap one another - for the sake of visual separation/readability they are more separated than how I personally view them. Secular science likewise also has an overlap that is outside of what is true. I extended this outside that which is true more than YEC science as, at best, secular science has an agnostic view towards God and, at worst, I believe for some (not all, just some) scientists there is an atheistic/anti-God agenda. With that, I cannot believe that the likelihood of being true without a bias that the Bible is true will result in true conclusions. While I also could not accurately convey the overlap here as well - I believe some truths of secular science line up with what is communicated in the Bible - regardless of any agenda present. The last circle (also not to scale) is understanding; how much is understood by what I would guess represents the average (lay) person that ascribes to Biblical & YEC truths and is kind of where I see myself. I have some knowledge (high level and limited) of secular and YEC science, though without a science degree cannot know all the technical details that support the assertions made by each camp. Likewise, I know some Biblical truths as well and feel my depth of understanding here is better than the level of technical understanding within the realms of science--though still, I am not a theologian.

As I said, just a first draft, and I recognize that a diagram cannot completely/perfectly convey the view of secular/YEC scientific assertions by those with a firm belief in the inerrancy of scripture as the highest authoritative source of truth given to man regarding our history.

Second the circles give a simple, easy, way to view an argument, which I had hoped to provide enough examples to understand. If you don't understand them I would be happy to provide more examples.

Venn diagrams are useful to show the validity of an argument. Lets take the current argument of Job being made "ALONG" with Dinosaurs. I already demonstrated, this quotation or reference is ADDED to give context to the TRANSLATION from the ORIGINAL HEBREW. Therefore quoting or using this particular word is invalid or (MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE) as its NOT in the original Hebrew text which I also gave. You are very dogmatic about scripture, but you won't concede even when the scripture demonstrates a poor translation. Instead of writing this I can give it as a diagram to show the validity.

I also gave Job 38-42 as reference, to demonstrate the fact that God shows up in a whirlwind before Job, and shows Job a great many things. Things that took place in Genesis, rain, snow, the gates of death, the behemoth, the leviathan... All of the things, Job was unaware of, as he states this when he answers God, which I also quoted. These are not my examples they are God's, the Bible says this, it's why I gave all the scriptures to give context, which I also quoted. In this defense I never brought up time, but rather showed this as a poor example of Job (any man) being "along" with dinosaurs (see diagram above if you still want to argue this point as biblical).

The scripture references simply indicate Job did not know/understand the dinosaur; however, I have still yet to see you demonstrate that the only possible conclusion of this lack of knowledge on Job's part can conclusively only mean that God is showing Job a creature that does not exist at the same time as Job. Did Job have full knowledge of ALL the beasts of the earth? If you believe 'yes,' what evidence from the Bible gives you that impression? What are the passages; what is your understanding of this kind of knowledge of people in the present to infer upon Job? The verses you've drawn specific attention to also do not give rise to representing a context describing a different period of time, a hallucination, being in the spirit, some other dimension, or any setting outside of God literally just showing Job a beast that is right in front of Job, for real, in real time, right then and there where Job is standing or sitting as God shows him the behemoth.

If this discussion continues, we will get to time and the dinosaurs but we still need a reference of agreement from the diagrams in my previous post.

Lastly I hope to demonstrate the validity/invalidity of YEC/OEC and by default Atheism, through Venn diagrams, so that the relationships and conclusions are accurately represented. Again the title of this thread.

Regards, GBTG

Venn diagrams are useful for organizing and showing relationships - commonalities and differences; however, as I have stated above cannot be drawn in such a way that completely/perfectly conveys all of the relationships between related, unrelated, and interrelated truths and untruths. Given this, I have some doubt that you can conclusively demonstrate the validity/invalidity of any viewpoint (YEC or OEC). If I had included atheism as a circle, it would heavily overlap the secular science circle and somewhat still intersect the truth and knowledge of God; after all, no atheist is ignorant of God, they are well aware of God and simply are rejecting Him.

Lets ask Venn!? OEC vs YEC

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Thank You Jesus!

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord

Active Member

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord

Active Member

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord

Active Member

Active Member

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord

Active Member

Active Member

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord

Similar threads