Dinosaurs and Humans

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Who was he speaking to - himself?

Click to expand...

I left out something else important to add --

The receiver of this vision would not of course have our modern terms/language of geology, astronomy, etc., and would have to describe the mysterious visual scenes in the vision as best he could using words and concepts he had available -- what for us today amount to imprecise descriptions -- his wording only suggested what he was actually seeing. We have to guess at what he saw. And that can be interesting(!). But one thing: it almost certainly was not a view from up in space, not a perspective as if from camera on a satellite or modern astronomy video we have, but instead a view as if from a camera perspective at ground level or at least not too far from ground level. It would seem to me that it had to be that the early scenes of Earth would be very confusing to him, by themselves. But God added some narration, to help make it more than zero information to him, just as Peter in Acts chapter 10 got more than zero, though not enough to make it clear to him at that moment.... Peter didn't understand what he saw, nor the words, but could report them.

But, bigger picture: As we read with a real listening though, the whole point of the chapter has zero to do with a precise physical description, and everything to do with God working to make a universe/earth/home that would be "good" for us (the repeated wording, over and over in the chapter) == be well tuned to elicit or allow development of our consciousness, and conscience also. Soil to grow in, as it were.

Halbhh said:

The receiver of the vision. In this case, a vision also with spoken words from God, narration, instead of the more common kind which is vision without any narration. So, a vision like that of Peter in Acts chapter 10 as pointed to above (link above).

Click to expand...

So God was creating the universe, however long ago a believer thinks it was created, and while he did so, gave a running commentary to a visionary yet to be born?

Halbhh said:

But, bigger picture: As we read with a real listening though, the whole point of the chapter has zero to do with a precise physical description, and everything to do with God working to make a universe/earth/home that would be "good" for us (the repeated wording, over and over in the chapter) == be well tuned to elicit or allow development of our consciousness, and conscience also. Soil to grow in, as it were.

Click to expand...

That seems logical - you're not going to create a world that can't support what you want to develop!

Hank77 said:

What term would you deem appropriate for a Christian geologist such as Davis A. Young who believes the earth is billions of years old and believes that God created it?

Click to expand...

he’s a scientist. He just happens to be a theist. Creation science IS an oxymoron as it’s not about the Creation and it’s certainly not scientific

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

So God was creating the universe, however long ago a believer thinks it was created, and while he did so, gave a running commentary to a visionary yet to be born?

Click to expand...

You mean, like through time? Ok, never considered that idea before. Generally most would think this revelation/vision was given instead far later in time (e.g. one common view was that perhaps it had been given to Moses, though some think now a second person, but either way, very long after the events. )

Halbhh said:

You mean, like through time? Ok, never considered that idea before. Generally most would think this revelation/vision was given instead far later in time (e.g. one common view was that perhaps it had been given to Moses, though some think now a second person, but either way, very long after the events. )

Click to expand...

Ah, OK; so maybe it was 'recorded' at the time, with God giving commentary, for playback to 'whomever it might concern' in the distant future; or perhaps it was a reconstruction, after the fact, with God playing himself, or...

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Ah, OK; so maybe it was 'recorded' at the time, with God giving commentary, for playback to 'whomever it might concern' in the distant future; or perhaps it was a reconstruction, after the fact, with God playing himself, or...

Click to expand...

While that's one possibility, it's not the first that comes to mind in my speculative guessing. I would guess it was like the vision given to Peter in Acts chapter 10 in some ways: mysterious scenes (that could be stylized) which would not make much sense to Peter without some narration from God to give it meaning. Pure guessing, but I'd guess at a stylized representation (instead of a video like recording). Even if it's not as metaphorical as the vision given to the pharaoh at the time of Joseph of 7 fat cows eaten by 7 gaunt cows (7 years of plenty to be followed by 7 years of famine; Genesis chapter 41) -- regardless of how metaphorical, even if not metaphorical, it could still be stylized either way. Many variations are possible. There's no way to tell from the words I think. Though it's possible to connect the wordings to modern astronomy theories of the formation of Earth, where early Earth was at one point an ocean world (as evidence has supported found in 2017 and since). So one cannot rule out even a video like recording, if you like. How could we know?

Halbhh said:

... one cannot rule out even a video like recording, if you like. How could we know?

Click to expand...

Well, quite. How can we know any of it? [/rhetorical]

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Well, quite. How can we know any of it? [/rhetorical]

Click to expand...

That's my attitude generally about all things, every side of life. It is rather fascinating though how the evidence has emerged that the Earth was once a water world, just as the Genesis text reads also.

the 2017 discovery of evidence:
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-earth-barren-flat-billion-years.html

another recent article (there are many tho)
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-early-earth-waterworld.html

But it's pretty much what the Genesis text is saying if you take it as being literally descriptive (as in your video recording hypothesis) --

Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

And later continents emerging --

Genesis 1:9 And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear." And it was so.
The words here spoken though (in quotation marks) are saying this was also an intended outcome (we wouldn't be on a planet without both oceans and dry land then) -- chosen, by God, for a planet suitable for being our home, one that is "good" --
Genesis 1:10 God called the dry land "earth," and the gathering of waters He called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

And, tho it takes a lot more detail (and a willingness to consider a new viewpoint unlike what one was accustomed to ) such as considering early planetary system formation things like dusty accretion disks and such, it's quite possible to fit every last verse to modern science theories I found. (But I sorta gave up on trying to explain that to people, as you tend to run into a lot of people with very rigid pet theories and many will ignore new information, so it's hard to ever know if anyone actually heard/learned anything new, or merely ignored what is new to them.)

It’s not so much rigidity as the fact that scientists don’t think of the Bible as an accurate science book . They will look at natural phenomena to get that info.

Brightmoon said:

It’s not so much rigidity as the fact that scientists don’t think of the Bible as an accurate science book . They will look at natural phenomena to get that info.

Click to expand...

Of course! It's 0% a science text, in any way. Always a good point to repeat in this kind of thread.

In recent months I've tried to get people to the next step after that -- to stop trying to argue on their rigid doctrines, and to actually listen to the text! If a person can listen to the chapter the way they would to a new poem, trying to really hear it, then it's so wonderful, because it has all the power of that kind one could want to transport us to a better state of mind. And that's the real purpose of this chapter existing I think, to change our states of mind to a deeper, better state of mind, so that we could begin to listen and actually hear as we read in scripture. That's so much better, because the scripture is full of deep and subtle things of much benefit.

Treating the entire Bible as a literal history is devolving the Bible into a bunch of silly tales . ( and that is an accurate usage of devolve, living organisms don’t devolve)

Brightmoon said:

Treating the entire Bible as a literal history is devolving the Bible into a bunch of silly tales . ( and that is an accurate usage of devolve, living organisms don’t devolve)

Click to expand...

Yes, without a willingness to truly listen, people end up having a cartoon version of scripture.

eleos1954 said:

According to the theory of evolution and the scientists that promote that theory ... they say no.

Click to expand...

One principle of evolution is that no organism ever evolves out of its ancestry. Modern birds with feathers ancestors were dinosaurs (therapods), so they are still dinosaurs among other things per evolution.

Halbhh said:

That's my attitude generally about all things, every side of life. It is rather fascinating though how the evidence has emerged that the Earth was once a water world, just as the Genesis text reads also.

the 2017 discovery of evidence:
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-earth-barren-flat-billion-years.html

another recent article (there are many tho)
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-early-earth-waterworld.html

But it's pretty much what the Genesis text is saying if you take it as being literally descriptive (as in your video recording hypothesis) --

Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

And later continents emerging --

Genesis 1:9 And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear." And it was so.
The words here spoken though (in quotation marks) are saying this was also an intended outcome (we wouldn't be on a planet without both oceans and dry land then) -- chosen, by God, for a planet suitable for being our home, one that is "good" --
Genesis 1:10 God called the dry land "earth," and the gathering of waters He called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

And, tho it takes a lot more detail (and a willingness to consider a new viewpoint unlike what one was accustomed to ) such as considering early planetary system formation things like dusty accretion disks and such, it's quite possible to fit every last verse to modern science theories I found. (But I sorta gave up on trying to explain that to people, as you tend to run into a lot of people with very rigid pet theories and many will ignore new information, so it's hard to ever know if anyone actually heard/learned anything new, or merely ignored what is new to them.)

Click to expand...

'Water Earth' 3.2 billion years ago is a possibility, but, as the man said, "That doesn't mean, however, that there weren't any spots of dry land around.

"There's nothing in what we've done that says you can't have teeny, micro-continents sticking out of the oceans," Wing said. "We just don't think that there were global-scale formation of continental soils like we have today."

It may well be possible to fit every last verse to modern science theories, just as it was possible to fit them to the earliest science theories, and to fit prophesies to many different periods and events in history. That simply shows how such writings can interpreted to fit many different scenarios - as can be seen in the interminable arguments over scriptural interpretation through history.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

'Water Earth' 3.2 billion years ago is a possibility, but, as the man said, "That doesn't mean, however, that there weren't any spots of dry land around.

"There's nothing in what we've done that says you can't have teeny, micro-continents sticking out of the oceans," Wing said. "We just don't think that there were global-scale formation of continental soils like we have today."

It may well be possible to fit every last verse to modern science theories, just as it was possible to fit them to the earliest science theories, and to fit prophesies to many different periods and events in history. That simply shows how such writings can interpreted to fit many different scenarios - as can be seen in the interminable arguments over scriptural interpretation through history.

Click to expand...

Yup. A water world with at some point some bits of land, until later more change. It's pretty interesting stuff, eh?

"interminable arguments over scriptural interpretation " -- Thus I very often am saying to people, just hundreds of times in the last year or 2: "put aside your doctrines, and just listen to the words, and keep reading" -- that they should try to understand the overall intended meaning, and start reading entire books fully. I think like 90% of the typical arguments we see would go away if people would just read more fully with a listening-first attitude.

Halbhh said:

Yup. A water world with at some point some bits of land, until later more change. It's pretty interesting stuff, eh?

Click to expand...

Quite.

"interminable arguments over scriptural interpretation "

Click to expand...

-- Thus I very often am saying to people, just hundreds of times in the last year or 2: "put aside your doctrines, and just listen to the words, and keep reading" -- that they should try to understand the overall intended meaning, and start reading entire books fully. I think like 90% of the typical arguments we see would go away if people would just read more fully with a listening-first attitude.

Click to expand...

That can be a formula for confirmation bias...

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Quite.


That can be a formula for confirmation bias...

Click to expand...

Full reading with listening does help against confirmation bias, yes. It's analogous to looking to see new information.

update: I just realized you might be referring to science topics instead of most debate here on CF, which is in the Christians only forum areas. Well, actually, even for science topics, it would help immensely for many that try to argue about science using to bible to stop and actually read the bible instead of misusing it(!) -- it would cure a lot of wrong ideas they have. This would cure not only the extreme errors like misreading an isolated verse to suggest a wild wrong interpretation like "flat Earth" for instance, by misreading isolated verses in a way no one would that read through fully, but would also help generally for practically every place people misuse scripture to argue about science topics. I think most would begin to understand Genesis chapter 1 better if they read through all the scripture, or even just all the O.T. They'd get so much better at noticing what matters and what the real messages in the passages, and it would help against obsessions with pet doctrines.

Halbhh said:

Full reading with listening does help against confirmation bias, yes. It's analogous to looking to see new information.

update: I just realized you might be referring to science topics instead of most debate here on CF, which is in the Christians only forum areas.

Click to expand...

All I meant was that uncritical reading, particularly of vague, probably metaphorical texts, is likely to lead to confirmation bias.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

All I meant was that uncritical reading, particularly of vague, probably metaphorical texts, is likely to lead to confirmation bias.

Click to expand...

No, here, it's the opposite (which might surprise) -- the people your argue with either don't read with listening, or more commonly, just haven't even read at all the full collection of the Old Testament. In short, they misuse the bible to argue nonsense science inventions because they don't know the bible.

Trust me, or...spend a hundred hours and read through the O.T. with trying to get the full sense of meaning as you go, and you'll see what I mean. They argue science from the text because they haven't comprehended the text -- don't know the meaning that is evident to one who listens as they read and reads through fully.