Bible literalism.

[BobRyan]

I believe ViaCircus answered your questions quite well...

You have stated your belief well.

 

[Jamsie]

You have stated your belief well.

Thank You....

 

[ViaCrucis]

Who said creation isn't truthful ?

By arguing the Omphalos Argument the inevitable logic is an untruthful creation.

A nebula 100,000 light years away is observed through a telescope. Did the supernova that caused that nebula happen?

According to the Omphalos Argument, no, that event never happened.

The real issue is mans inability to interpret it.

What methodology should human beings use to understand the world? If the scientific method is unreliable in understanding the natural world, then there must be some method by which we can come to understand something about the universe. What do you propose as an alternative?

This assumes our observations are correct.

Is there reason to believe our observations are not correct? What methodology could we employ in order to provide some kind of means of fallibility?

How do you know He didn't change the rate of time?

Well, for one, time is relative--that's what Einstein figured out over a century ago.

But for the sake of discussion, explain what you mean here and why one should believe what you are proposing?

I will believe Him rather than science any day.

And that right there is the problem, the false choice between God and science. As though one has to either choose God or science, one or the other. Why?

Why should I reject either? Why do you feel this is a choice you have to make?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Carl Emerson]

You have not understood me...

God is perfect.

Science is not perfect.

Put full faith in God - Yes.

Put full faith in Science - No.

That does not mean there is anything wrong with science as long as it is seen as mans imperfect attempt to see and understand God's universe.

Case in point - folks reported a green flash near sunset for years - science said Naaa...

Then in the late 70's a cause was discovered and folks were then 'allowed' to believe it.

 

[coffee4u]

I'd like to ask about this, because i'd like to know how to understand the Bible particularly the first chapters of Genesis. If there are parts of the Bible that are not to be taken literally, how does one know which parts are not to be taken literally, and which parts are?

1) Would be the literary style that it is written in.
What kinds of writing styles are used in the Bible? | CARM.org

Genesis will always be controversial as some of us believe it is literal and written in a literal way while others believe it to be poetic.
https://www.drcone.com/2015/01/09/what-kind-of-literature-is-genesis-1/

Those of us who read it as a literal historical narrative don't only do so because of how it is written but because of point two.

2)Supporting scripture.
We are told that Adam had various children and that he died 930 years after God created him.
Genesis 5
5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

We are told in Exodus that God took 6 days to create.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

Jesus referred back to Genesis
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female."

The New Testament lists Adam in the genealogy of Jesus
Luke 3
38 the son of Enosh,the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Paul said that Adam is how we all came to be sinners
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned-

That Jesus was the second Adam.
1 Corinthians 15:45
45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

What scripture supports the allegorical view? None. If there is no scriptural support than this view is not a doctrine but rather comes from sources outside of the Bible.
The only reason anybody takes Genesis as allegorical is because they would rather believe science/evolution-which is man's attempt to understand the world from a natural point of view. Creation was not a natural event.

 

[Radagast]

You have not understood me...

God is perfect.

Science is not perfect.

Put full faith in God - Yes.

Put full faith in Science - No.

That does not mean there is anything wrong with science as long as it is seen as mans imperfect attempt to see and understand God's universe.

God reveals Himself in nature as well as in His written word.

Case in point - folks reported a green flash near sunset for years - science said Naaa...

Then in the late 70's a cause was discovered and folks were then 'allowed' to believe it.

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. The cause has been known for ages. Jules Verne wrote a book about it in 1882. See Green flash - Wikipedia

 

[Carl Emerson]

Yes it simply is true - this matter was discussed at Canterbury University where I worked with a student of astrophysics. As I said the effect had been known by common folk but not really accepted by the scientific community until a cause was discovered (when science discovered this I am unsure). It is possible that my recall is a bit vague but the principle issue remains, that being science tries to dictate what we believe. This is very true when it comes to matters concerning the beginning of things.

Do you know what causes the green flash and when the current theory was established?

As for responding to my statements by saying God reveals Himself in nature as well as in His written word - I would have thought this was obvious.

 

[Radagast]

Yes it simply is true

No, it's completely false. The phenomenon was understood in the 1800s, and was sufficiently well-known for Jules Verne to use in his 1882 novel Le Rayon vert.

Here is a somewhat later explanation, from 1934: https://books.google.com/books?id=YigDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52

 

[BobRyan]

God reveals Himself in nature as well as in His written word.

Not "as well as" in the sense of "with equal detail". In nature nothing tells us that Jesus was rejected by the Jews, was incarnate as the son of Mary, had 12 disciples, died on the cross, ascended to heaven, healed the sick, raised the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father as our High Priest.

We get "detail in Genesis" that one does not find looking under rock, or turning over a leaf or staring at the moon.

 

[BobRyan]

A rock is not a rock without age...

God created rocks in an instant with age.

Just like He made good wine in an instant from water.

Yes - just like that beverage made by Christ.

The text does not say Adam was a "zygote" on day 6 of creation week but was made as a fully functioning adult human... from day1 of his life

This is the Omphalos Argument, and it's a really bad argument. Because not only does the argument effectively say that we can't trust our observations of nature, but also that we can't trust God to be truthful.

in fact.. the exact opposite.

We can trust our observations in nature that humans start off as zygotes. And we can see that the Bible does not spin a ridiculous story about 2 zygotes made on day 6 and left here to "get along well and name the animals".

Turns out infinite power "matters" and God can create two adults on day 6 of creation, just as he said he did . He is not limited to Dawkin's mantra of "no-god-needed-for-that".

By arguing the Omphalos Argument the inevitable logic is an untruthful creation.

A nebula 100,000 light years away is observed through a telescope. Did the supernova that caused that nebula happen?

According to the Omphalos Argument, no, that event never happened.

Which of course is a false argument against Genesis since nothing in the Genesis account about Earth - says that an object 100,000 light years away could not supernova. argumentum absurdum much?

 

[Radagast]

Not "as well as" in the sense of "with equal detail".

I certainly didn't mean it in that sense.

 

[BobRyan]

And that right there is the problem, the false choice between God and science. As though one has to either choose God or science, one or the other. Why?

Why should I reject either? Why do you feel this is a choice you have to make?

I like both - I just do not bend-wrench-edit the Bible to fit whatever goofy thing Dawkins believes

 

[Jamsie]

We get "detail in Genesis" that one does not find looking under rock, or turning over a leaf or staring at the moon.

Just as we get information - "details" - about the earth and the universe that one does not find in the Bible. Do we not?

 

[pescador]

Just as we get information - "details" - about the earth and the universe that one does not find in the Bible. Do we not?

The Bible is not a science textbook and vice-versa. One gets spiritual truths from Scripture and scientific facts and theories from science.

 

[Carl Emerson]

No, it's completely false. The phenomenon was understood in the 1800s, and was sufficiently well-known for Jules Verne to use in his 1882 novel Le Rayon vert.

Here is a somewhat later explanation, from 1934: https://books.google.com/books?id=YigDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52

Well my student friend must have been referring to some more recent understanding of the phenomena he was studying at the time. I have never researched this, it was a passing comment that well illustrates a known event can be recognised by folks before causal understanding is known. In the mean time skepticism of the observations prevails.

That principle is completely and utterly true, it may well apply to certain observed phenomena being released from classification currently but the jury is out on that.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible is not a science textbook and vice-versa. One gets spiritual truths from Scripture and scientific facts and theories from science.

So then for "events that actually happened" in the real world..like:

1. 7 day creation week
2. world wide flood
3. incarnation of the Son of God into human flesh
4. Bodily resurrection of Christ
5. Bodily ascension of Christ

Is "science" the source that tells us about these real events in the real world, in real history.. or is it "scripture"??

 

[BobRyan]

Just as we get information - "details" - about the earth and the universe that one does not find in the Bible. Do we not?

Yes we do. Both sources offer detail information that we do not find in the other source.

but one of those sources is mixed in with the ever-changing-guesswork of man, and the other is "the Word of God"

 

[hedrick]

So then for "events that actually happened" in the real world..like:

1. 7 day creation week
2. world wide flood
3. incarnation of the Son of God into human flesh
4. Bodily resurrection of Christ
5. Bodily ascension of Christ

Is "science" the source that tells us about these real events in the real world, in real history.. or is it "scripture"??

Various disciplines have various abilities. Science talks about things like the physical world, not events in history. It can tell us that (1) didn't happen, but nothing else. History deals with broad events, but certainly doesn't go to the detail of what every person in the world did or didn't do. It can tell us that (2) didn't happen. The rest mostly fall beyond, although evaluating the resurrection often uses historical reasoning. I'm thinking specifically of N T Wright's historical arguments for the Resurrection. But since there's no consensus of historians on this subject I'm going to say that history doesn't give us a judgement.

 

[public hermit]

The lack of an actual Fall is a really big deal theologically. Even Christians who are otherwise inclined to interpret Scripture to match science have not faced up to the consequences. I think we can say that mankind is fallen even if the specific event in Gen 3 didn't happen, but the natural consequence of an evolutionary view is that people are designed to learn from experience, and that mistakes -- even moral ones -- are part of our original design. I think if you follow this out, there are significant theological consequences

I'm curious. I've seen you make this argument a number of times. Would you say that Irenaeus's approach to the fall, that it was part of the spiritual education of a spiritually immature humanity, might fit an evolutionary approach better than Augustine's?

 

[BobRyan]

Various disciplines have various abilities. Science talks about things like the physical world, not events in history. It can tell us that (1) didn't happen, but nothing else.

If you delete all events in history - there is no science at all.

If science claims to be able to tell you what didn't happen in history -- then it is making a claim to have some authority about what happened in history.

All of science is "a guess" that we try to validate/verify with experiment, empirical evidence to support or debunk the guess. A guess that appears to be supported today could easily be tossed out the window tomorrow.

ON such shaky ground as that - where do we then find justification for joining the atheist in challenging what God said about real events in history.

1. 7 day creation week
2. world wide flood
3. incarnation of the Son of God into human flesh
4. Bodily resurrection of Christ
5. Bodily ascension of Christ