Christ and the art of Edification.

[chaoschristian]

since I don't have a nice set of ancient scriptures in my computer room )

<calls for help as Proselyte is crushed under several hundred pounds of lamb-skin scrolls>

Indeed, there are advantages to have scripture in codex form.

 

[Proselyte]

<calls for help as Proselyte is crushed under several hundred pounds of lamb-skin scrolls>

Indeed, there are advantages to have scripture in codex form.

LOL!

 

[Willtor]

Hehe I gotcha.
It just seems we have gotten off track of what the original poster intended, because I said Bible instead of Scriptures. (Though I quoted Timothy regarding Scriptures, which is what I was implying when saying Bible...since I don't have a nice set of ancient scriptures in my computer room )

I totally understand. I'm just saying that application of the Timothy passage changes, subtly, when we make the distinction between the Scriptures and the Bible (as the form in which the Scriptures appear, together, today).

I suppose this actually leads into something of Mark's thesis. It is my experience that scientists are profoundly interested in accuracy and precision. When I have made an error in these forums, regarding evolution, or genetics, or whatever else, another TE is quick to jump in and correct me. It's not because the other TE's don't like me, but it's because they are interested in accuracy and precision more than they are interested in defending me when I am in error.

One makes observations about a thing that piques his interest. While observing, he reasons about it. Now, his reasoning may be mistaken, so it is best if he reasons in a community setting, in which his views can be confirmed or falsified. This community setting values accuracy and precision, semantically. If we all use the same technical words in different ways, we will almost certainly talk past each other.

This observation and reason, in a community setting, is my understanding of the foundation of science. This, of course, includes many social sciences which some people might not consider science, but such a semantic difference typically arises from a different philosophy of science.

 

[Proselyte]

I totally understand. I'm just saying that application of the Timothy passage changes, subtly, when we make the distinction between the Scriptures and the Bible (as the form in which the Scriptures appear, together, today).

I suppose this actually leads into something of Mark's thesis. It is my experience that scientists are profoundly interested in accuracy and precision. When I have made an error in these forums, regarding evolution, or genetics, or whatever else, another TE is quick to jump in and correct me. It's not because the other TE's don't like me, but it's because they are interested in accuracy and precision more than they are interested in defending me when I am in error.

One makes observations about a thing that piques his interest. While observing, he reasons about it. Now, his reasoning may be mistaken, so it is best if he reasons in a community setting, in which his views can be confirmed or falsified. This community setting values accuracy and precision, semantically. If we all use the same technical words in different ways, we will almost certainly talk past each other.

This observation and reason, in a community setting, is my understanding of the foundation of science. This, of course, includes many social sciences which some people might not consider science, but such a semantic difference typically arises from a different philosophy of science.

That sounds like a reasonable and sound practice. I have enjoyed this thread.

Gotta catch some zzzzz's. Goodnight!

 

[shernren]

Did you ever wonder if creationists might come around if they learned a little more about how science works?

"Come around?" Well, I didn't say anything about that ...

Matthew 12:39-41 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.

Matthew is acknowledging Jonah was in the belly of the great fish. That would seem scientifically unprobable, but the Bible says it happens.

I don't think all of us fathom the great miracles that have occurred:

That God turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt.
That God parted the Red Sea.
That Jesus healed thousands of people of diseases considered incurable at the time.
That Jesus brought Lazarus back from the dead.
That Jesus rose from the dead.

Why is it we can accept some of these miracles, but not accept that God did what is said in Genesis about literal 6 day creation? We get so caught up in the hows and whys of the Flood, yet think about how God brought all the animals to Noah, and divinely made the whole thing work without the chaos ensuing. Sometimes 3 cats are enough for me, imagine all those animals!

I don't think the scientific implausibility of the event itself is the whole thing. YECs themselves reject events for being scientifically implausible, too. Notably, one important piece of YEC argument against a local flood is that a local flood can't stay several feet above the mountains for a long duration of time. That's an argument from scientific implausibility, too, and if I really had a bone to pick I could turn around and say "You believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, so why can't you believe that God could have raised the waters several feet above the mountains for several days?" (But I'm not going to press it.)

I think what is more important is that in our (both YEC and TE) minds the logical picture we have of a miracle is that it leaves traces whose further development is calculable by naturalistic models of science. The most obvious example is that people expect to find a gigantic Ark somewhere on Mount Ararat. Since the Flood was one big miracle, why not expect the Ark to have some miraculous ending as well? - say, being blown into bits by a large bolt of fire from heaven, leaving infidels wondering and positing for ages that the Flood could have been non-historical . But no, even though the Ark participated in the miracle of the Flood, people expect the Ark once the Flood was done to go through their typical expectations of decay, fossilization, etc.

This is our main bone of contention with YECism. Not so much that the act itself is impossible, but that the evidence left by the act does not seem to tally with what is expected.

And belief in YECism (to me, at least) is on a completely different level from belief in the resurrection. It's not just about scientific implausibility, it's about evidence - to me, telling me to believe in YECism given the scientific evidence is like telling me to believe in the resurrection given that Jesus' tomb is there for me to visit with his body still inside. This is a leap of faith even the early apostles would not have been able to make, and I don't see how my faith is any weaker because I cannot make such a leap.

Granted, though, a lot of confusion occurs because the TE shorthand for this entire line of reasoning is simply "YECism isn't scientifically plausible", which sounds an awful lot like "The resurrection isn't scientifically plausible", and to you if scientific plausibility is grounds for rejecting YECism it is also grounds for rejecting the resurrection. I hope I have shown that this is not the case.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23643223&postcount=46

 

[rmwilliamsll]

And belief in YECism (to me, at least) is on a completely different level from belief in the resurrection. It's not just about scientific implausibility, it's about evidence - to me, telling me to believe in YECism given the scientific evidence is like telling me to believe in the resurrection given that Jesus' tomb is there for me to visit with his body still inside. This is a leap of faith even the early apostles would not have been able to make, and I don't see how my faith is any weaker because I cannot make such a leap.

this is an interesting example.
for the apostles pointed out the empty tomb and the lack of a body as evidence of the resurrection.

YECists believe not on the basis of evidence but against overwhelming evidence and stay the course on the grounds that this is the essence of faith, to believe DESPITE physical evidence.
Yet with regards to the resurrection we are not asked to disbelieve the eyewitness testimony but to believe it as evidence. not to disbelieve the physical evidence but to understand it supports the resurrection not contradicts it.

 

[Proselyte]

I like the good spirit in which you both made your posts. I was open to reading what you had to offer.
Thanks!

 

[mark kennedy]

The Bible was good enough for Jesus. Jesus and key supporters all turn to the Bible to answer questions that people have.

Jesus constantly appealled to the Scriptures as confirming authority. One of his expressions, 'What do the Scriptures say', comes to mind.

They may not be the answers some want but...

Let's have a look:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

That is a telling statement there. In my opinion, some would spin Genesis to read into it as some symbolism for Evolution and Old Earth, but why wouldn't it just talk about that then? Literally, Genesis says creation was achieved in 6 days. The Bible is very direct about how it happened, and no where does the Bible directly say anything about Evolution or the Old Earth which has only recently come into fashion, relatively speaking.

Don't miss that the heart of the emphasis if training in righteousness. Romans dwells on this at some length and describes the depravity of man. Then half way through the third chapter is says:

"But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who beliieve. For there is no difference" (Romans 3:21,22)

Matthew 24:37-39 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

In my opinion, Matthew refers to Noah and affirms the story of the Flood. His statement is acknowledging Noah as an actual historical figure, and the Flood as a real event. Biblical evidence against this is not favorable.

If there is Biblical evidence against this then it would be news to me. Peter also describes the flood as leaving only eight in all alive after the flood. That would seem unlikely if the flood were local.

Luke 11:51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.

Luke is acknowledging Abel and his murder by Cain. The argument might be made that Abel is just a literary figure that Luke is referring to, but Genesis does not depict it that way.

Jesus also talks about this kind of thing when discussing marriage. They asked if it was ok for them to divorce since the law of Moses allowed it. Jesus responds that it was not this way, 'from the beggining' and quotes Genesis.

Matthew 12:39-41 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.

Matthew is acknowledging Jonah was in the belly of the great fish. That would seem scientifically unprobable, but the Bible says it happens.

Bear in mind that is Matthew quoted Jesus, the Son of the Living God. One is left to wonder if modernists are incredulous about Jonah being swallowed up by a fish what they would think about an even greater miracle with the ressurection of Christ.

I don't think all of us fathom the great miracles that have occurred:

That God turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt.
That God parted the Red Sea.
That Jesus healed thousands of people of diseases considered incurable at the time.
That Jesus brought Lazarus back from the dead.
That Jesus rose from the dead.

That isn't even all of them.

Why is it we can accept some of these miracles, but not accept that God did what is said in Genesis about literal 6 day creation? We get so caught up in the hows and whys of the Flood, yet think about how God brought all the animals to Noah, and divinely made the whole thing work without the chaos ensuing. Sometimes 3 cats are enough for me, imagine all those animals!

What leaves me in awe is that these animals left that Ark and became the common ancestors of every living thing that draws breath on earth. People seem to think I am opposed to evolution, the truth be known I am the most radical evolutionist on the boards.

It just seems we have relegated the Bible and the literal interpretation to the back seat of theories that provide a comfort zone with people's world views. The Bible doesn't contradict itself, why take only parts that seem applicable, and dismiss others as myth or symbolism? (Aside from the obvious like parables.)

Generally when there is a metaphor, parable or allegory it is indicated in the immediate context. The interpretation usually follows and it is usually qualified by a 'like' or 'as'.

John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.

Jesus was there in the beginning! He knew the Bible inside and out. He used it as a foundation for teaching and prophecy. He never said the Bible was in error about anything, nor did he belittle it. I would encourage that we as Christians follow His example and treat the Bible with the reverance Jesus did.

He was far more then a supporter of the written text, He was the Word of creation made flesh. It sometimes puzzles me that professing Christian's have no problem accepting that Jesus was the incarnate Word of God but get testy when Genesis 1 is considered history. If the Word of God had used evolution to create man from apes he had a perfect opportunity to explain that He didn't do it by divine fiat but rather evolved Adam from apes.

This is my opinion, some may agree, some may not. In good faith I am open to hear opposing views, and I respect opposing views. Let us though not belittle each other and harbor prejudice for our differences. Let us lovingly come together with this and discuss in a calm manner.

Thanks for you participation and feel free to elaborate on the things you shared in this post. For me the hardest thing to believe was that Jesus was God incarnate. After that the question of whether or not Genesis 1 was literal or figurative seemed trite.

Grace and peace,
Mark