Creation or the Bible?

[Wiccan_Child]

Which do you think takes precedent: the universe, or the Bible?

So, if you look at the universe and come to conclusion A, and you look at the Bible and come to conclusion B, and A and B are mutually exclusive... which do you believe?

To take the quintessential example: scientists look at the universe and conclude that it is 13.5 billion years old*, while YECs look at the Bible and conclude that the universe is ~6000 years old**.

So which stance do you take? If Biblical exegesis and empirical deduction contradict each other, which do you take to be true?

*To be more precise, the universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years from a singularity to its current size; this process is called the Big Bang.
**That is, Genesis 1 took place about 6000 years ago.

 

[drich0150]

scientists look at the universe and conclude that it is 13.5 billion years old*, while YECs look at the Bible and conclude that the universe is ~6000 years old**.

For the men of "Science" the universe is as old as it needs to be, or it gets older to justify or explain ever new findings. Science is based on "fact" and fact has little to do with truth. A fact is a statement that can either be proved or disproved, that's it..

Whether you believe the ever changing "facts" or the stated truth of the bible your exercising the exact same faith. The question should be: Do you put your faith in ever changing facts, or the stated truths in scripture.. Who do you want to be excepted by more? your peers or your God?

 

[ephraimanesti]

Which do you think takes precedent: the universe, or the Bible?

So, if you look at the universe and come to conclusion A, and you look at the Bible and come to conclusion B, and A and B are mutually exclusive... which do you believe?

To take the quintessential example: scientists look at the universe and conclude that it is 13.5 billion years old*, while YECs look at the Bible and conclude that the universe is ~6000 years old**.

So which stance do you take? If Biblical exegesis and empirical deduction contradict each other, which do you take to be true?

*To be more precise, the universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years from a singularity to its current size; this process is called the Big Bang.
**That is, Genesis 1 took place about 6000 years ago.

MY FRIEND,

The Bible deals with Spiritual TRUTHS, Science deals with the search for material truths. Any conflict between the two is illusionary--sort of like the "conflict" between apples and oranges.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Wiccan_Child]

For the men of "Science" the universe is as old as it needs to be, or it gets older to justify or explain ever new findings. Science is based on "fact" and fact has little to do with truth.

Fact has everything to do with truth: it is, by definition, a true statement. As new facts are acquired, they either validate previous theories, or require the formation of new theories. That's how science works: it fits the data.

A fact is a statement that can either be proved or disproved, that's it..

Uhh... not really.

Whether you believe the ever changing "facts" or the stated truth of the bible your exercising the exact same faith. The question should be: Do you put your faith in ever changing facts, or the stated truths in scripture.. Who do you want to be excepted by more? your peers or your God?

Since I don't believe in God, I'd have to say my peers. But I believe what the evidence leads me to believe. I have no problem adapting my beliefs as new data emerges.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

MY FRIEND,

The Bible deals with Spiritual TRUTHS, Science deals with the search for material truths. Any conflict between the two is illusionary--sort of like the "conflict" between apples and oranges.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

What is the difference between a spiritual truth and a material truth?

 

[ephraimanesti]

What is the difference between a spiritual truth and a material truth?

A "material truth" deals with the nature of the created physical universe; a "spiritual truth" deals with the nature of He Who created it.

ephraim

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A "material truth" deals with the nature of the created physical universe; a "spiritual truth" deals with the nature of He Who created it.

ephraim

Thank you. This is the first time I've seen a meaningful distinction between 'physical' and 'spiritual' that doesn't devolve into subjective aesthetics.

So the Bible takes precedence when it comes to God, and we should defer to our deductive understanding of the universe for all else, yes?

 

[drich0150]

Fact has everything to do with truth: it is, by definition, a true statement.

So in England when innocent man is sent to prison, what places him there?
Opinions? feelings? dislike for the man? Corruption in your legal system?
Or possibly incorrect Facts?

If a fact can be found to be incorrect, then how by your definition can it be a "true statement?"

Truth real truth, is foundational and unchanging. Even if we don't have a complete understanding of it, It will always remain the same. This is truth; If a man truthfully did not commit a murder, then He did not kill the man he was accused of killing... A fact can place an innocent man at the scene, can place a murder weapon in his hand and a "fact" can even place an eye wittiness on the scene that "saw the whole thing take place." If the Truth is, If He did not commit murder, then no matter what the "facts" are, that man is innocent. Again Facts have nothing to do with truth, a "Fact" is simply a statement that can be proved or disproved, that's it.

Facts Change all of the time, even in your own defense of "scientific fact" you yourself admit to the ever changing nature of scientific fact. Because of this, Facts indeed have nothing to do with truth, this is why "facts" can be, and are proved to be wrong all of the time. (Pluto is a planet, holes in the Ozone, caused by CFC's, Global cooling due to dwindling fuel resources in the sun, A Mini Ice Age by 2010, Global warming cause by co2 emissions, and on and on)

Just because your understanding of "truth" can change, doesn't mean the truth has changed. Unlike "facts" because they will change to support whatever evidence there is to be interpreted.

Faith in Science, and History is a Faith in Facts, (Or the current/acceptable interpretation of said facts.) And a Faith in Facts is just that, Faith.. The Same faith we place in God.

I have no problem adapting my beliefs as new data emerges.

What if it were our (christian) religious beliefs, had us completely dependent on "New Data" to tell us how or what to think, and not yours? What would you say then? Would it still be a progressive or contemporary way to think? or could you/would you sit back and poke holes, in our progressive beliefs?

 

[ephraimanesti]

Thank you. This is the first time I've seen a meaningful distinction between 'physical' and 'spiritual' that doesn't devolve into subjective aesthetics.

So the Bible takes precedence when it comes to God, and we should defer to our deductive understanding of the universe for all else, yes?

i would answer YES to your question, with the full knowledge that your "gottcha" will be--well, what about the apparent conflict between Genesis and Darwinism.

To which i would respond that, keeping in mind that evolution remains an unproved theory, i see no conflict in that the ways and means of God's creative activities remain Biblically unexplained and God could just as well used some form of evolution as any other means He available to Him--with, of course, the exception of the creation of human beings which is obviously described as being in a class by itself. i don't believe He did use evolution, but neither do i believe that he created everything in 6-24hr "days." However material things came to be is, in my opinion a non-issue as long as we remember from Whence they came.

The above, to me, is a very minor issue however it plays out, when compared to the events transpiring between Good Friday and Easter Morning.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[ebia]

Which do you think takes precedent: the universe, or the Bible?

So, if you look at the universe and come to conclusion A, and you look at the Bible and come to conclusion B, and A and B are mutually exclusive... which do you believe?

To take the quintessential example: scientists look at the universe and conclude that it is 13.5 billion years old*, while YECs look at the Bible and conclude that the universe is ~6000 years old**.

So which stance do you take? If Biblical exegesis and empirical deduction contradict each other, which do you take to be true?

*To be more precise, the universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years from a singularity to its current size; this process is called the Big Bang.
**That is, Genesis 1 took place about 6000 years ago.

I would have to go back and review both. I don't take it as read that I'm infallible in interpreting either the bible or creation, and if my understanding of the two can't be reconcilled then I must have made a mistake in my understanding of one or other, or quite possibly both.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So in England when innocent man is sent to prison, what places him there?
Opinions? feelings? dislike for the man? Corruption in your legal system?
Or possibly incorrect Facts?

Neither: the jury based their conclusion on the available facts. It's not that the facts are wrong, but that they're incomplete

If a fact can be found to be incorrect, then how by your definition can it be a "true statement?"

Clearly it's a paradox, but since facts can't be found false, it's moot.

Truth real truth, is foundational and unchanging. Even if we don't have a complete understanding of it, It will always remain the same. This is truth; If a man truthfully did not commit a murder, then He did not kill the man he was accused of killing... A fact can place an innocent man at the scene, can place a murder weapon in his hand and a "fact" can even place an eye wittiness on the scene that "saw the whole thing take place." If the Truth is, If He did not commit murder, then no matter what the "facts" are, that man is innocent. Again Facts have nothing to do with truth, a "Fact" is simply a statement that can be proved or disproved, that's it.

Actually, in your scenario, the facts lead one to conclude the man's guilt. The more facts you have, the more likely your conclusion is accurate. There very well may be an eye-witness who places the man at the scene: it is a fact that the eye-witness saw (or believes she saw) the man at that time and place. This suggests another fact: the man's guilt.

Facts Change all of the time, even in your own defense of "scientific fact" you yourself admit to the ever changing nature of scientific fact.

An 'established scientific fact' is not the same as a simple 'fact': the former is the consensus based on the latter. The former changes as new instances of the latter become available. Semantics, dear Watson.

Because of this, Facts indeed have nothing to do with truth, this is why "facts" can be, and are proved to be wrong all of the time. (Pluto is a planet, holes in the Ozone, caused by CFC's, Global cooling due to dwindling fuel resources in the sun, A Mini Ice Age by 2010, Global warming cause by co2 emissions, and on and on)

To the best of our knowledge, there are holes in the ozone layer caused by man-made gaseous emissions: the fact remains that the holes exist.

Just because your understanding of "truth" can change, doesn't mean the truth has changed. Unlike "facts" because they will change to support whatever evidence there is to be interpreted.

I think you're conflating 'fact' with 'scientific theory'. This whole tirade seems to be a semantical misunderstanding.

Faith in Science, and History is a Faith in Facts, (Or the current/acceptable interpretation of said facts.) And a Faith in Facts is just that, Faith.. The Same faith we place in God.

I disagree: faith is belief without substantiation. It is faith to believe that there exists a chocolate teapot orbiting Mars because there is no corroborating evidence (read: facts), but it isn't faith to believe that atoms exist because there is corroborating evidence (again, read: facts).

We have the facts, and these are unchanging (though, epistemologically speaking, the only true facts we have are those in our periphery). What we conclude from those facts are called theories. They never become facts unto themselves, though they're so probable that they may as well be called as such.

What if it were our (christian) religious beliefs, had us completely dependent on "New Data" to tell us how or what to think, and not yours? What would you say then? Would it still be a progressive or contemporary way to think? or could you/would you sit back and poke holes, in our progressive beliefs?

I poke holes in any worldview or belief system. Anything that remains has stood up to scrutiny, and is all the better for losing its unsubstantiated waffle.
I find it telling that religious beliefs very rarely offer themselves up to scrutiny, instead staying firmly in the realms of faith.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

i would answer YES to your question, with the full knowledge that your "gottcha" will be--well, what about the apparent conflict between Genesis and Darwinism.

That was the basis of my question, yes, but there is no 'gotcha' moment. Besides, any 'gotcha' is going to play on your own philosophical and exegetical inconsistencies, and it's always better to be aware of them.

To which i would respond that, keeping in mind that evolution remains an unproved theory, i see no conflict in that the ways and means of God's creative activities remain Biblically unexplained and God could just as well used some form of evolution as any other means He available to Him--with, of course, the exception of the creation of human beings which is obviously described as being in a class by itself. i don't believe He did use evolution, but neither do i believe that he created everything in 6-24hr "days." However material things came to be is, in my opinion a non-issue as long as we remember from Whence they came.

Fair enough.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I would have to go back and review both. I don't take it as read that I'm infallible in interpreting either the bible or creation, and if my understanding of the two can't be reconcilled then I must have made a mistake in my understanding of one or other, or quite possibly both.

So, to you, both the Bible and Creation should be in agreement, yes? Does this extend to metaphorical parts of the Bible, or just those which were written as historical accounts?

For example: if the Hebrews recorded an event in the Torah as a literal, historical account of an event they believed happened, does that mean the event really did happen? Or does there exist the possibility that they got things wrong?

 

[drich0150]

Neither: the jury based their conclusion on the available facts. It's not that the facts are wrong, but that they're incomplete

Why cloud the truth?
If a man did not kill another, then the truth of the matter is He is innocent of murder.. Despite what the facts conclude in their completeness or not.. Facts can be interpreted any number of ways.. This has nothing to do with truth. Truths are foundational and are unchanging.. "Facts" and truth are not the same..

Clearly it's a paradox, but since facts can't be found false, it's moot.

Oh but they can! Your statement is an example of an untrue fact. (It's not an opinion) It's a statement that can either be proved or disproved.. Here is an example of disproving your "fact." If you have ever opened a science text book printed before 1980's those books are littered with "Untrue facts." (and theories) All of those books were filled with "facts" some have stood the test of time while others have not.

Actually, in your scenario, the facts lead one to conclude the man's guilt. The more facts you have, the more likely your conclusion is accurate. There very well may be an eye-witness who places the man at the scene: it is a fact that the eye-witness saw (or believes she saw) the man at that time and place. This suggests another fact: the man's guilt.

In My scenario" The man's guilt is not in Question.. In My scenario the Truth of the man's innocents has been established.. and yet the interpretation of the facts point to his guilt.. Separating "fact" from truth.

To the best of our knowledge, there are holes in the ozone layer caused by man-made gaseous emissions: the fact remains that the holes exist.

Actually no there isn't, It has sealed it self up, (for now) Ozone watch is an organization that monitors the "hole" or the lack of one over Antarctica.. There are new theories and "facts" that point to the "hole" being a naturally occurring phenomenon..

I think you're conflating 'fact' with 'scientific theory'.

Before 2008 how many planets where know to be in our solar system? Now how many are there? This change was made, Because the the available data changed, and we changed the "facts" to adopt the current data, as theory? or as Fact?

The Fact that we had 9 planets in our solar system was undisputed before 2008. No one considered these "facts" to be theories, before the revelation in '08. Now it's a different story..

We have the facts, and these are unchanging (though, epistemologically speaking, the only true facts we have are those in our periphery). What we conclude from those facts are called theories. They never become facts unto themselves, though they're so probable that they may as well be called as such.

"Facts" Change all of the time to fit what is known... The Truth is always the same. It is foundational, it can not change. "Facts" ascribe to be true, facts are often times based on someone's interpretation of truth... For example: Before '08 we had only 8 planets in the solar system, just like we do now. But the facts did not support this truth because the data was incomplete. The truth did not change, the status of the fact did. This is where your "faith" in facts proves to be the same faith we exercise.. If a scientifically foundational "fact" like, the number of planets orbiting our sun can change.. This means you do not worship at the alter of complete substantiation, and corroborating evidence, like you once thought.. What is known to be factually true today, is one discovery away from being yesterday's foolishness.

I poke holes in any worldview or belief system. Anything that remains has stood up to scrutiny, and is all the better for losing its unsubstantiated waffle.

The truth of this statement will be proved in the time you spend here in this life.. For your sake I hope it's more than just a colorful response..

 

[ebia]

So, to you, both the Bible and Creation should be in agreement, yes? Does this extend to metaphorical parts of the Bible, or just those which were written as historical accounts?

For example: if the Hebrews recorded an event in the Torah as a literal, historical account of an event they believed happened, does that mean the event really did happen? Or does there exist the possibility that they got things wrong?

Reading any text, even if one does decide it is "literal history" (if any text actually is such a thing) is rather more complex than that.

I can only try to repeat what I said before in different words - I don't assume my understanding of either creation or scripture is infallible and I don't prioritise my understanding of one over the other. If they appear to disagree then I need to review my understanding of each and probably come to a better understanding of both.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why cloud the truth?
If a man did not kill another, then the truth of the matter is He is innocent of murder.. Despite what the facts conclude in their completeness or not..

Correct.

Facts can be interpreted any number of ways.. This has nothing to do with truth. Truths are foundational and are unchanging.. "Facts" and truth are not the same..

The man's innocence is itself a fact. The evidence presented to the jury are also facts, but they are incidental ones: the man's innocence is a fact despite what the other facts suggest. The problem is that we only have the incidental ones, and we try to infer the salient fact: the man's guilty or innocence.

Oh but they can! Your statement is an example of an untrue fact. (It's not an opinion) It's a statement that can either be proved or disproved.. Here is an example of disproving your "fact." If you have ever opened a science text book printed before 1980's those books are littered with "Untrue facts." (and theories) All of those books were filled with "facts" some have stood the test of time while others have not.

Again, you're conflating facts, scientific facts, and scientific theories.

In My scenario" The man's guilt is not in Question.. In My scenario the Truth of the man's innocents has been established.. and yet the interpretation of the facts point to his guilt.. Separating "fact" from truth.

On the contrary, the interpretation of the facts points to his guilt. The facts themselves are true (e.g., his fingerprints are on the gun), but they don't prove his guilt, they merely infer it. And, in this case, it is this inference that is false, not the facts themselves.

However, how can the man's innocence be established if the facts imply his guilt? Or are we taking it as a given?

Before 2008 how many planets where know to be in our solar system? Now how many are there? This change was made, Because the the available data changed, and we changed the "facts" to adopt the current data, as theory? or as Fact?

As definition. The facts remain the same, but our definitions have changed. The fact remains that Pluto exists, but whether we deem it a planet or a trans-Neptunian object has changed. "There exist nine planets" and "There exist eight planets" are both true statements; it's just that the former uses the old definition of 'planet', and the latter uses the new definition. You're wrapping yourself up in semantics again.

"Facts" Change all of the time to fit what is known... The Truth is always the same. It is foundational, it can not change. "Facts" ascribe to be true, facts are often times based on someone's interpretation of truth... For example: Before '08 we had only 8 planets in the solar system, just like we do now. But the facts did not support this truth because the data was incomplete. The truth did not change, the status of the fact did. This is where your "faith" in facts proves to be the same faith we exercise.. If a scientifically foundational "fact" like, the number of planets orbiting our sun can change.. This means you do not worship at the alter of complete substantiation, and corroborating evidence, like you once thought.. What is known to be factually true today, is one discovery away from being yesterday's foolishness.

On the contrary, 'faith' in facts is nothing of the sort: basing one's beliefs on the available data is subtantiation defined. There is no 'faith', beyond your word games.

The truth of this statement will be proved in the time you spend here in this life.. For your sake I hope it's more than just a colorful response..

The irony is stunning.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Reading any text, even if one does decide it is "literal history" (if any text actually is such a thing) is rather more complex than that.

I can only try to repeat what I said before in different words - I don't assume my understanding of either creation or scripture is infallible and I don't prioritise my understanding of one over the other. If they appear to disagree then I need to review my understanding of each and probably come to a better understanding of both.

But the fact you need to review your understanding tells me that you think there shouldn't be a disagreement, right?

 

[Catherineanne]

Which do you think takes precedent: the universe, or the Bible?

So, if you look at the universe and come to conclusion A, and you look at the Bible and come to conclusion B, and A and B are mutually exclusive... which do you believe?

To take the quintessential example: scientists look at the universe and conclude that it is 13.5 billion years old*, while YECs look at the Bible and conclude that the universe is ~6000 years old**.

So which stance do you take? If Biblical exegesis and empirical deduction contradict each other, which do you take to be true?

*To be more precise, the universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years from a singularity to its current size; this process is called the Big Bang.
**That is, Genesis 1 took place about 6000 years ago.

Both.

The Bible contains spiritual truth, and therefore is true. It was not written as a scientific textbook, so cannot be said to contradict anything which science says.

Similarly, scientific findings about the universe do not say anything about spiritual truth, so do not contradict the Bible. Scientific truth is not the same as spiritual truth.

As long as we allow each of these to be what they are, rather than what they are not, then there is no contradiction, and it is perfectly possible to believe both. As I do.

On the other hand, if we distort Scripture into science, or science into saying something of God, then we stray into areas of misinformation, deception and downright lies. Not a good idea, in either case.

 

[Catherineanne]

What is the difference between a spiritual truth and a material truth?

If you think of the Universe; of all that can be seen or perceived or understood; all of that is part of Creation. The study of what is in creation is the domain of Science, in one form or another. We look at what is, and we formulate laws to theorise about how it all works.

The Creator is outside creation. He is not constrained by time, nor by any of the natural laws within the Universe. Science can say nothing of what is outside creation, because it cannot be seen, or measured, or perceived. This is the realm of spirituality, and of spiritual truth.

Science, for example, cannot say what happened before the Big Bang. The question is meaningless, because time itself began at the Big Bang. On the other hand, our faith can say something about that. It says, in the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'

Science cannot say this is true, and it cannot say it is not true. But spirituality can.

 

[ebia]

But the fact you need to review your understanding tells me that you think there shouldn't be a disagreement, right?

Yes, so long as you don't read the wrong thing(s) into that answer.