dr. dino's point of view

[theFijian]

What the Bible allegedly lacks science is certainly missing: unequivocal authority making it the final word.

Scripture is to nature as science is to theology. Compare apples with apples at least.

Needless to say this is another well worn track. Both scripture and nature are the revelation of God to mankind, we are more than capable of misinterpreting both.

Since I both know what the earth looks like ...

So what does the earth look like to you? Flat? Spherical? How do you know this to be the case?

 

[Assyrian]

No that is not what I said at all.

sounds like it. you think science is the only tool to interpret the Bible, but that is false.

You see what is happening here archie? You are reading you preconceptions of what I think into my post and totally missing out on what I actually said.

I suggest you go back and read it again and try to understand what I am actually saying before you answer it.

Assyrian: With the shape of the earth and heliocentrism you assume the science is true and that the scriptures must be interpreted figuratively.With the age of the earth and evolution, the assumption is that science is wrong and that the scripture should be interpreted literally. This is inconsistent.

Archie: no it isn't. it is recognizing what is being written in scripture and how it is being written, it is not being inconsistant but we also do not extrapolate that to passages which are not allegorical.

Assyrian: It is taking what science says and realising that the literal interpretation is not what scripture is teaching. But you only know this because science has told you the earth is a sphere and that it rotates and orbits the sun.

Archie: there you go again. saying science is infallible and scripture isn't. you have it backwards.

As you can see from my quote, I was describing the YEC interpretation of the geocentrist and flat earth passages. Are you saying they have their interpretation backwards?

But you only know this because science has told you the earth is a sphere and that it rotates and orbits the sun.

you keep using the same argument over andover as if it justifies all of what science does. the above certainly is very arrogant, as if only science can provide the answers.

No, science does not need any justification for studying the world God gave us. I certainly don't feel any need to justify it. You keep coming up with the weird idea that evolution is evil and accepting science is 'not following God', which not only are you unable to support, but is completely contradicted by the fact that you treat scripture the same way yourself with the flat earth and geocentist passages.

What I am doing is not justifying science, but showing how utterly unjustified your arguments are.

funny, the Bible never directs us to follow science...why is that?

Funny, the bible never directed us to buy computers, go on the internet or teach English.

you assume without any basis that the author intended them literally. You assume you can tell literal from allegorical when you cannot say, though I asked you again and again, what the 'seed' means which crushes the snakes head.

why do you keep charging me with what you do? i am making no assumptions, and i have a foundation, it is your side that makes assumptions and changes scripture to fit what you want.

please, stop mis-representing me. i know, i just never told you nor will i now. your personal attacks are ignored.

Personally I do not care what reason you had for refusing to say who the seed was who crushed the serpent's head. If you refuse to say, then we are free to make up our own minds. Either you did not understand what it means and you are in no position to preach on what scripture means, or you did know what it means and yet were unwilling to expound the meaning of scripture to the very people you condemn for misinterpreting it. Again you show yourself in no position to preach on the meaning of scripture or condemn people for not interpreting it your way.

But we do know how Moses interpreted God's days from Psalm 90:4. A good indication that these were not meant literally is the way the entire creation is described as happening in a single day in Gen 2:4, or that Adam was going to die the day he ate the fruit.

i am so tired of people bringing that mis-interpretation up. it is not describing creation nor has anything to do with that act or time period. read it again with an open-mind and you will see what moses is refering to.

It is hard to kick against the goads isn't it archie? You need to listen to what Moses says if you want to understand Genesis, and open minded believers, with no axe to grind, have understood this was referring to the book of Genesis from the time of the early church. It is only in recent years the YECs have been denying any connection. Read it with an open mind.

Psalm 90:1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations.
2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
3 You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of Adam."
4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

Nothing to do with the creation, right.

Another good indication the passages are not mean literally is the fact that we have completely different orders of creation in Genesis 1 & 2.

that is not an indicator, that is reading into what one wants.

Of course it is. A plain straightforward reading show two completely different orders of creation. Either Genesis is wrong and contradicts itself, or it is describing creation in a way that is not trying to tell us the actual chronological order.

And you think that a highly educated prince would not understand metaphor and allegory?

i know he did that is why genesis 1 & 2 are not allegorical.

Moses' ability to understand and use metaphor and allegory means Genesis is not allegorical? How do you work that out?

 

[Assyrian]

No.

From a purely poetic perspective. I analyzed the literature quite carefully and applied the rules. I was an English major. I have a law degree. I have to parse language all day long to figure out what people mean when they write things.

Yet though we had brilliantly trained scholars throughout church history, no one spotted the the geocentric passages were metaphorical before Copernicus?

On the other hand, the dominant interpretation of the Genesis days from the time of Augustine down through the Middle Ages was that the days were meant to be figurative.

So unbiased scripture scholars before the time of either Copernicus or modern Geology interpreted geocentrist passages literally and the Genesis days figuratively.

I certainly doubted very highly that the Bible could contain such error, since I both know what the earth looks like and believe in inerrancy. I understand the importance of the scientific frame of reference and I use it all the time. I just find the inerrant Word to be a better frame of reference. People may doubt that my literary analysis wasn't fudged -- but no one is immune from that easy criticism.

There that is my point. You know what the earth looks like because of science, and you assume that any biblical statement to the contrary must be metaphorical because the bible would not make such a mistake.

Why not take the same approach with the age of the earth and evolution? We know how old the earth is and that life evolved, and we know the bible would not contain such an error...

Or be consistent on the other side and reject spherical earth and heliocentrism as bad science the way you reject evolution.

But come on. Does Tevye think the universe is geocentric when he sings sunrise, sunset?

Bad example, we use the language for convenience but we know the earth rotates. Before Copernicus when people spoke of sunrise and sunset, they meant it literally and understood it literally. You would have to show that the people using these terms in scripture actually understood they were using language of appearance for convenience, otherwise we have to assume they meant it literally.

Besides the geocentric passages go beyond phrases like sunrise and sunset and include statements that the earth does not move, which Calvin assumed was completely literal, or Solomon's description of the sun hurrying around to get to the place it rises, this in a section where he is describing the behaviour of the natural world.

 

[Willtor]

No.

From a purely poetic perspective. I analyzed the literature quite carefully and applied the rules. I was an English major. I have a law degree. I have to parse language all day long to figure out what people mean when they write things.

I certainly doubted very highly that the Bible could contain such error, since I both know what the earth looks like and believe in inerrancy. I understand the importance of the scientific frame of reference and I use it all the time. I just find the inerrant Word to be a better frame of reference. People may doubt that my literary analysis wasn't fudged -- but no one is immune from that easy criticism.

Do you think that Clement of Rome thought that the Earth was round or that the sun, moon, and stars traveled around it?

First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (see, especially, Chapter 20)

But come on. Does Tevye think the universe is geocentric when he sings sunrise, sunset?

I don't think he thinks so because at the end of the 19th century I am persuaded with good reason that most people, even commoners, in Europe knew that the Earth traveled around the sun.

 

[busterdog]

Do you think that Clement of Rome thought that the Earth was round or that the sun, moon, and stars traveled around it?

First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (see, especially, Chapter 20)



I don't think he thinks so because at the end of the 19th century I am persuaded with good reason that most people, even commoners, in Europe knew that the Earth traveled around the sun.

To answer your post and Assyrian's, I accept nothing that is proposed about the ignorance of ancient man about heliocentrism. I think we know very little, except that generally, they knew the sky very well. And it doesn't matter where one learns heliocentrism first. The point is, the Bible may be wrong, arguably, but as far as I am concerned it is a poor argument.

 

[Willtor]

To answer your post and Assyrian's, I accept nothing that is proposed about the ignorance of ancient man about heliocentrism. I think we know very little, except that generally, they knew the sky very well. And it doesn't matter where one learns heliocentrism first. The point is, the Bible may be wrong, arguably, but as far as I am concerned it is a poor argument.

I'm not really very concerned about such things at this stage. My question is whether you think St. Clement thought that the world was round and that it orbited the sun given what he wrote.

 

[Ave Maria]

Kent Hovind is not even respectable in most creationist circles. I personally wouldn't believe most of what he says.

 

[Assyrian]

To answer your post and Assyrian's, I accept nothing that is proposed about the ignorance of ancient man about heliocentrism. I think we know very little, except that generally, they knew the sky very well. And it doesn't matter where one learns heliocentrism first. The point is, the Bible may be wrong, arguably, but as far as I am concerned it is a poor argument.

They knew a lot about astronomy and the apparent motion of the sun moon stars and planets. But is there any suggestion in any ancient writing that it was the earth that rotated, the the planets and earth orbited the sun, and only the moon orbited earth? When Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric model a millennium before Copernicus, it was rejected as impious. Archimedes talked of Aristarchus and 'his hypothesis'. If heliocentrism was already know about in the ancient world, Archimedes would hardly have described it as Aristarchus's hypothesis.

Neither do we have any reference in the bible to heliocentrism, so there is no basis to suggest that when Solomon or the Psalmist wrote about the earth not moving and the sun rushing around, they really understood it only appeared that way and that it was really the earth rotating as it orbited the sun.

On the other hand we do have scriptural evidence that the Israelites used day figuratively and the Moses in particular though God's days could really be much longer. We also have evidence from from both early church and Jewish sources that believed on the basis of scripture itself that the days were not meant literally, and rabbis who believed the earth was ancient.

Plenty of scriptural basis for a non literal Genesis harmonising with science, no scriptural or historical basis for geocentric and flat earth passages being harmonised with science, yet it is these passages you reject the literal meaning and claim were really meant in a spherical earth, heliocentric point of view, while you reject the harmony of Genesis with science. It does not make sense.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Kent Hovind is not even respectable in most creationist circles. I personally wouldn't believe most of what he says.

Is he the fellow stoned to death for his transgressions - failing to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's?

It should be noted that many of his fellow young-earthers consider him to be an embarrasment and that many of his arguments can be found in Arguments we think creationists should NOT use published by the young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis

 

[archaeologist]

assyrian:

you missed it all together. your whole post is way off target and full on mis-conceptions that i will not address it for fear of more manipulation and mis-understanding.

i will address this however:

Yet though we had brilliantly trained scholars throughout church history, no one spotted the the geocentric passages were metaphorical before Copernicus

your assumptionthat they all missed it is just out to lunch. you assume everyone believed what a minority of a minority believed and yet you cannot back up your statement with any facts.

we all know that many things are attributed to the greeks and the astronomers of the middle ages yet youall forget they weren't the first ones to discover the ideas they are credited with.

your limited idea that because a few, a very few, people believed the sun revolved around the earth gives off the idea that in 500 years if only the records of jim jones' church were found, you would assume that everyone believed as he did.

such limited thinking only undermines your position and makes you look foolish when you try to build an argument upon such limited information.

Kent Hovind is not even respectable in most creationist circles. I personally wouldn't believe most of what he says.

kent hovind i believe is one of those independent baptists who believe that only the king james bible is the true translation. he and his ilk have many, many problems, one of them is their teaching onthe 'doctrine of jurisdiction'.

this doctrine is what led hovind to do his business practices in the manner in which he did and which gives true christians a bad name and reputation.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

.... your assumptionthat they all missed it is just out to lunch. you assume everyone believed what a minority of a minority believed and yet you cannot back up your statement with any facts.

....
your limited idea that because a few, a very few, people believed the sun revolved around the earth ..... ....

Gallileo had good reason to think it was not a minority of a minority who believed thus.

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."
Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set. In fact, it is the earth's rotation which gives the impression of the sun in motion across the sky.
By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre.

And from the BBC a series of plays based on letters between him and his eldest daughter - "Galileo's daughter" can be found at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc7/listenagain/monday/

The first episode - of five - was on Monday and can be heard for 6 days after.

 

[Assyrian]

assyrian:

you missed it all together. your whole post is way off target and full on mis-conceptions that i will not address it for fear of more manipulation and mis-understanding.

If you are not going to address a post, why not simply not address it, instead of going into insult and accusations?

i will address this however:

Yet though we had brilliantly trained scholars throughout church history, no one spotted the the geocentric passages were metaphorical before Copernicus?

your assumptionthat they all missed it is just out to lunch. you assume everyone believed what a minority of a minority believed and yet you cannot back up your statement with any facts.

we all know that many things are attributed to the greeks and the astronomers of the middle ages yet youall forget they weren't the first ones to discover the ideas they are credited with.

your limited idea that because a few, a very few, people believed the sun revolved around the earth gives off the idea that in 500 years if only the records of jim jones' church were found, you would assume that everyone believed as he did.

such limited thinking only undermines your position and makes you look foolish when you try to build an argument upon such limited information.

If you have any evidence the vast majority of people before Copernicus were heliocentric and that the vast majority of of Christian writers understood that the geocentric passages in scripture were mean to be read as metaphors, then please show us. So far we are the ones who have been providing all the evidence from writers from the time of Copernicus and before. Back up you claims.

 

[archaeologist]

If you are not going to address a post, why not simply not address it, instead of going into insult and accusations?

i wasn't insulting or attacking but describing what i saw that it was. if i wanted to insult you i would say---'your intelligence is on the level of a dead snail'-- quite a difference.

If you have any evidence the vast majority of people before Copernicus were heliocentric and that the vast majority of of Christian writers understood that the geocentric passages in scripture were mean to be read as metaphors, then please show us

sorry, i am waiting for you to back up your statements.

And from the BBC a series of plays based on letters between him and his eldest daughter - "Galileo's daughter" can be found at

i read the book

On a side note, taken from the book 'Unearthing Atlantis' by Charles Pellegrino pages 273-4:

[QUOTE]

eight hundred miles east of cairo, near the ruins of babylon in iraq, they have found clay tablets dating back to 2000 b.c. a dozen different hands etched the same assignment into a dozen slabs of clay...the slabs teach us that 600 years after cheops was built, 300 years before tuthmosis III ruled, 1700 years before euclid introduced his 'new' geometry at alexandria, babylonian school children were learning about the hypotenuse of a right triangle... {talks about the babylonian batteries for a few lines}...last year,during a visit to the cairo museum, i asked one of the curators about the 'batteries' and was told that several gold charms found in the tombs of lesser nobles and once thought to be to have been solid gold, now appear to have been electroplated--over 3400 years ago.

Chariots of the Gods?

I very much doubt it, Personally, i 've always considered that hot speculation to smackof racism. no one seems to question that the greeks and romans were capable of inventing euclidian geometry, steam engines, differential gears shifts and screw presses (though now it appears thatsuch knowledge was inherited largely from the Minoans, central asians and north africans); but mention the existence of batteries, pyramids and the smelting of aluminum in early bronze age africa--or even plumbing on thera-- and suddenly it becomes neccessary toinvent ancient astronauts who came down from the stars and 'showed then how.'
why is it so difficult to believe someone back in minoan times knew a thing or two about electriccity? there is nothing earth shattering about it. it just means that very little is really new and that 'primitive' cultures knew more than most people think.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Yes, I believe Charles Pellegrino writes a decent novel.

 

[archaeologist]

my point with that quote is, that you need to start backing up your statements and sweeping generalizations as there is so much you do not know.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

OK, I'll do a search for Charles Pellegrino on archaeologica and see what turns up.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

OK, I found something to go on with:-

Either find real archaeological evidence or give it up. Posting nonsense from the Pellegrinos and Wyatts or tying to breathe life back into Albright and Garstang is simply not going to cut it.

The full link is at http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/v...rder=asc&highlight=charles+pellegrino&start=0 and is in fact one of your own threads.

Not all share your trust in Pellegrino.

 

[Ave Maria]

Is he the fellow stoned to death for his transgressions - failing to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's?

He might have been metaphorically stoned to death but he was never actually put to death. And yes, he was jailed for failing to render unto Caesar what is Caesars.

 

[archaeologist]

DR> Pellegrino is a volcanologist, he writes novels but is a scientist. his books and more information about him can be found at www.charlespellegrino.com

In the spirit of many of Pellegrino뭩 books, Unearthing Atlantis offered scientific explanations for a possible kernel of truth behind a mythical event

Education: Long Island University B.A., 1975, M.S., 1977; Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, Ph.D. 1982.

 

[Assyrian]

i wasn't insulting or attacking but describing what i saw that it was. if i wanted to insult you i would say---'your intelligence is on the level of a dead snail'-- quite a difference.

OK just accusations then.

sorry, i am waiting for you to back up your statements.

No you never can back up your claims can you?

I have shown you what Luther and Calvin said about geocentrism, Willtor gave us a great quotation from Clement of Rome. And what to you show us to support your amazing claim that the vast majority understood that the geocentric passages were meant as metaphors before Copernicus? Nada, zip, nothing. Just bluster claiming you are waiting for us to provide even more evidence when you cannot provide any.