Genesis

[KerrMetric]

Note that my poll revealed the beliefs of people, not their knowledge. What they believe in their heart is simply more imortant to them than what they should believe in their head. This would make them more spiritual than intellectual. Is that a bad thing?

The problem is that people have beliefs on some issues that should not be belief issues. People shouldn't believe that 2 + 2 = 43 should they?

 

[simplyg123]

You were told yesterday that this is not true.

i was told by someone with an obviously biased opinion

 

[Melethiel]

i was told by someone with an obviously biased opinion

Isn't everybody's opinion biased?

 

[simplyg123]

mine is not, i am very open minded, i am actually looking for facts or least soemthing to make since, i am believe in a young earth but only because the arguments make more since to me, truthfully i am undecided, and may very well change my mind, but too many things just dont add up

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Isn't everybody's opinion biased?

this brings up the interesting topic of the intersubjectivity of the real world. we really do in significant ways "share" the world around us. It is public information, accessible by almost anyone who wishes to see things "out there". The interesting thing is that we can see substantially the same things, describe them in similiar terms and interact with them in ways that are repeatible and manipulatible. This is what science does on a systematic, longterm way that involves lots of very different people.

intersubjectivity, not objectivity, not subjectivity, emerges from this agreement with what we find out there. The commensurability of such intersubjectivity is really amazing given not just the problems philosophy has shown us are there (the matrix, brains in the vat, decartes demon etc) but the extraordinary depth of the system as well.

now, you can say that "aren't all opinions biased?" in such a way that it tends to lead to a radical solipisim or you can say it in such a way that it leads to science, that is all opinions may be biased but some are more biased towards being in conformity with the real world and some are more biased towards conforminty with private personal worlds that only that person has access to, and often can not really describe what they have found there when they return to us to tell us what they have found there.

science can, and does, and if you learn something of it, then the statement "aren't all opinions biased?" leads to agreement that conformity with reality is more truthful than is lack of conformity with it, or conformity with a private internal reality.

 

[simplyg123]

this brings up the interesting topic of the intersubjectivity of the real world. we really do in significant ways "share" the world around us. It is public information, accessible by almost anyone who wishes to see things "out there". The interesting thing is that we can see substantially the same things, describe them in similiar terms and interact with them in ways that are repeatible and manipulatible. This is what science does on a systematic, longterm way that involves lots of very different people.

intersubjectivity, not objectivity, not subjectivity, emerges from this agreement with what we find out there. The commensurability of such intersubjectivity is really amazing given not just the problems philosophy has shown us are there (the matrix, brains in the vat, decartes demon etc) but the extraordinary depth of the system as well.

now, you can say that "aren't all opinions biased?" in such a way that it tends to lead to a radical solipisim or you can say it in such a way that it leads to science, that is all opinions may be biased but some are more biased towards being in conformity with the real world and some are more biased towards conforminty with private personal worlds that only that person has access to, and often can not really describe what they have found there when they return to us to tell us what they have found there.

science can, and does, and if you learn something of it, then the statement "aren't all opinions biased?" leads to agreement that conformity with reality is more truthful than is lack of conformity with it, or conformity with a private internal reality.

i am pretty sure you were purposly complicating that staement

 

[Melethiel]

mine is not, i am very open minded, i am actually looking for facts or least soemthing to make since, i am believe in a young earth but only because the arguments make more since to me, truthfully i am undecided, and may very well change my mind, but too many things just dont add up

So far I have only seen you quote from creationist sources. Have you investigated the responses and refutations of creationist claims by scientists? Why do you feel that they are inadequate?

 

[simplyg123]

the truth is noone knows, the bible doesnt state that there was a gap in history, why would there be. Did God take a 4 billion year nap. i doubt it. The bible is pretty specific about the creation of the earth. When , i base my knowledge on the bible the inspired word of God, i trust it over any science book written by man in the flesh

Gen 2:1¶Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Gen 2:2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

the seventh day

 

[KerrMetric]

i was told by someone with an obviously biased opinion

Why don't you do this experiment.

Get a 70 year old electromagnetism textbook and compare it to a new one.

Repeat with a mechanics text.

Repeat with a statistical mechanics book.

Now get a 40 year old atomic physicss text.

Compare to a new one.

etc etc etc


You will see that they change hardly at all.



By the way - this is NOT opinion. There was no bias in my comment.

The only bias here is the bias that you don't know a thing about science and how it works and proceeds. There is the bias!

 

[KerrMetric]

mine is not, i am very open minded,

Was this a parody post?

but too many things just dont add up

I wonder why?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

When , i base my knowledge on the bible the inspired word of God, i trust it over any science book written by man in the flesh

what you are trusting is not the Scriptures but a specific human interpretation of them that may be closer to or further from God's intention for the way they are to be read, than other interpretations. The only way to know in this world is to compare the results of such interpretations to the other book of God, that is, the Creation-His book of works.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

excuse me? the world, both as expressed in science and in modern philosophy (even theology) IS complex.

to protest that it exceeds our capacity to understand(so why try?), or to claim that it really is simple- all opinions are biased(and therefore equally valid or invalid as you choose), misses the really interesting points that we can talk about and understand.

 

[simplyg123]

When , i base my knowledge on the bible the inspired word of God, i trust it over any science book written by man in the flesh

what you are trusting is not the Scriptures but a specific human interpretation of them that may be closer to or further from God's intention for the way they are to be read, than other interpretations. The only way to know in this world is to compare the results of such interpretations to the other book of God, that is, the Creation-His book of works.

we have the greek and we have the hebrew, those who translated the bible would sure have been proofread, by others who know the greek and hebrew. I have not heard of anyone stating a major argument of a translation error from greek or hebrew to english.

those who tranlsate the bible are not the only one who know the language, surely an error would be noticed

 

[simplyg123]

i have said many times you are right, i am no scientist, why must you keep pointing that out, is it to glorify yourself?

I have given you however scientific facts from a man with a degree in physics, and the best thing you can do is call him a lier .

Maybe he is wrong, but he has evidence to back it up just as you claim to.

He believes what he believes just as much as you

what makes him more wrong then you?

 

[KerrMetric]

we have the greek and we have the hebrew, those who translated the bible would sure have been proofread, by others who know the greek and hebrew. I have not heard of anyone stating a major argument of a translation error from greek or hebrew to english.

those who tranlsate the bible are not the only one who know the language, surely an error would be noticed

Translation and interpretation are NOT synonyms.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Originally Posted by rmwilliamsll
When , i base my knowledge on the bible the inspired word of God, i trust it over any science book written by man in the flesh

what you are trusting is not the Scriptures but a specific human interpretation of them that may be closer to or further from God's intention for the way they are to be read, than other interpretations. The only way to know in this world is to compare the results of such interpretations to the other book of God, that is, the Creation-His book of works.

we have the greek and we have the hebrew, those who translated the bible would sure have been proofread, by others who know the greek and hebrew. I have not heard of anyone stating a major argument of a translation error from greek or hebrew to english.

those who tranlsate the bible are not the only one who know the language, surely an error would be noticed

you are confusing the different elements of the exegetical chain:

textual criticism=define the text
this is your level of Greek and Hebrew

if necessary, translation exists in between these two levels. how to get the text into a form that you can read. it relies on textual criticism but involves a certain amount of hermeneutics even to translate. so it is either a hybrid or a separate level, your choice.

reading the text=the hermeneutical task
this is the hermeneutical level, that is, how do you determine the meaning of the text
this is the level where interpretations exist.

exegesis=what does it mean to us?
this is the level of application, how to apply the interpretation to your times and life.

image it as an arch. up the left side is text on the bottom*, hermeneutics above it.
the key stone is preaching.
down the right side is application
and it rests on you using the information to form and change your life. the exegetical arch.

*it would be better to put Christ, the prophets and the human authors of the Bible on the bottom layer. so the bottom layer of each side is people.

 

[simplyg123]

My Friend you think too much

 

[simplyg123]

the bible was translated, i do not rely on anyone but my faith in God that what i am reading is what he wants me to Know

 

[KerrMetric]

My Friend you think too much

Isn't that better than too little or not at all?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

My Friend you think too much

thanks for the compliment.

the bible was translated, i do not rely on anyone but my faith in God that what i am reading is what he wants me to Know

no, you are relying on hundreds of people who went before you and discussed these issues and wrote things that your pastor and friends and anyone else you discuss with or read. you are only unaware of their influence, not uninfluenced.

i suspect that no one is more controlled by the past interpreters of Scripture than those that claim to be reading it for themselves and are therefore completely unaware of where they get their ideas and therefore assume that they are de novo from God. nonsense. being unconscious of influences is not the same things as being uninfluenced.