How do you decide if something is factual?

Kylie said:

Scripture is irrelevant. There's no evidence that reality MUST conform to scripture, and plenty of evidence that it doesn't.
.

Click to expand...

You were responding to someone else, but I noticed you appear have the impression scripture says something different from reality.

What are you referring to? -- since I read extensively in mainstream science and also fully through scripture, and I know of no disagreements.

Kylie said:

You really want a list of contradictions between science and the Bible?

For a start, perhaps you can reconcile the Biblical claim that the moon is a source of light with the scientific fact that the moon only reflects light and does not produce any light of its own?

Click to expand...

Think it over. The reflected light is often a light at night that can be helpful. Not inside a modern city/town. Away from town, I know from experience, it can be useful during fuller phases.

Kylie said:

That's avoiding the issue. The Bible claims that the moon is a light source. It is not. Therefore, the Bible is wrong.

Click to expand...

I think you reasoned backwards. Like this: the Bible had to be wrong, therefore the correct way to interpret the words is to pretend they mean the moon emits light on its own (instead of merely being a light source at night).

Halbhh said:

I think you reasoned backwards. Like this: the Bible had to be wrong, therefore the correct way to interpret the words is to pretend they mean the moon emits lighton its own, a fantastical leap of meaning.

Click to expand...

You have read the Bible, have you not?

TLK Valentine said:

You have read the Bible, have you not?

Click to expand...

It's much like reading a poem, this chapter. You'll need the effort you'd make in order for you to get a poem. Holistic reading.

That would be non-technical, nonprejudicial reading.

Reading to comprehend. Like an English test in high school. What is the theme of the poem? Etc.

You have to read sympathetically.

No one can do it for you really, in that reading some exposition on a poem isn't the same as experiencing the poem yourself.

Kylie said:

No, that is not my reasoning.

My reasoning is as follows:

1. The Bible says the Moon is a light source.
2. The Moon does not produce its own light according to every single scientific test we have run (up to and including sending people there).
3. Therefore reality and the Bible contradict each other.
4. They cannot both be correct.
5. One or both of them is wrong.
6. I am inclined to consider reality to be the best representation of reality.
7. Therefore, reality is more likely to be correct than the Bible.
8. Therefore, when the Bible says that the moon is a light source, the Bible is wrong.

Now, I have conveniently numbered thew above points. If you feel I have made a mistake with any of them, please feel free to point out which point is wrong, and what correction you feel I need to make.

Click to expand...

Yes, point #1 is incorrect. See post 851 for the explanation.

To read for comprehension of verses 14, 15, you'll need verse 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.

Just exactly as you would in a poem. For the same reason.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1 - English Standard Version

Halbhh said:

It's much like reading a poem, this chapter. You'll need the effort you'd make in order for you to get a poem. Holistic reading.

That would be non-technical, nonprejudicial reading.

Reading to comprehend. Like an English test in high school. What is the theme of the poem? Etc.

You have to read sympathetically.

No one can do it for you.

Click to expand...

Sounds like to assume that the entire thing is literal and without error would be prejudicial and should be avoided.

TLK Valentine said:

Sounds like to assume that the entire thing is literal and without error would be prejudicial and should be avoided.

Click to expand...

How does verse 2 seem to you? A technical description? Or poetic?

"The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

Halbhh said:

How does verse 2 seem to you? A technical description? Or poetic?

"The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

Click to expand...

I call it poetry. You'd be surprised how many people take it literally.

You shouldn't be, but you would.

TLK Valentine said:

I call it poetry. You'd be surprised how many people take it literally.

You shouldn't be, but you would.

Click to expand...

I think it's about a real time, but it's poetically worded, using figurative language. For example, the word "spirit" is itself one way of communicating or it can be rendered well even more poetic yet -- "a wind of God", i.e., a mighty wind, as rendered by the Targum and most Jewish interpreters. The old King James goes half between: " the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters."

In all versions, this is a highly poetic situation, even though representative in some way of an actual situation of some kind (even if a timeless kind of moment stretching some unknown, even perhaps large duration of mere time), is my thought.

Poetically, the wind is rushing onto every day that comes after this in the chapter.

But to get the real meaning, of the chapter, we must not get caught in near focus, but listen, and read all of it like you would try to read a poem -- and let it happen to you as you can let a poem happen to you.

Here, the modern and excellent ESV is better than the NIV for you two to read holistically this chapter. You want to let this poetry happen to you, like you just woke up in the dawn of the world.

...2nd thought, because of the poetic nature of the chapter, we can get it best in the poetic KJV! --

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1 - King James Version

Kylie said:

So if some parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally and other parts are NOT meant to be taken literally, how do we determine which is which?

Click to expand...

By reading like you'd read other involved, complex books, to get the real situations -- that in order to understand a sentence or paragraph somewhere correctly, you must have read what is before it, the previous parts of that book, for each of the books. And more -- some of the books are like a series also, such as most of the early books of the Old Testament. Often the first 5 are grouped together, but actually much that happens in the 6th book only makes any sense from already knowing books 2-5. Altogether, many parts of the first 17 books are cross dependent on other sections in other books, so that to get the real situation in book 6 or book 11 you need to already know book 2-4, and several parts of 7,8,10 etc.

So when you encounter something like the pillars of the Earth cry out (or whatever you are seeing in the text), you know instantly if it is figurative wording because you've been reading through from the beginning of that book.

Of course, that means to get what's happening a person must really be a reader or get caught up in the whole of it, otherwise they are only in the situation of someone that picks up a random book in the library and opens to a random page and reads a sentence or paragraph without knowing the situation, and then merely has guesses about what is happening.

When people are doing that guessing -- which is also common among believers too -- then they tend to merely read onto (lay on top of) the text whatever they expect or think as their own pet theories.

Since only some people these days read through all (meaning not 40% or 70%, but 98%+), many people are just groping in the dark and having wrong conclusions. That's why you can't rely on some website to tell you what something means, but have to read through yourself fully. And of course sympathetically, so as to get the intended meaning instead of one's own preconception. Having fully read, one can then gauge the accuracy of any commentary in that you will know if the writer of the commentary knows the full text.

For example, if someone thinks Sodom was destroyed because it had gay people or homosexuality in it, then I know with certainty that they have not read through the Old Testament. Without having read through the OT myself, I wouldn't be able to discern when someone is making up their own pet theory. I'd be at the mercy of people claiming they read a lot (who in reality did not or are poor readers, or are merely parroting claims they saw somewhere and pretending).

Here's a great example -- if you see someone take a phrasing like: " who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain" and then assert it definitely is saying the stars are like a 2 dimensional blanket/curtain, that this is the intended meaning, you know instantly they are lying.

Even if one merely had read only the very next verse, they'd see through that kind of lie.
Psalm 104 KJV

So, just as it is with any believer, anyone in any church, you also won't know what the text means (or have a chance to know) unless you read through full books entirely. They don't know without that, and you won't either.