I don't understand the point of creationism

[BobRyan]

Personally, whether the scripture was meant to be taken allegorically or literally, I think is kind of irrelevant.

In that case - so much for the virgin birth, incarnation of Christ, miracles of Christ, bodily resurrection of Christ, bodily ascension of Christ, miracles of Christ...

As for "what the text says" and the "meaning conveyed" to the intended contemporary readers (i.e. - exegesis)

Part I.
Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject the idea that what it says is actually true. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."

my comment: And that poses a problem for Christians who need the bible to "say something else"


================

Part II. Many Christians even today think the Bible is true.

Even if the original authors intended genesis to be taken literally, at the end of the day they lived some 2,000 years ago and really would never be able to comprehend the depth of creation. Be them inspired by God or not. And so there is no reason to treat their works as objective literal truth

In that case - so much for the virgin birth, incarnation of Christ, miracles of Christ, bodily resurrection of Christ, bodily ascension of Christ, miracles of Christ...

Well, I mean, it is what it is.
I know Christians don't like to hear this,

And the experts in Hebrew studies and language have made it pretty clear as to what the text is saying, as we already saw here - #112

As much as we differ - I do agree to some extent that the method you use does dismiss the work of Christ just as you appear to be admitting.

My guess is that more than one or two atheists would also agree with your conclusion given that the Hebrew scholars in all world class universities appear to agree on what the text is saying.

 

[Job 33:6]

In that case - so much for the virgin birth, incarnation of Christ, miracles of Christ, bodily resurrection of Christ, bodily ascension of Christ, miracles of Christ...

.

Well, I mean, it is what it is.

I know Christians (or more specifically, young earthers) don't like to hear this, but like I said above, if Christianity is truly dependent upon belief in a literal 6 day creation, Ken hams ark adventure with animals on a boat and a man who lives inside a fish for 3 days...then it's inevitable that Christianity is going to lose out on this one.

And it just is what it is.

The only logical options are to consider non literal interpretations, or to simply abandon Christianity.

Or to simply divide these topics up. Accept one kind of a miracle but not another. And in this case, one thing we can say is that something like the resurrection of Jesus Christ isn't something that we can readily observe today, whereas geology is readily observable today, and so things that contradict geology, contradict what we can readily study today, whereas the resurrection is a bit more mysterious because we don't have jesus's body to investigate. The source of the event (the physical body of Christ) is no longer present with us as the earth is.

So there is a difference in that sense between things like the virgin birth and things like 6-day creation.

 

[BobRyan]

And in this case, one thing we can say is that something like the resurrection of Jesus Christ isn't something that we can readily observe today, whereas geology is readily observable today,

1. We cannot observe geological formations being changed as God speaks dry land into existence from a planet covered by water. But we can observe rocks, geology and dry land.
2. We cannot observe God raising the dead - but we can observe the living, the dead, the graves and the fact that the dead do not raise themselves from the dead.

what is your point?

3. I can observe a pile of rocks and I can observe my computer. That is not the same thing as observing that a pile of rocks will self-assemble into my computer over time assuming I say billions-and-billions at the right moment and come up with "stories easy enough to tell" all the way up what Dawkins called "mount improbable"

 

[Job 33:6]

1. We cannot observe geological formations being changed as God speaks dry land into existence from a planet covered by water. But we can observe rocks, geology and dry land.
2. We cannot observe God raising the dead - but we can observe the living, the dead, the graves and the fact that the dead do not raise themselves from the dead.

what is your point?

No.

What I'm saying is, there is a subject, and there is an event.

Earth is a subject that we observe and it exists today. We can observe earth and earth underwent creation. So we can actively investigate creation of earth based on the presence of earth today.

When it comes to the resurrection, Jesus would be the subject. But Jesus just isn't present to study. His physical body isn't present for us to examine, to understand events involving his body of the past.

So the two cannot be equated.

 

[pitabread]

[Staff Edit]

How about science, fact, observation rather than summary-condemnations?

Sure, let's try that:

1) Do you agree that the process of biological evolution is not strictly pre-determined? E.g. that there isn't a predefined sequence of stages that organisms are necessitated to progress through.

2) In light of point #1, do you agree that the fact that the Lenski experiment not recreating the evolution of eukaryotes has no bearing on the historical evolution of eukaryote given that the Lenski experiment is not intended as such.

 

[BobRyan]

1. We cannot observe geological formations being changed as God speaks dry land into existence from a planet covered by water. But we can observe rocks, geology and dry land.
2. We cannot observe God raising the dead - but we can observe the living, the dead, the graves and the fact that the dead do not raise themselves from the dead.

what is your point?

No.
What I'm saying is, there is a subject, and there is an event.

So then - dead people exist and we can observe that living people die - but we do not "observe" that dead people raise themselves.

How is this not the case?

Earth is a subject that we observe and it exists today. We can observe earth

True - just as the case stated above about dead people.

and earth underwent creation. So we can actively investigate creation of earth based on the presence of earth today.

Indeed we can see that earth exists - - having been created.

What we do not observe is God creating it or a barren rock of Earth coming up with horses.

When it comes to the resurrection, Jesus would be the subject

If you are going to say that in the topic of resurrection "God" is the subject then in the topic of creation "God" is also the subject.

How is that helping your point?

You take the topic of resurrection (raising the dead.. .dead person becomes alive) and say we can ignore what we observe as dead people to check and see if they come to life - but rather we must observe God.

So by that same logic to observing God creating a planet we would need to "observe God" not just a planet.

 

[Speedwell]

1. We cannot observe geological formations being changed as God speaks dry land into existence from a planet covered by water. But we can observe rocks, geology and dry land.
2. We cannot observe God raising the dead - but we can observe the living, the dead, the graves and the fact that the dead do not raise themselves from the dead.

what is your point?


So then - dead people exist and we can observe that living people die - but we do not "observe" that dead people raise themselves.

How is this not the case?



True - just as the case stated above about dead people.



Indeed we can see that earth exists - - having been created.

What we do not observe is God creating it or a barren rock of Earth coming up with horses.



If you are going to say that in the topic of resurrection "God" is the subject then in the topic of creation "God" is also the subject.

How is that helping your point?

You take the topic of resurrection (raising the dead.. .dead person becomes alive) and say we can ignore what we observe as dead people to check and see if they come to life - but rather we must observe God.

So by that same logic to observing God creating a planet we would need to "observe God" not just a planet.

So your contention is that Jesus was merely a man? That seems an odd stance for a Christian.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... in this case, one thing we can say is that something like the resurrection of Jesus Christ isn't something that we can readily observe today, whereas geology is readily observable today, and so things that contradict geology, contradict what we can readily study today, whereas the resurrection is a bit more mysterious because we don't have jesus's body to investigate. The source of the event (the physical body of Christ) is no longer present with us as the earth is.

Well no, but if things that contradict geology must be discounted, why not include things that contradict the fundamental laws of physics, which show no evidence of having changed since the days in question?

 

[Job 33:6]

2. We cannot observe God raising the dead - but we can observe the living, the dead, the graves and the fact that the dead do not raise themselves from the dead.

what is your point?


So then - dead people exist and we can observe that living people die - but we do not "observe" that dead people raise themselves.

How is this not the case?



True - just as the case stated above about dead people.



Indeed we can see that earth exists - - having been created.

What we do not observe is God creating it or a barren rock of Earth coming up with horses.



If you are going to say that in the topic of resurrection "God" is the subject then in the topic of creation "God" is also the subject.

How is that helping your point?

You take the topic of resurrection (raising the dead.. .dead person becomes alive) and say we can ignore what we observe as dead people to check and see if they come to life - but rather we must observe God.

So by that same logic to observing God creating a planet we would need to "observe God" not just a planet.

Not all people are like Jesus, so it isn't necessarily true that if an average person doesn't come back to life, that Jesus therefore couldn't either.

It's that simple.

And because we cannot equate regular people to Jesus, the resurrection is therefore not analogous to the case involving planet earth.

Planet earth still exists and can be studied. The physical body of Jesus is not here with us walking around and therefore cannot be studied.

So it's one thing to study earth and to conclude that it isn't young (which can be done through observation of earth), and it's another to say that we've studied Jesus' body and can know if he did or did not physically rise from the dead (with an absence of Jesus' body, study of it is an impossibility).

So they simply cannot be equated.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well no, but if things that contradict geology must be discounted, why not include things that contradict the fundamental laws of physics, which show no evidence of having changed since the days in question?

Some could take this philosophical approach, if they choose to.

Although I think this also begs the question of if the resurrection did truly defy physics as well. Assuming it happened. If only we could go back in time to observe.

 

[BobRyan]

Not all people are like Jesus,

Indeed God is pretty unique no matter what form you find him in.

But if the topic of "resurrection" means we need to "Study God" - instead of studying the state of a human while dead... then the same goes for creating a planet in 7 days.

Simply looking at Adam without knowing "he was created last week" would not tell you much about his age other than that he appeared like one might expect a 25 year old man to appear.

Looking at the resurrected Lazarus would not tell you "Hmmm he was dead two days ago".

Looking at the dead body of Lazarus would not tell you "hmmm he will be raised from the dead in two days"

Intervention into the natural course of events by a sufficiently capable being - alters the outcome of what one might expect "to happen next".

Looking at a pile of rocks won't tell you "they will turn into a computer in 6 months".

Not all people are like Jesus, so it isn't necessarily true that if an average person doesn't come back to life, that Jesus therefore couldn't either.
.

Intervention into the natural course of events by a sufficiently capable being - alters the outcome of what one might expect "to happen next".

 

[BobRyan]

So it's one thing to study earth and to conclude that it isn't young (which can be done through observation of earth), and it's another to say that we've studied Jesus' body

Studying the body of lazarus would not have told you "he was dead two days ago".

Studying the body of Adam would not tell you "he did not exist two days ago".

Intervention into the natural course of events by a sufficiently capable being - alters the outcome of what one might expect "to happen next".

 

[Job 33:6]

Studying the body of lazarus would not have told you "he was dead two days ago".

Studying the body of Adam would not tell you "he did not exist two days ago".

Intervention into the natural course of events by a sufficiently capable being - alters the outcome of what one might expect "to happen next".

You don't know that^.

None of this addressed the point.

 

[BobRyan]

So your contention is that Jesus was merely a man? That seems an odd stance for a Christian.

[Staff Edit]

where we never find that I said "Jesus was merely a man"... as all readers can affirm.

=====================================
1. We cannot observe geological formations being changed as God speaks dry land into existence from a planet covered by water. But we can observe rocks, geology and dry land.
2. We cannot observe God raising the dead - but we can observe the living, the dead, the graves and the fact that the dead do not raise themselves from the dead.

what is your point?

No.
What I'm saying is, there is a subject, and there is an event.

So then - dead people exist and we can observe that living people die - but we do not "observe" that dead people raise themselves.

How is this not the case?

Earth is a subject that we observe and it exists today. We can observe earth

True - just as the case stated above about dead people.

and earth underwent creation. So we can actively investigate creation of earth based on the presence of earth today.

Indeed we can see that earth exists - - having been created.

What we do not observe is God creating it or a barren rock of Earth coming up with horses.

When it comes to the resurrection, Jesus would be the subject

If you are going to say that in the topic of resurrection "God" is the subject then in the topic of creation "God" is also the subject.

How is that helping your point?

You take the topic of resurrection (raising the dead.. .dead person becomes alive) and say we can ignore what we observe as dead people to check and see if they come to life - but rather we must observe God.

So by that same logic to observing God creating a planet we would need to "observe God" not just a planet.

==========================
KomatiiteBIF

When it comes to the resurrection, Jesus would be the subject

The subject is "resurrection".

Whether or note dead people come to life after a few days of being dead - is something we can take a look at --

When the subject is God resurrecting someone -- then the subject is God.

When the subject is God creating a planet in days -- the subject is still God.

[Staff Edit]

 

[BobRyan]

You don't know that^.

None of this addressed the point.

all of it does as it illustrates that -- Intervention into the natural course of events by a sufficiently capable being - alters the outcome of what one might expect "to happen next".

And the subject of this thread is still about understanding creationism.

 

[Job 33:6]

[staff Edit] where we never find that I said "Jesus was merely a man"... as all readers can affirm.

=====================================
1. We cannot observe geological formations being changed as God speaks dry land into existence from a planet covered by water. But we can observe rocks, geology and dry land.
2. We cannot observe God raising the dead - but we can observe the living, the dead, the graves and the fact that the dead do not raise themselves from the dead.

what is your point?


So then - dead people exist and we can observe that living people die - but we do not "observe" that dead people raise themselves.

How is this not the case?



True - just as the case stated above about dead people.



Indeed we can see that earth exists - - having been created.

What we do not observe is God creating it or a barren rock of Earth coming up with horses.



If you are going to say that in the topic of resurrection "God" is the subject then in the topic of creation "God" is also the subject.

How is that helping your point?

You take the topic of resurrection (raising the dead.. .dead person becomes alive) and say we can ignore what we observe as dead people to check and see if they come to life - but rather we must observe God.

So by that same logic to observing God creating a planet we would need to "observe God" not just a planet.

==========================
KomatiiteBIF



The subject is "resurrection".

Whether or note dead people come to life after a few days of being dead - is something we can take a look at --

When the subject is God resurrecting someone -- then the subject is God.

When the subject is God creating a planet in days -- the subject is still God.

[Staff Edit]

I don't understand the point of creationism

Already addressed.

 

[Job 33:6]

all of it does as it illustrates that -- Intervention into the natural course of events by a sufficiently capable being - alters the outcome of what one might expect "to happen next".

And the subject of this thread is still about understanding creationism.

Like I said, you don't actually know if lazarus would or would not have looked like he had risen from the dead. Because lazarus isn't present for investigation.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

THIS THREAD NEEDS CLEANING!

LET'S WORK TOGETHER TO KEEP IT THIS WAY!
There is no need to get personal.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I think this also begs the question of if the resurrection did truly defy physics as well. Assuming it happened. If only we could go back in time to observe.

I suppose one could imagine a version where no supernatural activity was involved, but this would, as I understand it, contradict core Christian beliefs...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, I'm sorry, none of that holds water. Those are just arguments you think we're dumb enough to fall for--an insult really; I won't return the insult by supposing that you believe them yourself. There must be some other reason you're a creationist, something you're not telling us.

Probably the indwelling Holy Spirit of God.