Is Biblical Creationism a pure science?

[Molal]

How many of the journal articles cited below can you find and read on the internet?

º Sphaeria dothidea Moug. : Fr., Syst. Mycol. 2: 423. 1823.
= Botryosphaeria berengeriana De Not., Sferiac. It. 1863.
Anamorph: Fusicoccum aesculi Corda, in Stürm, Deutschlands Flora, 2: 111. 1829.
= Phoma flaccida Viala & Ravaz, Bureaux du Progrès Agricole et Viticole, Montpellier, p. 55. 1886.
ºMacrophoma flaccida (Viala & Ravaz) Cavara, Atti Ist. bot. Univ. Pavia, 1: 315. 1888.
= Phoma reniformis Viala & Ravaz, Bureaux du Progrès Agricole et Viticole, Montpellier, p. 57. 1886.
ºMacrophoma reniformis (Viala & Ravaz) Cavara, Atti Ist. bot. Univ. Pavia, 1: 317. 1888.
= Macrophomopsis coronillae (Desm.) Petrak, Ann. Mycol., 22: 108. 1924.
ºSphaeria coronillae Desm., Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot, 2e sér., 13: 188. 1840.
= Dothiorella reniformis (Viala & Ravaz) Petrak & Sydow, Repert. Spec. nov. Regni veg., 42: 257. 1927.
= Camarosporium flaccidum (Viala & Ravaz) Zachos et al., Ann. Inst. Phytopath. Benaki. Nouvelle Série, 12: 213. 1980.

Well, you obtained that list of citations from here. Not that it really matters; however, I really don't understand why you pursuing this course of argument since it is completely unreasonable.

Using search criteria for scientific journals online, I can search back to around 1885. Therefore, I cannot obtain, online, any papers prior to this date, unless some kind soul has scanned the paper and submitted to the seach engines.

But, you need to bear in mind when Rhine lived. Rhine was born in 1895 - this date falls well within the reference of time for which scientific papers are available online. Unsurprisingly, it would have been another 20 or so years before Rhine would have published his first data (not in a scientific journal); therefore, this would have been in the early 1900's - well within the time reference for online journals.

To request whether I have access online to scientific papers prior to the birth of Rhine is really besides the point.

And to top it all, the citations you provided had nothing to do with Rhine's work.

So, why are you arguing this point? I have shown, to the best of my ability, that Rhine did not publish in scientific journals. I am willing to concede the point if you can show science papers published by Rhine or his wife in peer reviewed scientific journals. Honestly, I am a scientist, being wrong is as exciting as being right - either way I learn. And learning the truth is of paramount importance.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Well, you obtained that list of citations from here. Not that it really matters; however, I really don't understand why you pursuing this course of argument since it is completely unreasonable.

Using search criteria for scientific journals online, I can search back to around 1885. Therefore, I cannot obtain, online, any papers prior to this date, unless some kind soul has scanned the paper and submitted to the seach engines.

But, you need to bear in mind when Rhine lived. Rhine was born in 1895 - this date falls well within the reference of time for which scientific papers are available online. Unsurprisingly, it would have been another 20 or so years before Rhine would have published his first data (not in a scientific journal); therefore, this would have been in the early 1900's - well within the time reference for online journals.

To request whether I have access online to scientific papers prior to the birth of Rhine is really besides the point.

And to top it all, the citations you provided had nothing to do with Rhine's work.

So, why are you arguing this point? I have shown, to the best of my ability, that Rhine did not publish in scientific journals. I am willing to concede the point if you can show science papers published by Rhine or his wife in peer reviewed scientific journals. Honestly, I am a scientist, being wrong is as exciting as being right - either way I learn. And learning the truth is of paramount importance.

You are dismissing the Journal of Parapsychology as not being a scientific journal and you have a right to your opinion (which I freely admit is shared by many scientists, and probably especially by structural geologists). However, even if the Journal of Parapsychology is not a scientific journal, that does not mean that the articles written by Dr. Rhine were not scientific articles or that his particular research in the field of parapsychology was not science. That is strictly your own personal opinion, an opinion with which I disagree.

But these particular matters are not important to me—what is important to me regarding young earth creationism is that it is today the greatest threat to the credibility of the gospel message. Young earth creationists teach young people that the scientists are wrong and the “Christians” are right while the young people know that the scientists are right and deduce that the “Christians” are wrong, causing them to reject the gospel message as nonsense. Indeed, young earth creationism makes a mockery of the intelligent and informed reading of the Bible and makes Christians appear to many young people to be intellectually challenged baboons suffering from the late stages of dementia. The Holy Spirit is more than able to convict the hearts of young people of the historicity of the resurrection of Christ, but He is not able to convict the hearts of young people of the truth of young earth creationism because young earth creationism is not the truth but rather opposes the truth.

 

[Molal]

You are dismissing the Journal of Parapsychology as not being a scientific journal and you have a right to your opinion (which I freely admit is shared by many scientists, and probably especially by structural geologists). However, even if the Journal of Parapsychology is not a scientific journal, that does not mean that the articles written by Dr. Rhine were not scientific articles or that his particular research in the field of parapsychology was not science. That is strictly your own personal opinion, an opinion with which I disagree.

But these particular matters are not important to me—what is important to me regarding young earth creationism is that it is today the greatest threat to the credibility of the gospel message. Young earth creationists teach young people that the scientists are wrong and the “Christians” are right while the young people know that the scientists are right and deduce that the “Christians” are wrong, causing them to reject the gospel message as nonsense. Indeed, young earth creationism makes a mockery of the intelligent and informed reading of the Bible and makes Christians appear to many young people to be intellectually challenged baboons suffering from the late stages of dementia. The Holy Spirit is more than able to convict the hearts of young people of the historicity of the resurrection of Christ, but He is not able to convict the hearts of young people of the truth of young earth creationism because young earth creationism is not the truth but rather opposes the truth.

Well, we can agree to disagree - but I fear that many more scientists will take my approach to the journal of parapsychology, than your approach. You see, parapsychology is not science.

But, I whole heartedly agree with you second paragraph. YEC is the greatest threat to the credibility of the gospel. It pitches men against men (no sexism implied) and creates derision among men.

I think we are on the same page Princeton!!!

Molal

 

[Calminian]

But, I whole heartedly agree with you second paragraph. YEC is the greatest threat to the credibility of the gospel. It pitches men against men (no sexism implied) and creates derision among men.

The problem is, OEC and TE models destroy the gospel, making the second Adam (Christ) subject to the same figurative interpretations as the fist Adam. This is why we have "christian" leaders like Bishop Spong who rejects all the supernatural events of the Bible. You are all thinking along the same lines. He's just more consistent.

Now what you realize more than PG, is that science is limited to natural repeating processes. He's trying to apply it to supernatural causation, while you realize this is a gross violation of basic science.

But you both have overlooked the impact a miracle would have on scientific investigation. This is why you are trying to reinterpret Genesis. But if you just understood the difference between science and logic, you wouldn't feel the need to do this. I think many christians understand this. They believe in a Lord that came to earth and proved He was not confined to scientific laws. He also showed that He could bypass natural processes in many of His miracles. But He was never illogical. He proved that just because something is unscientific, this doesn't mean it is illogical. Remember logic is prescriptive while science is descriptive.

You see, science isn't your problem. It's your ability to think philosophically that's hurting you. Most scientists don't actually understand that there are necessary philosophical presuppositions that must be accepted, before any investigations even start. Material determinism is one of them. I can't tell you how many scientists I've come across that don't know this. Here's an article you both need to read. It's about the Methods of the Creator, who is Jesus Christ. You see, you guys are both looking for the footprints of natural processes, not realizing that God doesn't need to take natural steps. There may be imprints of various steps, but God can create ex nihilo and so many natural prints will never be made. This is always going to cause havoc for scientific investigation. But once you understand you worship a God that transcends natural processes, you'll see the picture more clearly and be able to trust Genesis once again. Remember God works within logic and therefore can be understood theo-logically. But He often works outside of science making it impossible to understand him theo-scientifically. This also feeds my theory why scientists often make the worst theologians. You get them outside of scientific presuppositions and they just can't put logical thoughts together.

 

[shernren]

The problem is, OEC and TE models destroy the gospel, making the second Adam (Christ) subject to the same figurative interpretations as the fist Adam. This is why we have "christian" leaders like Bishop Spong who rejects all the supernatural events of the Bible. You are all thinking along the same lines. He's just more consistent.

Never mind that calling Christ the second Adam is itself a figurative interpretation of Christ's historical work ...

We don't reject supernatural events just for being supernatural. We reject supernatural events that are not consistent with current physical evidence. I've posted this before: The Footprint Interpretation - and as long as it remains relevant to the discussion I will keep posting it.

You also seem to have abandoned your Science and Logic thread.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The problem is, OEC and TE models destroy the gospel, making the second Adam (Christ) subject to the same figurative interpretations as the fist Adam. This is why we have "christian" leaders like Bishop Spong who rejects all the supernatural events of the Bible. You are all thinking along the same lines. He's just more consistent.

Old Earth Creation and Theistic Evolution views are irrelevant to the Gospel message so it is absolutely impossible for them to destroy it. Young Earth Creationism, however, makes a mockery of the book of Genesis and hence the entire Bible from the point of view of young people, thus destroying its credibility and plunging thousands upon thousands of young people into the fires of hell for eternity.

Consistently interpreting as one all of the different genres of literature found in the Bible makes it unintelligible and reduces its value to nothing at all.

Now what you realize more than PG, is that science is limited to natural repeating processes. He's trying to apply it to supernatural causation, while you realize this is a gross violation of basic science.

Science is not limited to natural repeating processes, and I specifically wrote that science does NOT investigate supernatural causation. It investigates, at times, phenomenons that are typically considered to be supernatural or paranormal to determine if the phenomenons are actually caused by that which is entirely normal. I also posted examples of these phenomenons and tentative natural causes for them. (note: I am making here a distinction between phenomenona and phenomenons).

But you both have overlooked the impact a miracle would have on scientific investigation.

Miracles occur everyday without having any impact on scientific investigations. More to the point, however, in Genesis 6-8 there are NO mentions of miracles and anyone who reads miracles into Genesis 6-8 is NOT interpreting it literally.

This is why you are trying to reinterpret Genesis.

I am not reinterpreting Genesis any more than a man who reads into it miracles.

But if you just understood the difference between science and logic, you wouldn't feel the need to do this.

I don’t “feel” the need to do anything. I read Genesis and it is obvious to me that the first eleven chapters belong to an entirely different genre of literature than do most of the rest of the book. I don’t reinterpret Genesis 1-11 to make it fit science and common sense; I take it at face value for what it obviously is—a series of brief epic tales. My understanding of it is in harmony with science and common sense because I take it at its obvious (at least to people who are familiar with the study of ancient oriental literature) face value and thus interpret it correctly. And, of course, for ANY interpretation of Gen. 1-11 to be a correct interpretation it MUST be in harmony with both the results scientific investigation and common sense.

I think many christians understand this. They believe in a Lord that came to earth and proved He was not confined to scientific laws. He also showed that He could bypass natural processes in many of His miracles. But He was never illogical. He proved that just because something is unscientific, this doesn't mean it is illogical. Remember logic is prescriptive while science is descriptive.

Many Christians understand a lot of things that are simply false. They know next to nothing about science or literature and they pick up a translation of a book written millennia ago in languages hugely different than their own by peoples of vastly different cultures and they read it as carelessly as an elderly woman reading a romance novel and yet they think that they understand it and that the scholars do not!

You see, science isn't your problem. It's your ability to think philosophically that's hurting you. Most scientists don't actually understand that there are necessary philosophical presuppositions that must be accepted, before any investigations even start. Material determinism is one of them. I can't tell you how many scientists I've come across that don't know this.

This is nothing but gibberish. You don’t know us at all and yet you are passing judgment upon us. I have known hundreds of scientists and have read many more of them and I have NEVER met one who showed any sign whatsoever that he did not understand the role of philosophical presuppositions in scientific investigation.

Here's an article you both need to read. It's about the Methods of the Creator, who is Jesus Christ. You see, you guys are both looking for the footprints of natural processes, not realizing that God doesn't need to take natural steps. There may be imprints of various steps, but God can create ex nihilo and so many natural prints will never be made. This is always going to cause havoc for scientific investigation. But once you understand you worship a God that transcends natural processes, you'll see the picture more clearly and be able to trust Genesis once again. Remember God works within logic and therefore can be understood theo-logically. But He often works outside of science making it impossible to understand him theo-scientifically.

It seems to me that you think that you understand God better than He understands Himself. God is not some schoolboy on a skateboard—God is God.

Once again, I don’t reinterpret Genesis 1-11 to make it fit science and common sense; I take it at face value for what it obviously is—a series of brief epic tales. My understanding of it is in harmony with science and common sense because I take it at its obvious face value and thus interpret it correctly. And, of course, for ANY interpretation of Gen. 1-11 to be a correct interpretation it MUST be in harmony with both the results of scientific investigation and common sense.

This also feeds my theory why scientists often make the worst theologians. You get them outside of scientific presuppositions and they just can't put logical thoughts together.

How many scientists who are also theologians do you actually know? I know only a few of them and their ability to understand the logic found in the discourses of Jesus and the epistles of Paul is unsurpassed.

And let’s not forget the fact that has been repeatedly posted but which you have invariable ignored—it is not only the scientists who believe that your interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is ridiculous; the very large majority of Old and New Testament scholars also believe that your interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is ridiculous; and they do not base their belief upon science, for most of them are not especially well trained in the sciences, they base their belief upon the internal evidence found throughout the Old and New Testaments.

 

[Calminian]

Never mind that calling Christ the second Adam is itself a figurative interpretation of Christ's historical work ...

1Cor. 15:45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

But I'll digress to the topic at hand.

We don't reject supernatural events just for being supernatural. We reject supernatural events that are not consistent with current physical evidence.

But as Molal seems to be understanding, scientific conclusion are based largely on inductive logic. Induction, unlike deduction, does not pose necessary conclusions but probable conclusions often based on the observance of repeating patterns. You may find it interesting that Hume's very successful argument (in the sense that it was so popular) against miracles was a valid inductive argument. Yet you and I would agree that, though it was inductively (scientifically) sound, it was factually wrong. You and I as theists both embrace the existence of miracles. But scientific extrapolations work the same way. We observe patterns continually and inductively conclude these have not been broken or added to in the past, nor will they be in the future.

But there's a glaring problem with trying to understand origins inductively or scientifically—direct acts of God, miracles! Medical science is also based largely on induction. This is why, even if a doctor has never examined you in the past, he can go by the consistent pattern scientists have observed in all humans and diagnose and help you. And it works! And if a Doctor was to testify in court and was asked if it's possible for a human being to be revived after being dead three days, he would say no, categorically, based in inductive thinking. Thus the Resurrection also fails the inductive or scientific test.

I don't know if you've had a chance to read this yet, but if not, please do so.

Methods of the Creator

It's written by a theologian, who basically makes the case as to why an inductive approach doesn't work in the area miracles.

You also seem to have abandoned your Science and Logic thread.

Yeah, I've got quite a few oars in the water. I have a bad habit of doing that.

 

[Calminian]

Old Earth Creation and Theistic Evolution views are irrelevant to the Gospel message so it is absolutely impossible for them to destroy it. Young Earth Creationism, however, makes a mockery of the book of Genesis and hence the entire Bible from the point of view of young people, thus destroying its credibility and plunging thousands upon thousands of young people into the fires of hell for eternity.

Consistently interpreting as one all of the different genres of literature found in the Bible makes it unintelligible and reduces its value to nothing at all.

But actually I think young and old people alike a wise to the tactic of reinterpreting something just to make it in harmony with science. I think they're too smart for this. I've asked atheists in the open forums this question and they overwhelmingly believe christians are just trying to make excuses for the Bible. You see, when laymen and scholars alike read Ex. 20:9-11 they know what the author meant.

James Barr, was the Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England. He said,

‘… 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:
creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
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
Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’

This man is not a believer in the Bible. He has no dog in this race, nor do the people he's speaking of. The only people that fall for the wild new interpretations of modern theistic evolution are christians that don't understand the limitations of science and therefore try to harmonize the Bible with it, believing it is the end-all epistemology.

Science is not limited to natural repeating processes, and I specifically wrote that science does NOT investigate supernatural causation. It investigates, at times, phenomenons that are typically considered to be supernatural or paranormal to determine if the phenomenons are actually caused by that which is entirely normal. I also posted examples of these phenomenons and tentative natural causes for them. (note: I am making here a distinction between phenomenona and phenomenons).

Yes science can uncover natural causes for things and also speculate about natural causes for things. But just because there is a natural possible explanation, this does not mean it's the actual explanation.

If a post event observer were to examine the wine Jesus created the day prior, he would be able to formulate a very logical inductive argument as to how the wine came to be naturally, which would involve time and natural processes. Does this mean his inductive view is to be preferred over the supernatural one? Well, many "christians" such as John Shelby Spong believe it should and therefore have reinterpreted the entire new testament as a result. He's simply taking your advise and preferring the natural possibility over the the miraculous.

Miracles occur everyday without having any impact on scientific investigations. More to the point, however, in Genesis 6-8 there are NO mentions of miracles and anyone who reads miracles into Genesis 6-8 is NOT interpreting it literally.

Again, James Barr and all the scholars would laugh at this approach. Skeptics will also.

I don’t “feel” the need to do anything. I read Genesis and it is obvious to me that the first eleven chapters belong to an entirely different genre of literature than do most of the rest of the book.

Totally fallacious, and an impossible sell to those whom you want to reach. In fact you are now fighting induction, to try to make this case as the genealogies link the first 11 chapters to the last 39 and to the entire Bible.

Many Christians understand a lot of things that are simply false. They know next to nothing about science

Actually those who trust Genesis know more about the philosophical assumptions of science than you do. They may not be able to formally explain them, but they understand that direct acts of God go against the normal patterns of the world. You may understand more about science, but they are better thinkers.

This is nothing but gibberish. You don’t know us at all and yet you are passing judgment upon us. I have known hundreds of scientists and have read many more of them and I have NEVER met one who showed any sign whatsoever that he did not understand the role of philosophical presuppositions in scientific investigation.

This doesn't mean they're making correct deductions of the presuppositions. And being that you don't even fully understand these presuppositions, I highly doubt you conducted a very scientific poll.

Once again, I don’t reinterpret Genesis 1-11 to make it fit science and common sense; I take it at face value for what it obviously is—a series of brief epic tales.

You were well aware of scientific theories about the age of the earth when you make this choice. I was a completely aware that dinosaurs were 65 million years old at the age of five. Sorry, I just don't buy this idea that you were totally unbiased when you read scripture for the first time.

]How many scientists who are also theologians do you actually know? I know only a few of them and their ability to understand the logic found in the discourses of Jesus and the epistles of Paul is unsurpassed.

I've met several on this and other boards. They all embrace eisegetical methods and are frankly horrible theologians. They just don't understand how to fit miracles into their inductive thinking.

And let’s not forget the fact that has been repeatedly posted but which you have invariable ignored—it is not only the scientists who believe that your interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is ridiculous; the very large majority of Old and New Testament scholars also believe that your interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is ridiculous; and they do not base their belief upon science, for most of them are not especially well trained in the sciences, they base their belief upon the internal evidence found throughout the Old and New Testaments.

Exactly. They're not trained in the sciences, they're trained by them.

 

[gluadys]

You see, when laymen and scholars alike read Ex. 20:9-11 they know what the author meant.

James Barr, was the Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England. He said,

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

Actually, that is one reason I am TE instead of OEC. I quite agree with Barr on this point.

The only people that fall for the wild new interpretations of modern theistic evolution are christians

Except in many case they are not "wild new interpretations". Non-literal interpretations of the creation accounts were being offered even before the birth of Jesus.

that don't understand the limitations of science and therefore try to harmonize the Bible with it, believing it is the end-all epistemology.

Actually, I think TEs are the most conscientious about avoiding attempts to harmonize scripture and science. Most firmly reject scientism as the principle of epistemolgy.

Yes science can uncover natural causes for things and also speculate about natural causes for things. But just because there is a natural possible explanation, this does not mean it's the actual explanation.

But how would one discriminate between a natural explanation and a non-evident miracle?

It is a different matter if there is physical evidence of a miracle; evidence for which there is no clear natural explanation. Then one is free to speculate whether or not a natural cause will be found. But if there is not even evidence that a miracle occurred, why opt for that as an explanation when a natural one is available?

It is always a philosophical possibility. But that is not much use outside of philosophical debates.

If a post event observer were to examine the wine Jesus created the day prior, he would be able to formulate a very logical inductive argument as to how the wine came to be naturally, which would involve time and natural processes.

Sure, but he also has to deal with the testimony of the servants that what they put into the jars was water and it was from jars filled with water that the wine came.

Again, James Barr and all the scholars would laugh at this approach. Skeptics will also.

I don't see why. Barr, in the segment you quoted, did not say the flood involved miracles. Nor are any miracles referred to in Gen. 6-8. A flood is referred to. Natural means of providing the water are referred to (rain, fountains of the deep). A gradual and apparently natural abatement of the waters and drying of the ground is referred to.

Where are the miracles?

Totally fallacious, and an impossible sell to those whom you want to reach.

Not at all. Case in point, a new poster in these forums who is only 13 and came to an intuitive understanding that the style of the Genesis stories was wrong for something intended to be a factual description.

In fact you are now fighting induction, to try to make this case as the genealogies link the first 11 chapters to the last 39 and to the entire Bible.

Actually I am going with induction since induction tells me humans do not live for multiple centuries.

You and I as theists both embrace the existence of miracles. But scientific extrapolations work the same way. We observe patterns continually and inductively conclude these have not been broken or added to in the past, nor will they be in the future.

But there's a glaring problem with trying to understand origins inductively or scientifically—direct acts of God, miracles!

However, it is not the supernatural character of miracles that makes them problematical for science. It is their uniqueness. They do not fit the pattern on which induction is based. Each miracle, by definition, is an exception to the rule.

That is why the doctor is correct to say bodies three days dead do not rise to life. That is the rule consolidated by millennia of experience with dead bodies. So he is perfectly correct to say that all we know of nature tells us that natural processes cannot raise a dead body to life. But that tells us nothing about whether a miracle can raise a dead body to life. Ask him that question and see what his answer is. (I suspect it would be along the lines of "Only a miracle could do that!)

Now ask if any such miracle has occurred. How would we know? Would that not depend on having physical and/or testimonial evidence of a dead person seen alive after he was dead?

If a claim of resurrection is made, but no evidence produced to substantiate it, why would anyone take it seriously?

 

[Calminian]

Glu most of your arguments actually made my case, or were off topic, so I'm not going to touch them. You also claimed there are many interpretations prior to Christ that stated the Genesis flood was not a narrative description and not a direct act of God. This means you believe if God didn't act and if men didn't sin to the extent they did, you believe the flood still would have happened (if the text is read straight forward). This is an amazing admission of your theology. So please cite your sources and lets talk about them. Perhaps you are talking about midrash interpretations? But I'm not going to speculate, let's see your sources.

And again, scientific theories about the world permeate our society (and all western societies). I knew about millions of years by the age of five. Anyone approaching literature this or last century, cannot say they didn't go into the text with modern influences. It's simply not possible.

If a claim of resurrection is made, but no evidence produced to substantiate it, why would anyone take it seriously?

They wouldn't. But this has nothing to do with the subject at hand. We're talking about investigating evidence, scientifically. From a pure scientific perspective, one would have to dismiss the testimonial claims.

 

[gluadys]

You also claimed there are many interpretations prior to Christ that stated the Genesis flood was not a narrative description and not a direct act of God.

You are making simple errors, I assume by reading too fast. I said creation accounts, not flood accounts.

This means you believe if God didn't act and if men didn't sin to the extent they did, you believe the flood still would have happened (if the text is read straight forward).

I don't know where this is coming from. I agree with Barr that the biblical authors intended to portray a flood in which all living things "in whose nostrils was the breath of life" dies, apart from those in the ark. That is the narrative description, but this is irrelevant to whether or not there was a direct act of God.

I would also need a clarification on what you mean by "a direct act of God". Does this mean that God sent the flood? This is what the narrative states. Does it mean that he sent the flood by means of unnatural processes? This is not what the narrative states.

Is it inconsistent in your mind to say that God acts directly through natural means? i.e. that he directs natural processes to his intended purposes?

This is an amazing admission of your theology. So please cite your sources and lets talk about them.

I am stating my own opinion, not quoting scholars.

Anyone approaching literature this or last century, cannot say they didn't go into the text with modern influences. It's simply not possible.

True, and that includes not only the scientific information, but the sense of how scientific information is conveyed. When the bible was written, there was no such thing as scientific literature. There were no conventions established for describing things scientifically.

Today, quite apart from content, we can discriminate between a person who is intentionally putting forward something as science and one who is intentionally putting forward something as a story.

The "science" may be fictitious and the story historical, but they have a diffferent feel to them.

What we have in the bible are stories that sound like stories.

After all, there is no literary distinction between the statements that "earth is 4.5 billion years old" and "earth is 6,000 years old". Given nothing but those propositions, the natural reaction is to say: let's check the evidence and find out which is true.

But then we find that all the evidence for the older age is presented in a form of discourse we call science and all the evidence for the younger age is presented in a form of discourse we call story.

That does not make either age correct or incorrect, but it is going to have a bearing on how one reacts to the claim.

They wouldn't. But this has nothing to do with the subject at hand. We're talking about investigating evidence, scientifically.

And that is precisely what makes it relevant. Nothing can be investigated scientifically when there is no evidence to be investigated.

From a pure scientific perspective, one would have to dismiss the testimonial claims.

Not quite true. Testimony does not validate science, since the only evidence science admits is empirical evidence. But investigation of the evidence includes determining where it came from (if it is not still in situ) and in this case, that means the water jars and what is in them is part of the evidence. If the investigator rejects the testimony that the wine came from the jars of water, he still needs to provide an alternate source for the wine.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

But actually I think young and old people alike a wise to the tactic of reinterpreting something just to make it in harmony with science. I think they're too smart for this. I've asked atheists in the open forums this question and they overwhelmingly believe christians are just trying to make excuses for the Bible. You see, when laymen and scholars alike read Ex. 20:9-11 they know what the author meant.

I believe that it is possible that some intellectually dishonest individuals have attempted to force Gen. 1 -11 to make it seem to be in harmony with science, but to write that most contemporary scholars of the book of Genesis are guilty of such depraved dishonesty is an evil and malicious accusation with no foundation of fact. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is more important in my Biblical studies than to interpret the Scriptures honestly and objectively in order to learn the truth and my background as a biologist has absolutely nothing to do with my interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

When I first read Genesis 6-8 I knew from common sense that a literal interpretation of that passage a made of mockery of everything that God had taught me during the first years of my life, so I simply read it as ancient Hebrew literature and made no effort to interpret it in any detail until after I had acquired a sufficient education in Hebrew literature to allow me to begin to understand it. I am immensely grateful to God for the education and understanding of the Scriptures that He has blessed me with and I hold to much too high a view of the Scriptures to manipulate them to fit my fancy and force them, contrary to every conceivable fact, to fit into personal theological prejudices that defy reason.

James Barr, was the Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture,

Oxford University, England. He said,

‘… 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:
creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
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
Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’

This man is not a believer in the Bible. He has no dog in this race, nor do the people he's speaking of. The only people that fall for the wild new interpretations of modern theistic evolution are christians that don't understand the limitations of science and therefore try to harmonize the Bible with it, believing it is the end-all epistemology.

This is, at the very best, gibberish, and that is being more kind than the occasion calls for. James Barr was NOT a student of the history of the interpretation of the Old Testament nor was he a theologian; he was a student and professor of Semitic languages. Therefore he was in no position to know how exegetes of the book of Genesis viewed Genesis 1 – 11, and, of course, his comments, if indeed they are genuinely his comments (see below), wildly contradict the fact that most professors of the Old Testament at world-class universities do not hold to that view.

As to the true source of these comments, and being familiar with the gross dishonesty of the websites where these comments are commonly found, and being familiar with the vocabulary and writing style of James Barr, I find it doubtful that James Barr wrote them. Since they are obviously incorrect, however, the true source of the comments is of no relevance. And if James Barr is the true source of these comments that are plastered all over the internet on YEC websites, they more than amply demonstrate the extreme state of desperation YEC’s are in to defend a view that has no academic defense. Of the hundreds of thousands of words penned by James Barr, they quote the handful of them that that they believe supports their position and ignore the other hundreds of thousands that do not. If this is not one of the most extreme examples of intellectual dishonesty, what it?

To accuse James Barr of not being a believer in the Bible, when everyone but some radical extremists on some fundamentalist websites knows that he was, is another evil and malicious accusation that is contrary to the truth. The YEC game of falsely accusing everyone who has enough education and common sense to accurately interpret the Bible of “reinterpreting” it and not believing it is an example of the depravity of some people in the YEC movement, the very movement that is more than any other responsible for, in the minds of millions of young people today, “destroying the credibility of the gospel message.”

 

[Calminian]

I believe that it is possible that some intellectually dishonest individuals have attempted to force Gen. 1 -11 to make it seem to be in harmony with science, but to write that most contemporary scholars of the book of Genesis are guilty of such depraved dishonesty is an evil and malicious accusation with no foundation of fact.

Actually they are not being dishonest, they are just fallacious in their approach. I have a whole list of quotes I'll get for you where they admit that the straight forward reading of genesis agrees with me, but they felt that had to take a different approach due to the revelations of science. No, I'm not citing a conspiracy. This is in fact what you are doing, claiming that the Bible clearly should be interpreted your way.

When I first read Genesis 6-8 I knew from common sense that a literal interpretation of that passage a made of mockery of everything that God had taught me during the first years of my life, so I simply read it as ancient Hebrew literature

Bingo. Thanks for the admission.

This is, at the very best, gibberish, and that is being more kind than the occasion calls for. James Barr was NOT a student of the history of the interpretation of the Old Testament nor was he a theologian; he was a student and professor of Semitic languages. Therefore he was in no position to know how exegetes of the book of Genesis viewed Genesis 1 – 11, and, of course, his comments, if indeed they are genuinely his comments (see below), wildly contradict the fact that most professors of the Old Testament at world-class universities do not hold to that view.

Sorry, I'll take him over you any day. You just lost a credibility.

To accuse James Barr of not being a believer in the Bible, when everyone but some radical extremists on some fundamentalist websites knows that he was, is another evil and malicious accusation that is contrary to the truth.

I have no idea if he believes in God, but he rejects my belief in Genesis being historical. The point what he disagrees with me that this is actual history, but admits the author agrees with me. Gosh, is this it the best you got? "James Barr is not qualified! And he didn't say that! And stop saying he doesn't believe Genesis!" Sheesh man. Get a grip on your arguments.

 

[Calminian]

Glu, please cite your sources that you said predated Christ.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I have no idea if he believes in God, but he rejects my belief in Genesis being historical. The point what he disagrees with me that this is actual history, but admits the author agrees with me. Gosh, is this it the best you got? "James Barr is not qualified! And he didn't say that! And stop saying he doesn't believe Genesis!" Sheesh man. Get a grip on your arguments.

Rejecting your interpretation in Genesis is not the same as, to quote you verbatim, “This man is not a believer in the Bible.” James Barr believed, based upon linguistic studies rather than literary studies, that the “writer(s)” intended for the reader to interpret the descriptions of events literally. Most scholars of Genesis today would agree with this and I agree with it also. Those persons who disagree with it, and there are very many laypersons who do, are in my opinion fooling themselves. James Barr, however, extrapolated upon this idea and erroneously concluded that the “writer(s)” intended for the reader to interpret Gen. 1-11 literally. There is absolutely no linguistic evidence for this and it contradicts the literary evidence that the Gen. 1-11 is a series of epic tales.

Taking Gen. 6-8 as an example, the “writer(s)” intended for the reader to interpret the descriptions of events in this story literally. That is, the ark was not intended to be interpreted as a metaphor, but as an ark. The water was not intended to be interpreted as a metaphor, but as plain, ordinary water. The same is true of the animals, Noah and his family, and the flood itself. Epic tales found in other literature were written to be interpreted in the very same, literal manner. This does not mean or suggest, however, that writer(s) of Genesis 6-8 intended for the reader to interpret the story as a literal account of an historic event, which has been precisely my point in all of my posts on this issue.

I did not write or suggest that James Barr was not qualified to teach and write on linguistic issues; he most certainly was! I wrote that he was in no position to know how exegetes of the book of Genesis viewed Genesis 1 – 11, a topic well outside of his area of knowledge and expertise. And if the quote is genuine, it begins with the ellipsis and the words “… probably, so far as I know.” Therefore, I must ask that you do not misrepresent my words to make it appear that I have written something entirely different than what I actually wrote.

And speaking here of linguistics, the English word “gosh” that you used in your post as quoted above is a euphemism for the word “God” and in the view of the very famous linguist H. L. Mencken, profanity. I shall quote him for you,

“Swearing, of course, is not the prerogative of all men. Many lack the natural gift for it, and others are too timorous. For such toters of inferiority complexes there is a repertory of what may be called denaturized profanity. For spoken discourse there are darn, goldarn, doggone, jiminy, gosh, golly, gee-whiz, holy gee, son-of-a-gun and their congeners, and for written discourse, damphool, damfino, helluva and s.o.b., ….” (The American Language, p. 316).

 

[Assyrian]

As to the true source of these comments, and being familiar with the gross dishonesty of the websites where these comments are commonly found, and being familiar with the vocabulary and writing style of James Barr, I find it doubtful that James Barr wrote them. Since they are obviously incorrect, however, the true source of the comments is of no relevance. And if James Barr is the true source of these comments that are plastered all over the internet on YEC websites, they more than amply demonstrate the extreme state of desperation YEC’s are in to defend a view that has no academic defense. Of the hundreds of thousands of words penned by James Barr, they quote the handful of them that that they believe supports their position and ignore the other hundreds of thousands that do not. If this is not one of the most extreme examples of intellectual dishonesty, what it?

The full text of the Barr letter is available online http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/barrlett.html
I would be interested in your thoughts on it. Does this sound more like Barr than the extract?

Assyrian

 

[artybloke]

The man who wrote "Fundamentalism" and "Escape from Fundamentalism" as a literalist? I don't think so somehow...

But I think those of us who take the Genesis stories as "literary" rather than "literal" don't neccessarily disagree that, within the context of an epic tale, the six days were meant literally. Just as the Christmas ghosts were meant literally in A Christmas Carol; but that didn't stop them from being fictional, or symbolical. Any story-teller will tell you that "suspension of disbelief" is an important element of any story.

 

[gluadys]

Glu, please cite your sources that you said predated Christ.

Ah, I think the technical term is "midrash" and my understanding is that midrashic interpretations were developing in this time period. Also, the NT itself reflects the growing use of Hellenistic allegory (e.g. Paul's allegorical treatment of Sarah and Hagar). IIRC some scholars identify parts of Matthew's gospel as midrashic.

I know that written texts (such as that of Philo) appeared later, but as in many cases in ancient times, the oral tradition develops and matures first.

I didn't have any particular source in mind, just drawing from memory. However, a quick google on rabbinic interpretation and midrash shows that there are a lot of sources available.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The full text of the Barr letter is available online http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/barrlett.html
I would be interested in your thoughts on it. Does this sound more like Barr than the extract?

Assyrian

Thank you for the link. I had not read the letter in its entirety. Having now read it, I suspect that the letter is probably genuine, but of course anything from Answers in Genesis must be read with the utmost wariness, skepticism and suspicion because of their lengthy track record of disseminating misinformation. Personal correspondence can be expected to reflect a different vocabulary and style than published academic works, and the structure of the letter strongly suggest that it is genuine.

It does serve well to refute the silly argument very often put forth by lay persons that the “days” referred to in the first chapter of Genesis were not understood by the writer to be 24-hour days, but, as I explained in post #55, it does absolutely nothing to refute the interpretation that Gen. 1-11 is a series of epic tales.

Thank you for your participation in this thread,

PG