Lets ask Venn!? OEC vs YEC

[GBTG]

I think that is a fair call-out. I have attempted to draw a Venn diagram and hopefully it will come through as an attachment in the post here (never tried attaching a file):

In this diagram (first attempt), the large yellow circle represents all that is true (as would come solely from God and there is nothing that is untrue that comes from Him). While this is drawn as a finite circle, I am of the belief that we will never fully know God as He is infinite and His truth is therefore infinite - this will be part of the joy of spending eternity with Him > learning and discovering more of this truth, forever. While God's truth is infinite, there is a boundary and everything outside of this boundary (the white space) is that which is not true. Biblical truth fully resides within the yellow circle as the Bible is fully true and it contains no error. That said, the Bible is not everything there is to know about God, so it is drawn smaller (though none of these circles are to scale - keep in mind). YEC scientific assertions largely fall within what is true (as the belief is that the Bible is an accurate, historical account), though it is possible some assertions may be untrue due to our imperfect human nature. What I could not accurately represent was that the circles of Biblical truth and YEC Science would heavily overlap one another - for the sake of visual separation/readability they are more separated than how I personally view them. Secular science likewise also has an overlap that is outside of what is true. I extended this outside that which is true more than YEC science as, at best, secular science has an agnostic view towards God and, at worst, I believe for some (not all, just some) scientists there is an atheistic/anti-God agenda. With that, I cannot believe that the likelihood of being true without a bias that the Bible is true will result in true conclusions. While I also could not accurately convey the overlap here as well - I believe some truths of secular science line up with what is communicated in the Bible - regardless of any agenda present. The last circle (also not to scale) is understanding; how much is understood by what I would guess represents the average (lay) person that ascribes to Biblical & YEC truths and is kind of where I see myself. I have some knowledge (high level and limited) of secular and YEC science, though without a science degree cannot know all the technical details that support the assertions made by each camp. Likewise, I know some Biblical truths as well and feel my depth of understanding here is better than the level of technical understanding within the realms of science--though still, I am not a theologian.

As I said, just a first draft, and I recognize that a diagram cannot completely/perfectly convey the view of secular/YEC scientific assertions by those with a firm belief in the inerrancy of scripture as the highest authoritative source of truth given to man regarding our history.

Well done! Really good for a first attempt! As an aside you don't need to worry about how much the circles over lap as they are not a representation of percent agreement, rather they show that "some/most" of this agrees with "some/most" of that. How much of the "some/most" is not important just yet. I would like to table the rest of the discussion for now and just concentrate on your diagram! You may choose some or most as it gives some indication of strength of association but is not entirely inclusive like the statements is, every, all. etc.

Your diagram as drawn states the following relevant arguments for consideration.

1. The Bible IS Gods truth, but not all (some/most) of Gods truth is in the Bible, the Bible agrees with (some/most) of YEC science, and (some/most) of the Bible also agrees with secular science.
2. YEC science is (some/most) biblical truth, (some/most) of YEC science is the truth of God, and (some/most) YEC science agrees with secular science.
3. Secular science agrees with (some/most) of Gods truth, (some/most) biblical truth and (some/most) YEC science.
4. (Some/most) of our understanding is Gods truth, (some/most) is biblical, (some/most) agrees with secular science, and (some/most) agrees with YEC science.


Before we proceed, is this what you intended to state as your arguments? I am happy to correct anything I might have gotten incorrect from this diagram. Feel free to delete either "some or most" to any of these arguments to state them how you wanted.

Warm regards, GBTG

PS All ideas should have a circle, anything outside the circles is irrelevant. I have shown this in previous examples as everything God made. This makes it easier to see the concepts without having to imagine anything which can get confusing.

 

[JDD_III]

Unfortunately this Venn diagram fails because there is no overlap between secular science and any form of creationism, whether or or young.

The only difference then between OEC and YEC then is that more of OEC agrees with secular science than YEC does.

 

[GBTG]

You are almost correct! Secular Science has demonstrated the Bible to be accurate on many occasions! Therefore some of secular science has to agree (and over lap in a Venn diagram) with the Bible even though every attempt was made to remove scripture ? The best part is that because the finding was secular it had no BIAS from scripture. This is the difference between secular science and YEC science. An unbiased agreement with the Bible gives the Bible more credibility as the conclusion was verified independently! If you hold the Bible to be true and accurate, then ANY secular science must agree. IF, the science does not agree then one of two things has happened. First we (man) has not understood the proper context of the Bible, or we translated the meaning incorrectly which has led to a poor conclusion. I have represented this as "understanding" in the previous diagrams. I doubt any of us would say that MAN has a perfect understanding of the Bible. Second the scientific conclusion is not accurate or is being misrepresented. In some cases there is just as much of a bias from secular science to avoid areas that confirm the Bible. In either case the problem is MAN, not science or the Bible. Therefore "truth" has to agree or it would not be truth, so if secular science is true and accurate it supports the Bible because the Bible is true, unless the Bible is not true, then we have a whole other problem!

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[NobleMouse]

Your diagram as drawn states the following relevant arguments for consideration.

1. The Bible IS Gods truth, but not all (some/most) of Gods truth is in the Bible, the Bible agrees with (some/most) of YEC science, and (some/most) of the Bible also agrees with secular science.
2. YEC science is (some/most) biblical truth, (some/most) of YEC science is the truth of God, and (some/most) YEC science agrees with secular science.
3. Secular science agrees with (some/most) of Gods truth, (some/most) biblical truth and (some/most) YEC science.
4. (Some/most) of our understanding is Gods truth, (some/most) is biblical, (some/most) agrees with secular science, and (some/most) agrees with YEC science.


Before we proceed, is this what you intended to state as your arguments?

Hi GBGT, I hope you and your family had a blessed Christmas. Yes, I think points 1 - 4 are consistent with my view as well - excluding the extent of how much YEC / secular science agrees with the Bible. Worth noting is that YEC science has a bias towards the truth of the Bible. As you have indicated (directly or indirectly), secular science does not have a bias. I believe if one wants to arrive at what one considers to be true, one has to have a bias towards that end: If one believes the Bible is true, the scientific framework will be built around the truths given in the Bible. When Satan tried to tempt Jesus, how did Jesus respond? "It is written..." Where I sense your arguments going is that YECs have all misinterpreted the Bible - there was no 6 days of creation, no global flood, etc... Well, it is plainly written that creation was 6 days with morning and evening with God resting on the 7th day. The father-to-son lineage is also provided from Adam to Christ, as it is written. There is no room for 13.8 billion years, as how the Bible is written. The only way to get such deep time out of the Bible is to reinterpret and reinvent what it says, like it is some cryptic vessel of truth that could only be understood by an archaic culture thousands of years ago, and coincidentally also by the secular scientists of today. Jesus referenced Genesis as a source of truth and authority, starting His defense, "Have you not read...". He didn't say, "have you not interpreted", "have you not read... between the lines...", "have you not read... with a filtered opinion of what you believe to be true even though it doesn't align with what is written...". This argument has that we cannot understand the truth of the Bible has no basis. The real issue is what we are willing to believe. Is 6 days unbelievable? Unreasonable? Unrealistic? We all have free will to believe what we want - in fact the 1 billion atheists on the planet would say all of this is nonsense and back up their position with well-thought arguments and logical reasoning just as you have done to support your position. As for me and my house, we will believe the Bible, cover to cover.

 

[GBTG]

You as well NobleMouse!

I actually wanted a logical agreed upon progression to happen utilizing Venn Diagrams as a tool by which to have the argument! I have a suspicion of the outcome, but I could be wrong as I do have a bias. Venn diagrams allows for a visual representation that might not otherwise be recognized when presented in a written or spoken form. I also want to hammer home one last time that the amount of overlap does not constitute the degree of agreement, just that some/most does agree. Unless the whole of one circle is completely inside the other circle, this would mean that all of that circle is all or in full agreement of the large circle. Lets see where this goes! I don't want to try and presume the outcome... Therefore as requested I would like to start with a Venn diagram that we can agree on! So your diagram as drawn states the following relevant arguments for consideration.

1. The Bible IS Gods truth, but not all (some/most) of Gods truth is in the Bible, the Bible agrees with (some/most) of YEC science, and (some/most) of the Bible also agrees with secular science.
2. YEC science is (some/most) biblical truth, (some/most) of YEC science is the truth of God, and (some/most) YEC science agrees with secular science.
3. Secular science agrees with (some/most) of Gods truth, (some/most) biblical truth and (some/most) YEC science.
4. (Some/most) of our understanding is Gods truth, (some/most) is biblical, (some/most) agrees with secular science, and (some/most) agrees with YEC science.

Before we proceed, is this what you intended to state as your arguments? Would you like to make or restate anything? I would be happy to redraw the new diagrams if you want to restate you argument.

Regards, GBTG

 

[NobleMouse]

You as well NobleMouse!

I actually wanted a logical agreed upon progression to happen utilizing Venn Diagrams as a tool by which to have the argument! I have a suspicion of the outcome, but I could be wrong as I do have a bias. Venn diagrams allows for a visual representation that might not otherwise be recognized when presented in a written or spoken form. I also want to hammer home one last time that the amount of overlap does not constitute the degree of agreement, just that some/most does agree. Unless the whole of one circle is completely inside the other circle, this would mean that all of that circle is all or in full agreement of the large circle. Lets see where this goes! I don't want to try and presume the outcome... Therefore as requested I would like to start with a Venn diagram that we can agree on! So your diagram as drawn states the following relevant arguments for consideration.

1. The Bible IS Gods truth, but not all (some/most) of Gods truth is in the Bible, the Bible agrees with (some/most) of YEC science, and (some/most) of the Bible also agrees with secular science.
2. YEC science is (some/most) biblical truth, (some/most) of YEC science is the truth of God, and (some/most) YEC science agrees with secular science.
3. Secular science agrees with (some/most) of Gods truth, (some/most) biblical truth and (some/most) YEC science.
4. (Some/most) of our understanding is Gods truth, (some/most) is biblical, (some/most) agrees with secular science, and (some/most) agrees with YEC science.

Before we proceed, is this what you intended to state as your arguments? Would you like to make or restate anything? I would be happy to redraw the new diagrams if you want to restate you argument.

Regards, GBTG

Hi GBTG - yes, these still sound reasonable. As I give more thought to #1, and I'm not sure if it bears restating or modifying, but I would qualify that all of God's truth (of which some/most is communicated in the Bible) there is no unknown or yet-to-be-discovered truth that will contradict the known truths as given in the Bible (as God cannot contradict Himself).

 

[GBTG]

Hi GBTG - yes, these still sound reasonable. As I give more thought to #1, and I'm not sure if it bears restating or modifying, but I would qualify that all of God's truth (of which some/most is communicated in the Bible) there is no unknown or yet-to-be-discovered truth that will contradict the known truths as given in the Bible (as God cannot contradict Himself).

OK, can we refer to this as "understanding" then? I agree the Bible is the truth that God wanted us to know or was presented to us. We do know that not all of God's truth is written, John was asked to leave things out in writing Revelation. I do also know that we humans may not "understand" that truth fully, so I think of it as our "understanding". Is the acceptable, with the caveat that we will not discuss, for now the percent understood or the percent accurately understood?

Regards, GBTG

 

[NobleMouse]

OK, can we refer to this as "understanding" then? I agree the Bible is the truth that God wanted us to know or was presented to us. We do know that not all of God's truth is written, John was asked to leave things out in writing Revelation. I do also know that we humans may not "understand" that truth fully, so I think of it as our "understanding". Is the acceptable, with the caveat that we will not discuss, for now the percent understood or the percent accurately understood?

Regards, GBTG

Yes, I think it is reasonable to say that we cannot know the percent understood as far as our understanding of the truth.

 

[GBTG]

From this point on I think we have a foundation of agreement to start from and we can work through this argument. I want to deal with "understanding" first as we are on this topic. Setting aside "Truth" from any source and science from any source. Lets get some agreement on how we define "understanding" of the two. First up biblical "understanding":

In this diagram the following arguments are shown:

#1 Some/most of the original text was translated into the English Bible directly, meaning, word for direct word and context.

The English bible is a translation from the original text and is not the Original text.

#2 Some/most of the translation into English language needed to have words added or changed to keep context.

Last up understanding: I think we can agree that most English speaking Christians don't know how to read,write, and speak the original 3 biblical languages. Therefore our (you and me included) "understanding" comes from the English translation of the Bible. As such we must acknowledge that an English Bible is less accurate than the original biblical text? (yes/no). The diagram states this about our understanding of the Bible.

First it had to be translated, second that some/most of that translation could not be done word for word, lastly because we are English speakers this is where all of our biblical "understanding" is derived.

Caveat: A concordance such as Strong's allows us to look up certain words but gives very little in the way of structure and context for the biblical languages, or appropriate definition selections based on the inference of use. Therefore this would still fall into the same bubble of understanding, come to think of it, this actually verifies the logic of the argument as we are still translating to English from the original language. As I see it the only way to circumvent this is to learn or understand all 3 original biblical languages... Agree/disagree?

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[NobleMouse]

From this point on I think we have a foundation of agreement to start from and we can work through this argument. I want to deal with "understanding" first as we are on this topic. Setting aside "Truth" from any source and science from any source. Lets get some agreement on how we define "understanding" of the two. First up biblical "understanding":
View attachment 217488
In this diagram the following arguments are shown:

#1 Some/most of the original text was translated into the English Bible directly, meaning, word for direct word and context.

The English bible is a translation from the original text and is not the Original text.

#2 Some/most of the translation into English language needed to have words added or changed to keep context.

Last up understanding: I think we can agree that most English speaking Christians don't know how to read,write, and speak the original 3 biblical languages. Therefore our (you and me included) "understanding" comes from the English translation of the Bible. As such we must acknowledge that an English Bible is less accurate than the original biblical text? (yes/no). The diagram states this about our understanding of the Bible.

First it had to be translated, second that some/most of that translation could not be done word for word, lastly because we are English speakers this is where all of our biblical "understanding" is derived.

Caveat: A concordance such as Strong's allows us to look up certain words but gives very little in the way of structure and context for the biblical languages, or appropriate definition selections based on the inference of use. Therefore this would still fall into the same bubble of understanding, come to think of it, this actually verifies the logic of the argument as we are still translating to English from the original language. As I see it the only way to circumvent this is to learn or understand all 3 original biblical languages... Agree/disagree?

Warm regards, GBTG

Hello, and Happy New Year! There are just a few things I'd clarify (may not necessarily mean I completely disagree with what you have written, but just making a few clarifications/caveats):

1) There seems to be the assumption that the English translations of the Bible are materially inaccurate? My personal preference is the ESV as it is a word-for-word translation of the original text (of course, only where an English word exists for the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek) and when an English word doesn't exist then multiple words will be used to convey the intended meaning of the original text. Remember, this is the most important book in the world, so greeeaaaat (really super great) care has been taken when translating to different languages, hence why when we read the NIV, KJV, NKJV, NLT, ASV, ESV, etc... the message is essentially the same though the wording will vary to personal preference.

2) If we have a good understanding of the English translation, and the English translation reasonably captures the message of the original text (which if it didn't there would be a degree of discontinuity, contradictions, and seemingly random text that just seems to be out of place and out of context, but this is not the case) then by inference, our understanding circle would also overlap the original biblical text circle even though we may not be experts in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek? Otherwise, the picture conveys the idea that we have no knowledge of the original Bible (my angle is that we have knowledge of the original Bible even though we may not personally fully understand the original written language... and we don't have to because those who were/are experts in the original language have carefully translated).

3) If an alternate and more accurate understanding of the original Biblical text existed, it would have been published? The majority of the world's leading hebraists understand Genesis to be narrative and the days (yoms) to be normal days. Long ages aren't found in the Bible, so any assertion that the Bible has been mistranslated comes from first believing the earth and universe is old (as purported by secular science primarily over the past few hundred years). If there are translations of the Bible that are underway today that would communicate long periods of time in Genesis (instead of days), it is because there is a scientific agenda behind it... not because the original word (yom), in it's context, actually means long ages:
What can you tell me about the Hebrew word for day (yom) used in the Genesis 1 creation account? What is the proof for it being a literal day? - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries
For 2018, will Yom Kippur go from the evening of 9/18 to the evening of 9/19, or will it go for billions of years? This should be a good clue as to what yom in Genesis means.

Otherwise, I do believe there may be some minor mistranslations from the original Biblical texts; however, would not be material in nature. What are your thoughts on what I have added above?

 

[GBTG]

No offense brother but you keep trying to have the argument before we get there... Lets just deal with the above diagram and leave science, truth, and Yom for a later diagram. The Venn diagram currently in question merely demonstrates that we (you and I) don't read the original text as we are educated in the English language. That our understanding comes from a translation, direct or indirect in whatever version, from the original texts translated to English as you described personal preference. I think it should be noted that this diagram should apply to any person who's understanding comes from an English translation. I will concede that many translations are mostly accurate, if you will concede that there are SOME translation or contextual errors. I will even concede here and now that Yom means "Day". I will go so far as to let you pick a percentage between 1-99% for percent accuracy of any translation (or let you define an assumed collective percent for all translations, your choice), and I will likewise let you pick a percent between 1-99% as an average of biblical scholar accuracy (regardless of religious denomination or affiliation). Lastly our understanding will never be perfect as we are imperfect, so we will never fully "understand" so it can't be 100%. I will use these numbers, unabashed as a baseline as this argument proceeds with future diagrams.

As stated I just want to move forward in diagrams on which we can agree. Do you have any problems with the current diagram and its arguments as presented and can we agree about how we come to "understand" the Bible? IF not how would you like to present the argument, as I will gladly draw the diagram(s).

Regard, GBTG

 

[NobleMouse]

No offense brother but you keep trying to have the argument before we get there... Lets just deal with the above diagram and leave science, truth, and Yom for a later diagram. The Venn diagram currently in question merely demonstrates that we (you and I) don't read the original text as we are educated in the English language. That our understanding comes from a translation, direct or indirect in whatever version, from the original texts translated to English as you described personal preference. I think it should be noted that this diagram should apply to any person who's understanding comes from an English translation. I will concede that many translations are mostly accurate, if you will concede that there are SOME translation or contextual errors. I will even concede here and now that Yom means "Day". I will go so far as to let you pick a percentage between 1-99% for percent accuracy of any translation (or let you define an assumed collective percent for all translations, your choice), and I will likewise let you pick a percent between 1-99% as an average of biblical scholar accuracy (regardless of religious denomination or affiliation). Lastly our understanding will never be perfect as we are imperfect, so we will never fully "understand" so it can't be 100%. I will use these numbers, unabashed as a baseline as this argument proceeds with future diagrams.

As stated I just want to move forward in diagrams on which we can agree. Do you have any problems with the current diagram and its arguments as presented and can we agree about how we come to "understand" the Bible? IF not how would you like to present the argument, as I will gladly draw the diagram(s).

Regard, GBTG

No offense taken and I don't mean to come across as argumentative, just trying to steer us away from absolutes made on the basis of where circles cross and don't cross and making sure we're thinking along the same lines by preemptively brining up what is not directly evident from the diagram, but may be assumed.

I could assign a specific % as to the accuracy of translations, but honestly it would just be my opinion/speculation so I'm not sure it would be of much value. I think it would be high 90's (north of 95%), but again, I cannot back that up with anything concrete other than to say I know God preserves the integrity of His word and many good men and women have died to preserve the word as well so it would be very disrespectful of me toward God, His word, and those who have been martyred for the preservation of His word to suggest it has been compromised.

As for the diagram, I'm still not sure how I feel about our understanding not intersecting the original biblical text. Because you and I both know what (at a minimum) 'yom' means, whether your intent of the 'original biblical text' circle is to convey just the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek written language (specifically) or the original biblical message (broadly), do you think it is fair to say you and I have some level of understanding of the original text/message? If you attend a church where expository preaching is done, as I do, and the context of the original text/culture is given, we probably also both have some degree of contextual understanding as well. I think once we nail down the exact intent of this circle and whether we have some amount of understanding, we're good to proceed.

Thank you brother!

 

[GBTG]

Thank you, I understand the problem now. The Diagram is correct, I just need to clarify the association. Where the original text agrees and DIRECTLY can be translated to English is where you concern lies as "understanding". The diagram shows that the English Bible (which is a translation) is indeed composed of DIRECT translations and indirect ones. As we are English speakers this is necessary. Our "understanding" is therefore comprised of Both. We cannot however have ANY "understanding" that is directly from the original text due to a language barrier. We will always need to have the original text translated before we can "understand". Unless of course one learns the original dialects of the texts.

Our understanding of "yom" (יְוֹם, Hebrew version added for demonstration) is a prime example. This word must be translated... Yom has a direct translation, but our understanding comes from the English form, it is by direct association that we understand the original text, but we could not understand it until translated. Hence ALL of our understanding comes from our formal language. The diagram would be just as accurate if we changed the language to any other language for the primary audience. That make sense? If so can we agree to use this diagram as a baseline?

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[GBTG]

Small derailment... thought is was interesting. If OK with you I will use the accuracy listed from a third party?!

What Bible translation is closest to the original written scriptures?

"Since we no longer have any original manuscript, scholars have to compare later transcriptions and translations to determine what the most likely original reading was. This school of study is called 'textual criticism'. This has led to most translations being based primarily on either Byzantium manuscripts or Alexandrian texts.

It is actually impossible to perfectly translate one language into another, do to each language having different grammar, cultural idioms, and words that are not always directly synonymous with a counterpart in a different language. To overcome this hurdle, english translations generally run from the spectrum of word-for-word literal translations, that try their best to translate words into their closest counterparts even if some meaning is lost, to thought-for-thought translations that seek to express the meaning of the original passage in a new language, which allows Hebrew and Greek idioms to be better expressed in English. (There are also 'paraphrases', like the Message Bible or NLT, but as faithfulness to the text is not a main concern for them they would not make a list of 'most accurate' translations.)

There is no 'perfect' translation. Due to this, it is often helpful not to pick just 'one' translation to read, but to find several good ones that have different strengths. Word-for-word often make great study Bibles. And thought-for-thought often make great devotional Bibles.

Here is a list of the 'closest' Bible translations in English:

1) NASB - New American Standard Bible

The New American Standard Bible holds the reputation of being the most accurate Bible translation in English. It is a 'literal' translation, holding to the formal equivalence school of thought that the translation should be as literal as possible. Most Bible scholars agree, as the NASB is generally agreed to be the most literal of the English translations, reflecting Hebrew and Greek grammar and style the best.

The NASB also restricts scripture to the oldest and best manuscripts available. Verses that are not clearly scripture are placed in footnotes rather than the main text. These translational notes are invaluable for those worried about getting the most accurate translation possible.

[In these ways the NASB surpasses another good, popular literal translation, the ESV, as the ESV does not always footnote when necessary and is slightly less accurate in its rendering.]

For even more accuracy, you can find NASB study Bibles that underline key words that link with a Hebrew and Greek lexicon in the back.

2) NKJV - New Kings James Version

While the NASB is generally considered the 'closest translation' and the 'most literal', there are many scholars and Christians who prefer translations based off of the Byzantium texts alone for the New Testament and eschew the Alexandrian texts. For these, only the KJV or NKJV is really a candidate for 'most accurate.'

The NKJV updates the older King James Version by using more modern English words to avoid confusion, and by footnoting verses that have been shown by textual criticism to be dubious and likely later additions. While this 'downgrading' of verses to footnotes is upsetting to many KJV purists who prefer the original, it is more accurate in regards to faithful translation by checking the reliability of manuscript variances.


In general, most English translations are going to be over 99.5% accurate, with minimal variance between them. Translations that are less accurate and best avoided as actual translations of scripture are loose paraphrases like the Message and cult translations like the New World translation by the Jehovah's witnesses" - Jennifer Rothnie

Now back on track!!!

Regards, GBTG

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let’s ask Venn?

OEC vs YEC according to Venn Diagrams!

In an attempt to change the nature of our argument, I want to apply syllogism to this discussion to hopefully make clear some of the points between the two. Before we begin I would like to start with a few examples. Venn Diagrams give a visual reference to understand the difference between logical and illogical conclusions. In the second statement below no conclusion is actually given, as such the presenter of this type of argument wants you to think that by implication, therefore some A’s are C’s. This is illogical, in some cases A and C might be mutually exclusive, and in other cases they may be synonymous, but they can’t be both at the same time. This form of argument is used to make one appear correct when in fact they are being deceptive. The first example is the correct logical example as the major subject (first listed) is also the major subject of the conclusion. In the second example the minor subject (second listed) is used in the conclusion, which makes any conclusion illogical as there is no correct relationship to the major subject.

Logical:

First All A’s are B’s and some A’s are C’s:

All snakes are reptiles, some snakes are venomous animals:

View attachment 215611Illogical:

All A’s are B’s and some B’s are C’s:

All Eagles are birds, some birds are flightless birds: Conclusion Ostrich!
View attachment 215612
Now lets move on to the subject as hand!


Syllogism for God:

View attachment 215613
1. Perfect

2. Logical (illogic is fallibility which is imperfect, therefore mutually exclusive to perfection)

3. Wise (all knowing, lacking wisdom is imperfect also mutually exclusive to perfection)

While I think we could go on about all the aspects of God these 3 will suffice.

(God)

Now lets move on to Gods Word the Bible.

John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was God, and the Word was with God.

God’s Word therefore is infallible as he is perfection; the Bible is perfect in its original form.

Therefore The Bible is perfect in its original form; man has translated God’s Word and used the Bible to come to an understanding.

In syllogism: A is B, A translated to C, Some A is D

Conclusion: God and the original text are perfect, some of the translation is accurate (no specificity is given to the percent accurate/inaccurate); our (Man’s) understanding has some perfect ideas from God or his Word, some biblical translation ideas, and some ideas outside the context of the Bible.

View attachment 215614
It is important that one understand that the area’s inside are not meaningful other than to represent the idea. Half of a circle inside another circle does not mean 50% of that idea or population is represented, rather its just showing that the two are related or in agreement in some fashion. I drew disproportionate circles to shows this as an example. Now if the ENTIRE circle is inside one of other circles as the snakes’ example above, this DOES represent that the whole idea or population must be related or in agreement. Or if the Whole circle is out side another circle this means the two are mutually exclusive or no relationship can be found.

Example:

View attachment 215615

Therefore our focus is on making accurate arguments using correct relationships to the ideas.

Now lets move on to OEC vs YEC and atheism while we are at it…

View attachment 215616
#1: Perfect translation of the Bible and perfect science that agrees.

#2: Perfect understanding of the science that agrees with the Bible.

#3: Imperfect science that does not agree with the Bible, that we think we understand but there are some translational problems.

#4: Perfect Bible translation and understanding, omitting science. (This is where YEC professes to be.)

OEC: Is an attempt to understand the perfect science and translations that agree with the bible that we can understand and acknowledges that we may fail. To stay in the middle takes lots of time in the Bible and application of those things that AGREE. For those things that disagree we look at the science of the translation to see where there might be a discrepancy. OEC’s understand that we will never fully understand fully the proper translations, no everything about science, or God, because we are human. This is the least arrogant or most humble Christian. (speaking as a former YEC).

YEC: Is an attempt to understand the word of God omitting the science that exists, creating new science that fits the translations they understand, and knowing that some of those translations may be imperfect.

Atheism: is an attempt to understand the Universe without taking into the consideration the science that agrees perfectly with the Bible, and omitting translational problems all together as they don’t consider the Bible or God relevant.

No matter how this is drawn, you cannot make the bias of omitting science and those things that God created logical from a YEC argument:

View attachment 215617
Lastly God created free will, so the possibility of atheism is a choice man can make inside everything God created!

Let the games begin!

Warm regards, GBTG

Question: Why did you quote John 1:1 in reference to the Bible when it has nothing to do with the Bible. The Word in John 1:1 is Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[NobleMouse]

Small derailment... thought is was interesting. If OK with you I will use the accuracy listed from a third party?!

What Bible translation is closest to the original written scriptures?

"Since we no longer have any original manuscript, scholars have to compare later transcriptions and translations to determine what the most likely original reading was. This school of study is called 'textual criticism'. This has led to most translations being based primarily on either Byzantium manuscripts or Alexandrian texts.

At the time Jesus was born
It is actually impossible to perfectly translate one language into another, do to each language having different grammar, cultural idioms, and words that are not always directly synonymous with a counterpart in a different language. To overcome this hurdle, english translations generally run from the spectrum of word-for-word literal translations, that try their best to translate words into their closest counterparts even if some meaning is lost, to thought-for-thought translations that seek to express the meaning of the original passage in a new language, which allows Hebrew and Greek idioms to be better expressed in English. (There are also 'paraphrases', like the Message Bible or NLT, but as faithfulness to the text is not a main concern for them they would not make a list of 'most accurate' translations.)

There is no 'perfect' translation. Due to this, it is often helpful not to pick just 'one' translation to read, but to find several good ones that have different strengths. Word-for-word often make great study Bibles. And thought-for-thought often make great devotional Bibles.

Here is a list of the 'closest' Bible translations in English:

1) NASB - New American Standard Bible

The New American Standard Bible holds the reputation of being the most accurate Bible translation in English. It is a 'literal' translation, holding to the formal equivalence school of thought that the translation should be as literal as possible. Most Bible scholars agree, as the NASB is generally agreed to be the most literal of the English translations, reflecting Hebrew and Greek grammar and style the best.

The NASB also restricts scripture to the oldest and best manuscripts available. Verses that are not clearly scripture are placed in footnotes rather than the main text. These translational notes are invaluable for those worried about getting the most accurate translation possible.

[In these ways the NASB surpasses another good, popular literal translation, the ESV, as the ESV does not always footnote when necessary and is slightly less accurate in its rendering.]

For even more accuracy, you can find NASB study Bibles that underline key words that link with a Hebrew and Greek lexicon in the back.

2) NKJV - New Kings James Version

While the NASB is generally considered the 'closest translation' and the 'most literal', there are many scholars and Christians who prefer translations based off of the Byzantium texts alone for the New Testament and eschew the Alexandrian texts. For these, only the KJV or NKJV is really a candidate for 'most accurate.'

The NKJV updates the older King James Version by using more modern English words to avoid confusion, and by footnoting verses that have been shown by textual criticism to be dubious and likely later additions. While this 'downgrading' of verses to footnotes is upsetting to many KJV purists who prefer the original, it is more accurate in regards to faithful translation by checking the reliability of manuscript variances.


In general, most English translations are going to be over 99.5% accurate, with minimal variance between them. Translations that are less accurate and best avoided as actual translations of scripture are loose paraphrases like the Message and cult translations like the New World translation by the Jehovah's witnesses" - Jennifer Rothnie

Now back on track!!!

Regards, GBTG

Thank you for this information! I am fine to proceed forward with the discussion based upon your latest diagram.

 

[GBTG]

@NobleMouse
Sounds good my friend! I will post a new diagram this evening and then we can discuss how to combine the two!

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[GBTG]

Lets work through Sciences for a second...

The science problem... Secular science by definition does its level best to remove all "religion" from the data. Creation science utilizes the Bible specifically as a foundation for interpreting or generating data. As such the two are mutually exclusive. That's not to say they cannot agree or come to the same conclusions. As they are by definition mutually exclusive, we need to add a circle that demonstrates the shared conclusions:

This is the only way to make a logical associations between the two. The discrepancies start to manifest at this level. There is far more secular science than there is Creation science. The reasons are not important in the end so I will not expand on them. For now lets concentrate on Creation science specifically. I am going to place creation science in association to our previously agreed upon "understanding" diagram.

This diagram makes all the same arguments as the "understanding" diagram, with the addition of the "Creation science" argument.

The diagram states that ALL Creation science in the English language is in "Full" agreement with the English translation of the Bible. We may not understand all creation science, just like we may not fully understand the Bible, some of our understanding still comes from outside these sources. Is this agreeable or should the "Creation science" argument be shifted or moved completely? I eagerly await your response my friend!

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[NobleMouse]

...
The diagram states that ALL Creation science in the English language is in "Full" agreement with the English translation of the Bible. We may not understand all creation science, just like we may not fully understand the Bible, some of our understanding still comes from outside these sources. Is this agreeable or should the "Creation science" argument be shifted or moved completely? I eagerly await your response my friend!

Warm regards, GBTG

The placement of the creation science circle looks reasonable. I'm not sure if you want to add the secular science circle in or not as there would be truths understood from the Bible that agree with conclusions understood from secular science as well. If this is out of scope for now, that is fine. Thank you for the work on the diagrams!

 

[GBTG]

Thank you! The feed back is helpful! Secular science and its relationship to all of this is up next.

Regards, GBTG