Supremacy challenge part 2

[[serious]]

So, in the last challenge, I asked how you would resolve finding a bible verse that unambiguously states that all apples are blue, and having a red apple on your counter.

Let's add one more peice. start out the same.
There's a bible verse that says all apples are blue.
You have a red apple on the counter.

Now, God appears in all His glory and tells you that all apples are purple. for good measure, God confirms that the red fruit on your counter is an apple.

Now, what color is the apple on your counter?

 

[Chesterton]

You should take these threads to a Muslim site where'd they'd be much more applicable to the Koran.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Seriously, what's the point of these ridiculous hypotheticals? Again, the fundamental problem of your questions is what they assert as a foundation. This question goes even farther than the last. It asserts that 1) statements like this occur in Scripture, again question begging, and 2) that God can contradict his own Word.

If you seek an honest answer, ask an honest question.

 

[Chesterton]

So, in the last challenge, I asked how you would resolve finding a bible verse that unambiguously states that all apples are blue, and having a red apple on your counter.

Let's add one more peice. start out the same.
There's a bible verse that says all apples are blue.
You have a red apple on the counter.

Now, God appears in all His glory and tells you that all apples are purple. for good measure, God confirms that the red fruit on your counter is an apple.

Now, what color is the apple on your counter?

Actually I retract what I said in my post above. It slipped my mind that you'd intended the threads for AV as you said about the first one. So yeah it's appropriate for him since he does view the Bible just the same as Islam teaches Muslims to view the Koran.

Now, why on earth he does that, would be another good question for him.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Please dont play God.

 

[fargonic]

Seriously, what's the point of these ridiculous hypotheticals?

[serious] is only working on the kinds of challenges that AV himself has posted for eons now. This is simply an attempt to find out the limits of AV's contention that if something contradicts the Bible it is wrong.

AV answered it reasonably enough in Challenge 1: it is not what you thought it was. Thereby saving the Bible from error.

In this one he has added the concept that God has told you it was an apple. And for an unknown reason God also said the Bible was wrong by saying the color = purple.

Unfortunately this will probably only serve to muddy the waters, but it is an admirable attempt to discuss AV's usual "challenges" and his reliance on bible infallibility.

Again, the fundamental problem of your questions is what they assert as a foundation

As I understand it is NOT intended for you or others to try to formulate an answer, it is a hypothetic put only to those who start with the presumption that the Bible is infallible.

If you seek an honest answer, ask an honest question.

It is as honest as AV's usual challenges which populate this forum.

 

[TaylorSexton]

As I understand it is NOT intended for you or others to try to formulate an answer, it is a hypothetic put only to those who start with the presumption that the Bible is infallible.

I understand Scripture, being God's Word, to be infallible. I cannot answer this question because of what it assumes as fact a priori.

 

[fargonic]

I understand Scripture, being God's Word, to be infallible. I cannot answer this question because of what it assumes as fact a priori.

Let's take a step back, to, say the Genesis account. It has many events occuring the wrong order (eg: earth created before sun, land plants created before the sun, grass before fish, etc.) The actual information that is available to us says this is not so. So either the Bible is wrong or observational science is wrong.

The way to make the Bible right is to load it up with plenty of exegeses and various "interpretations" or even (gasp) allowing things to be metaphorical. But when dealing with someone like AV or other Biblical Literalists it becomes a problem in squaring this particular circle.

The assumptions are thus pretty much set in stone: 1) the Bible is literal and always correct 2) no matter what is shown (even if one believes God gave us the earth to see for ourselves) if what we see on the earth contradicts the literal Bible the earth is wrong.

In essence a way to look at this challenge is to say "God gave you a planet's worth of data" when it disagrees with the book which is correct?

 

[TaylorSexton]

Let's take a step back, to, say the Genesis account. It has many events occuring the wrong order (eg: earth created before sun, land plants created before the sun, grass before fish, etc.) The actual information that is available to us says this is not so. So either the Bible is wrong or observational science is wrong.

The way to make the Bible right is to load it up with plenty of exegeses and various "interpretations" or even (gasp) allowing things to be metaphorical. But when dealing with someone like AV or other Biblical Literalists it becomes a problem in squaring this particular circle.

The assumptions are thus pretty much set in stone: 1) the Bible is literal and always correct 2) no matter what is shown (even if one believes God gave us the earth to see for ourselves) if what we see on the earth contradicts the literal Bible the earth is wrong.

In essence a way to look at this challenge is to say "God gave you a planet's worth of data" when it disagrees with the book which is correct?

This is an oversimplification.

First, can you cite a source that says the sun was formed before the earth? From my understanding, the solar system existed before the sun "lit" due to its own gravity. So, when you say "wrong order," the point is moot. Given the power of a deity such as the one described in Christian Scripture, could not this be a possibility? To what "information" are you referring? As for the plants being created before the sun: again, could not an omnipotent God (who created the laws of nature) do such a thing?

Second, it is not a tenet of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy to take the Bible "literally" (you actually mean "literistically"; taking Scripture literally is simply understand what the author meant by what is said, not merely what the author said). So, yes, the Bible is always correct, but there is metaphor in Scripture. Anyone who would say otherwise is a heretic because they, for instance, must believe God to have a physical body, which is heresy. Is Genesis 1-2 figurative/poetic? I don't know. It could be. But, the interest is not what the text means to us, but what the author meant by what is said. That is what makes passages like Genesis 1-2 so difficult; we are not exactly sure what the author meant. The existence of figurative language does not, as you seem to be assuming, that Scripture is factually suspect. Genesis 1-2 was not written to be a science textbook for Hebrew children.

Personally, I am of the (ancient) belief that all truth is God's truth no matter where it is found (Calvin held to essentially the same belief). If science tells me, for instance, that the sun does not revolve around the earth, and there is reasonable evidence to conclude this is true, then I have no problem with that. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that when Scripture says the sun stopped in the sky, I understand that now to be phenomenological language, and the inerrancy of Scripture is maintained since, from a human perspective, the statement is true. Do not weathermen/-women say the same thing when they talk about "sunrise" and "sunset"?

In sum, not all biblical inerrantists (of which I am a staunch one) are irresponsible as many Fundamentalists are with their hermeneutic. When I am presented with data that seems to contradict Scripture, I weigh the evidence. If science seems to be correct, then I re-examine my interpretation of relevant scriptural passages for possible solutions without damaging the doctrine of inerrancy. So far, nobody has presented me with scientific evidence that creates an impasse for this endeavor, hence my issue with the extremeness of this particular hypothetical, which brings us back to square one...

 

[fargonic]

First, can you cite a source that says the sun was formed before the earth?

The way planets form is usually as an accretionary disk around a star. Granted it could have been "close" in timing. This is the Nebular Model.

The other events are far more clear-cut. The Bible was wrong on order of many things.

Second, it is not a tenet of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy to take the Bible "literally" (you actually mean "literistically"

Note I am talking about pure inerrancy. We are talking about those who believe in a literal Genesis.

; taking Scripture literally is simply understand what the author meant by what is said, not merely what the author said)

You haven't read much of AV's posts have you?

. So, yes, the Bible is always correct, but there is metaphor in Scripture.

Believe it or not there are some Christians who disagree with that position. I think the Bible is far more interesting WITH metaphor buy metaphor doesn't build the Creation Museum in Kentucky

Anyone who would say otherwise is a heretic

Oh my. You are in for some fun around these parts!

In sum, not all biblical inerrantists (of which I am a staunch one) are irresponsible as many Fundamentalists are with their hermeneutic.

I only offer this information to you so you will understand why these challenge threads are here.

 

[AV1611VET]

The way to make the Bible right is to load it up with plenty of exegeses and various "interpretations" or even (gasp) allowing things to be metaphorical.

What happened to the (gasp) m-word*?

* miracles

 

[TaylorSexton]

The Bible was wrong on order of many things.

Can you cite some sources and use a little argumentation, or is this just going to be a another one of those conversations where one side is making bald assertions without any anchoring in research?

Note I am talking about pure inerrancy. We are talking about those who believe in a literal Genesis.

There is only one type of inerrancy, and it does not demand literalistic interpretation of Scripture. In fact, those who say Scripture must always be taken literalistically have a lower view of Scripture than inerrantists because they do not take into account the humanity of Scripture alongside its divine origins. There are loads of articles addressing this very issue. Inerrancy does not only not demand literalistic (notice I keep emphasizing the suffix of that word) interpretation, it actually forbids it.

You haven't read much of AV's posts have you?

No, because I am not responsible for what he believes, nor do I care, frankly.

 

[KWCrazy]

Let's take a step back, to, say the Genesis account. It has many events occuring the wrong order

Wrong according to whom?
How do you, who have created nothing, assert an opinion upon the order of creation?

(eg: earth created before sun,

More than that, the earth was created before light.
In other words, there were no stars because stars are sources of light.

land plants created before the sun, grass before fish, etc.)

Land plants were created before the sun, but there WAS light and it was close enough to the earth to provide both light and some degree of warmth. The sun came about on day four, when the entity which was called light became the sun, moon and stars. We know this because other than the sun there is no other star close enough to provide light and warmth.

So either the Bible is wrong or observational science is wrong.

Science cannot observe the past.
Science can observe the present and speculate about the past.
The Bible is not always literal, but the creation account is both literal and foundational. Science does not and cannot disprove the Bible because science is the study of the creation, not the Creator. While some may speculate about molecules to man, it cannot replicate the creation. Moreover, even if it could completely reconstruct a way in which everything could have come about on its own, that would still not prove that it was THE WAY things happened.

It's not about which is right and which is wrong. It's about where one places his faith. Science can tell us many things about the world in which we live. The Bible can teach you about the Creator.

 

[fargonic]

Wrong according to whom?

According to verifiable evidence.

How do you, who have created nothing, assert an opinion upon the order of creation?

I have a PhD in geology. (Don't try to get me to play Job)

Land plants were created before the sun

Interesting because evidence for land plants doesn't show up for a LOOOONG time after aquatic photosynthesizing plants show up in the earth record. Meaning there was sunlight and all that and algae was floating around in the ocean for a VERY long time before land plants showed up.

, but there WAS light and it was close enough to the earth to provide both light and some degree of warmth.

So for the first 4 billion years of earth's existence all these things lived by this "light" and then only about 470 million years ago the first landplants show up.

Science cannot observe the past.

Except it can. I know where you're going with this (we've all read Dad's posts). But if you really want to say that then you can NEVER EVER EVER RELY ON THE POLICE TO SOLVE A CRIME. If you have a family member who is kidnapped or know someone who was attacked, you CANNOT go to the police because, well, they can't observe the past. So there is no way for them to ever solve the crime.

Sorry, but when you drop epistemological atomic bombs it usually takes out your position as well.

Science can observe the present and speculate about the past.

I take it you have read a smattering of David Hume. In reality if you want to play that game then you can only observe the present and speculate about the present.

For exactly the same reason you are saying people can only speculate about the past.

That's how it works.

The Bible is not always literal

According to YOU. Obviously there are many of your fellow Christians who say you are WRONG.

, but the creation account is both literal and foundational. Science does not and cannot disprove the Bible because science is the study of the creation, not the Creator.

Ahh, you see I have many patents. Which means that clearly anyone who DOESN'T KNOW ME can NEVER UNDERSTAND MY INVENTIONS. Even though I have fully enabled the inventions so that anyone reading it with standard knowledge of the chemical arts can do it. You just told me that they cannot because they do not know me.

Or would you like to resort to the usual special pleading for God. In which none of your statements of fact apply to anything but God. (That's the usual next step for Fundamentalists in this area. You see God made us in His image and imbued us with the ability to observe but clearly everything we observe is a lie meaning...well....you probably know where that's going).

While some may speculate about molecules to man, it cannot replicate the creation.

Actually proteins and DNA bases can be made in the lab. It's pretty straight forward organic chemistry.

Moreover, even if it could completely reconstruct a way in which everything could have come about on its own, that would still not prove that it was THE WAY things happened.

And there's the "out". There is no way to disprove the Bible making it inerrant. Kind of circular...well actually VERY circular. But not outside the pale.

Science can tell us many things about the world in which we live.

I love reading this from people right after they've told me that science can't really understand anything. I understand why you feel compelled to put it there because you like your computer, you like having life saving drugs and you like all the advantages science has directly given you, but you don't like it when science shows you how the sausage is made.

The earth science you tell me is of no real value actually found a lot of the stuff that you rely on every day. Using the same techniques that lead early geologists to reject a literal Genesis. But I undrestand, one must cherry pick when the Bible is threatened.

The Bible can teach you about the Creator.

Indeed. Which is why a metaphorical Genesis is still of great value! A literal Genesis actually kept geology and biology hamstrung until it was jettisoned a long, long time ago.

 

[fargonic]

Can you cite some sources and use a little argumentation, or is this just going to be a another one of those conversations where one side is making bald assertions without any anchoring in research?

Oh, I'd be glad to!

The first land plants don't really show up on earth until about the Ordovician. (Wellman, Charles H.; Osterloff, Peter L.; Mohiuddin, Uzma (2003). "Fragments of the earliest land plants". Nature. 425 (6955): 282–285). Meanwhile the oldest evidence of photosynthetic bacteria dates back to about 3.4 billion years ago (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/timeline-of-photosynthesis-on-earth/)

There is only one type of inerrancy, and it does not demand literalistic interpretation of Scripture.

And here we go with the exegesis and special terminology. Literal means literal to many literal Genesis believers. As I said, literal Genesis is what builds things like the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

If your particular branch of Christianity is not a literal Genesis type then there's really no problem. If you want to load Genesis up with all manner of metaphor or special terms differentiating "literal" from "literalistic" (and I am pleased to learn yet another set of specialized terms in Christian subsets. It is fascinating. But again, not really germane to the topic at hand. There are LITERALLY Christians who believe the earth was formed about 10,000 years ago (based on a PLAIN LITERAL READING and CALCULATION OF THE GENERATIONS) and that it took LITERALLY 7 days to form the earth.

No, because I am not responsible for what he believes, nor do I care, frankly.

Yet here you are arguing with me about how this thread should go. I believe the details of the thread were laid out quite clearly. If you don't like the rules of this particular game then you are not allowed to demand they be changed. You simply do not play. (That is how one treats ALL sports).

 

[fargonic]

What happened to the (gasp) m-word*?

* miracles

CLEARLY miracles are in play in the Literal Genesis model. God had to make all these things happen in7 days and make it look like normal events occured that would take millions and billions of years to achieve. That's pretty miraculous.

It's EVEN MORE MIRACULOUS that God must have embedded actual real age into everything such that even though it only took 7 days it also took 4.5 billion years!

Selah!

 

[TaylorSexton]

And here we go with the exegesis and special terminology. Literal means literal to many literal Genesis believers. As I said, literal Genesis is what builds things like the Creation Museum in Kentucky. If your particular branch of Christianity is not a literal Genesis type then there's really no problem. If you want to load Genesis up with all manner of metaphor or special terms differentiating "literal" from "literalistic" (and I am pleased to learn yet another set of specialized terms in Christian subsets. It is fascinating. But again, not really germane to the topic at hand. There are LITERALLY Christians who believe the earth was formed about 10,000 years ago (based on a PLAIN LITERAL READING and CALCULATION OF THE GENERATIONS) and that it took LITERALLY 7 days to form the earth.

I differentiate the terms because words matter, especially in technical discussion of this nature. What you are talking about it a literalistic interpretation which, as I said, actually belittles the nature of Scripture according to its own witness. Literalistic is concerned only with the reader's interpretation; literal is concerned with what the author was actually trying to communicate.

Yet here you are arguing with me about how this thread should go. I believe the details of the thread were laid out quite clearly. If you don't like the rules of this particular game then you are not allowed to demand they be changed. You simply do not play. (That is how one treats ALL sports).

What?

 

[fargonic]

I differentiate the terms because words matter, especially in technical discussion of this nature.

Normally I would agree with you except in this case they don't apply. The challenges here relate to AV's position which ISN'T the subtle "literalist" vs "Literal" vs "plain" reading that you wish to focus on. That's the point.

If I started a thread discussing Soccer vs American Football would it be reasonable for you to complain that people aren't talking about Tennis?

THAT'S the point.

No one is saying your specialized vocabulary that is unique to only certain groups of Christians isn't accurate, it just isn't an applicable point here in this thread.

What you are talking about it a literalistic interpretation which, as I said, actually belittles the nature of Scripture

At which point you are arguing with AV. Or other fundamentalists who believe in 6 literal 24-hour day creation with 1 literal 24 hour day rest that happened about 10,000 years ago (depending on how Ussher's calculation went).

What?

I have repeatedly explained to you the type of literal Genesis we are discussing on this thread. I have NEVER said that Literalistic vs Literal vs Plain interpretations have different values, etc. We are talking about ONE SPECIFIC variant. It was clearly established in the earliest part of the thread and yet you continue to try to complain that we aren't talking about your favorite sub-genre of exegesis that is unrelated to the type of literal Genesis we are discussing here.

Please, read some of AV's posts. THere are tons of them so you can better understand what the rest of us are talking about and then you can complain to AV about how he is wrong or misguided or whatever.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Normally I would agree with you except in this case they don't apply. The challenges here relate to AV's position which ISN'T the subtle "literalist" vs "Literal" vs "plain" reading that you wish to focus on. That's the point.

If I started a thread discussing Soccer vs American Football would it be reasonable for you to complain that people aren't talking about Tennis?

THAT'S the point.

No one is saying your specialized vocabulary that is unique to only certain groups of Christians isn't accurate, it just isn't an applicable point here in this thread.



At which point you are arguing with AV. Or other fundamentalists who believe in 6 literal 24-hour day creation with 1 literal 24 hour day rest that happened about 10,000 years ago (depending on how Ussher's calculation went).



I have repeatedly explained to you the type of literal Genesis we are discussing on this thread. I have NEVER said that Literalistic vs Literal vs Plain interpretations have different values, etc. We are talking about ONE SPECIFIC variant. It was clearly established in the earliest part of the thread and yet you continue to try to complain that we aren't talking about your favorite sub-genre of exegesis that is unrelated to the type of literal Genesis we are discussing here.

Please, read some of AV's posts. THere are tons of them so you can better understand what the rest of us are talking about and then you can complain to AV about how he is wrong or misguided or whatever.

Okay. I understand. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[juvenissun]

Now, God appears in all His glory and tells you that all apples are purple. for good measure, God confirms that the red fruit on your counter is an apple.

Now, what color is the apple on your counter?

In this case, the apple is red.