Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[BCP1928]

Note to lurkers:

In a creationism test I made up, this is one of the questions:

13. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?

This thread is a perfect example of why.

Because you might come to the conclusion that Genesis 1 & 2 are not 100% accurate literal history, but conveyed other kinds of information that God wanted us to know by using a different literary format.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That makes no sense at all. I think you're just paranoid about the fantasy that science is trying to disprove God.

I don't think it's a pure fantasy, BCP1928, even if the 'flush Jesus' project doesn't take on the proportions of 1984. Then again, I could be wrong since I tend to see things through rose-colored, stained glass Premillennialism.

So..........what would I know?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because you might come to the conclusion that Genesis 1 & 2 are not 100% accurate literal history,

To prompt me to come to that conclusion is [today's] science's job, not the Bible's.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Don't make fun, Hans. You're joking about a valid field of study that incorporates interdisciplinary praxis.

So long as you include unnecessary jargon, I will. (I also cannot truly view theology as a valid field of study.)

So says Bertrand Russell.

Never read any of old Bertie's stuff. Not sure why it would be relevant.

Alright, Hans. I'll make this easier for you. Just short of making you look the additional reference up by yourself using a bible concordance,

I've heard of these concordence thingies, but I'm not going to dig in to word usage in the greek. Not now, not ever. (I will not become one of those fools that attempt word analysis in a language they can't read.)

just go read Matthew chapter 17:14-21 and tell me what you think it means.

I think it means that Ol' Matty replicated the "move mountain" metaphor for "believe harder" from the fig cursing to this story about healing some poor boy with epilepsy. It is not found in the original version (Mark 9:14-29). I guess "Matthew" liked it enough to change the dialog for Jesus in the earlier story.

I'm holding out the possibility that I'm dead wrong here or there and not just a little off about the Bible's meaning.

I forget what interpretation you are trying to walk me into.

 

[BCP1928]

To prompt me to come to that conclusion is [today's] science's job, not the Bible's.

If one would consider all of the reasons not to believe in literal inerrancy, science wouldn't be near the top of the list.

 

[truthpls]

Clearly Jesus hated fig trees,..

No. He made the trees.

There are corporations and governments and machines and methods that man could use to waft Everest around the planet.

Oh? Where are those hiding? Do they have a big teaspoon to drain the ocean with too?

Man has been moving mountains around since time began

To some extent.

What does that do to dating or archeological evidence?

Ask Kylie. The issue came up about if the supernatural was involved in creation, then science would not know as it uses only the natural, She was insisting science covered more. Her big example was that if a mountain moved, science could 'test' it

So, is the dirt dug up in a mining operation the oldest dirt on top of the heap, then that pile tested long after all rememberance of the mining operation, is that site going to give accurate data concerning that site?

Why wouldn't it?

And all the dirt and rock wafted around by wind and water, earthquakes, glaciers and such?
Consider a chocolate sundae. Give it a few whips and beats. It is now a chocolate shake.

Conside God creating the planet. Then consider Him wafting everything on the planet around in a way that resulted in land and water separating. That is a lot of 'whips and beats' as you say. Add to that the flood and some other things. Presto.

 

[AV1611VET]

If one would consider all of the reasons not to believe in literal inerrancy, science wouldn't be near the top of the list.

I'm going to strongly disagree with that.

Maybe back in Plato's time, when he popularized the allegorical method, but he wasn't taken too seriously at the time.

Since then though, science has sown its tares, and now -- today -- it's the literal method of interpretation that's shunned.

If Genesis 1 & 2 aren't taken literally today, I blame science* -- not Plato.

* Actually I can take that a step deeper, but I'll stop at science right now.

 

[truthpls]

That makes no sense at all. I think you're just paranoid about the fantasy that science is trying to disprove God.

It makes sense that there is no scientific test that can prove God to man. He proved Himself and then asked for belief. Not some scientific tests. So, why would He allow such tests to work as if they could anyhow?

 

[QvQ]

Oh? Where are those hiding? Do they have a big teaspoon to drain the ocean with too?

Oh yea of little faith
If a mother lode of pure gold was discovered under Everest, Everest would soon be a hole in the ground.

 

[truthpls]

Oh yea of little faith
If a mother lode of pure gold was discovered under Everest, Everest would soon be nothing more than a hole in the ground.

But we would not see Everest over in Australia or Mexico as Kylie wanted to declare it a miracle

 

[BCP1928]

It makes sense that there is no scientific test that can prove God to man. He proved Himself and then asked for belief. Not some scientific tests. So, why would He allow such tests to work as if they could anyhow?

Because you think you can make falsifiable claims in His name.

 

[truthpls]

Because you think you can make falsifiable claims in His name.

I do? Thanks for the news. Remind me of how that would work?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So long as you include unnecessary jargon, I will. (I also cannot truly view theology as a valid field of study.)

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm referring to that you do. Hermeneutics is no longer a solely "Bible thing." It's sort of time to wake up to this newer development in academia, whether it interests you or not.

Never read any of old Bertie's stuff. Not sure why it would be relevant.

Because one of his arguments was essentially your --------- humorously laden------------argument.

I've heard of these concordence thingies, but I'm not going to dig in to word usage in the greek. Not now, not ever. (I will not become one of those fools that attempt word analysis in a language they can't read.)

There's nothing that makes a person an expert on the Bible more than refusing to learn its textual development.

I think it means that Ol' Matty replicated the "move mountain" metaphor for "believe harder" from the fig cursing to this story about healing some poor boy with epilepsy. It is not found in the original version (Mark 9:14-29). I guess "Matthew" liked it enough to change the dialog for Jesus in the earlier story.

I forget what interpretation you are trying to walk me into.

Hans, ol buddy, in the fields of Historiography and History, the earliest source isn't by any necessity the best or more accurate.

Keep in mind that Mark itself was also an adaptation of earlier source material, even if we don't precisely know what the material was.

So, what have you learned so far (whether you use the ideas or not)?:. .....that you can kill fig trees and set demons on the run if you "have faith." Gotta love those Jewish "mountain" metaphors.

 

[QvQ]

Jesus made a claim, that any on with true/pure/whatever faith could do seemingly impossible things through prayer. So, if any modern believer should claim that they can do impossible thing through faith with prayer we can test those, but we can only confirm that the claimed thing happened or not, causation, particularly of failure, is a bit trickier given the degeneracy in the potential causes of failure.

Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

 

[dlamberth]

There's nothing that makes a person an expert on the Bible more than refusing to learn its textual development.

Interesting that you should bring this perspective up.
I've often had similar thoughts when coming across arguments doubting the validity of radiometric dating of geological structures.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting that you should bring this perspective up.
I've often had similar thoughts when coming across arguments doubting the validity of radiometric dating of geological structures.

Me too.

 

[QvQ]

But we would not see Everest over in Australia or Mexico as Kylie wanted to declare it a miracle

What better use of all that dirt from the New Mt Everest Gold Mine?
Fill in Lake Titicaca!

 

[QvQ]

Interesting that you should bring this perspective up.
I've often had similar thoughts when coming across arguments doubting the validity of radiometric dating of geological structures.

No, it is not the same as radiometric dating is a measure.
Measurement is not a "textual development."

In many cases, not only the measure but the records are questionable:
Genological Research: "Yes the records are intact until 1650 when the Church burned down."
The archeological evidence in the pyramids is being dug up and scattered all over
So in X many years, when the museums are dug up by future archeologist and scattered remnants of mummies are found what is testing going to show?

I question science and methods to gain a better accuracy.
Too much of our 'science" is story telling and speculation

 

[dlamberth]

I question science and methods to gain a better accuracy.
Too much of our 'science" is story telling and speculation

One of the reasons I enjoy geology is the story that the Earth is telling us about itSelf. It's pretty interesting stuff. The thing is, if a person does not take the time to learn and understand the science of something like geology, the course forward seems to be that we can still that person to argue as though they think they are an expert on the subject.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm referring to that you do.

Yes, I make light of your unnecessary multiplication of jargonic entities. (And will likely continue to do so.) If I recall correctly, the jargon you listed is related to textual analysis, which would have been a better usage because it does not require a dictionary to infer the intended meaning. I am not good at remembering your favorite multisyllabic terms from academic humanities as I need to meaningfully use concepts to remember them. All I get is a vague impression of a word I've seen before imprinted in my synaptic connections.

Hermeneutics is no longer a solely "Bible thing." It's sort of time to wake up to this newer development in academia, whether it interests you or not.

I referred to what was "invalid" rather than uninteresting. (Though to be fair, theology is also uninteresting as it ever was.)

Because one of his arguments was essentially your --------- humorously laden------------argument.

My only attempted humor was on your jargon.

There's nothing that makes a person an expert on the Bible more than refusing to learn its textual development.

My comment on the usefulness of a "concordence" stands. I'm not going to play the part of the amateur interpretation expert like so many who don't read Greek and pull out a "Strong's Concordence" (hey! I remembered the name of that thing) and talk about the intended usage of some Greek word in the original (oldest) manuscript for many reasons, but the best one is that I don't speak Greek and that seems a very questionable game to play in a langauge you don't know.

Perhaps more importantly, none of this seems to be the issue (translation of a specific word or few) unless you are holding back on me.

And where have I refused to learn about the textual development? (As I have said before, learning about it at the base level was a huge part of my deconversion.) How else do you think I knew Matthew was based on Mark and not vice versa?

Hans, ol buddy, in the fields of Historiography and History, the earliest source isn't by any necessity the best or more accurate.

Of this I am aware, but

Keep in mind that Mark itself was also an adaptation of earlier source material, even if we don't precisely know what the material was.

speaking of multiplying entities: You don't expect us to think that this metaphor "moving mountains" was in two different stories in the "source", Mark left it out of one, and Matthew restored it, do you? It is simpler to think Matthew *added* it to the second (first in the text) story because he liked it.

So, what have you learned so far (whether you use the ideas or not)?:. .....that you can kill fig trees and set demons on the run if you "have faith."

Demons, I forgot about the demon in the cure of the epileptic, and dead fig trees, sure, that seems to be the point that strong faith with prayer can make the biggest impossible things happen.

Gotta love those Jewish metaphors.

Is it Jewish, or Greek, or whatever? I don't know. Does anyone?