The Flood

[Gracchus]

I don't really know about any of this and just because you have cited a few things does not mean that I know any more.

That is believable.

I would have to know all the perameters involved. Then I could only make a guess but I do know that something is amuck in scienceland because there is no way that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, maybe 3.78 but certainly not 4.5.

So you don't know, but if you did know you would have to guess, but you do know?



I guess that makes as much sense as anything you have posted.

 

[NailsII]

Total misunderstanding of the meaning which I will have to explain at another time.

I hope you do find the time to expain this to me, as the massive contradictions between OT and NT is certainly one of the reasons I began to doubt christianity in the first place. I find it impossible to reconcile new with old, and so there is only one inescapable conclusion for me: neither is correct.
These laws were obviously written with good sense for the time, but they are no longer viable in practically any way, shape or form.
But I have no 'evidence' of them ever being revoked, or
such an act being sanctioned by god. After all, that is what litters the entire passage: "I am the lord, your god".

Then I could only make a guess but I do know that something is amuck in scienceland because there is no way that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, maybe 3.78 but certainly not 4.5.

On second reading, I think your comment is intended as sarcastic. I do hope so.
otherwise, I hope you have a rational explaination for this one my friend.....

 

[Inan3]

[/color]

What you are doing here is selectively defining something so you don't feel uncomfortable with the results.

Ahhh, TMT, will you never learn? What you mean is "It seems to YOU that I am selectively defining something so I don't feel uncomfortable with the results" We've talked about this....while I admit I am impressed with your natural intelligence, I have to tell you, you still do not have me figured out. Often, when people attempt to interpret what others mean or think, they take their own perceptions and opinions and use them for a backboard to bounce off their subject's meaning but usually end up catching the wrong ball. Perhaps that is what you do with me.

Are you familiar with Christina Mirabilis? While I realize you are not a Catholic I hope you will see that honest Christians can easily take "delusion" as "holiness".

Sincerety, does not always keep one from being sincerely deluded. I am sure that her delusins were due to the fact that she had obviously experienced some traumatic illness or malady or that she was demon possessed.

People who knew her were divided in their opinions: she was a holy woman, touched of God, and that her actions and torments were simulations of the experiences of the souls in purgatory; she was suffering the torments of devils - or she was flatly insane.
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintc80.htm

As to why the priests or the people believed in her madness, I can only surmise that it was a time of great superstition and ignorance of the scriptures. True biblical revelation will always be inline with the scriptures. Any time there is any witchcraft, occultic practises, or imbalance involved it's not going to be a godly revelation. God does not need to use any of these circumstances to reveal Himself or His word.

Just because you don't like the idea that some revelations are little more than delusions, or that you may not be able to tell which is which, doesn't make it valid to merely dismiss delusions as "non-revelatory".

Look at your defintion closely:

It "reveals" or brings to light a previously unknown or not understood thing.

Again, what you mean is "YOU think" ... I don't like the idea that some revelations are little more than delusions, or that I may not be able to tell which is which ... neither of which is true.

The truth is I don't agree that in any way that a delusion is similar to a revelation. They are two different words with two entirely different meanings. I think perhaps that this board has for so long accused Creationists and Christians of being deluded that, in fact, it is you that has the matter confused.

Definition of Delusion

Delusion: A false personal belief that is not subject to reason or contradictory evidence and is not explained by a person's usual cultural and religious concepts (so that, for example, it is not an article of faith). A delusion may be firmly maintained in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it is false. Delusions are a frequent feature of schizophrenia. http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=26290

Definition of Revelation
revelation
1. The act of revealing, disclosing, or discovering to others what was before unknown to them.
2. That which is revealed.
3. The act of revealing divine truth. That which is revealed by God to man; especially, the bible. By revelation he made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote afore in few words. (Eph. Iii. 3)
4. Specifically, the last book of the sacred canon, containing the prophecies of St. john; the Apocalypse.
Origin: F. Revelation, L. Revelatio. See Reveal.
Retrieved from
"http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Revelation"

Indeed this is a very clear definition of the onset of a delusion.

Not that all revelations are by definition delusions, but this can easily define a delusion.

I disagree for the reasons I mentioned above.

But further, how can you differentiate?

By the definitions above.

 

[Naraoia]

By the definitions above.

Ok, then, how do you decide which definition applies to any given case?

 

[Inan3]

I don't really know about any of this and just because you have cited a few things does not mean that I know any more. I would have to know all the perameters involved. Then I could only make a guess but I do know that something is amuck in scienceland because there is no way that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, maybe 3.78 but certainly not 4.5.

On second reading, I think your comment is intended as sarcastic. I do hope so.
otherwise, I hope you have a rational explaination for this one my friend.....[/quote]

My new and less overworked word is "sardonic" rather than "sarcastic" the former I think, being more cynical than the later. Yes, I was being a wise guy ... BUT only partially. I cannot fathom that in terms of billions of years that it can be nailed down so precisely. I just can't get my teeth into that.

 

[Inan3]

I don't really know about any of this and just because you have cited a few things does not mean that I know any more. I would have to know all the perameters involved. Then I could only make a guess but I do know that something is amuck in scienceland because there is no way that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, maybe 3.78 but certainly not 4.5.

On second reading, I think your comment is intended as sarcastic. I do hope so.
otherwise, I hope you have a rational explaination for this one my friend.....

My new and less overworked word is "sardonic" rather than "sarcastic" the former I think, being more cynical than the later. Yes, I was being a wise guy ... BUT only partially. I cannot fathom that in terms of billions of years that it can be nailed down so precisely. I just can't get my teeth into that.

I'm glad you're my friend ... even if we disagree.

 

[Inan3]

Ok, then, how do you decide which definition applies to any given case?

You guys, girls in this case, do stretch me.

I highlighted the following part of the definition of delusion .... not explained by a person's usual cultural and religious concepts.... which I think explains how one would decide. Just because there are differences of beliefs or understandings from person to person does not decide whether one is deluded or not. What decides is whether or not the person in reference is outside of their own or society's usual culture or religious belief.

 

[NailsII]

I'm glad you're my friend ... even if we disagree.

It may sound wierd, but i can see a lot of myself in you. Maybe a few years ago (and that makes me feel old saying that!!) but I would have argued to the death that we were created in god's image when I was a teenager. I even joined the christian society....
Ah well.
And why do people have to see eye to eye to be friends?
My wife and I don't seem to agree on anything anymore....

 

[thaumaturgy]

Ahhh, TMT, will you never learn? What you mean is "It seems to YOU that I am selectively defining something

OK, I can go with that. But you are still left not being able to differentiate a delusion from a revelation.

If it is a revelation it was previously unknown, ergo, if it is the only source of that information you have no objective way to discern the two. If there is another source for the information, is it really a "revelation"?

Sincerety, does not always keep one from being sincerely deluded. I am sure that her delusins were due to the fact that she had obviously experienced some traumatic illness or malady or that she was demon possessed.

I don't even know how to start the conversation with you when you roll out stuff like that. It appears to me that you don't really understand what I am saying or I am not getting my point across, and it appears to me that you inhabit some sort of medieval world of ghosts and goblins, witches and demons.

So, sure, for you revelation must be very important. But whenever you wed an idea, you have to take it warts and all.

You have yet to explain to me how you know my dad didn't have an honest revelation that he had programmed his teeth into the TV.

I can tell you how we knew, but if I told you the original story how would you know?

That's kinda why "revelation" is a weak runner in epistemology.

As to why the priests or the people believed in her madness, I can only surmise

I bolded the most important 4 words in that sentence.

YOU can only surmise. So revelatory information was exactly useless to you. Unless you wish to lable these "bad christians".

That takes you into a whole new logic fallacy.

If someone has a revelation about Hell or Heaven, how will you know they are telling you a truth, THE truth, a delusion, or...gasp...outright lying to you?

Guess you'll have to wait until you die at which point it's too late to use the information in a useful manner. Ergo the revelation had exactly no value.

That's kinda the point.

that it was a time of great superstition

Maybe like a 21st century person talking seriously about "demon possession"?

If the information is already available through the Bible is it really a "revelation"? If it isn't in the Bible, how will you be able to tell if it is "in line" with the Bible?

The church has a special role for revelation and that is yet another reason why religion is useless to me.

 

[Inan3]

I hope you do find the time to expain this to me, as the massive contradictions between OT and NT is certainly one of the reasons I began to doubt christianity in the first place. I find it impossible to reconcile new with old, and so there is only one inescapable conclusion for me: neither is correct.
These laws were obviously written with good sense for the time, but they are no longer viable in practically any way, shape or form.
But I have no 'evidence' of them ever being revoked, or
such an act being sanctioned by god. After all, that is what litters the entire passage: "I am the lord, your god".

I've finally answered your question but I took it over to General Apologetics to spare everyone here for it really is way off topic and quite lengthy.

So see, I really am a nice person.

If any one is interested...

http://foru.ms/t6386533-which-way-to-righteousness-law-or-grace.html#post40496601

How do I make this link shorter?

 

[Inan3]

OK, I can go with that. But you are still left not being able to differentiate a delusion from a revelation.

If it is a revelation it was previously unknown, ergo, if it is the only source of that information you have no objective way to discern the two. If there is another source for the information, is it really a "revelation"?



I don't even know how to start the conversation with you when you roll out stuff like that. It appears to me that you don't really understand what I am saying or I am not getting my point across, and it appears to me that you inhabit some sort of medieval world of ghosts and goblins, witches and demons.

So, sure, for you revelation must be very important. But whenever you wed an idea, you have to take it warts and all.

You have yet to explain to me how you know my dad didn't have an honest revelation that he had programmed his teeth into the TV.

I can tell you how we knew, but if I told you the original story how would you know?

That's kinda why "revelation" is a weak runner in epistemology.




I bolded the most important 4 words in that sentence.

YOU can only surmise. So revelatory information was exactly useless to you. Unless you wish to lable these "bad christians".

That takes you into a whole new logic fallacy.

If someone has a revelation about Hell or Heaven, how will you know they are telling you a truth, THE truth, a delusion, or...gasp...outright lying to you?

Guess you'll have to wait until you die at which point it's too late to use the information in a useful manner. Ergo the revelation had exactly no value.

That's kinda the point.



Maybe like a 21st century person talking seriously about "demon possession"?

If the information is already available through the Bible is it really a "revelation"? If it isn't in the Bible, how will you be able to tell if it is "in line" with the Bible?

The church has a special role for revelation and that is yet another reason why religion is useless to me.

How is it TMT you can make me laugh and almost cry at the same time? You really crack me up. You are just too funny. What are you going on an on about this for? Let me get my breath and maybe I'll pick this up later. Not that I am suggesting this at all but it would be great to talk with you in person (with your wife present of course). It certainly would be a whole lot easier.

 

[Inan3]

It may sound wierd, but i can see a lot of myself in you. Maybe a few years ago (and that makes me feel old saying that!!) but I would have argued to the death that we were created in god's image when I was a teenager. I even joined the christian society....
Ah well.
And why do people have to see eye to eye to be friends?
My wife and I don't seem to agree on anything anymore....

What makes you think I am younger, I could be really old you know. I am young but you don't know how young or how old.

 

[Inan3]

That is believable.



So you don't know, but if you did know you would have to guess, but you do know?



I guess that makes as much sense as anything you have posted.

You made me laugh, Gracchus, you made me laugh. Thanks.

 

[Inan3]

So you admit that you don't really know about any of this, but you feel confident in saying that there is no way that the Earth can be 4.5B years old? Yet you accept that it could be 3.78B years old? What's your reason for not accepting that extra 700 million years? On what basis do you conclude that 4.5B is completely ruled out?

Why exactly 3.78?

My point exactly!!! Why exactly 4.5B? Hello??? I love you scientists, I really do.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

My point exactly!!! Why exactly 4.5B? Hello??? I love you scientists, I really do.

I suggest you read The Age of the Earth by Brent Dalrymple. It is one of my favorite books. TalkOrigins summarizes some of the data HERE.

 

[Split Rock]

My point exactly!!! Why exactly 4.5B? Hello??? I love you scientists, I really do.

If your position is that it is a made-up date, the question is a very good one. Can you answer it?

 

[FishFace]

My point exactly!!! Why exactly 4.5B? Hello??? I love you scientists, I really do.

The oldest crystals on earth are a bit younger, asteroids and things supposed to have formed at the same time as the earth, a bit older.

 

[thaumaturgy]

How is it TMT you can make me laugh and almost cry at the same time? You really crack me up. You are just too funny. What are you going on an on about this for? Let me get my breath and maybe I'll pick this up later. Not that I am suggesting this at all but it would be great to talk with you in person (with your wife present of course). It certainly would be a whole lot easier.

Lithium. Maybe that's it. I'm no doctor but this sounds like a job for a lithium salt of some sort.

 

[thaumaturgy]

.... not explained by a person's usual cultural and religious concepts.... which I think explains how one would decide. Just because there are differences of beliefs or understandings from person to person does not decide whether one is deluded or not. What decides is whether or not the person in reference is outside of their own or society's usual culture or religious belief.

So if you already know it or can have known about it, then it is a revelation, but if it has no precedent then it is a delusion.

OK, let's run with that for a sec. What about the first person to write about "Yahweh"?

Presumably all religions start somewhere. Was the first author to write about what yahweh wanted deluded or inspired by revelation?

Or do you contend that God directly wrote the Bible?

 

[thaumaturgy]

My point exactly!!! Why exactly 4.5B? Hello??? I love you scientists, I really do.

Do you actually have a question here? Or is the inclusion of the daytime tv show phrase "Hello????" intended to assure us you actually care about an answer?

In case you actually do care to learn the simple version is:

Primary rocks have been found in N. America, Greenland Australia, Africa and Asia (that's at least 4 continents) that can be radiometrically dated (by independent means) to at least 3.5 billion years old (scientists sometimes shorten this to 3.5GA which stands for "giga-annum", billion years).

But since we know this represents a minimum age and we don't know for sure exactly how old we keep looking around to see if anything older shows up.

A few grains in sedimentary rocks reflect an older age of around 4.1 to 4.2GA. So we know we still haven't found the oldest.

But we are reasonably sure the earth and other objects in our solar system are formed from a single accretionary disk rotating around the sun, which, if we can measure stuff out there then we might see older rocks from the same "soup" from which we were born.

And we get these occasionally in the form of meteorites. The good thing about meteorites is that since they are not "geologically active" (ie they aren't melting or have plate tectonics or other processes that will erase the oldest materials, we might be even more sure of getting older dates.

Here's a table showing some meteorite dates and the various different isotopes used.

Type, Number Dated, Method, .................................Age (billionsof years)
Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E)13Sm-Nd ......................4.21 +/- 0.76
Carbonaceous chondrites4Rb-Sr ....................................4.37 +/- 0.34
Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E)38Rb-Sr .......................4.50 +/- 0.02
Chondrites (H, L, LL, E)50Rb-Sr .....................................4.43 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites (undisturbed)17Rb-Sr ................................4.52 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites15Rb-Sr ....................................................4.59 +/- 0.06
L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed)6Rb-Sr ....................4.44 +/- 0.12
L Chondrites5Rb-Sr .....................................................4.38 +/- 0.12
LL Chondrites (undisturbed)13Rb-Sr .............................4.49 +/- 0.02
LL Chondrites10Rb-Sr ..................................................4.46 +/- 0.06
E Chondrites (undisturbed)8Rb-Sr .................................4.51 +/- 0.04
E Chondrites8Rb-Sr .....................................................4.44 +/- 0.13
Eucrites (polymict)23Rb-Sr ..........................................4.53 +/- 0.19
Eucrites11Rb-Sr ..........................................................4.44 +/- 0.30
Eucrites13Lu-Hf .........................................................4.57 +/- 0.19
Diogenites5Rb-Sr .......................................................4.45 +/- 0.18
Iron (plus iron from St. Severin)8Re-Os .......................4.57 +/- 0.21

After Dalrymple (1991, p. 291); duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted.

So, ya see, we are really narrowing it down. 4.55GA seems to be the zone.