To convince a YEC

[EnemyPartyII]

But it isn't me discussing is it?

Many critics can dismiss the Bible based on historical criticism. Let's see what your history says about how craftsman did things in 1000 BC.

Many assume the poor transmission of data through scripture. So, is it not possible that both AOD and IOD were in the original and only one survived the transmission into the Masoretic. That makes it correct about the dimension it is using, and perhaps confusing at best.

Why can't we assume the best here?

(And yes, I will show the writer was conscious of the distinction. I am consciously avoiding the punchline, because I know it will derail the thread. There are too many very poor assumptions built into the criticisms of this text. I am not willing to derail until the proper questions have been asked and answered on those issues.)

I'm happy to support the theory that information has been lost from the Bible due to translation and transcription errors.

But if you claim that is the reason for THIS error, I hope you won't latter claim that the Bible is inerrant and God protected, and that there can't be other errors (say, homosexual not being the correct translation of Paul in Romans) due to translation and transmission

 

[Vance]

Busterdog:

You are absolutely right that a given "figurativeness" in a text does not absolutely require that the entire text be read that way, but it does, indeed, give an indication of how that particular author prefers to write and what "mode" he is in during that text. It is evidence for the rest of the text, even if it is not conclusive evidence.

But, what is more important for your fellow creationists to hear is that you do not believe we should start with a literal reading first, and only back off of that if there is sufficient evidence for doing so. Your position on this is diametrically opposed to most creationists, so maybe they can learn from you there.

If we start with an entirely neutral view of whether the Genesis 1 and 2 texts (or even viewing them independently, since they are very different in style), then we are able to consider which literary genre is most likely. To determine this, we have a number of sources of evidence:

1. The type of literary genre common for such accounts in the ANE.
2. The literary structure and style.
3. The seeming contradictions, if viewed entirely literally, between the two accounts.
4. The evidence from God's Creation itself, which Augustine argued should be taken into consideration (and which the geocentrism controversy made obviously an important factor).
5. The presence or absence of any other Scripture that could point us in one direction or another.
Edit to add a 6th: Whether there is a theological requirement of one reading over another (keeping in mind that sometimes our theological positions on non-essentials could be at fault).

No single factor, even the last couple, can be considered on its own, but all of these must be figured in the decision-making, and balanced out.

I don't really think that anyone could take all of those into consideration objectively and reach a conclusion of literalness for those particular texts unless they were pre-disposed to read it literally from the beginning. But, if you have honestly gone through that process objectively, entirely willing to accept it figuratively if the evidence points that way, but ended up reading it literally, then that is fine.

 

[busterdog]

I'm happy to support the theory that information has been lost from the Bible due to translation and transcription errors.

But if you claim that is the reason for THIS error, I hope you won't latter claim that the Bible is inerrant and God protected, and that there can't be other errors (say, homosexual not being the correct translation of Paul in Romans) due to translation and transmission

Come now, lets be reasonable. If you think you can topple the entire structure with a single challenge, that is your business. But, your logic just doesn't work. Think about how far you are extending your argument from a simple computational issue (on which you appear to be mistaken).

And, I am not talking about error, I am talking about omission. My omission would not create error.

However, I do believe that are minor translational errors here and there and I would not presume that the Masoretic if completely free from same. But, they are trivial.

My challenge stands. There might be some tendency to prefer AOD or IOD here, but no one has proven and one or the other is required, except that the value of pi suggests some common sense on the matter.

 

[busterdog]

Busterdog:

You are absolutely right that a given "figurativeness" in a text does not absolutely require that the entire text be read that way, but it does, indeed, give an indication of how that particular author prefers to write and what "mode" he is in during that text. It is evidence for the rest of the text, even if it is not conclusive evidence.

But, what is more important for your fellow creationists to hear is that you do not believe we should start with a literal reading first, and only back off of that if there is sufficient evidence for doing so. Your position on this is diametrically opposed to most creationists, so maybe they can learn from you there.

If we start with an entirely neutral view of whether the Genesis 1 and 2 texts (or even viewing them independently, since they are very different in style), then we are able to consider which literary genre is most likely. To determine this, we have a number of sources of evidence:

1. The type of literary genre common for such accounts in the ANE.
2. The literary structure and style.
3. The seeming contradictions, if viewed entirely literally, between the two accounts.
4. The evidence from God's Creation itself, which Augustine argued should be taken into consideration (and which the geocentrism controversy made obviously an important factor).
5. The presence or absence of any other Scripture that could point us in one direction or another.
Edit to add a 6th: Whether there is a theological requirement of one reading over another (keeping in mind that sometimes our theological positions on non-essentials could be at fault).

No single factor, even the last couple, can be considered on its own, but all of these must be figured in the decision-making, and balanced out.

I don't really think that anyone could take all of those into consideration objectively and reach a conclusion of literalness for those particular texts unless they were pre-disposed to read it literally from the beginning. But, if you have honestly gone through that process objectively, entirely willing to accept it figuratively if the evidence points that way, but ended up reading it literally, then that is fine.

I think we are on to a new thread at this point if we are going back to the manifest intentions of Gen. 1, 2?

And yes, I am predisposed to take a literal view. I even argued to Assyrian that a shepherd is literally a door to the sheep fold based upon ancient tradition of sleeping or resting in the entrance to the sheepfold. The predisposition serves me well, but it is not universal. Usually the text will tell you, the Kingdom of God IS LIKE ....

But, one must still read and see what the text says. Not everything is completely literal.

 

[Vance]

I think we are on to a new thread at this point if we are going back to the manifest intentions of Gen. 1, 2?

And yes, I am predisposed to take a literal view. I even argued to Assyrian that a shepherd is literally a door to the sheep fold based upon ancient tradition of sleeping or resting in the entrance to the sheepfold. The predisposition serves me well, but it is not universal. Usually the text will tell you, the Kingdom of God IS LIKE ....

But, one must still read and see what the text says. Not everything is completely literal.

Right, but the question then becomes WHY start with a literal presumption? With so many varied and useful types of literary genres available and, you would agree, used throughout Scripture, why start with literal as the presumption? We see symbology, metaphor, typology, poetry, hyperbole, parable and, I would argue, various *forms* of historical writing leading right up to those more strictly literal forms as in Luke. These can all convey truth, even truth about literal past events, without always having to attempt to convey strictly literal historic narrative.

There is a reason Herodotus is called the "Father of History", and some even find that title a bit premature, since he did not hesitate to create speeches he believe would have fit the occasion for his historical personages (which no one at the time would have blinked at or even considered it "false" or "untrue"). So, why would we consider that possibly up to a 1,000 years before Herodotus, when nobody was writing strictly literal historic narrative, but instead preferred to describe events about their past (especially stories about such things as origins) in much more "appropriate" literary styles, that the ancient Israelites would do so?

It really makes little or no sense to start with "literal narrative history" for those early Genesis texts, any more than it is to read Revelation as literal. One describes past events in figurative, symbolic and typological terms, the other describes future events in figurative, symbolic and typological terms. In both cases, they are referring REAL and TRUE events in our historical timeline, just choosing a very non-literal style of writing to convey them.

Then, even if one were wavering as to which genre was intended (both by the original authors and by God) for Genesis 1 and 2, the evidence from God's Creation itself, that other revelation, should clinch it. One of these possible interpretations is entirely consistent with the evidence from God's Creation, the other is entirely inconsistent with it.

 

[busterdog]

Right, but the question then becomes WHY start with a literal presumption? With so many varied and useful types of literary genres available and, you would agree, used throughout Scripture, why start with literal as the presumption? We see symbology, metaphor, typology, poetry, hyperbole, parable and, I would argue, various *forms* of historical writing leading right up to those more strictly literal forms as in Luke. These can all convey truth, even truth about literal past events, without always having to attempt to convey strictly literal historic narrative.

There is a reason Herodotus is called the "Father of History", and some even find that title a bit premature, since he did not hesitate to create speeches he believe would have fit the occasion for his historical personages (which no one at the time would have blinked at or even considered it "false" or "untrue"). So, why would we consider that possibly up to a 1,000 years before Herodotus, when nobody was writing strictly literal historic narrative, but instead preferred to describe events about their past (especially stories about such things as origins) in much more "appropriate" literary styles, that the ancient Israelites would do so?

It really makes little or no sense to start with "literal narrative history" for those early Genesis texts, any more than it is to read Revelation as literal. One describes past events in figurative, symbolic and typological terms, the other describes future events in figurative, symbolic and typological terms. In both cases, they are referring REAL and TRUE events in our historical timeline, just choosing a very non-literal style of writing to convey them.

Then, even if one were wavering as to which genre was intended (both by the original authors and by God) for Genesis 1 and 2, the evidence from God's Creation itself, that other revelation, should clinch it. One of these possible interpretations is entirely consistent with the evidence from God's Creation, the other is entirely inconsistent with it.

There simply isn't any adjective ascribed to God in the story. If it is about his character generally, as in the Psalms, its and entirely new form of tongue in cheek.

Exod. 20 is as also as matter of fact as it can get.

In the foreground is sequence. The timeframe repeated and repeated again. The rather summary "saw that was good" is the only sugary cherry type language here. It isn't metaphor. It is quite distinct from intentional myth making.

Hyperbole, as you say, and other literary forms require something else that is made to be explicit within the foreground and subject of the piece. God's character and ability for example. You have none of that here. You simply infer it because you don't like what your telescopes and mass spectrometers suggest to you.

I have no problem pitching over what is apparent in creation in favor of what is said about creation.

 

[anonymous1515]

Sorry to interrupt your debate guys, but I have a question for busterdog.

Can you think of anything that would change your position from a young-earth creationist? Is there any evidence that would convince you?

 

[busterdog]

Sorry to interrupt your debate guys, but I have a question for busterdog.

Can you think of anything that would change your position from a young-earth creationist? Is there any evidence that would convince you?

There are few responses I could give you but glib responses. Since I can't imagine anything that would, how do I respond? Since I accept the surface text of the Bible above all other witnesses, how actually could I conceive of a way to be talked out of it. Not only that, but I am not particularly keen on the idea of getting "smarter" about it in the first place. This is a spiritual work in me. If it has credence, it is not because of me but because the Holy Spirit has done it in me. So, what exactly should I say?

I would like to be open minded, but to me that is a fairly shallow position next to the fullness of the Gospel. In part this is because I see a big distinction between the intellectual work of a man (as one who is open minded) and that of one who is saved and living with the Joy of the Lord. The Gospel contains within itself the triumph of the Word over what people ("the world") say is reality. It works in the care I receive on a day to day basis. It works when old habits and bad ones disappear. It works when I see things I am not capable of seeing by myself. Relatively speaking, the creation story itself is a bit less prominent than the way that Grace does its thing day in and day out.

So, I think the creation story is of a piece with the entirety of the Gospel and the way I experience it. It is not the central piece. So, I think I could handle the change emotionally and intellectually. What I can't imagine being able to handle is being separated from a living Gospel and the grace of God. Since, the two are so closely identified,again, what would it possibly benefit me or you to really worry about whether my mind is open enough on the issue?

Is that fundamentalism? I could care less. Lots of fundamentalism always seemed to me to be about hairshirts and joylessness being exalted for the sake of rigidity. Since I have the joy of the Lord, none of that means anything to me. Imposing it on others gives no satisfaction. But, it is certainly black and white on many issues. So, it certainly doesn't feel like fundamentalism. It feels great. So, I am not real motivated to explore an alternative.

One thing folks don't really understand about fundamentalists is that, I think, many of them are changing. For a while, there was a lot of political power in fundamentalists and they threw their weight around in this country. In many ways, that has been a failure. Perhaps they are more loving as a result. Lets take the homosexual agenda. Poltically, we, as a body, pushed hard on the issue and lost. All we have left is the ability to love people and make that our weapon. I think when the Christians are gone, the gay folks are going to miss us, quite frankly. We are insistant upon things that work and adamantly against those that don't work, but recognizing that the battle is spiritual. There is far, far more gay on gay violence in this country than Christian on gay violence. Few see that, but we do, and we feel for these folks.

So, there is a lot of peace in the fundamentalist camp -- as in an immovable sense of assurance of where they are and how they are carried day to day. Folks feel it all the time. But, I think lots of it is a secret. So, lets say that many nonreligious people are right about our inflexible nature when it comes to origins theology. Even if that is so, I think it is worth questioning whether that should even be the primary concern. After all, there is much more of the right kind of strength in this body than there is any really threatening intolerance. And when you ask the question, I of necessity come to wonder whether the open mind I remember having when I was miserable is what I want.

No doubt many will say lots of atheists are evolutionists or whatever have the same thing. I would not presume to judge much on the basis of this board. I don't know folks here that well, honestly. I will say that what I see around me in my town is not greatly encouraging for that body on these kinds of things. Now, I have been around some pretty awesome liberal Christians. I have been around some very cool agnostics. But, there is something very different between being saved/abiding in the God of love and merely being bright, well-adjusted and having a good heart. So, again, there is being open minded. And there is being willing to be lead by the Spirit of God. They sound similar, but are they?

 

[anonymous1515]

Well, that seems like a pretty honest answer. I must say, I'm impressed by your honesty. Thank you.

 

[vossler]

There are few responses I could give you but glib responses. Since I can't imagine anything that would, how do I respond? Since I accept the surface text of the Bible above all other witnesses, how actually could I conceive of a way to be talked out of it. Not only that, but I am not particularly keen on the idea of getting "smarter" about it in the first place. This is a spiritual work in me. If it has credence, it is not because of me but because the Holy Spirit has done it in me. So, what exactly should I say?

I would like to be open minded, but to me that is a fairly shallow position next to the fullness of the Gospel. In part this is because I see a big distinction between the intellectual work of a man (as one who is open minded) and that of one who is saved and living with the Joy of the Lord. The Gospel contains within itself the triumph of the Word over what people ("the world") say is reality. It works in the care I receive on a day to day basis. It works when old habits and bad ones disappear. It works when I see things I am not capable of seeing by myself. Relatively speaking, the creation story itself is a bit less prominent than the way that Grace does its thing day in and day out.

So, I think the creation story is of a piece with the entirety of the Gospel and the way I experience it. It is not the central piece. So, I think I could handle the change emotionally and intellectually. What I can't imagine being able to handle is being separated from a living Gospel and the grace of God. Since, the two are so closely identified,again, what would it possibly benefit me or you to really worry about whether my mind is open enough on the issue?

Is that fundamentalism? I could care less. Lots of fundamentalism always seemed to me to be about hairshirts and joylessness being exchanged for rigidity. Since I have the joy of the Lord, none of that means anything to me. Imposing it on others gives no satisfaction. But, it is certainly black and white on many issues. So, it certainly doesn't feel like fundamentalism. It feels great. So, I am not real motivated to explore an alternative.

One thing folks don't really understand about fundamentalists is that, I think, many of them are changing. For a while, there was a lot of political power in fundamentalists and they threw their weight around in this country. In many ways, that has been a failure. Perhaps they are more loving as a result. Lets take the homosexual agenda. Poltically, we, as a body, pushed hard on the issue and lost. All we have left is the ability to love people and make that our weapon. I think when the Christians are gone, the gay folks are going to miss us, quite frankly. We are insistant upon things that work and adamantly against those that don't work, but recognizing that the battle is spiritual. There is far, far more gay on gay violence in this country than Christian on gay violence. Few see that, but we do, and we feel for these folks.

So, there is a lot of peace in the fundamentalist camp -- as in an immovable sense of assurance of where they are and how they are carried day to day. Folks feel it all the time. But, I think lots of it is a secret. So, lets say that many nonreligious people are right about our inflexible nature when it comes to origins theology. Even if that is so, I think it is worth questioning whether that should even be the primary concern. After all, there is much more of the right kind of strength in this body than there is any really threatening intolerance. And when you ask the question, I of necessity come to wonder whether the open mind I remember having when I was miserable is what I want.

No doubt many will say lots of atheists are evolutionists or whatever have the same thing. I would not presume to judge much on the basis of this board. I don't know folks here that well, honestly. I will say that what I see around me in my town is not greatly encouraging for that body on these kinds of things. Now, I have been around some pretty awesome liberal Christians. I have been around some very cool agnostics. But, there is something very different between being saved/abiding in the God of love and merely being bright, well-adjusted and having a good heart. So, again, there is being open minded. And there is being willing to be lead by the Spirit of God. They sound similar, but are they?

That was a well thought out post that in many ways sums up my thoughts entirely. I must say it's the primary reason I come back here, to see thoughts such as these being presented.

It's quite encouraging to be around Christians such as yourself who stand for Truth as strongly as you do! It gives me hope. Thanks!

 

[mark kennedy]

Right, but the question then becomes WHY start with a literal presumption?

Why start with a presumption period? I'm not going to take the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry into my theology and that's final.

With so many varied and useful types of literary genres available and, you would agree, used throughout Scripture, why start with literal as the presumption?

It's an historical narrative, that is the literary genre.

We see symbology, metaphor, typology, poetry, hyperbole, parable and, I would argue, various *forms* of historical writing leading right up to those more strictly literal forms as in Luke. These can all convey truth, even truth about literal past events, without always having to attempt to convey strictly literal historic narrative.

Because that is how the generations of man are presented in Scripture. It is confirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms and by now you should be well acquainted with these important facts.

There is a reason Herodotus is called the "Father of History", and some even find that title a bit premature, since he did not hesitate to create speeches he believe would have fit the occasion for his historical personages (which no one at the time would have blinked at or even considered it "false" or "untrue"). So, why would we consider that possibly up to a 1,000 years before Herodotus, when nobody was writing strictly literal historic narrative, but instead preferred to describe events about their past (especially stories about such things as origins) in much more "appropriate" literary styles, that the ancient Israelites would do so?

There is a reason that William Ramsey called Luke an historian of the highest rank.

But, while recognizing the risk, and the probable condemnation that awaits the rash attempt, I will venture to add one to the number of the critics, by stating in the following chapters reasons for placing the author of Acts among the historians of the first rank. (ST. PAUL THE TRAVELER AND THE ROMAN CITIZENBY W.M. RAMSAY, D.C.L., LL.D.)​

It really makes little or no sense to start with "literal narrative history" for those early Genesis texts, any more than it is to read Revelation as literal. One describes past events in figurative, symbolic and typological terms, the other describes future events in figurative, symbolic and typological terms. In both cases, they are referring REAL and TRUE events in our historical timeline, just choosing a very non-literal style of writing to convey them.

The Scriptures paint a very different picture. Genesis is presented as an historical narrative and confirmed in the New Testament as literal. If you want to diminish this you are arguing against the testimony of the Scriptures.

Then, even if one were wavering as to which genre was intended (both by the original authors and by God) for Genesis 1 and 2, the evidence from God's Creation itself, that other revelation, should clinch it. One of these possible interpretations is entirely consistent with the evidence from God's Creation, the other is entirely inconsistent with it.

Think what you like, it does not line up with the clear testimony of the Scriptures. TEs have failed to qualify their beliefs Scripturally and never seem interested in the many other historical aspects of Scripture.

Ask yourself a fundamental question, are the historical aspects of the New Testament a problem for you intellectually? If you answer yes then you have to ask whether or not your a Christian. If you answer no then you need some reason that you choose to reject one historical narrative and reject the other.

You guys will never get it, Creationism is based on the New Testament.

 

[gluadys]

There is a reason that William Ramsey called Luke an historian of the highest rank.

But, while recognizing the risk, and the probable condemnation that awaits the rash attempt, I will venture to add one to the number of the critics, by stating in the following chapters reasons for placing the author of Acts among the historians of the first rank. (ST. PAUL THE TRAVELER AND THE ROMAN CITIZENBY W.M. RAMSAY, D.C.L., LL.D.)​

As I recall, this is the guy whose definition of history "of the first rank" is to artistically arrange information to conform to the myth of progress.

 

[artybloke]

Why start with a presumption period? I'm not going to take the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry into my theology and that's final.

I'm not going to start with an a priori assumption of literal interpretation into my theology and that's final.

Like most modernist-influenced fundamentalists, you can't spot your own a priori assumptions even if they've been pointed out to you till we're blue in the face.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I'm not going to start with an a priori assumption of literal interpretation into my theology and that's final.

Like most modernist-influenced fundamentalists, you can't spot your own a priori assumptions even if they've been pointed out to you till we're blue in the face.

QFT

 

[shernren]

Believe it or not I never left, just have a new job that keeps me thankfully very busy. I lurk just to keep up with what’s going on, not with the intent of getting involved anymore. I’ve realized that most discussions are futile and the arguments keep going ad nauseam. This is another one!

After repeated attempts to post a response to the middle of you post I must say I was unsuccessful. I wouldn't be surprised if God was letting me know this wasn't what He wanted me to do. So, you get the last word, but I will respond to your last quote if I can and hopefully sum up how I feel about all of what was said.
I could care less about dissing Darwin, Einstein or anyone else. I’m here to defend the Word of God, everything else is meaningless.

I truly have no desire to continue this discussion. We both know where the other stands.

Well, I'm glad to know you're still alive and kicking - worse things in life could happen than getting a busy job!

I don't know why you consider this argument futile. I think all I have presented is a simple parallelism between scientific facts which people seem to lose sight of:

The finitude of the speed of light and the immense distance to the stars have been relatively recently discovered.
The ancient Hebrews did not have access to these facts and constructed/received a cosmogony that does not accommodate them.
Therefore, accepting these facts makes the exegesis of creation passages more difficult and convoluted than if they were accepted.

Evolution as the origin of biodiversity and man's biological nature has been relatively recently discovered.
The ancient Hebrews did not have access to these facts and constructed/received a cosmogony that does not accommodate them.
Therefore, accepting these facts makes the exegesis of creation passages more difficult and convoluted than if they were accepted.

I think the parallel is perfectly clear and obvious. And yet look at the responses these two theories receive. Creationists wholeheartedly believe that the speed of light is constant and finite and that stars are very far away. Never mind that, on the one hand, most of them have never confirmed these facts firsthand before. Never mind that, on the other hand, rejecting these facts makes Biblical exegesis so much easier. No, being a creationist does not allow you to reject those two facts, and so you have to struggle through the thicket of tired light and phenomenological language and white hole general relativity and c-decay and creation in transit.

And yet creationists complain about evolution on two counts: firstly, because they don't see clear and obvious evidence for it; and secondly, because accepting it greatly complicates Biblical exegesis. But that didn't stop creationists on the astronomical front, did it?

I think I can say with sincerity that I am as interested, if not more, as creationists in defending the Bible and the integrity of Christian faith. And that is why I am bemused at best and incensed at worst that creationists are so willing to tie themselves up in knots by accepting something as esoteric as relativity, and then make themselves look silly (in the eyes of people who don't know better, often) by not accepting evolution - when Christians nowhere near liberal have done so as well.

And Aggie:

Vossler,

I think you’re missing the main point of Shernen’s post. What he’s saying is that no matter what you think about the Bible, it isn’t possible to avoid letting your interpretation of it be altered by outside sources. My favorite example, which Shernen didn’t mention, is 1 Kings, 7:23 ...

I don't like 1 Kings 7:23 (as an exposure text) because it feels like a one-trick horse. I'm interested in bigger things than that, and honestly I didn't think any creationists would stoop to reply to it. Of course, since busterdog did:

You say that there is a proper assumption about whether AOD or IOD is used.

How exactly does that assumption work.

You haven't used Hebrew to get there.

One of the two types of measures fits nearly exactly with the diameter. So, doesn't that tell which is the proper assumption? It works for the evolutionist view of Genesis (which does not have the express need for alternatives in the text itself, which is exactly what you have with the Bronze Sea). Why is assuming the Bible to be wrong better?

Simply because the you think the diameter and circumference should be consistent?

What exactly was the prevailing practice among craftsmen in Israel 3,000 years ago?

You have no idea of the history or the Hebrew. Once again, why make the assumption?

I think I should reply.

Firstly, you probably think that using previously-undefined acronyms makes you look cool, an intellectual version of first-name dropping. (If you even thought about why you should use them at all.) But they don't. They just make you even more incomprehensible than ever.

Secondly. Notice what your criterion for the better interpretation of the text is: One of the two types of measures fits nearly exactly with the diameter. In other words, you have a preconceived notion of what reality external to the Bible looks like, choose the interpretation of the Bible that fits best with that external reality, and then insert words where appropriate to make the Bible read what you want it to say. I am not merely being cynical here. Where did the Bible ever tell you that pi isn't 3? You think you are defending the Bible; but the Bible is under attack from outside, never from inside, and as long as you twist and flail while declaring yourself a defender you give the attackers credibility they don't deserve and make the Bible compliant to their external standards.

You aren't interpreting the Bible according to the Bible. You're interpreting the Bible according to external reality. So don't scold us for doing precisely what you're doing.

Back to Aggie. I'm not interested in bit-player verses with minor copyist errors. So the Bible misses a cubit in a measurement. (Assuming it does.) How is that supposed to inform my thinking on how science should interact with the Bible? Were the Hebrews really so dumb as to think that pi is really 3, and even if they were, where do I go from there? How does that tell me about the effects on science on religion?

I think there's far more to be gained from comprehensive studies on areas in which the Bible is comprehensive. I'm about to start a series on change in creation and the invisibility of second-order influences, in which you'll see what I mean ...

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not going to start with an a priori assumption of literal interpretation into my theology and that's final.

Then we are even.

Like most modernist-influenced fundamentalists, you can't spot your own a priori assumptions even if they've been pointed out to you till we're blue in the face.

Your wrong about that, I am well aware of what I consider to be a self evident fact. We can play these games as long as you like but if you think for one minute this is theology verses science you are sadly mistaken. It's a clash of philosophies, nothing more.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Then we are even.



Your wrong about that, I am well aware of what I consider to be a self evident fact. We can play these games as long as you like but if you think for one minute this is theology verses science you are sadly mistaken. It's a clash of philosophies, nothing more.

of course its theology vs science... science says one thing, and your personal theology says another... and you chose to believe your personal theology, rather than science

 

[Aggie]

Back to Aggie. I'm not interested in bit-player verses with minor copyist errors. So the Bible misses a cubit in a measurement. (Assuming it does.) How is that supposed to inform my thinking on how science should interact with the Bible? Were the Hebrews really so dumb as to think that pi is really 3, and even if they were, where do I go from there? How does that tell me about the effects on science on religion?

I think there's far more to be gained from comprehensive studies on areas in which the Bible is comprehensive. I'm about to start a series on change in creation and the invisibility of second-order influences, in which you'll see what I mean ...

I have a lot more to say about how the Bible should be interpreted than what I said in my post about that verse, but most of it was already covered in what you posted. The point I was trying to make is just that this is another example of where it’s necessary to rely on external information while interpreting the Bible.

I have an essay I wrote recently about why I think the authority of the Bible should never be allowed to overrule what we’re able to observe in the physical world. I posted it in the creation/evolution section a few months ago, but only two creationists replied to it, and neither of them tried to address what I said in the essay. I guess I could post it here, though; this section of CF seems to have a much higher concentration of creationists who are interested in debating.

 

[artybloke]

It's a clash of philosophies, nothing more.

So it's essentially nothing to do with Christianity then.

It's a modernistic, scientistic interpretation of scripture (fundamentalist literalism) verses an interpretation based on its literary status as ancient & ageless truth-telling myth (is that post-modernist? I don't know, possibly...)

 

[anonymous1515]

I have a lot more to say about how the Bible should be interpreted than what I said in my post about that verse, but most of it was already covered in what you posted. The point I was trying to make is just that this is another example of where it’s necessary to rely on external information while interpreting the Bible.

I have an essay I wrote recently about why I think the authority of the Bible should never be allowed to overrule what we’re able to observe in the physical world. I posted it in the creation/evolution section a few months ago, but only two creationists replied to it, and neither of them tried to address what I said in the essay. I guess I could post it here, though; this section of CF seems to have a much higher concentration of creationists who are interested in debating.

Yeah, please do post it! I'd like to read it at least.