What if you are God?

juvenissun said:

Yes, YEC interprets. So is TE. We all interpret. What do you suggest we should do?

Click to expand...

Of course we all interpret. We all speculate too. Nothing wrong with that either, though it is good to recognise when you are speculating.

What I am suggesting is you don't attack TE for speculating about what God would do when YEC do the same themselves.

To be fair, let's simply go literal and do not interpret.

YEC is happy to see that happen. TE is not.

Click to expand...

Lets see, first I have to pretend a literal interpretation isn't an interpretation, then I have to pretend it is the right interpretation? Or is it the other way round? I am sure it would make YECs happy, it would just make my brain hurt.

Assyrian said:

Of course we all interpret. We all speculate too. Nothing wrong with that either, though it is good to recognise when you are speculating.

What I am suggesting is you don't attack TE for speculating about what God would do when YEC do the same themselves.


Lets see, first I have to pretend a literal interpretation isn't an interpretation, then I have to pretend it is the right interpretation? Or is it the other way round? I am sure it would make YECs happy, it would just make my brain hurt.

Click to expand...

So, we interpret even we read a line of text on its literal meaning. I agree.
Then for the type of knowledge which is not directly demonstrable by cause-consequence (science), how do we ever get a consensus. Or we need to consider a consensus is actually quantum in nature.

Good, I got it. Even we have to interpret Biblical words/verses, the interpretations can still be grouped together to have a cluster, statistical, or representative meaning. Then we have to make decision on which group of interpretation is correct or better. So, even YEC and TE are both interpretations, there would still be ONE which is correct or is better.

Hence, we have a reason to argue.

juvenissun said:

I did not think too much on what you said. But I accept it as a valid argument.

But, not the title of the OP.

Click to expand...

Hay im very sorry-This message was for sombody esle....and I had realized that my answer came under your view...as I tryed to delete my message..
Didnt mean to offend anyone.....
Sorry....

juvenissun said:

So, we interpret even we read a line of text on its literal meaning. I agree.
Then for the type of knowledge which is not directly demonstrable by cause-consequence (science), how do we ever get a consensus. Or we need to consider a consensus is actually quantum in nature.

Click to expand...

No idea what you mean by quantum here

However consensus is something we are working towards Eph 4:2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. ...
Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, which will in the end only come when we see him face to face 1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

There are views and issues which place those who hold them outside the body of Christ, like the deity of Christ, his resurrection. But within the body we can learn from each other, correcting what we see as their mistakes, or having our own misunderstandings corrected by others, and even more importantly, learning to love one another, and maintain the unity of the Spirit until we all meet face to face with our Lord.

Good, I got it. Even we have to interpret Biblical words/verses, the interpretations can still be grouped together to have a cluster, statistical, or representative meaning. Then we have to make decision on which group of interpretation is correct or better. So, even YEC and TE are both interpretations, there would still be ONE which is correct or is better.

Hence, we have a reason to argue.

Click to expand...

Which is what do

However you have to realise there is a reason YECs claim literalism is not an interpretation. Once you recognise there are other ways to interpret Genesis, then only a small fringe will cling to YEC, because science has shown us the interpretation is wrong. This is what happened with geocentrism. There are different ways to interpret the geocentric passages, though only because the church had come up with a radical rethink of the passages after Copernicus. But once there were alternatives, all but a small fringe went with the the interpretation that didn't contradict our scientific knowledge of reality.

But by all means start a thread where we can compare interpretations.

Assyrian said:

Once you recognise there are other ways to interpret Genesis, then only a small fringe will cling to YEC, because science has shown us the interpretation is wrong.

Click to expand...

I am a YEC because the science today is NOT GOOD ENOUGH to disprove YEC, and the Biblical verses sound in favor of YEC. (Of course it is based on interpretation. What else can I do?)

I say that with a degree of confidence because I study/learn science (not applied science) for all my life. To learn science is my mission on earth.

I have not read Big difference between God and gods. this totally thread but there is something to the fact of we are gods; even thought this scriptural fact goes against most peoples religion. I do not know what you think Adam is but I believe Adam was a son of God; just like Jesus. The difference being Adam was innocent; Jesus overcame all Adam failed at.

There are many names and descriptive titles of God in the scriptures. He is called Counselor, King, Shepherd, Rock, Shield, High Tower, Strong Arm, Savior, Redeemer, Father, Yahweh, Elohim, El Shaddai, El Elyon, Jesus (Yahshua), and many, many others. Someone has said that there are about two hundred names for God in the Bible! The moment one begins to splinter the absolute wholeness that God is, to examine all His multi-faceted aspects and attributes, the number of splinters are as infinite as God is infinite. Each name of God, as He progressively revealed Himself, was a fresh and fuller revelation of the nature of God. One was a revelation of His Self-existence, another of His might, another was the unveiling of His grace. One revealed something more of His wisdom, another of His holiness, another of His tenderness, another of His exaltation and honor, another of His judgment, and so on.

Psalm 82
1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (notice little “g” or Elohim)
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods (Elohim); and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

mooduck1 said:

Sorry... and this is relevant to this particular discussion in what way...?

Click to expand...

What is the name of the tread?????

mooduck1 said:

WOW! I have to confess that I am shocked that not a single person will even TRY to take the OP seriously! And Don't give me that - "well, Your not God so it's a stupid game" Stuff. If you post on these forms at all you spend a LOT of time explaining God - or your view of him to other people. IMO, most who posted with sarcasm only reveal the fear that they might have to change how they read scripture if they allow logical evil thoughts come in thier head.

Click to expand...

Ok. Can we also assume that as god, i don't give a fig whether my word is reliable and truthful? That would help me with the mental exercise.

juvenissun said:

I am a YEC because the science today is NOT GOOD ENOUGH to disprove YEC, and the Biblical verses sound in favor of YEC. (Of course it is based on interpretation. What else can I do?)

Click to expand...

Well you can examine science on its own terms, rather than searching for reasons to reject the science based on you religious interpretation. Science should be examined on the basis of an honest evaluation of the scientific evidence. Science stands on its own basis, and if the science is right we need to look at other interpretation of scripture. We cannot judge scientific data on the basis of which view we think the bible supports. If that were the case the church would never have left geocentrism, because that is the plain reading of the text.

I say that with a degree of confidence because I study/learn science (not applied science) for all my life. To learn science is my mission on earth.

Click to expand...

If you had been around at the time of Copernicus and interpreted the geocentric passages in the bible literally how much evidence would it have taken to convince you geocentrism was wrong? Or is it possible nothing would have convinced you geocentrism was falsified? Before Copernicus everyone interpreted the geocentric passages literally and believed the bible taught us that the sun went around the earth. At what stage should believers have started questioning their literal interpretation because science showed us the sun went round the earth?

Scientists started accepting Copernicus' heliocentrism simply because it gave a more elegant fit for the astronomical data. But geocentrists could fit the observed movements to their model too with enough epicycles, so the classic YEC response here is that it is not the data that supports heliocentrism it is simply your interpretation of data. Then heliocentrism got a major boost when Kepler and then Newton showed how the force of gravity could explain the laws of planetary motion, that it was the sun's gravity that pulled the planets in their elliptical orbits. The classic YEC response here would be that this is not observable science. No one had ever gone into space to show that gravity works there, or even that all the planets and the sun itself exerts a gravitational pull. For all we know gravity only works as we have always observed it and Aristotle said, pulling objects to earth. Of course science then came along and showed the rotation of the earth with Foucault's pendulum, but would a YEC have been convinced by a wandering pendulum? All that proves to someone who is not willing to admit their interpretation could be wrong is that pendulums wander, not that the earth rotates. How about when astronomers finally measured stellar parallax, and showing that the nearest stars change their apparent position as the earth orbits from one side of the sun to the other? Geocentrists did not think there should be parallax, but would that be enough evidence for a biblical geocentrist? Or would they simply say, 'So what? Just because some stars wobble it doesn't prove the bible was wrong about the sun going around the earth.'

The same zeal which you reject scientific evidence for the age of the earth could just as easily have been applied to rejecting heliocentrism. Should the church have kept on rejecting scientific evidence until Sputnik showed Newton's law of gravity works in space? Or should they have waited until Neil Armstrong stood on the moon and saw the earth rotating? How foolish would the church have looked if it was still preaching geocentrism as satellites and people orbit a spinning earth?

Or should the church have done what it did, accept the scientific evidence when it was clear to science that it supported heliocentrism, and look for alternative ways to understand scripture?

busterdog said:

Ok. Can we also assume that as god, i don't give a fig whether my word is reliable and truthful? That would help me with the mental exercise.

Click to expand...

The OP suggests a god who wants to teach people truth about himself and his creation of the universe, but you can play trickster god if you want.

Do you think a god who would "open his mouth in a parable ...utter dark sayings from of old" doesn't give a fig whether his word is reliable and truthful? (Psalm 78:2)

Assyrian said:

Well you can examine science on its own terms, rather than searching for reasons to reject the science based on you religious interpretation. Science should be examined on the basis of an honest evaluation of the scientific evidence. Science stands on its own basis, and if the science is right we need to look at other interpretation of scripture. We cannot judge scientific data on the basis of which view we think the bible supports.

Click to expand...

You are exactly right. This is what I have been doing in the past 30 years. I started as a science learner. I did not have a strong Biblical preference until about 6 or 7 years ago. I do not use Bible to justify science. I do the other way. I still open my faith to ANY scientific challenge. As I said many times. I may not know the answer to many (science) questions. But my challenger does not know either.

This is a matter of eternal life. I am not kidding on myself.

Assyrian said:

The same zeal which you reject scientific evidence for the age of the earth could just as easily have been applied to rejecting heliocentrism.

Click to expand...

This is just for me. I never "reject" the whole theory on the age of the earth. I worked on radiometric dating for 10 years (absolutely hate it) and I know the very details on how are those numbers coming from. I never reject any logical result from the very precise dating work, even I don't believe the age is true.

Geologist can never know the true meaning of the radiometric dating. The real nature of it belongs to the study of physics. Geologists are just waving those numbers around as if they know the truth. I accept that those numbers are applicable (so-called model age). But I don't think they are true ages.

As for paleontology, I still think the study is only a big game of classification. Even it is also an applicable study (such as paleo/modern environment; paleoclimate etc), but it could not be taken seriously in the exploration of truth.

You know the Pope was happy for Galileo to keep heliocentrism as a theoretical model as long as he didn't suggest that the calculated orbits of the planets and the earth represent their real movement. You seem to have the same approach to radiometric dating, all right to use as a model as long as you don't admit they give real ages.

But you don't answer my question. Would you have as staunchly refused to accept the reality of heliocentrism? And would you have been right to do so?

Assyrian said:

You know the Pope was happy for Galileo to keep heliocentrism as a theoretical model as long as he didn't suggest that the calculated orbits of the planets and the earth represent their real movement. You seem to have the same approach to radiometric dating, all right to use as a model as long as you don't admit they give real ages.

Click to expand...

The key is that we do not understand the nature of time. I am not a physicist. But I "believe" that we don't (according to their words). If we do not understand time, how could we really know what does the "age" mean?

But you don't answer my question. Would you have as staunchly refused to accept the reality of heliocentrism? And would you have been right to do so?

Click to expand...

I will answer it within your scope of view: If I were the pope, and and if I don't like the new "model", then I will reject it regardless. Because geocentrism or heliocentrism is not my concern and I do not "need" to verify which one is true. I have my mission, which is to maintain the authority of God. So I will "assume" the geocentrism is correct until the majority of the science community say otherwise. Even today, if I were only a farmer lived in a remote area, I don't really care which one is true either. As long as the sun apparently turns and gives seasons, geocentrism is perfect for me. I am not sure if it is true, but the model works for me.

The point of my reply is: unless we are at the position and are able to explore the correctness of the model, we can use any model as long as it satisfy our needs, but to remember that it is only a model, not a known truth. The farmer can question the validity of geocentrism. But he probably won't be able to tell one from another by the time of his death. If he sticked with the geocentrism, God will tell him: Good Faith.

I understand radiometric dating is a solid model. I work with it, but I don't believe it is true.

juvenissun said:

The key is that we do not understand the nature of time. I am not a physicist. But I "believe" that we don't (according to their words). If we do not understand time, how could we really know what does the "age" mean?

Click to expand...

Even if we do not understand the nature of time, whatever a 'year' is, isn't a million years simply a million times longer? You seem to be looking for irrelevancies to hide behind. Do crocodiles understand the nature of time? Hardly. But is there any reason to think time passed any differently for a Triassic mesosuchus than it does for modern crocodile? For an australopithicus or a chimp? Regardless of the nature of time, is there any reason to think a grandfather clock built in the Jurassic would not tick out approximately 24 hours in a day?

I will answer it within your scope of view: If I were the pope, and and if I don't like the new "model", then I will reject it regardless.

Click to expand...

I don't think him being pope had that much to do with it, you do the same thing without being pope. The only difference was he spoke for an entire denomination while you simply have to come up with these answers for yourself. But your approach to science and scripture is the same. As I said he didn't mind heliocentrism being taught as a model, just it being taught as true. You treat radiometric dating the same way.

Because geocentrism or heliocentrism is not my concern and I do not "need" to verify which one is true. I have my mission, which is to maintain the authority of God. So I will "assume" the geocentrism is correct until the majority of the science community say otherwise. Even today, if I were only a farmer lived in a remote area, I don't really care which one is true either. As long as the sun apparently turns and gives seasons, geocentrism is perfect for me. I am not sure if it is true, but the model works for me.

The point of my reply is: unless we are at the position and are able to explore the correctness of the model, we can use any model as long as it satisfy our needs, but to remember that it is only a model, not a known truth. The farmer can question the validity of geocentrism. But he probably won't be able to tell one from another by the time of his death. If he sticked with the geocentrism, God will tell him: Good Faith.

I understand radiometric dating is a solid model. I work with it, but I don't believe it is true.

Click to expand...

The religious debate over heliocentrism was exactly the same as your concern about YEC. Geocentrists saw their mission as maintaining the authority of God and scripture too. Christians in Copernicus' day read the bible literally where it talked about the the earth not moving or the sun going around the earth and stopping at Joshua's command. They knew that this was how every church father and commentator in the history of the church read the literal meaning of these verses. They saw heliocentrism as challenging the authority of God. Now what the church actually did, was pretty much as you suggested "assume geocentrism is correct until the majority of the science community said otherwise."

But I don't understand why you think you would "assume geocentrism is correct until the majority of the science community say otherwise". That is not how you approach the age of the earth. Scientists, not just the majority but the overwhelming majority, have accepted the age of the earth for centuries. You are still stuck with Pope Urban VIII saying it is all right as a model as long as you don't have to say it is true.

Assyrian said:

But I don't understand why you think you would "assume geocentrism is correct until the majority of the science community say otherwise". That is not how you approach the age of the earth. Scientists, not just the majority but the overwhelming majority, have accepted the age of the earth for centuries. You are still stuck with Pope Urban VIII saying it is all right as a model as long as you don't have to say it is true.

Click to expand...

Church to geocentrism, is similar to
Scientist to radiometric dating.

I have the faith of Copernicus, regard to the nature of radiometric dating.

------

I don't believe the number 1E6 given by the dating computer is the same as one million times an year.
I wish I could do what Copernicus did by giving a new model. But, I am not a physicist. Sigh... (it was my dream when I was in high school)

I know YEC like to compare themselves to scientific visionaries like Copernicus and persecuted Galileo, but the heliocentrists were able to produce evidence to support their views, their heliocentrism was a better for the evidence than geocentrism, and science progressed, more and more evidence supported heliocentrism, just as it has done with the age of the earth and evolution.

The real comparison is between YEC and geocentrism. Both of which are traditional literal interpretations of scripture which were contradicted by science. This is a really important lesson YECs need to learn from the geocentric debate: how the church can deal with scientific developments that contradict traditional interpretations.

As I have said before we have a major advantage over the church in Copernicus' time because there have always been non literal interpretations of Genesis, as well, we have scriptural precedence for days being used non literally. The church in Copernicus' time did not have any of that. No one had ever suggested the geocentric passages were not meant literally and ideas like 'observational language' was unheard of. Instead the church took what they learned from science, and went back to the geocentric passages to examine them from scratch to see where the traditional literal interpretation had gone wrong. YECs do well to do the same.

I have the faith of Copernicus, regard to the nature of radiometric dating.

Click to expand...

Copernicus would have gone with the scientific evidence, and he wasn't afraid to challenge traditional interpretations of scripture, posthumously anyway.

Assyrian said:

The real comparison is between YEC and geocentrism. Both of which are traditional literal interpretations of scripture which were contradicted by science. This is a really important lesson YECs need to learn from the geocentric debate: how the church can deal with scientific developments that contradict traditional interpretations.
...

Copernicus would have gone with the scientific evidence, and he wasn't afraid to challenge traditional interpretations of scripture, posthumously anyway.

Click to expand...

It is different.

Did it take science a few hundreds of years to actually prove the simple idea of heliocentrism (Until we can make ourselves into the air? )?

I don't think science could ever understand the nature of time (when you get into it, I think one has to deal with problems like multiple universes etc.). So I don't think the radiometric dating MODEL would be proven true anytime in the future.

And I do think the time is on my side. The more we know science, the more literally true Gen 1 and Noah's Flood will become. I have demonstrated several such examples in my Science in Bible series.