What is reality, what foundation do you use for your beliefs?

StormyOne · Jul 12, 2010

So then Lao based on your response, what I am reading is that you interpret scientific findings (from whatever branch) through a biblical filter. Would that be a correct statement?

If there is a story in the bible that is told yet the scientific evidence suggests something different, you will side with the biblical narrative correct? Let me be clear, I am not referring to evolution or any of its tangents, I am referring to proof of particular stories, events or people....

Laodicean · Jul 12, 2010

StormyOne said:
So then Lao based on your response, what I am reading is that you interpret scientific findings (from whatever branch) through a biblical filter. Would that be a correct statement?

I think that would be correct. I don't expect the Biblical filter to have an answer to all data, but the basic premises of the Bible point me in a certain direction.

StormyOne said:
If there is a story in the bible that is told yet the scientific evidence suggests something different, you will side with the biblical narrative correct? Let me be clear, I am not referring to evolution or any of its tangents, I am referring to proof of particular stories, events or people....

That is the thing. Scientific data has no voice. It is silent, taking no sides. We come along and interpret the data and call it evidence for our interpretation. I'd like to elaborate further here, but truth to tell, I just ducked in here for a quick peek, and couldn't resist answering. My work day calls. Later then....

StormyOne · Jul 12, 2010

Laodicean said:
I think that would be correct. I don't expect the Biblical filter to have an answer to all data, but the basic premises of the Bible point me in a certain direction.

That is the thing. Scientific data has no voice. It is silent, taking no sides. We come along and interpret the data and call it evidence for our interpretation. I'd like to elaborate further here, but truth to tell, I just ducked in here for a quick peek, and couldn't resist answering. My work day calls. Later then....

see you later.... looking forward to exploring this with ya...

Byfaithalone1 · Jul 12, 2010

I'd love to hear more about the different ways that we answer this question:

Q: What foundation do you use for your beliefs?

BFA

AzA · Jul 12, 2010

Laodicean said:
So we should question even our experiences to a certain extent, if we are to remain sane. Discussing our basis for believing that we know might help clarify whether we really know or not.

I know that I am sitting down at the moment. What that means depends on the frame I'm using to interpret what I know. It is often helpful to forget that what I'm sitting on is more space than substance. But whether I remember or forget, I'm still sitting down on something.

AzA · Jul 12, 2010

Laodicean said:
That is the thing. Scientific data has no voice. It is silent, taking no sides. We come along and interpret the data and call it evidence for our interpretation.

Biblical data has no voice either. The books, being books, are silent. We apply a frame to the texts and out pops doctrine. It is a matter of belief that this is a guided process. And I have no problem with that belief; inspiration is inspiration. The clarity of the result is not necessarily a comment on the source.

Laodicean · Jul 12, 2010

AzA said:
Biblical data has no voice either. The books, being books, are silent. We apply a frame to the texts and out pops doctrine. It is a matter of belief that this is a guided process. And I have no problem with that belief; inspiration is inspiration. The clarity of the result is not necessarily a comment on the source.

Well, the way I see it is that the Bible is made up of words, which constitute a voice. Scientific data have no words. So there's a difference there.

sentipente · Jul 12, 2010

Laodicean said:
Well, the way I see it is that the Bible is made up of words, which constitute a voice. Scientific data have no words. So there's a difference there.

Why do you think that words are not data? The rocks speak. All nature speaks.

Laodicean · Jul 12, 2010

sentipente said:
Why do you think that words are not data? The rocks speak. All nature speaks.

Okay, good point. Data are the descriptions of physical items. But the rocks do not speak. They are silent.

I should have said that nature is silent. When a fossil is unearthed, it does not speak up and say, "I am a link between species A and species B." This is attributed to it by humans. They speak for the fossil and interpret it according to their worldview.

The Bible, however, is words that speak. We listen and try to understand.

StormyOne · Jul 13, 2010

Okay Lao, let's get more specific... the bible describes an event... when searching for evidence of that event, none can be found to support the biblical narrative. Do you go with the evidence or the biblical narrative?

StormyOne · Jul 13, 2010

Here is an interesting snippet from an article from Spectrum. I recommend that you read the article. Here is the blurb:

The presentation by Jim Gibson, Director of GRI, responded to the question, Do Millions of Years Solve the Problem? In a nutshell, his answer was no, but he carefully spelled out the reasons as follows.
When looking at the fossil record one realizes that Genesis cannot be a condensed version of time.
How about the suggestion that the fossil record could precede the special creation of Genesis? This so-called gap theory of the Scofield Bible does not work because there is no point in the fossil record where living organisms appear together.
What about putting the six literal days of creation millions of years ago? This wont work because of the way the fossils are sorted in the record. Faith has to be the key because there is not enough evidence to resolve the tension between science and the Bible; one has to believe the Bible without the support of science. Science works well when tests can be repeated; history is not testable in that way. Science is a closed system governed by physical laws so tension [with the Bible] has to be expected.
Could we consider a fourth way for long ages? Maybe God guided the process of theistic evolution. This view was unacceptable to Darwin himself. Otherwise you would have God guiding in birth defects, etc., so a God of the gaps approach does not seem helpful.

Yes, Creation!: Report III | Spectrum

The article to me shows the problem inherent with attempting to "prove" the bible narrative via science... While there shouldn't be a conflict, its clear when science provides information contrary to the bible narrative there are a lot of adventists who choose to reject the scientific evidence and cling to..... something...

sentipente · Jul 13, 2010

Laodicean said:
Okay, good point. Data are the descriptions of physical items. But the rocks do not speak. They are silent.

I should have said that nature is silent. When a fossil is unearthed, it does not speak up and say, "I am a link between species A and species B." This is attributed to it by humans. They speak for the fossil and interpret it according to their worldview.

The Bible, however, is words that speak. We listen and try to understand.

The words on the page are as silent as the rocks. Both the words and the rocks are representations of ideas.

Laodicean · Jul 13, 2010

StormyOne said:
Okay Lao, let's get more specific... the bible describes an event... when searching for evidence of that event, none can be found to support the biblical narrative. Do you go with the evidence or the biblical narrative?

A lack of evidence can't be considered as evidence against something. Maybe you meant to state your question differently? Or maybe you can give an example of an event that has no evidence?

Normally, in my daily living, if there is no evidence for something, I withhold judgment. But since we're talking about a book that has given sufficient evidence of its divine inspiration, I take by faith those accounts for which there is as yet no archaeological evidence. But, with the passing of time, archaeological digs do turn up more and more evidence for Biblical events, so I see no reason to discard those parts of Scripture that as yet have not been corroborated by physical discoveries.

Laodicean · Jul 13, 2010

StormyOne said:
Here is an interesting snippet from an article from Spectrum. I recommend that you read the article. Here is the blurb:

The presentation by Jim Gibson, Director of GRI, responded to the question, “Do Millions of Years Solve the Problem?” In a nutshell, his answer was “no,” but he carefully spelled out the reasons as follows.
When looking at the fossil record one realizes that Genesis cannot be a condensed version of time.
How about the suggestion that the fossil record could precede the “special creation” of Genesis? This so-called “gap theory” of the Scofield Bible does not work because there is no point in the fossil record where living organisms appear together.
What about putting the six literal days of creation millions of years ago? This won’t work because of the way the fossils are “sorted” in the record. Faith has to be the key because “there is not enough evidence to resolve the tension between science and the Bible; one has to believe the Bible without the support of science.” “Science works well when tests can be repeated; history is not testable in that way.” “Science is a closed system governed by physical laws so tension [with the Bible] has to be expected.”
Could we consider a fourth way for long ages? Maybe God guided the process of theistic evolution. This view was unacceptable to Darwin himself. Otherwise you would have God guiding in birth defects, etc., so “a God of the gaps” approach does not seem helpful.

Yes, Creation!: Report III | Spectrum

The article to me shows the problem inherent with attempting to "prove" the bible narrative via science... While there shouldn't be a conflict, its clear when science provides information contrary to the bible narrative there are a lot of adventists who choose to reject the scientific evidence and cling to..... something...

If Gibson is working with the evolutionists' interpretation of the fossil record, he will indeed have a hard time explaining it in any other sense than what they propose. There are other ways to look at the evidence.

One way is to recognize that the fossil record is not a result of a global flood. Chaotic, cataclysmic activity does not make for preservation of fossils. Quiet but rapid sedimentation will preserve fossils. And quiet sedimentation is definitely not what the 40 days and 40 nights of rain and the violent upheaval of the earth would produce. So where did the fossils come from?

For whatever it's worth, I would submit that, an alternative theory worth exploring is that evidence of a global flood lies at the bottom of the geological column, fossil fuel (oil) being an indication of what was once in existence at that level. The geological column can easily form in a few thousand years, through local flooding. And the fact that most of the layers of the column consist of only marine-type fossils, trilobites, brachiopods and the like, this need not be an indication of evolving species -- indeed, the Cambrian explosion refutes that -- but instead is further evidence of water covering the globe, in which, for a while, only marine life lived.

Surely, there are legitimate ways to view the data. I don't see why creation scientists must feel the need to build on the premises of evolutionists. If they do, they will always have problems explaining creation theory.

Laodicean · Jul 13, 2010

sentipente said:
The words on the page are as silent as the rocks. Both the words and the rocks are representations of ideas.

Words on a page represent the spoken word. What is there in rocks that represent speech?

StormyOne · Jul 13, 2010

Laodicean said:
A lack of evidence can't be considered as evidence against something. Maybe you meant to state your question differently? Or maybe you can give an example of an event that has no evidence?

Normally, in my daily living, if there is no evidence for something, I withhold judgment. But since we're talking about a book that has given sufficient evidence of its divine inspiration, I take by faith those accounts for which there is as yet no archaeological evidence. But, with the passing of time, archaeological digs do turn up more and more evidence for Biblical events, so I see no reason to discard those parts of Scripture that as yet have not been corroborated by physical discoveries.

Let's take the Exodus.... Till makes this argument:

The Sinai peninsula is about 150 miles long from north to south and about 120 miles across at its widest point. Since it is shaped like an arrowhead, it is much narrower in other places. The exodus stories ask us to believe that about 3 million people wandered in this wilderness for a period of 40 years, but how likely is it that 3 million people could do that in a relatively confined area without finding their way out of the wilderness?
Let's suppose that these 3 million traveled, say, 200 abreast, taking with them their tents, herds, and other possessions as they marched along. How long would this line of humanity have been? If they traveled this way, there would have been 15,000 rows, and if they had only 3 feet between the rows, they would have been strung out over a distance of almost 9 miles. However, it is unreasonable to think that people traveling with their tents and herds could have been compacted together with only 3 feet between the rows. So even if they had formed a horde of people and animals 20 miles long and had traveled only 20 miles per day, far enough for the people in the back to be out of the abandoned camp site before the front of the column stopped to make camp again, their 41 different encampments (Num. 33:5-49) would have moved them a minimum distance of 820 miles, which would have equaled about 7 transits across the Sinai peninsula. So they sometimes backtracked or traveled in circles, some inerrantist will say. Well, if so, why didn't they stay in the same encampments on their second or third trips through? Surely, there would have been some advantages in doing this, since the terrain would have already been prepared as camp sites, but all 41 encampments had different names, an indication that the writer(s) of Numbers thought that all of the locations were different.
Rather than seeing this part of the exodus story as an accurate historical account, it is more reasonable to think that the writer(s) resorted to excessive exaggeration (characteristic of ancient literature) without stopping to consider logistic requirements of moving a population of three million for 40 years through the settings of the wilderness wanderings.

The Skeptical Review Online - Camps: The Population Claims - Author Farrell Till

Read his complete argument then let's discuss....

Laodicean · Jul 13, 2010

StormyOne said:
Let's take the Exodus.... Till makes this argument:

The Skeptical Review Online - Camps: The Population Claims - Author Farrell Till

Read his complete argument then let's discuss....

There is an alternate and more persuasive location for the Exodus. The Sinai peninsula is not correct, and so it makes sense that there is no evidence for the exodus in that location. Saudi Arabia fits all the facts.

Try this source for a more compelling location.

Arabian Adventure: The Real Mt. Sinai? - Chuck Missler - Koinonia House

or google Jabal al Lawz or the names Bob Cornuke and Larry Williams, or The Search for the Real Mt. Sinai, Mountain of Fire.

There are two really good DVDs out on this subject, and until you have examined their evidence, I wouldn't settle for just the Skeptical Review Online, if I were you.

StormyOne · Jul 13, 2010

Laodicean said:
There is an alternate and more persuasive location for the Exodus. The Sinai peninsula is not correct, and so it makes sense that there is no evidence for the exodus in that location. Saudi Arabia fits all the facts.

Try this source for a more compelling location.

Arabian Adventure: The Real Mt. Sinai? - Chuck Missler - Koinonia House

or google Jabal al Lawz or the names Bob Cornuke and Larry Williams, or The Search for the Real Mt. Sinai, Mountain of Fire.

There are two really good DVDs out on this subject, and until you have examined their evidence, I wouldn't settle for just the Skeptical Review Online, if I were you.

You aren't me... I've read this before, there is some info at the end of my comments which you might find interesting, ... I don't agree with it at the moment because more scientists cannot confirm what they have published, so until there is independent confirmation, I place them in the same category as that fraud Wyatt... Having said that, here is the issue I have, and I have been pondering that long before I read Till... if you have hundreds of thousands of people marching around in the wilderness, there should be some evidence. Something, broken pottery, some trace, and there is none...

Dr. Reid attended a lecture given by Cornuke and afterwards, discussed with him one of the pieces of rock from the 'burnt top' of Jabel El Lawz (Cornuke's Mt. Sinai). Dr. Reid offered to have the rock analyzed to determine age, composition, nature of burn, etc. Cornuke declined. One wonders why. Cornuke, on his website, says that he got the rock with the intention of having it examined - yet declined when the offer came?? Why?

The first time I heard of Bob Cornuke was in conjunction with his claim to having found the Ark of the Covenant in Ethopia, and how he had obtained a copy of the Hebrew inscription on the Ark. A friend of mine, Dr. Ish Mudliar (OT professor, theologian, expert in ancient Northwest Semitic Philology) offered to examine the text to confirm the nature/age of the inscription. Cornuke and his associates declined the offer. Why?

(Both of these men can be googled and contacted if you have further questions.)

As I understand it, to date, Cornuke has not submitted any of his evidence to independent critical analysis by *any* organization or individual. Why?

Seems to me that Cornuke believes that their analysis will not corroborate his claims. So why bother collecting materials to "support" his claims - unless you need fodder to bolster DVD sales. But surely he's more substantive than that, right? We can hope.

There's nothing wrong with armchair archaeologists making claims. But Cornuke's wild claims coupled with his refusal to submit his findings to peer review and analysis explains why why credible institutions like Bible And Spade, Associates of Biblical Research, etc (people who do REAL archaeological work) consider Cornuke a fraud to be avoided. (Read their articles on him)

The Gold of Exodus by Howard Blum - BooksOnTheMove.com

Laodicean · Jul 14, 2010

StormyOne said:
here is the issue I have, and I have been pondering that long before I read Till... if you have hundreds of thousands of people marching around in the wilderness, there should be some evidence. Something, broken pottery, some trace, and there is none...

The Gold of Exodus by Howard Blum - BooksOnTheMove.com

The site in Saudi Arabia has evidence of human activity around the mountain called Jabal al Lawz. If you have not looked at the DVDs that contain actual footage of the findings, then you should withhold judgment until you do. There will always be doubters and scoffers over any new ideas, so to rely just on skeptical reports or the comments on a book review site will not allow you to arrive at what could be the real facts.

As to the Israelites leaving broken pottery behind, if they kept to the rules laid down for them about keeping their encampment clean, I'd expect that whenever they moved on, they left no mess behind. But that's just my opinion. For whatever it's worth.

StormyOne · Jul 14, 2010

Laodicean said:
The site in Saudi Arabia has evidence of human activity around the mountain called Jabal al Lawz. If you have not looked at the DVDs that contain actual footage of the findings, then you should withhold judgment until you do. There will always be doubters and scoffers over any new ideas, so to rely just on skeptical reports or the comments on a book review site will not allow you to arrive at what could be the real facts.

As to the Israelites leaving broken pottery behind, if they kept to the rules laid down for them about keeping their encampment clean, I'd expect that whenever they moved on, they left no mess behind. But that's just my opinion. For whatever it's worth.

What I would like to see is actual archaeologists go over the site and assess it, determine the dates of the artifacts found there etc.. Until then I'll remain on the skeptical side... so in essence they have the burden of proving that they are NOT frauds...

Even if the COI kept everything clean there would be evidence of people passing through....

What is reality, what foundation do you use for your beliefs?

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

NF | NT

NF | NT

Regular Member

Senior Contributor

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency