Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[BrianJK]

If the radiocarbon system was flawed, why would it ever match the rate of tree ring growth? Not to mention that while it's a common means, it's not the only means. Varve layers from lakes work, too, as do recently formed carbonate deposits. These and other techniques can be used to cross check, and they match up.

It would match up because they calibrate off each other. And these systems can be proven only so long as there is an history of using them. When you begin to assign dates that are far older, you assign them with the assumption that the decay/deposit/growth rate stays the same over that length of time.

 

[OllieFranz]

I apologize if I've insulted you. That was not my intent.



I can't attest to why several elements might give you similar misleading results. But if you guys say they do, I'll take your word for it. However, I see a few choices here.

1) God didn't mean what He said and was misleading the readers when He said He created all in six days and rested on the seventh, then told the readers to likewise labor six days and rest one. It would also be misleading when He said that by one man many were doomed when sin entered the world and by one Man many shall be saved from sin.

2) God meant what He said and was misleading by setting traps of similar wrong leads within the design of nature for people who aren't satisfied with the Word and feel a need for corroborating evidence.

3) God meant what He said and fallen people have, because they first rejected His teachings, found ways to explain away the truths the Bible teaches, thereby also misleading some believers in the process. Not misleading to damnation by any means, since acknowledgement of a time-frame has nothing to do with salvation, but misleading nonetheless.

Those are the only three options I can see. Option three sounds most likely to me.

I see a fourth option: God meant what He said when He inspired men with the spiritual truths He wanted them to pass on, and He chose these men because they were part of the culture and spoke and wrote in and their readers would be able to relate. He did not dictate exactly what they wrote, and so they assumed the same legendary history as the rest of their culture.

And God gave us brains to use, and inspired Paul to tell us to use them to study nature. He would not tell us to do so, and then either "trick" us with a fake "maturity" or history. Nor would He cause all of our measuring instruments to fail, and at the same time give the same wrong result.

 

[BrianJK]

I see a fourth option: God meant what He said when He inspired men with the spiritual truths He wanted them to pass on, and He chose these men because they were part of the culture and spoke and wrote in and their readers would be able to relate. He did not dictate exactly what they wrote, and so they assumed the same legendary history as the rest of their culture.

And God gave us brains to use, and inspired Paul to tell us to use them to study nature. He would not tell us to do so, and then either "trick" us with a fake "maturity" or history. Nor would He cause all of our measuring instruments to fail, and at the same time give the same wrong result.

And where do you get all this information about what God would and would not do?

 

[lasthero]

It would match up because they calibrate off each other. And these systems can be proven only so long as there is an history of using them. When you begin to assign dates that are far older, you assign them with the assumption that the decay/deposit/growth rate stays the same over that length of time.

If the rates varied widely and changed randomly, the dates would never match. But they do.

Never mind that you're not proposing any mechanism that actually cause so many things to change in such a drastic way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would match up because they calibrate off each other. And these systems can be proven only so long as there is an history of using them. When you begin to assign dates that are far older, you assign them with the assumption that the decay/deposit/growth rate stays the same over that length of time.

No, that is not necessarily the case. Most C14 calibrations do not use any other sort of radiometric dating.

Perhaps it would help if it was explained to you why we knew the Flood story was a myth long before Darwin came along. You could read this article, it is a good starting point:

History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

Remember, radiometric dating is only one small part of the evidence debunking your fairy tale. It is also debunked by genetics. The same science that allows us to see if "YOU ARE THE FATHER!!" and convict and free criminals tells us that there was no flood. There is no worldwide population bottleneck that is demanded by your myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And where do you get all this information about what God would and would not do?

Almost all of us agree that God would not lie. The Bible is a book written by men and interpreted by men. The interpretation that the Bible is the "divine word of God" is simply another misinterpretation of the Bible. There are two many flaws for the Bible to be that. Forget the evidence of the Earth and biology that shows Genesis to be wrong for now. Take a look at the hundreds of contradictions in the Bible:


BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

What evidence do you have that supports your views?

 

[TLK Valentine]

And where do you get all this information about what God would and would not do?

Where do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where do you?

From the Bible.

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

 

[bhsmte]

Would you expect any less?

Absolutely not. Very predictable.

 

[BrianJK]

Almost all of us agree that God would not lie. The Bible is a book written by men and interpreted by men. The interpretation that the Bible is the "divine word of God" is simply another misinterpretation of the Bible. There are two many flaws for the Bible to be that. Forget the evidence of the Earth and biology that shows Genesis to be wrong for now. Take a look at the hundreds of contradictions in the Bible:


BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

What evidence do you have that supports your views?

Well you have posted so much information that others have gathered that it would take me quite a long time to sift through it all and formulate responses. I guess I could just post something others had written too, but that would be futile, wouldn't it?

There are no contradictions in the Bible. If you have one in mind, I would be glad to discuss it. If you just want to flood anyone who doesn't believe as you do with reams of objections to bog them down, then it's not really a discussion, is it?

 

[bhsmte]

Well you have posted so much information that others have gathered that it would take me quite a long time to sift through it all and formulate responses. I guess I could just post something others had written too, but that would be futile, wouldn't it?

There are no contradictions in the Bible. If you have one in mind, I would be glad to discuss it. If you just want to flood anyone who doesn't believe as you do with reams of objections to bog them down, then it's not really a discussion, is it?

Brian,

If you actually claim there are no contradictions in the bible, you either have not read it in even the most minimal objective manner. Or, you have read it and are simply in denial that they exist.

These many contradictions have been pointed out on this site numerous times.

 

[BrianJK]

Brian,

If you actually claim there are no contradictions in the bible, you either have not read it in even the most minimal objective manner. Or, you have read it and are simply in denial that they exist.

These many contradictions have been pointed out on this site numerous times.

Usually "pointed out" in the forms of links to anti-Christian websites with hundreds of what basically come down to word games.

Like phrases like "search my heart" not actually being about searching a blood-pumping organ. Really?

 

[lasthero]

Usually "pointed out" in the forms of links to anti-Christian websites with hundreds of what basically come down to word games.

Like phrases like "search my heart" not actually being about searching a blood-pumping organ. Really?

Where did you hear that one?

 

[bhsmte]

Usually "pointed out" in the forms of links to anti-Christian websites with hundreds of what basically come down to word games.

Like phrases like "search my heart" not actually being about searching a blood-pumping organ. Really?

No, pointed out by quoting the bible directly. The words are the words, no getting around that.

 

[BrianJK]

No, pointed out by quoting the bible directly. The words are the words, no getting around that.

I have seen nothing contradictory so far

 

[OllieFranz]

And where do you get all this information about what God would and would not do?

Can you be more specific. What exactly are you questioning about the power and the benevelence of God?

Are you saying that He is a trickster god? Or that the Holy Spirit does not have the ability to indwell believers, teaching them, and transforming them?

Somehow I don't think that's what you mean. But I can't answer your question if I don't know what it is.

 

[BrianJK]

Can you be more specific. What exactly are you questioning about the power and the benevelence of God?

Are you saying that He is a trickster god? Or that the Holy Spirit does not have the ability to indwell believers, teaching them, and transforming them?

Somehow I don't think that's what you mean. But I can't answer your question if I don't know what it is.

I am questioning not God's power or His love, but man's idea of what those things should be.

We often ask "What would Jesus do?" But that projects our own ideas of what we think He should be doing on God. Better would be to ask "What did Jesus do?"

Same thing here.

 

[bhsmte]

I have seen nothing contradictory so far

Well, you need to look again.

 

[OllieFranz]

From the Bible.

But he adds to what the Bible says.

The Bible says it was written by inspiration of God and is profitable for the teaching of righteousness.

Brian says that it was written by the very word of God, and is inerrant in every way, and if it disagrees with nature, then nature is wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

I am questioning not God's power or His love, but man's idea of what those things should be.

We often ask "What would Jesus do?" But that projects our own ideas of what we think He should be doing on God. Better would be to ask "What did Jesus do?"

Same thing here.

Well, when Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all penned by anonymous authors and written 30-70 years after Jesus lived (and we have no original NT texts in existence), it is not exactly an easy task to determine what Jesus did and what Jesus actually said with any degree of confidence. Even christian historians and scholars agree that a good percentage of what the NT attributes to Jesus is not reliable and some of the stories were likely just made up.