(November 12, 2009 at 2:27 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(November 12, 2009 at 1:20 pm)Saerules Wrote:

rjh4 Wrote:I am a young earth creationist and think that the fossil record (or at least the bulk of it as I would not rule out some of it being the result of local catastrophic events) is a result of the flood of the Bible

That one

We have enough evidence for evolution to put our evidence for it to the level of something like gravity... you know: FACT. o.o

The fossils are cited because you think they all are the same age. This is ridiculous ^_^ As with evolution and gravity: FACT. o.o

Wiki on flood myth Wrote:The biblical deluge
[edit]Flood geology
Main article: Flood geology
Proponents of flood geology contend that the biblical deluge, Noah's ark, is to be taken literally in which most observed geological processes, like fossilization and sedimentary strata, are a later result of this event.
While some people hold the belief there was a worldwide flood, flood geology itself has been rejected by mainstream geologists, biologists, and historians, many of whom consider it pseudoscience.[24] Though at one time even prominent workers in biblical archaeology were willing to argue support for flood geology,[25][26] this view is no longer widely held.[27]
[edit]

And it did not happen. This is a FACT. o.o

I ask you to cite some specific thing we observe today that you think it contradicts the Bible in some way and this is what you come up with!! Evolution insofar as it means common descent is a conclusion/interpretation that extrapolates from the kind of changes we see today. It is not something we observe today. Has anyone observed a dog change into anything other than a dog? Even when one hits fruitflies with radiation to mutate their DNA, does one get anything other than messed up or dead fruitflies? The fact that this is the kind of thing we observe is more consistent with biblical creation than with common descent.

As for the fossils, yes I do think they (or most of them) are the same age. You say this is ridiculous. Why don't you take me through the process of dating them step by step and we can discuss where I would take issue with the process.

Just saying the flood did not happen doesn't make it so. No matter how many times you say it. Again, if you want to discuss specifics, I am happy to do so but the generalizations are not helpful to either of us. So many of the people here say they are skeptics and freethinkers but never want to question current scientific thought, only Biblical thinking. Interesting.

I thought this kind of thinking went out with the ark....

But seriously it takes some serious self delusion to still believe in young earth creation.

And anyway, to see a process that takes thousands of years to happen TAKES THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF LOOKING.
To demand to see speciation in real time is cheating and you know it.
Major changes within a species have been observed happening, is it really such a stretch to say that over time the ability to mate goes and new species arise.

(November 12, 2009 at 9:43 am)rjh4 Wrote: I am a young earth creationist and think that the fossil record (or at least the bulk of it as I would not rule out some of it being the result of local catastrophic events) is a result of the flood of the Bible. God and the Bible as the word of God are my starting point for my analysis of reality. Observational science is really good for explaining the universe that God created and I have not seen nor heard of a scientific observation that would necessarily contradict the Bible. To a very large degree, historical science, particularly as it relates to origins, is taking observations and extrapolating to the unobserved past and, therefore, the conclusions reached by scientists will reflect their own bias and presuppositions. So insofar as the conclusions/interpretations made by these scientists conflict with the Bible...I will go with the Bible. I think that this world view explains reality better and is more consistent than any other world view. Are there still questions that I can't answer? Certainly, but I think there are unanswerable questions for any world view.

As for me I am a theistic evolutionist. The bible obviously needs to be interpreted in some way since if it wasn't one would get alot of funny ideas (eg: if you didnt read psalms knowing what poetry is it could be difficult). I also think that I should interpret the bible to the best of my knowledge, and this includes science. Science tells us the big bang happened and that the world is old therefore Genesis cannot be literal. For me I think there is much more meaning in Genesis if you dont take it literally.

I see what you are saying about extrapolating what they see now, but I think there is more to it then that. The big bang theory predicts what the universe should look like if it is true, and the universe does look like that prediction.

(November 14, 2009 at 1:02 pm)solarwave Wrote: As for me I am a theistic evolutionist. The bible obviously needs to be interpreted in some way since if it wasn't one would get alot of funny ideas (eg: if you didnt read psalms knowing what poetry is it could be difficult). I also think that I should interpret the bible to the best of my knowledge, and this includes science.

When I first became a Christian, I thought a lot about theistic evolution. I do not hold to is as it seems to me to create inconsistencies. For example the Bible at Romans 5:12 seems to say that death came into the world because of Adam's sin. Theistic evolution seems to say that death existed long before man even entered on the the scene. How do you address such issues?

(November 14, 2009 at 1:02 pm)solarwave Wrote: For me I think there is much more meaning in Genesis if you dont take it literally.

What do you mean?

The problem is that if you take Genesis to be actual truth simply because it is written in the bible then what about other factual errors such as...

Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree."

There are 2 significant errors here, first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees.

or..

Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."

Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.

or..

Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

Fowls do not go upon all fours

and finally..

Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."

Hare do not chew the cud.

You see, to me, these and others are clear examples that the Bible is not the inspired word of God but instead has been written by fallible humans who did not possess any knowledge that was not available at the time and in some cases obviously possessed less. Would God make such a basic mistake as calling the mustard seed the 'least' and saying that it would grow into a tree? No, of course not.

If the numerous authors of the Bible can make such basic and serious mistakes how on earth can they be trusted to answer some of the most profound and important questions accurately?

(November 11, 2009 at 1:18 am)Arcanus Wrote: My beliefs are nearly identical to Matt's as well—at least, on the stuff of his I've read covering specific orthodoxy (e.g., soteriology, the branch of theology that deals with salvation).

Am I a literal Bible believer? It depends on what you mean by "literal"—an important point to consider (especially in this place) because the term is often used pejoratively rather than responsibly. To interpret the Bible literally involves scholarly hermeneutics, a responsible exegesis that is conscious of theological themes and the details of the historical, linguistic, and textual context. If we held "literal" in its often pejorative sense with consistency, then the Bible has nothing to say to anybody today because, for example, Paul's two letters to the Christians in Corinth were written, well, to those Christians in Corinth. Christians in other places would have to ignore the letters, and even those in Corinth would have to ignore them a generation later because they were written to their predecessors, not them. What is often meant by "literal" turns out to be silly and unsustainable.

The Bible means what it says, and it says what it means. That's basically how we take the Bible "literally." Historical accounts are taken "literally" as historical, theological expositions are taken "literally" as theological, poetic praises are taken "literally" as poetic, etc.

Truly my fault for not being more specific with the question I asked in, "Do you take the Bible literally". I was referring in means of today's "Christian" core belief.

I agree that it would take scholarly hermeneutics if one is trying to define literal meanings and passages to those who take the core belief literal, but I do not agree that it takes that to simply read the Bible and have a rational, logical opinion about what is read.

Anyone who throws the term, "You're not a scholar, so you don't know what you are talking about" is only trying to make something more complex/complicated. And when referring that to someone's belief in this particular manuscript, it fits like a glove. You can do the same with poetic writing and branch off a million interpretations of the poets meaning, but in the end, it's still an opinion of someones interpretation.

I understand what you are meaning in, "The Bible says what it means, and means what it says". But then you have "Scholars", like you brought up, trying to give you their interpretations of what the "Bible" is actually meaning. (And of course your ever day televangelist/preacher/priest etc. as well). Again, simply people trying to make the Bible more complicated than it actually is.

I'm not going to go into the silliness of asking you, "Do you believe in the tales of Noah's ark, Johannah and the Whale, Samson and Delilah, Sodom and Gomorrah, David and Goliath, Adam and Eve, Red Sea parting", etc. etc. etc. (I'm sure you know the stories by now)..

I will make this as simple as I can..."Do you believe in the "God" of the Christian Bible? Do you believe in Jesus and the Bible's breakdowns of his life, start to finish? Do you believe in a Hell from which the Bible has written? Do you believe in John's breakdowns of Revelation?

(November 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm)Darwinian Wrote: Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree."

There are 2 significant errors here, first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees.

Answer

(November 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm)Darwinian Wrote: or..

Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."

Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.

Answer

(November 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm)Darwinian Wrote: or..

Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

Fowls do not go upon all fours

See the following from Answers
“Critics commonly attack the Bible by appealing to the ideas of secular scientists. They seek to show how a Bible passage departs from modern scientific thought. For instance, Moses says insects have four legs, whereas we know they have six. Leviticus 11:20–23 says, “All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind.”
In fact, we use the phrase “on all fours” in a similar manner. It refers to the action of the creature—walking around—rather than the complete inventory of the creature’s feet. In reality, the Bible is very precise in describing locusts and similar insects. Such insects do indeed have four legs with which to “creep” and another two legs with which to “leap.”
In most cases like these, you can point out the absurdity of assuming that the author forgot what a bird looks like or miscounted the legs on a grasshopper. Moses, trained in pharaoh’s court, was one of the most educated men of his day.”

(November 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm)Darwinian Wrote: and finally..

Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."

Hare do not chew the cud.

Hare and cud

Taking the Bible literally means taking it for what was meant, not taking it for what it would mean to us if written today.

The Mustard Seed..

(November 14, 2009 at 5:43 pm)rjh4 Wrote: Answer

It seems to me that you are trying to read God's mind and work out what he 'really meant'. Why not just say that the mustard seed is 'one of the smallest' instead if that's what was meant. If you are saying that Jesus was just making a point then he did not intend for a literal interpretation of his story. This begs the question, how many other parts of the Bible are not meant to be taken literally? Genesis for example?

To liken the statement as a 'figure of speech' does not work as there is no reason to suspect that it was intended in this way. It seems clear that it was a statement of fact. The analogy between the marbles and the seed also makes no sense as it is obvious that one cannot have a million marbles in a lunchbox but stating that the mustard seed is the smallest (or least) of all, seems, on the face of it, quite reasonable.

The whole point of a 'figure of speech' is that it is obviously not so. For example, "That was a piece of cake". Therefore this particular hypothesis can be disregarded.

The fact that the explanation for this particular parable runs to nearly 3,000 words shows exactly the sort of mental gymnastics that must be entertained in order to offer some kind of meaningful explanation to, what is in reality a plain and simple error which can easily be explained by the Bible being a work of the human imagination.

Flat Earth...

rjh4 Wrote:Answer

The explanation for this seems to be that the devil uses supernatural powers to show Jesus all of these kingdoms. Doesn't say that though does it when it so easily could. It's not as if the Bible shies away from using supernatural explanations elsewhere in its texts.

Simple Answer:- This was written at a time and by people who assumed that the Earth was flat.

Fowls do not go upon all fours.

rjh4 Wrote:See the following from Answers

All this seems to be saying is that the Bible doesn't actually mean what it says. It either means all fours or it doesn't. You can't say that when it says all fours it's simply referring to the act of walking on the ground. You shouldn't take it literally!! I agree..

Hares do not chew the cud.

rjh4 Wrote:Hare and cud

This is simply ridiculous. How anyone at the time these passages were written would or even could have known this and therefore understood this verse as explained here is non-nonsensical.

To conclude, all that I have read here seems to lead to the conclusion that you should not take anything that you read in the Bible as absolute truth. Genesis should be no exception to this.

(November 14, 2009 at 3:00 pm)rjh4 Wrote: When I first became a Christian, I thought a lot about theistic evolution. I do not hold to is as it seems to me to create inconsistencies. For example the Bible at Romans 5:12 seems to say that death came into the world because of Adam's sin. Theistic evolution seems to say that death existed long before man even entered on the the scene. How do you address such issues?

I take death there to mean spiritual death not physical death. I would guess before that everything was in relationship with God as it should be, but after the first sin spiritual death entered the world.

Quote:

(November 14, 2009 at 1:02 pm)solarwave Wrote: For me I think there is much more meaning in Genesis if you dont take it literally.

What do you mean?

The interpretation of Genesis now (which I read from Keith Ward) seems to have more meaning behind it than taking it literally. It tells us more about the world.