Jump to content


Photo

Verses That Make You Go Hmmm...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
67 replies to this topic

#41 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 03 September 2009 - 08:17 PM

Meaning that the closer you get to God, the better you understand how to be less selfish, less self centered, and more God centered. Your hearts desires become more like the desires that were displayed by Christ (who was God in flesh). God doesn’t change anything you don’t want changed (hence free will), but that comes with consequences as well. Your free will plays into everything you do, or choose not to do. God may be leading you in one direction, and you may decide not to go that way (See Jonah for example, or Peter prior to his maturing). He (God) won’t make you do the right thing; He will only urge you to do the right thing.

He will do this for anyone, but not everyone will listen and follow.

View Post



Hmmm...that works for me.


P.S. That's why it called "free will".  :)


REALLY!?! :P ...... :lol:

#42 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 09 September 2009 - 04:58 AM

Hmmm...that works for me. 
REALLY!?! :o ...... :lol:

View Post


Yes... :)

#43 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 21 September 2009 - 09:33 PM

I'm curious about different scientific issues in regard to biblical intepretation.

I understand that creationism is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, which creationist science seems to support. But how should planetary motions in the Bible be interpreted. Is the Earth static and the Sun moves around it? Is the Earth at the center of the Solar System, not the Sun?

How should I interpret the following quotes; 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua 10:12-14?


1 Chronicles 16:30

Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

Psalm 93:1

The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength.
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved
.

Psalm 96:10

Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns."
The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved;
he will judge the peoples with equity.

Psalm 104:5

He set the earth on its foundations;
it can never be moved
.

Ecclesiastes 1:5

The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.

Joshua 10:12-14

On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."

So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on [b] its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!



#44 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 September 2009 - 03:49 AM

I'm curious about different scientific issues in regard to biblical intepretation.

View Post

Hi Loungehead,

I merged your topic with this thread because the OP answers your question:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=38067

Welcome to EFT. :P

#45 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 22 September 2009 - 04:00 AM

Thanks. Looks like there is heaps here that answers my question. :P

#46 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 24 September 2009 - 10:27 PM

I've reviewed the thread and the suggestion seems to be the verses I have cited refer to the immovability of the Earth's foundations as something permenant.

What foundations does this refer too? Is it orbital position, motion, gravitational field of the planet? Or is something more fundamental like quantum physics?

How should I interpret the immovability in relation to statements about the Sun moving?

On the one hand I can see how statements about the Sun can be interpreted, from the perspective of Earth, so rise and falling make sense. But in terms of Joshua where the Sun stands still, how is it to be intepreted? Did the Earth stop moving gving the appearance the Sun had stopped?

#47 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 September 2009 - 04:36 AM

Hi Loungehead,

I don't have time to offer a proper response but since there are groups that actually believe in a literal geocentric view of scripture there is some interesting articles dealing with this issue and looking at both sides. Take a look and maybe we can discuss these in a new thread:

http://www.answersin...geocentrism.asp

http://www.answersin...rism_review.asp

The main thing we can focus on in this thread is the way AiG (an outfit who takes Genesis literally) expounds on the linguistic capacity of all to recognize the literal meaning of scripture without being pedantic based on the evidence.

#48 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 25 September 2009 - 03:41 PM

The main thing we can focus on in this thread is the way AiG (an outfit who takes Genesis literally) expounds on the linguistic capacity of all to recognize the literal meaning of scripture without being pedantic based on the evidence.

Okay.

Just to clarify, I do not think the evidence is that important, at least not yet, until the intepretative method is established, which is why I am interested in how intepretation is to be approached. I'm not looking to prove anything, I just want to know how biblical intepretation works in relation to science. I'm not interested in arguments about how science supposedly "disproves" the Bible. I find those sort of discussions absurd, because the Bible isn't something to be proven or disproven.

Thanks, I'll have a look at those links.

#49 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 September 2009 - 05:53 PM

Okay.

Just to clarify, I do not think the evidence is that important, at least not yet, until the intepretative method is established, which is why I am interested in how intepretation is to be approached.  I'm not looking to prove anything, I just want to know how biblical intepretation works in relation to science.  I'm not interested in arguments about how science supposedly "disproves" the Bible.  I find those sort of discussions absurd, because the Bible isn't something to be proven or disproven.

Thanks, I'll have a look at those links.

View Post

It may be that the truthfulness of the Bible isn't for the likes of you to address, but others can and have undertaken to verify the claims. It has withstood more scrutiny than any other group of writings in history, quite likely more than all other writings put together. I doubt I am the only one satisfied to see critics are still reduced to quibbling equivocations.

As for interpretation, interpreting reality is science. If the goal be anything other than to find out the truth, the process is not science.

#50 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 25 September 2009 - 06:12 PM

It may be that the truthfulness of the Bible isn't for the likes of you to address, but others can and have undertaken to verify the claims. It has withstood more scrutiny than any other group of writings in history, quite likely more than all other writings put together. I doubt I am the only one satisfied to see critics are still reduced to quibbling equivocations.

As for interpretation, interpreting reality is science. If the goal be anything other than to find out the truth, the process is not science.

View Post

I'm not interested in the truthfulness or falsity of the Bible, so I'll leave that to others if they feel they need to prove or disprove the Bible.

As for withstanding scrutiny. Buddhist text have undergone heavy scrutiny longer than the Bible and across a larger area. Not that this means anything, so I'm not sure what you're getting at with "levels of scrutiny". I believe navel gazing probably takes the cup for longest running subject of scrutiny.

Intepretation of reality is science. But if you paid attention I'm interest in Biblical intepretation in relation to science, because I'm sick of all the stupid arguments about science proves or disporves such-and-such about the Bible.

In my understanding, the Bible is a spiritual text, not scientific, so when the Bible says the Earth is immovable it obviously isn't refering to its elliptical orbit.

Please contribute something more constructive to the discussion, because I'm here to learn about Biblical intepretation. I'm not looking for a fight.

#51 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 September 2009 - 07:43 PM

I'm not interested in the truthfulness or falsity of the Bible, so I'll leave that to others if they feel they need to prove or disprove the Bible.

As for withstanding scrutiny.  Buddhist text have undergone heavy scrutiny longer than the Bible and across a larger area.  Not that this means anything, so I'm not sure what you're getting at with "levels of scrutiny".  I believe navel gazing probably takes the cup for longest running subject of scrutiny.

Intepretation of reality is science.  But if you paid attention I'm interest in Biblical intepretation in relation to science, because I'm sick of all the stupid arguments about science proves or disporves such-and-such about the Bible. 

In my understanding, the Bible is a spiritual text, not scientific, so when the Bible says the Earth is immovable it obviously isn't refering to its elliptical orbit.

Please contribute something more constructive to the discussion, because I'm here to learn about Biblical intepretation.  I'm not looking for a fight.

View Post


http://www.aboutbudd...f-buddhism.htm/

The founder of Buddhism in this world is Buddha Shakyamuni. He was born as a royal prince in 624 BC in a place called Lumbini, which was originally in northern India but is now part of Nepal. ‘Shakya’ is the name of the royal family into which he was born, and ‘Muni’ means ‘Able One’.

From what I can tell, you're here to publish propaganda like so many of the rest, and it does not withstand scrutiny. The above is from the very first google result; other sources give similar dates, but later.

You say there's a relationship between biblical interpretation and science, and then play like the two have nothing to do with one another. Which would you have us believe you believe?

Also, have you any mechanism to propose which would prevent a text from discussing both spiritual and scientific matters? When I read the Bible I see quite a bit of history, and history is foundational to all other sciences. I see lots of other things discussed, and I see experiments conducted. For anyone seeking truth, there is no better place to start.

#52 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 26 September 2009 - 02:54 AM

From what I can tell, you're here to publish propaganda like so many of the rest, and it does not withstand scrutiny. The above is from the very first google result; other sources give similar dates, but later.

From what I understand Old testament was compiled about 5th century B.C.E and the books of what has become the New Testament only received some consensus in the 3rd century C.E. So as a complete text, Christian scholarship starts much later than Buddhist scholarship. But you might have more accurate dates on when Christian scholarship started. Please feel free to share them.

BTW... I'm not here to contest who did what and when. Or who can spit the furtherest, or whatever competition religions have with each other.

Because if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone here is capable of correcting me. What I don't expect is to be accused of spreading propaganda when I'm here to engage in learned conversation. As I said, if I'm wrong I'm happy to be corrected.

You say there's a relationship between biblical interpretation and science, and then play like the two have nothing to do with one another. Which would you have us believe you believe?

I never said there's a relationship between biblical interpretation and science. All I said is I want to understand biblical intepretation in relation to science. In fact, I pretty much don't see a relationship, in terms of science being able to provide any qualification for the Bible, so I find it strange you would think I would claim such a thing.

Also, have you any mechanism to propose which would prevent a text from discussing both spiritual and scientific matters?

No. but I would like to understand how it would, hence my question - how is the bible to be intepreted in relation to science.

When I read the Bible I see quite a bit of history, and history is foundational to all other sciences. I see lots of other things discussed, and I see experiments conducted. For anyone seeking truth, there is no better place to start.

Care to elaborate? I appreciate the fact you can find truth in the Bible. It's also something I'm trying to achieve, but I'm not sure how things are meant to be intepreted.

#53 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 26 September 2009 - 05:20 AM

I never said there's a relationship between biblical interpretation and science.

If there is no relationship between biblical interpretation and science, why do you ask what the relationship is? People don't generally ask what non-existent things are. Is this some sort of trick question then?

All I said is I want to understand biblical intepretation in relation to science.

Uh-huh.

In fact,  I pretty much don't see a relationship, in terms of science being able to provide any qualification for the Bible, so I find it strange you would think I would claim such a thing.

Strange that I'd take the question at face value? Guess I should know better by now...

Also, have you any mechanism to propose which would prevent a text from discussing both spiritual and scientific matters?

No. but I would like to understand how it would, hence my question - how is the bible to be intepreted in relation to science.

Huh? That's a different issue. You assert a dichotomy between spiritual text and scientific, in order to maintain the relationship your question asks for cannot exist. Then when you see the dichotomy fails you claim it provoked you to ask the question in the first place?

Perhaps this is one way to claim nobody could answer your questions: ask questions that make no sense in the first place.

There exists no imperative to compartmentalize and categorize knowledge. Facts are facts, and a book containing facts need not be restricted to any arbitrarily devised categorization scheme. One wonders what your mindset makes of the encyclopedia!

Care to elaborate?  I appreciate the fact you can find truth in the Bible.  It's also something I'm trying to achieve, but I'm not sure how things are meant to be intepreted.

View Post

You must've forgotten. ...Or been led astray. When first we begin to communicate we figure out right away how to interpret: The objective when interpreting is to determine what the source intended to say. Now as we age, we're exposed to other ideas. For example, I've seen plenty of bragging on how courts have deliberately misinterpreted law - they always act like it's an accomplishment. An impressionable individual might just buy into the act and attain a state of confusion.

Anyhow, the issue when interpreting is never "what can I make this appear to say?" The question is always "what did the source intend to say?" Rarely is there any difficulty - not even 1% of the time. When difficulties arise, I suspect you're more familiar than you let on with the proper methods to handle them. Honest mistakes occur in day-to-day life, and they get sorted out.

Now if you haven't seen history or experiment in the Bible, I don't expect you've read it. There are several places online where one can read from Genesis to Revelation. I have one bookmarked.
http://quod.lib.umic...kjv/browse.html

There's also a link at the top of the forum pages here, although it doesn't show up particularly well in all skins.

You didn't specify what you'd like me to elaborate on. It could be you question history's role as a science. I have elaborated somewhat already.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1984

#54 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 September 2009 - 05:49 AM

Loungehead,

CTD has very simply pointed out your time wasting equivocating. Please acknowledge it or find yourself ejected. We don't have time for people who have a propensity to play word games.

Adam


#55 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 26 September 2009 - 06:42 PM

Loungehead,

CTD has very simply pointed out your time wasting equivocating. Please acknowledge it or find yourself ejected. We don't have time for people who have a propensity to play word games.

Adam

View Post

Hi Adam,

Perhaps you're right. This is a waste of time.

I want to understand how biblical intepretation relates to science (assuming there is such a relationship), because as far as I'm concerned, I do not see one. I thought I made that clear when I said I don't believe science proves or disproves the Bible.

All I'm asking is, if there is a relationship between biblical interpretation and science, how does it work?

Hence the questions:

1. What foundations does the immovability of the Earth refer too? Is it orbital position, motion, gravitational field of the planet? Or is something more fundamental like quantum physics?

2. How should I interpret the immovability in relation to statements about the Sun moving?

3. On the one hand I can see how statements about the Sun can be interpreted, from the perspective of Earth, so rise and falling make sense. But in terms of Joshua where the Sun stands still, how is it to be intepreted? Did the Earth stop moving gving the appearance the Sun had stopped?

Granted you provided some links to look at, which I'm still reading through.

However, CTD seems to be suggesting, I'm claiming there is a relationship and at the same time denying it. Thus am engaging in equivocation. If I am really doing this, I will admit it, but I'm confused as to what is the relationship I am supposedly asserting and denying at the same time, when I'm not even sure there is one!

It seems to me CTD is the one more interested in playing word games by questioning the meanings and imagined agendas in my posts, rather than answering my questions.

If you think I'm playing word games, please explain what CTD is doing, because he has not addressed my questions and prefers to talk around the issues, while making accusation about my motivations e.g. "you're here to publish propaganda" and accusing me of making up question so I claim nobody could answer. He is also conflating issues by bringing up irrelevant matters, such as the duration of Biblical scholarship verse other religions, and whether the Bible is true or false. All of which I find bizarre, because I'm not even putting forward an argument. All I doing is making some queries.

So, I find it a bit rich you're accusing me of games of any kind.

I come from a Catholic background, and although I do not embrace Catholicism, I'm aware of how Catholics treat the Bible in relation to science. What I'm not familiar with, is how other denominations deal with the issue, which is why I posted here.

I believe there is an answer to my question. I was hoping someone here could answer it. If nobody can, that's okay, I'll go somewhere else. I just didn't expect to be accused of word games, hidden agendas, and other malicious accusations when all I want is some answer to straight-foward questions.

#56 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 26 September 2009 - 08:15 PM

I was reading this in the article you cited Adam,

It is important to note that the same Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (môwt) in the same niphal stem is used in Psalm 16:8, ‘I shall not be moved’. Presumably even Bouw wouldn’t accuse God of poor communication if he didn’t believe that the Bible taught that the Psalmist was rooted to one spot! Rather, the passage teaches that he would not stray from the path that God had set for him. If that’s so, then it’s impossible to deny that ‘the world … cannot be moved’ could mean that Earth will not stray from the precise orbital and rotational pattern God has set for it.


I'm not sure that intepretation works, because eventually the Earth will either fall into the Sun or destroyed when the Sun collapses, which means Rapture will not occur for a very long time. I think "cannot be moved" makes more sense if it refers to God's Providence. And what the Bible is actually saying, is we can be secure in knowing God will not intervene to change his intentions for planet Earth as he set out in Genesis.

But as I said, I'm still not sure how I'm meant to intepret the Bible in relation to science. I'm not finding the articles much help, but I reread them again to see if I can get a better grasp on it.

:D

#57 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 26 September 2009 - 10:07 PM

Hi Adam,

Perhaps you're right.  This is a waste of time. 

I want to understand how biblical intepretation relates to science (assuming there is such a relationship), because as far as I'm concerned, I do not see one.

You contradict yourself.

I'm curious about different scientific issues in regard to biblical intepretation.

I understand that creationism is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, which creationist science seems to support.  But how should planetary motions in the Bible be interpreted.  Is the Earth static and the Sun moves around it?  Is the Earth at the center of the Solar System, not the Sun?

How should I interpret the following quotes; 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua 10:12-14?

View Post

(bold added to save the readership's time.)

I thought I made that clear when I said I don't believe science proves or disproves the Bible.

That is itself a very unclear propagandistic statement. Clearly anyone familiar enough to track down so many verses should know better than to say such a thing. Not saying that you tracked them down yourself; I have no evidence consistent with that premise.

All I'm asking is, if there is a relationship between biblical interpretation and science, how does it work?

Hence the questions:

1. What foundations does the immovability of the Earth refer too? Is it orbital position, motion, gravitational field of the planet? Or is something more fundamental like quantum physics?

2.  How should I interpret the immovability in relation to statements about the Sun moving?

3. On the one hand I can see how statements about the Sun can be interpreted, from the perspective of Earth, so rise and falling make sense. But in terms of Joshua where the Sun stands still, how is it to be intepreted? Did the Earth stop moving gving the appearance the Sun had stopped?

And what bearing would these questions have on a non-existent relationship? About as much as they have on Santa Claus' relationship with Peter Pan.

Granted you provided some links to look at, which I'm still reading through.

However, CTD seems to be suggesting, I'm claiming there is a relationship and at the same time denying it. Thus am engaging in equivocation.  If I am really doing this, I will admit it, but I'm confused as to what is the relationship I am supposedly asserting and denying at the same time, when I'm not even sure there is one!

How hard would it have been to simply ask "is there a relationship"? Beyond your capacity? I hope not.

It seems to me CTD is the one more interested in playing word games by questioning the meanings and imagined agendas in my posts, rather than answering my questions.

One cannot answer nonsense questions. One is not wise to answer loaded or otherwise defective questions. I have provided more than one answer, for those who care. Those who really care can review and see, and classify your statement according to what they find. I have.

If you think I'm playing word games, please explain what CTD is doing, because he has not addressed my questions and prefers to talk around the issues, while making accusation about my motivations e.g. "you're here to publish propaganda" and accusing me of making up question so I claim nobody could answer.  He is also conflating issues by bringing up irrelevant matters, such as the duration of Biblical scholarship verse other religions, and whether the Bible is true or false.  All of which I find bizarre, because I'm not even putting forward an argument.  All I doing is making some queries.

It was you who brought up those matters. Your assertions don't constitute much of an argument, and they are clearly propagandistic in nature.

"the Bible isn't something to be proven or disproven." If this were true, it would prove the Bible false because the Bible itself tell us to prove all things. Beyond that, it has no value; it isn't something one can actually believe if one knows the first thing about the Bible.

Now you claim to be tired of arguments of the sort that seek to prove or disprove the Bible. Can you be tired of something you've never encountered? Can you encounter so many as to tax you, and not learn anything at all about the Bible? Something here's got to give.

You propagandized further with your ridiculous claims about Buddhism, and then, realizing you were caught, you attempted to construct a straw man of my position. I never claimed "Christian Scholarship" predated Buddhism. Scrutiny of scripture was the subject of my claim. You're also the one who raised the date issue. No, you're not here to propagandize :D

So, I find it a bit rich you're accusing me of games of any kind.

I come from a Catholic background, and although I do not embrace Catholicism, I'm aware of how Catholics treat the Bible in relation to science.

What I'm not familiar with, is how other denominations deal with the issue, which is why I posted here.

View Post

(bold supplied)

Looks like another relationship where none are supposed to exist. This is the first mention of denominations, as I recall, and denominational treatment is a separate issue from does a relationship exist? Again, most persons competent with the English language would be able to posit a simple separate question.

#58 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 26 September 2009 - 10:09 PM

I believe there is an answer to my question.  I was hoping someone here could answer it.  If nobody can, that's okay, I'll go somewhere else.  I just didn't expect to be accused of word games, hidden agendas, and other malicious accusations when all I want is some answer to straight-foward questions.

View Post

Also noteworthy is this here (and yes I do think I can explain why)

Well, better explain first so folks know what to look for. Look for consistency with an author who is willing to accept no relationship.


It may be that the truthfulness of the Bible isn't for the likes of you to address, but others can and have undertaken to verify the claims. It has withstood more scrutiny than any other group of writings in history, quite likely more than all other writings put together. I doubt I am the only one satisfied to see critics are still reduced to quibbling equivocations.

As for interpretation, interpreting reality is science. If the goal be anything other than to find out the truth, the process is not science.

View Post

Intepretation of reality is science. But if you paid attention I'm interest in Biblical intepretation in relation to science, because I'm sick of all the stupid arguments about science proves or disporves such-and-such about the Bible.

In my understanding, the Bible is a spiritual text, not scientific, so when the Bible says the Earth is immovable it obviously isn't refering to its elliptical orbit.

View Post

The author is dissatisfied with the response because it does not explain enough about the relationship. But how can one who doesn't believe a relationship even exists complain?

And although he fails to realize it, the question is fully answered. Bibles are a subset of reality. Another "defect" with this answer is his lack of ready ammunition with which to counter it. To my knowledge, there is no canned argument available for him to parrot. Neither will any of the planned (okay, most accurate to simply say 'prepared' and not assume the preparations were intentional, but I shan't conceal my thoughts) equivocations make any headway. Clearly he needed to reject this as not explaining the relationship - you know, the one that "doesn't exist" in spite of plural direct acknowledgements that it does.

OOPS! Just spotted another acknowledgement! I feel so incompetent - it was right there in the very post I'm responding to.
"I believe there is an answer to my question. I was hoping someone here could answer it. If nobody can, that's okay, I'll go somewhere else."

See, if we don't assert and elaborate sufficiently on this relationship he does/doesn't believe exists, he'll go somewhere else and continue searching. Is that a rational response? (Pun for fun only - do not read anything more into it.)

#59 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 26 September 2009 - 10:23 PM

Just for fun, let's try a little deductive reasoning here. First, I'll list all the possibilities that readily come to mind.

1. Conflicts exist and Bible superseeds* science
2. Conflicts exist and science superseeds Bible
3. Bible and science in full agreement
4. Conflicts exist and personal emotional preference superseeds reality.
5. Bible and science in full agreement and personal emotional preference superseeds reality
6. Bible = science

Now in which case would there be no relationship between Bible and science?

If I have omitted a critical case which allows a state of no relationship to exist, I hope someone mentions it. Folks are welcome to point out non-critical omissions also.

*this is for fun, and that's a fun spelling

#60 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 27 September 2009 - 12:24 PM

You contradict yourself.

No contradiction.

The fact that "creationist science seems to support" literal intepretation, even though my current position is that there is no relationship, is expressing my reservations about the current position I hold. So, it is no suprise I'm asking questions and wanting to learn, is it!?

That is itself a very unclear propagandistic statement. Clearly anyone familiar enough to track down so many verses should know better than to say such a thing. Not saying that you tracked them down yourself; I have no evidence consistent with that premise.

Well, that is the second time you've accused me of "propaganda", which is clearly meant as an insult. I'm not making any arguments for the position I currently hold. I'm not even confident the position I currently hold is tenable, yet you accuse me of systematic spreading of ideology. I'm going to have to report you, because you're making such accusations without any good reason.

Ad hominem attacks -- discussions about someone's credentials or character are disallowed unless the exchange necessitates a clear need to point out a problem with a source of the information. Such exceptions shall be few and brief.

And what bearing would these questions have on a non-existent relationship?

So you don't think there is a relationship between the Bible and science, or are you merely trying to put words in my mouth, even though in my last post I explained my views on why I have questions about such a relationship?

How hard would it have been to simply ask "is there a relationship"? Beyond your capacity? I hope not.

Sorry, about it. I didn't know we needed to take baby steps. Given Genesis seems to be supported by Creation Science, I am assuming there must be a relationship (even though I do not yet understand it), so it seemed appropriate to move on to the next question, how does this relationship work?

One cannot answer nonsense questions. One is not wise to answer loaded or otherwise defective questions. I have provided more than one answer, for those who care. Those who really care can review and see, and classify your statement according to what they find. I have.

I thought my question was pretty straight forward, "How should I interpret the following quotes; 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua 10:12-14?"

What is "loaded" about that? Just out of curiousity, do you jump at shadows? (now, that's a loaded question!)

It was you who brought up those matters. Your assertions don't constitute much of an argument, and they are clearly propagandistic in nature.

What assertions? I haven't made any assertion or any argument!

All I did is state what I'm interested in, and have since elaborated on why I'm interested due to a series of false allegations from you, because for some reason you're having difficulty with the fact I'm interested in biblical intepretation and science.

"the Bible isn't something to be proven or disproven." If this were true, it would prove the Bible false because the Bible itself tell us to prove all things. Beyond that, it has no value; it isn't something one can actually believe if one knows the first thing about the Bible.

Man, you're a piece work!

I don't know if it is true or not, that is simply my current view. It's background on why I'm asking, because straight off the bat you questioned my integrity by accusing me of propaganda and other nonsense. So I explained why I was asking. I do not even know why I have to justify myself in asking a fairly simply question. This is a bizarre discussion.

Do you always hold an Inquisition when someone asks you a question?

Now you claim to be tired of arguments of the sort that seek to prove or disprove the Bible. Can you be tired of something you've never encountered? Can you encounter so many as to tax you, and not learn anything at all about the Bible? Something here's got to give.

I have encountered arguments, didn't you read that I had a Catholic background? I'm familar with arguments in Catholicism, and frankly I'm sick of them, but I want to learn how other denominations think about the issue. I just didn't realise it was going to be so difficult to get answers from anyone.

And why are you trying to break me?

You propagandized further with your ridiculous claims about Buddhism, and then, realizing you were caught, you attempted to construct a straw man of my position. I never claimed "Christian Scholarship" predated Buddhism. Scrutiny of scripture was the subject of my claim. You're also the one who raised the date issue. No, you're not here to propagandize  :rolleyes:

My claims about Buddhism come from my knowledge on the subject, which if I am wrong about, in most civil society, people usually correct one another. They don't engage in personal attacks or belittle a person for being ignorant.

But the competition to claim who has the longest scholarship; buddhism or christianity is a non-issue in regard to the topic of this thread and my questions. I can only assume you are bringing it up to avoid actually addressing the topic of the thrread. Which makes me wonder why you even bother posting, are you taunting me?

Looks like another relationship where none are supposed to exist. This is the first mention of denominations, as I recall, and denominational treatment is a separate issue from does a relationship exist? Again, most persons competent with the English language would be able to posit a simple separate question.

This is just petty. The Catholics treat the relationship between biblical intepretation and science as NOMA; non-overlapping magisteria. That is, the Bible doesn't cross into the domain of science and science doesn't cross into the domain of the Bible, but they share a border. I don't really like that view.

And of course denominations are a seperate issue, but I have been accused of being disingenous by you and Adam, so I thought I would provide Adam some background to why I'm interested in Biblical intepretation, since he was making threats.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users