nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 534:
Line 534: + + + + Line 544:
Line 548: + Line 573:
Line 578: + Line 593:
Line 599: + + Line 602:
Line 610: − + + Line 615:
Line 624: +
→Intentions: More responses to Order
::::::::: If God observed it and He wrote about it, that perfectly fits the definition of an eyewitness account. A "literal interpretation" refers to how it is to be understood, not who wrote it. There is a school of thought, that I go along with, that as far as Genesis is concerned, Moses compiled the book from pre-existing documents that would have been handed down to him, and these pre-existing documents were written by eyewitnesses. So in {{bible ref|Genesis|5|1}} where it says "This is the written account of Adam's line.", this would be the "signature" of Adam at the end of his account, which started in Genesis 2:4 (the chapter and verse divisions are a later innovation). So there is no reason that Genesis could not be eyewitness accounts by various people from Adam onward. I continue discussing this because you keep disputing it! I've already answered about the scientists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::: If God observed it and He wrote about it, that perfectly fits the definition of an eyewitness account. A "literal interpretation" refers to how it is to be understood, not who wrote it. There is a school of thought, that I go along with, that as far as Genesis is concerned, Moses compiled the book from pre-existing documents that would have been handed down to him, and these pre-existing documents were written by eyewitnesses. So in {{bible ref|Genesis|5|1}} where it says "This is the written account of Adam's line.", this would be the "signature" of Adam at the end of his account, which started in Genesis 2:4 (the chapter and verse divisions are a later innovation). So there is no reason that Genesis could not be eyewitness accounts by various people from Adam onward. I continue discussing this because you keep disputing it! I've already answered about the scientists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::A literal interpretation means that you interpret it literal, and not how it supposed to be understood, unless you have guidelines how it is supposed to be understood. Otherwise you are just guessing how it is to be understood. If god made the creation, him writing about it is not an eyewitness account, it is an ego-document. At the sixth day he could have told Adam anything, and there would have been no witness, to confirm the event. That is what eyewitness are for. It is traditionally believed that Moses wrote the first five books. That according to "some" schools of thought there are older sources, is just one of many explanations, and unless you have evidence that these sources existed, is is just an unsupported assumption. And for these other sources also need evidence with respect to the authorship. If your only evidence is that there is no reason why it couldn't be a eyewitness report, then you only claim that it is possible to be an eyewitness report. But what you need to show is that it is necessary. Necessary from evidence, and not necessary to save your interpretation. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::A literal interpretation means that you interpret it literal, and not how it supposed to be understood, unless you have guidelines how it is supposed to be understood. Otherwise you are just guessing how it is to be understood. If god made the creation, him writing about it is not an eyewitness account, it is an ego-document. At the sixth day he could have told Adam anything, and there would have been no witness, to confirm the event. That is what eyewitness are for. It is traditionally believed that Moses wrote the first five books. That according to "some" schools of thought there are older sources, is just one of many explanations, and unless you have evidence that these sources existed, is is just an unsupported assumption. And for these other sources also need evidence with respect to the authorship. If your only evidence is that there is no reason why it couldn't be a eyewitness report, then you only claim that it is possible to be an eyewitness report. But what you need to show is that it is necessary. Necessary from evidence, and not necessary to save your interpretation. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: I'll rephrase my comment: ''A "literal interpretation" refers to how you understand it, not who wrote it''. You were claiming that reading it literally meant that it was written by Moses, and it was that point that I was disagreeing with. As for how one is ''supposed'' to understand it, you can usually determine that from things like the style of wording and how it was or would have been understood by the author's contemporaries. So you are not "just guessing".
::::::::::: "Eyewitness account" means that it was seen by someone there. Whether or not that person was also involved with what happened is a separate issue, so that God was the Creator does not negate that he was also an eyewitness to it. I presume that your use of "ego-document" is a pejorative way of saying "autobiographical account", and is meant to imply that it is therefore unreliable. But in this case we are talking about the infallible God Who cannot lie, so that implication is incorrect. Now you quite likely don't accept that characteristic of God, but again, that is a separate issue to the point in question, whether or not there was an eyewitness to the events.
::::::::::: "''unless you have evidence that these sources existed, is is just an unsupported assumption''": The evidence is in the literary use of "colophons", such as the "signature of Adam" that I referred to. This was the style of ancient documents, and this style is recognisable in the various sections of Genesis. So it is not an "unsupported assumption". Either way, whether God told just Adam or God told a lot more to Moses, it is still an eyewitness account, and by the infallible God Who cannot lie.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:"''From you wording it seems like you take personal offense at scientists developing theories that contradict your reading of the bible.''": What I object to is the scientists who didn't witness past events claiming superiority over God who did witness those events.
:"''From you wording it seems like you take personal offense at scientists developing theories that contradict your reading of the bible.''": What I object to is the scientists who didn't witness past events claiming superiority over God who did witness those events.
::What you demand of these scientists is to subject themselves to your beliefs, even though they do not share your beliefs. [[User:Order|Order]]
::What you demand of these scientists is to subject themselves to your beliefs, even though they do not share your beliefs. [[User:Order|Order]]
::::::::: Yet the same doesn't seem to apply for goo-to-you evolution, which has almost no material evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::: Yet the same doesn't seem to apply for goo-to-you evolution, which has almost no material evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::There is no evidence that you accept, but here is quite some evidence, and in addition it is back-up by mathematical models which have been proven to work. That you only accept eyewitness reports is your choice, but you can't blame that other prefer to rely on more reliable evidence than eyewitness reports. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::There is no evidence that you accept, but here is quite some evidence, and in addition it is back-up by mathematical models which have been proven to work. That you only accept eyewitness reports is your choice, but you can't blame that other prefer to rely on more reliable evidence than eyewitness reports. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: The maths actually work against it, as shown by evolutionists Hoyle and Wrickramasinghe. As for there being some evidence, claiming it without demonstrating it is a non-argument. There is almost no material evidence. No, I can't blame others for relying on more reliable evidence, but I'm disputing that the arguments based on materialistic assumptions ''are'' more reliable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:"''And yes, I mean '''your''' reading of the bible, because even you do not read all of it literal.''": I don't read all of it literally because it wasn't meant to be read literally! If I read it the way that it was meant to be understood, how does that make it "my" reading?
:"''And yes, I mean '''your''' reading of the bible, because even you do not read all of it literal.''": I don't read all of it literally because it wasn't meant to be read literally! If I read it the way that it was meant to be understood, how does that make it "my" reading?
::How do you know how it should be understood? You do it by interpretation. Do you think that old earthers decided to go for an interpretation which they assume to be wrong? No, they follow it, because they think that it is the right interpretation. Anything else implies that they are kind of insane. [[User:Order|Order]]
::How do you know how it should be understood? You do it by interpretation. Do you think that old earthers decided to go for an interpretation which they assume to be wrong? No, they follow it, because they think that it is the right interpretation. Anything else implies that they are kind of insane. [[User:Order|Order]]
::::::::: Yes, Augustine did reject literal days, and not for atheistic reasons, just like modern old-Earth creationists. But like them, he did so for reasons other than that's what the Bible teaches. Augustine was not a Hebrew scholar, and tended to allegorise almost everything. He proposed his non-literal days idea because he couldn't believe that God would take so long, not because that's what the Scripture said! So you are right, attempting to interpret Scripture to mean something other than what it actually says is quite old, but that doesn't justify it. Nevertheless, the attempts to make the days into ''long'' periods of time are because they are trying to harmonise Scripture with the atheistic idea of long ages. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::: Yes, Augustine did reject literal days, and not for atheistic reasons, just like modern old-Earth creationists. But like them, he did so for reasons other than that's what the Bible teaches. Augustine was not a Hebrew scholar, and tended to allegorise almost everything. He proposed his non-literal days idea because he couldn't believe that God would take so long, not because that's what the Scripture said! So you are right, attempting to interpret Scripture to mean something other than what it actually says is quite old, but that doesn't justify it. Nevertheless, the attempts to make the days into ''long'' periods of time are because they are trying to harmonise Scripture with the atheistic idea of long ages. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::Not sure why you feel the urge to dismiss all other interpretations, even the one by Augustine, as unjustified, and in addition feel the need to put your scholarship above those of some of most prominent church teachers in history. There can be many justified interpretations, while there can be at most one correct one. Modern old earth interpretation might very well be fed by the urge to harmonize it with new scientific findings, but this practice has been advocated at least since St. Augustine. And there existed long days interpretations long before Darwin, apparently already in the 2nd century B.C. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::Not sure why you feel the urge to dismiss all other interpretations, even the one by Augustine, as unjustified, and in addition feel the need to put your scholarship above those of some of most prominent church teachers in history. There can be many justified interpretations, while there can be at most one correct one. Modern old earth interpretation might very well be fed by the urge to harmonize it with new scientific findings, but this practice has been advocated at least since St. Augustine. And there existed long days interpretations long before Darwin, apparently already in the 2nd century B.C. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::: I feel the urge to dismiss them as unjustified because I believe that they ''are'' unjustified. I'm not going above some of the most prominent church teachers; I'm going along with the vast majority. Augustine was an exception to the rule, but even so did not attempt to harmonise with scientific findings nor with old Earth ideas. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:"''...scientists do not propose a theory because they are evil, or because they don't like your god, but simply because they try to come up with the best explanation for the observations that they see.''": Are you seriously claiming that atheistic scientists (i.e. the subset that is atheistic) have no motive to find explanations that exclude God? Even evolutionists will admit that Darwin's motive was to eliminate God, and this was also the motive of people like Hutton and Lyell.
:"''...scientists do not propose a theory because they are evil, or because they don't like your god, but simply because they try to come up with the best explanation for the observations that they see.''": Are you seriously claiming that atheistic scientists (i.e. the subset that is atheistic) have no motive to find explanations that exclude God? Even evolutionists will admit that Darwin's motive was to eliminate God, and this was also the motive of people like Hutton and Lyell.
::Yes, this is exactly what I am claiming. You claim that scientists have as ulterior motives to bring down god. Darwin did not travel around the world because he was angry with god, but because he was curious. He didn't propose his theory because he wanted to debunk the bible, but because lamarckism and catastrophism didn't explain what he saw very well. {{unsigned|Order}}
::Yes, this is exactly what I am claiming. You claim that scientists have as ulterior motives to bring down god. Darwin did not travel around the world because he was angry with god, but because he was curious. He didn't propose his theory because he wanted to debunk the bible, but because lamarckism and catastrophism didn't explain what he saw very well. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::::::It is good to see that creationist made some progress, but of course we do not know where this will lead. If we can test the supernatural, science can start cataloging it. Maybe at some point in the future we know why nature is fond of beetles. But as said, when we start testing the supernatural, it might turn out to quite different from what any of us believes. Would you accept any evidence that would contradict your beliefs? If the preditions creationists fail, would it make you change your view on this matter?
::::::::::It is good to see that creationist made some progress, but of course we do not know where this will lead. If we can test the supernatural, science can start cataloging it. Maybe at some point in the future we know why nature is fond of beetles. But as said, when we start testing the supernatural, it might turn out to quite different from what any of us believes. Would you accept any evidence that would contradict your beliefs? If the preditions creationists fail, would it make you change your view on this matter?
::::::::::Anyway, you seem to be mostly hiding behind the fact that we cannot go back in time, which is true. But, even if you would be able to repeat the original event, the observations might still be wrong, just like observations in the present can be wrong. In addition, if you reject any claim about the past, because the past is inaccessible, then it would evenly apply to your claims about the past. You cannot go back in time and see creation happen either. If you reject scientific theories because their observations might be wrong, your theory explaining those same observations has exactly the same problem. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Anyway, you seem to be mostly hiding behind the fact that we cannot go back in time, which is true. But, even if you would be able to repeat the original event, the observations might still be wrong, just like observations in the present can be wrong. In addition, if you reject any claim about the past, because the past is inaccessible, then it would evenly apply to your claims about the past. You cannot go back in time and see creation happen either. If you reject scientific theories because their observations might be wrong, your theory explaining those same observations has exactly the same problem. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: The tests are not of the supernatural itself, but of predictions if the creation account is true. Sure, I'd accept evidence that contradicts my beliefs, because my beliefs are based on evidence. A failed prediction, however, is not itself conclusive.
::::::::::: I'm not "hiding", just pointing out a very pertinent fact. I'm not rejecting "any claim about the past". I'm rejecting claims based on ideology where they conflict with reliable eyewitness accounts. I'm rejecting the claim that ideology-based science is the only reliable source of information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:"''It doesn't give useful answers to the scientific questions.''": It is, in that sense, not a science book, but that doesn't meant that when it touches on areas of science, such as astronomy (creation of sun, moon, and stars), geology (flood), etc. that it is incorrect.
:"''It doesn't give useful answers to the scientific questions.''": It is, in that sense, not a science book, but that doesn't meant that when it touches on areas of science, such as astronomy (creation of sun, moon, and stars), geology (flood), etc. that it is incorrect.
::No, sometimes it is correct, sometimes its incorrect. And the knowledge in it is patchy. It doesn't tell us how the moon sun or starts were made, only that it happened. Is say not much about geology, nothing about how rock formations, clay, granite, minerals, natural resources were formed. And physics is mostly absent, just like mathematics. [[User:Order|Order]]
::No, sometimes it is correct, sometimes its incorrect. And the knowledge in it is patchy. It doesn't tell us how the moon sun or starts were made, only that it happened. Is say not much about geology, nothing about how rock formations, clay, granite, minerals, natural resources were formed. And physics is mostly absent, just like mathematics. [[User:Order|Order]]
::::::::Actually there were never human eyewitnesses to creation, if we look at it literal. Adam wasn't created yet. But as said, this kind of apologist arguments are intellectually challenging, but I consider them other than that rather pointless. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::Actually there were never human eyewitnesses to creation, if we look at it literal. Adam wasn't created yet. But as said, this kind of apologist arguments are intellectually challenging, but I consider them other than that rather pointless. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::: God witnessed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::: God witnessed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Just repeating it doesn't make an argument better. As said I am quite happy to continue this discussion, even though I am certain that you will not run out of arguments to counter my arguments, but I am equally certain that I can keep this apologetic ping pong going as well. What I still cannot fully grasp why you need to want to prove so badly that all other interpretations are wrong? If you your interpretation is right, it remains right, no matter what Augustine thought about it. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Just repeating it doesn't make an argument better. As said I am quite happy to continue this discussion, even though I am certain that you will not run out of arguments to counter my arguments, but I am equally certain that I can keep this apologetic ping pong going as well. What I still cannot fully grasp why you need to want to prove so badly that all other interpretations are wrong? If you your interpretation is right, it remains right, no matter what Augustine thought about it. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: I'm not repeating it to make it better, but to remind you of something that you appear to have forgotten or overlooked. If God witnessed it (as He must, because He is omniscient), then there ''was'' an eyewitness. That there were no ''human'' eyewitnesses is artificially restricting the possibilities. I "want to prove ... that all other interpretations are wrong" because I believe that they ''are'' wrong, and want the truth to be known, and because the incorrect ideas are undermining efforts to evangelise. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:"''When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down.''": Already answered above.
:"''When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down.''": Already answered above.
:"'' ''Their'' findings do not contradict ''their'' view of the bible, only ''your'' view of it.''": Which scientists are you talking about? In the case of atheists, their "findings" often ''do'' contradict "their" reading of it—because that is their motive. That's why we have so many atheists claiming that the Bible got it wrong—because they believe that the science ''does'' contradict (their reading of) the Bible.
:"'' ''Their'' findings do not contradict ''their'' view of the bible, only ''your'' view of it.''": Which scientists are you talking about? In the case of atheists, their "findings" often ''do'' contradict "their" reading of it—because that is their motive. That's why we have so many atheists claiming that the Bible got it wrong—because they believe that the science ''does'' contradict (their reading of) the Bible.
::::::::: My "view of science" that I've put is a rather simplified version, and I basically agree with the expanded description that you've provided. As I've just posted above, predictions can be made on the creationist model, and have been, successfully. So does that mean that the creationist model has been "proved"? The point is that although these predictions and tests can be used to ''support'' an idea, they are basically circumstantial, as you can't really rule out that there might be a different explanation for the phenomenon that you successfully predicted. And you can't test the past event itself, just the predictions that you make from it. I fail to see your point about the scales evolving into feathers. I agree that, according to evolution, it had to be useful at each step, but I don't see how that means that I have an incomplete understanding of evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::: My "view of science" that I've put is a rather simplified version, and I basically agree with the expanded description that you've provided. As I've just posted above, predictions can be made on the creationist model, and have been, successfully. So does that mean that the creationist model has been "proved"? The point is that although these predictions and tests can be used to ''support'' an idea, they are basically circumstantial, as you can't really rule out that there might be a different explanation for the phenomenon that you successfully predicted. And you can't test the past event itself, just the predictions that you make from it. I fail to see your point about the scales evolving into feathers. I agree that, according to evolution, it had to be useful at each step, but I don't see how that means that I have an incomplete understanding of evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::It seems like we are getting on page when it comes to what science entails. If you want discuss what part of you understanding is incomplete, e.g. what kind of transitions you should expect, we should relocate to ToE, and sort it out on that page. But this talk for moon isn't the appropriate place to sort it out. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::It seems like we are getting on page when it comes to what science entails. If you want discuss what part of you understanding is incomplete, e.g. what kind of transitions you should expect, we should relocate to ToE, and sort it out on that page. But this talk for moon isn't the appropriate place to sort it out. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::: Or we could take it to my talk page or yours, or e-mail... I don't care where. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Philip (and Order), while not directly relating to this subject, I see that you are interested in the Bible and in knowing what other people think. I suggest you go to www.vatican.va : it is a wealth of information. While I understand people may not like Catholicism or the Pope, Catholic Church is not only about the Pope. Centuries of theologians and christian scientists (just consider the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) have studied both the Bible and the World around us, and they have accumulated an incredible wealth of knowledge, even if both non Catholic Christians and Atheists obviously disagree with some of their conclusions. It is really worth, for everybody. I don't dispute that some Christians prefer to read the Bible by themselves, but reading what others have done with passion for years can't be bad, can it? And no, I am not taking a stance in this diatribe between you and [[User:Order|Order]].[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 08:58, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Philip (and Order), while not directly relating to this subject, I see that you are interested in the Bible and in knowing what other people think. I suggest you go to www.vatican.va : it is a wealth of information. While I understand people may not like Catholicism or the Pope, Catholic Church is not only about the Pope. Centuries of theologians and christian scientists (just consider the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) have studied both the Bible and the World around us, and they have accumulated an incredible wealth of knowledge, even if both non Catholic Christians and Atheists obviously disagree with some of their conclusions. It is really worth, for everybody. I don't dispute that some Christians prefer to read the Bible by themselves, but reading what others have done with passion for years can't be bad, can it? And no, I am not taking a stance in this diatribe between you and [[User:Order|Order]].[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 08:58, 4 December 2007 (EST)
: Whilst I appreciate your intentions and tone, what you've done is known as "elephant hurling", in referring to an entire website to make a point. If you want to link to a specific article on that site, I'll have a look at it, but otherwise I'm not going to bother. And for the record, I'm basing what I'm saying not just on my own reading of the Bible, but on that of many others who have studied this issue in great detail. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
: Whilst I appreciate your intentions and tone, what you've done is known as "elephant hurling", in referring to an entire website to make a point. If you want to link to a specific article on that site, I'll have a look at it, but otherwise I'm not going to bother. And for the record, I'm basing what I'm saying not just on my own reading of the Bible, but on that of many others who have studied this issue in great detail. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)