2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 538:
Line 538: + + + + + + Line 579:
Line 585: + + Line 601:
Line 609: + + Line 612:
Line 622: + +
→Intentions
::::::::::: "''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.
::::::::::: "''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)
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
To assume that the the literal meaning is defined as how people at the time did understand it is a useful assumption. And I didn't claim that Moses wrote the the Pentateuch, I said that this the traditional view. Modern scholars are looking at style, word choice, and historic context, and came to the conclusion that the Pentateuch was compiled from a few earlier sources quite some time after Moses died. So, neither Adam nor Moses would be the author, it would have been from a collection of sources, and Moses might or might not have been one of them. But if we look at the bible as contemporaries understood it, they did believe that the books were written by Moses. And both you and the modern scholars disagree with this traditional view.
Call the creation account autobiography if you like that better. However there is no account how the auto-biography was transferred into written from, it might be Adam, it might be Moses, it might be someone else, and we do not only know who it was, we don't even know if they were reliable. It was been said that moses wrote down the laws, but for the rest on the Pentateuch it is mostly unclear who wrote it. When police makes a record of an eyewitness account, they make sure that they got a signature of witness and interrogator. A report of a person claiming to have heard an eyewitness account isn't an eyewitness account anymore.
And the colophon that you mentioned doesn't say that it was written by Adam, it simply says that it was about Adam and his line. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:35, 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]]
:::::::::::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)
:::::::::::: 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)
We do know that you think that they are unjustified. And calling someone like Augustine unqualified, looks like you are picking on someone just because the person disagrees with you. Furthermore, St. Augustine did advise to harmonize scripture with scientific findings. He explicitly acknowledged that people of another persuasion can have knowledge about the world, and said that is "disgraceful" to see people arguing against them just because it might be in conflict with scripture. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:35, 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}}
::::::::::: 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.
::::::::::: 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)
::::::::::: 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)
If a test of a prediction of the supernatural wants qualify as a scientific test, it should, if it fails, tell you something about the supernatural. And you have been arguing that you can't know about things that happened in the past. But feel free to drop that assumption, it wasn't very useful. However, if you want to stick to this "pertinent fact", then accept that this pertinent fact also applies to you. We know that you think that certain findings are based on ideology, but it seem like you are labeling them as ideological because the are against your "ideology". The findings you are arguing against have been proposed and observed by scientists with all kinds of background, and it would be hard to find an ideology that they all share. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:35, 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]]
::::::::::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)
::::::::::: 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)
Problem is that we only have human accounts about what the non-human eyewitness account might have been. Furthermore, your view is based on quite a few assumptions, which is fine when talking religion. But when you claim it is science, you will have to accept that scientist drop some of the assumptions to see if the same couldn't be explained without. That's part of Occam's Razor. If you bring you faith based account to the dissection table of science, don't be surprised if it gets dissected. But, it is good to know that you want to disprove any other account, because you want to evangelize. This way of evangelism exactly what St Augustine warned against, but we already know that you don't think too highly of him. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:35, 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.