[__ Science __ ] Is Historical Science Useful?

[Barbarian]

Show me how it is not that way in Scripture.

The problem now comes to a head. What on earth does all this violent flood imagery in Scripture contribute to theology and spirituality? What did communities of faith hear in the flood story that impelled them to preserve the Noah episode as authoritative Scripture? Why risk retelling a violent, originally polytheistic story, demeaning of human life, which, in an earlier (18th century BCE) Babylonian version called Atra-Hasis described petty gods destroying humanity because their loud din prevented a good night’s sleep? Tablet 1, lines 355–60 speak of earth “bellowing like a bull” so that Enlil complained, “I cannot stand this uproar, I cannot sleep!” “Send an epidemic!”

The Scriptures make a critical appropriation of polytheistic material like this for compelling reasons, which include both co-opting the archetypal truths to which the mythology witnesses and simultaneously debunking the mythology’s polytheistic misconceptions.

What Was Noah’s God Thinking?

A Scholar of Hebrew Scriptures Takes On a Huge “WTF?” in the Book of Genesis

medium.com

If you want to believe in evolution, go ahead. Just quit trying to use the Bible to support it. It does not.

I just showed you that the Bible isn't a science book. If you try to get that kind of content from the Bible, you'll be always disappointed. It doesn't support electricity, or cellular structure, or evolution, or x-rays, or any of many, many things that are obviously true.

Concerning evolution, science sees what it wants to.

That's wrong. It merely sees evidence and uses that to make conclusions. Hence, Darwin's theory has been repeatedly modified to fit the evidence.

 

[Quantrill]

Of course the Bible is not a science text. It doesn't support evolution, (or creationism, for that matter), electronics, genetics, and many other things that are true.

Acknowledging that the Bible is entirely consistent with evolution is not saying that the Bible endorses evolution.

Show me in the Scripture how the Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale are not presented as fact.

Of course the Bible supports creationism. "In the beginning God created" (Gen. 1:1)

I don't believe that. When you say the Bible is consistent with evolution you are giving credence to evolution by using the Bible. You are trying to give 'endorsement' to evolution by using the Bible.

The Bible is not compatible with evolution.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

The problem now comes to a head. What on earth does all this violent flood imagery in Scripture contribute to theology and spirituality? What did communities of faith hear in the flood story that impelled them to preserve the Noah episode as authoritative Scripture? Why risk retelling a violent, originally polytheistic story, demeaning of human life, which, in an earlier (18th century BCE) Babylonian version called Atra-Hasis described petty gods destroying humanity because their loud din prevented a good night’s sleep? Tablet 1, lines 355–60 speak of earth “bellowing like a bull” so that Enlil complained, “I cannot stand this uproar, I cannot sleep!” “Send an epidemic!”

The Scriptures make a critical appropriation of polytheistic material like this for compelling reasons, which include both co-opting the archetypal truths to which the mythology witnesses and simultaneously debunking the mythology’s polytheistic misconceptions.

What Was Noah’s God Thinking?

A Scholar of Hebrew Scriptures Takes On a Huge “WTF?” in the Book of Genesis

medium.com

I just showed you that the Bible isn't a science book. If you try to get that kind of content from the Bible, you'll be always disappointed. It doesn't support electricity, or cellular structure, or evolution, or x-rays, or any of many, many things that are obviously true.


That's wrong. It merely sees evidence and uses that to make conclusions. Hence, Darwin's theory has been repeatedly modified to fit the evidence.

Again, show me in the Scripture how the Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale are not presented as fact.

That the Bible's purpose is not to be a science book means nothing. When it address anything having to do with science it is absolutely true. Thus I am never disappointed. You, and science are disappointed. You want the Bible's endorsement for evolution. But it isn't there.

Believe in your evolution if you like.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

That the Bible's purpose is not to be a science book means nothing.

It means we can't use it as a science text. It's about God and man and our relationship. That's enough. Let it be used for the purpose intended.

When it address anything having to do with science it is absolutely true.

When it describes the sky as a dome overhead with windows in it for water to pour through, that's just a poetic description; it isn't actually what the sky is.

You want the Bible's endorsement for evolution.

No. That's not what the Bible is for. So we don't have to be disappointed that the Bible doesn't endorse molecular biology or evolution or electricity. That's not what it's for.

It's perfect for its intended use. That should be good enough.

 

[Quantrill]

It means we can't use it as a science text. It's about God and man and our relationship. That's enough. Let it be used for the purpose intended.


When it describes the sky as a dome overhead with windows in it for water to pour through, that's just a poetic description; it isn't actually what the sky is.

No. That's not what the Bible is for. So we don't have to be disappointed that the Bible doesn't endorse molecular biology or evolution or electricity. That's not what it's for.

It's perfect for its intended use. That should be good enough.

'You' need to let it be for the purpose intended. I'm not the one trying to use it to support evolution.

No, whatever is described in (Gen. 7:11) is not poetic. It is history and describes what actually occurred. See? Once again, you use your science to interpret the Bible.

As I said, I am not disappointed. Because when the Bible addresses history or science, it is absolutely true.

It is perfect for it's purpose and accurate in all that it says. Whether it be history, science, or whatever.

You still haven't addressed or solved your dilemma with the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ compared to the Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale. All are presented in Scripture as fact. You say only the Virgin Birth and Resurrection are. Show me in the Scripture where this is so. Show me where Scripture identifies the Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale as anything but fact.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

'You' need to let it be for the purpose intended. I'm not the one trying to use it to support evolution.

I've shown you that the Bible neither endorses nor denies evolution.

You still haven't addressed or solved your dilemma with the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ compared to the Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale.

I understand that you don't want to accept the evidence for parables and allegories in scripture. And while you are far from alone in that position, it is not what most Christians believe. If, for example, the story of the flood was clearly literal or figurative, there would be wide agreement among Christians for one or the other. But there is no such agreement.

 

[hawkman]

My thought if Noah's flood was a parable why are we given so much info ?
These verses could have easily said this instead . " God told Noah to construct a large ark ."
Genesis Ch. 6

14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

 

[Quantrill]

I've shown you that the Bible neither endorses nor denies evolution.

I understand that you don't want to accept the evidence for parables and allegories in scripture. And while you are far from alone in that position, it is not what most Christians believe. If, for example, the story of the flood was clearly literal or figurative, there would be wide agreement among Christians for one or the other. But there is no such agreement.

The Bible declares God created. By His spoken Word He said and it was done. Nothing was done by 'evolution'. Evolution denies the testimony of the Bible.

You haven't showed that the Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale are presented as a parable or an allegory. They are not. Just like the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ are presented as fact, so are they.

The question remains, that you keep dodging. Why do you accept the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ as fact but not the Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale?

Show me in Scripture how the one is presented as fact and the other is presented as allegory?

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

My thought if Noah's flood was a parable why are we given so much info ?

We don't know that it isn't. Since there was a great flood in the Middle East around the right time, this could very well be an actual event used to teach us something about God. But we don't know for sure. The problem is the size. You see, a wooden vessel that size will flex and leak, no matter how it's built. There would have to be a full-time pump going on to keep it afloat.

Of course, we don't know for sure that the cubit refers to the historical cubit, so there's a reason to think it might be so.

Fact is, it doesn't matter if it was a parable or an actual event. What matters is the lesson.

 

[hawkman]

We don't know that it isn't. Since there was a great flood in the Middle East around the right time, this could very well be an actual event used to teach us something about God. But we don't know for sure. The problem is the size. You see, a wooden vessel that size will flex and leak, no matter how it's built. There would have to be a full-time pump going on to keep it afloat.

Of course, we don't know for sure that the cubit refers to the historical cubit, so there's a reason to think it might be so.

Fact is, it doesn't matter if it was a parable or an actual event. What matters is the lesson.

A Lot of unknowns for us , what was gopher wood like , did it have properties that made it ideal for a boat ? Did God supply Noah with a blueprint for the ark ? A lesson is always good , we need to keep learning !

 

[Edward]

I watched a couple of videos lately which spoke pretty much on this exact topic. I thought it interesting.

He told how our "time" seems to be governed by the expansion of the universe. Time flows at the same rate that the universe is expanding. Now, God is Omniscient and omnipresent and all like that.
Omnipresent means more than everywhere at once. It means everywhere at once AND at every time. Since God is outside of the time realm He is not subject to it, therefore is everywhere and at every moment to us. He is in the beginning at creation right now and at the same time, here with me & you...and in the future. God is outside of our time domain and can see the beginning from the end. The same way a helicopter can see the entire parade from beginning to end if positioned right. And here we are down on the ground watching the parade as a linear event. Where am I going with this? Glad you asked.

The point he was trying to make is that (as the theory goes), that, evolution and creationism may both be right and we just didn't get it until now. You see for us, we are at the ending area of the timeline and we are looking backwards in time. But from God's perspective in the beginning, he is at the beginning of time itself and looking forward. In Gods not being subject to time and Him self looking forward, that to Him It took Him 6 days (24 hour earth days) to create it all but to Him it only took 6 days, but to us looking backwards it took 13 or 14 billion years.

So maybe from our perspective, there might have been what is perceived as a gap inbetween Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Through my glass darkly this all sounded potentially credible to me. He pretty much did a word study on the first few chapters of Genesis.

Like for instance, a poster is quoted saying that it says God created, and so forth but this is important cuz if you don't word study it you wont get the correct conclusion.

In Genesis 1:1, it says God, created. Which if you study it out means created from nothing. He spoke and it happened.
In 1:11 it says Let the earth bring forth grass, (The land was in place and already had all of the necessary components to make vegetation, All the earth needed was for Jesus to tell the earth what to do!)
Genesis 1:16
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.../

Okay so it says God made the sun & the Moon But made is not the same as created (as, from nothing)...it's more like He either just fashioned them from already created materials, or to set them in place where they are appointed or both. And if God only created the sun & moon that day, then what was Genesis 1:2 all about? (Let there be light). The universe with all of it's planets & stars were already existing after 1:2, So He set the sun & moon in place in v16.

That opened my eyes right there some. In Genesis 1:20 it says God said let the waters bring forth fish. Then in 1:21 it says God created the big whales and all of the animals again. So it really does take diligent word study to piece all this together like that, You have to pay attention to every word and don't necessarily assume what it probably means.

I *think* that it feasibly possible that perhaps evolution and creation may be both true and mankind just has not been able to understand how the truth of both meshes together as a whole. I guess we'll all find out for sure after Jesus comes.

 

[Barbarian]

Western logic, with its excluded middle doesn't work well with that. But it's not the only logic there is, and God of course, transcends any human logic. It might be so, in a way we can't even comprehend.

 

[Barbarian]

A Lot of unknowns for us , what was gopher wood like , did it have properties that made it ideal for a boat ? Did God supply Noah with a blueprint for the ark ? A lesson is always good , we need to keep learning !

I'm not much of a theologian. I'm just interested in knowing what God wants of me, and fulfilling that to the best of my ability.

 

[Quantrill]

We don't know that it isn't. Since there was a great flood in the Middle East around the right time, this could very well be an actual event used to teach us something about God. But we don't know for sure. The problem is the size. You see, a wooden vessel that size will flex and leak, no matter how it's built. There would have to be a full-time pump going on to keep it afloat.

Of course, we don't know for sure that the cubit refers to the historical cubit, so there's a reason to think it might be so.

Fact is, it doesn't matter if it was a parable or an actual event. What matters is the lesson.

Another perfect example of your dependence on science to interpret the Bible.

There was no need for any pump. God shut the door to the ark. There would be no leaks what so ever. (Gen. 7:16).

How ridiculous a statement you make.

It wasn't a lesson. It was a real historical event brought about by God, as described in the Bible.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

I watched a couple of videos lately which spoke pretty much on this exact topic. I thought it interesting.

He told how our "time" seems to be governed by the expansion of the universe. Time flows at the same rate that the universe is expanding. Now, God is Omniscient and omnipresent and all like that.
Omnipresent means more than everywhere at once. It means everywhere at once AND at every time. Since God is outside of the time realm He is not subject to it, therefore is everywhere and at every moment to us. He is in the beginning at creation right now and at the same time, here with me & you...and in the future. God is outside of our time domain and can see the beginning from the end. The same way a helicopter can see the entire parade from beginning to end if positioned right. And here we are down on the ground watching the parade as a linear event. Where am I going with this? Glad you asked.

The point he was trying to make is that (as the theory goes), that, evolution and creationism may both be right and we just didn't get it until now. You see for us, we are at the ending area of the timeline and we are looking backwards in time. But from God's perspective in the beginning, he is at the beginning of time itself and looking forward. In Gods not being subject to time and Him self looking forward, that to Him It took Him 6 days (24 hour earth days) to create it all but to Him it only took 6 days, but to us looking backwards it took 13 or 14 billion years.

So maybe from our perspective, there might have been what is perceived as a gap inbetween Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Through my glass darkly this all sounded potentially credible to me. He pretty much did a word study on the first few chapters of Genesis.

Like for instance, a poster is quoted saying that it says God created, and so forth but this is important cuz if you don't word study it you wont get the correct conclusion.

In Genesis 1:1, it says God, created. Which if you study it out means created from nothing. He spoke and it happened.
In 1:11 it says Let the earth bring forth grass, (The land was in place and already had all of the necessary components to make vegetation, All the earth needed was for Jesus to tell the earth what to do!)
Genesis 1:16
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.../

Okay so it says God made the sun & the Moon But made is not the same as created (as, from nothing)...it's more like He either just fashioned them from already created materials, or to set them in place where they are appointed or both. And if God only created the sun & moon that day, then what was Genesis 1:2 all about? (Let there be light). The universe with all of it's planets & stars were already existing after 1:2, So He set the sun & moon in place in v16.

That opened my eyes right there some. In Genesis 1:20 it says God said let the waters bring forth fish. Then in 1:21 it says God created the big whales and all of the animals again. So it really does take diligent word study to piece all this together like that, You have to pay attention to every word and don't necessarily assume what it probably means.

I *think* that it feasibly possible that perhaps evolution and creation may be both true and mankind just has not been able to understand how the truth of both meshes together as a whole. I guess we'll all find out for sure after Jesus comes.

Compromise.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

A Lot of unknowns for us , what was gopher wood like , did it have properties that made it ideal for a boat ? Did God supply Noah with a blueprint for the ark ? A lesson is always good , we need to keep learning !

Compromise.

Quantrill

 

[Edward]

Compromise.

Quantrill

No I didn't. I didn't start believing evolution. God can certainly create something right the first time.

Just trying to remain open minded cuz I don't know it all. What I wrote was the short version but he went through all his stuff with scriptures and he made it sound feasibly possible. I haven't changed camps but I have been wrong before and I managed to learn some things by being teachable.

Now that don't mean I swallow all that evolution what comes from Barbarian, just what ifing.

 

[Barbarian]

Another perfect example of your dependence on science to interpret the Bible.

I notice that archaeological finds have often confirmed the Biblical accounts, and creationists have no problem citing them. Likewise, the fact of a great flood in the area and at the time that would be consistent with the story of Noah seems to be a sensible clue that the story recounts and actual event, not a parable of the Ur flood story that would have been known to the Israelites. There is some archaeological evidence for it as well. Why would you scoff at the evidence in God's creation?

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

 

[Barbarian]

There was no need for any pump. God shut the door to the ark. There would be no leaks what so ever.

It's just a physical fact. Any wooden vessel that large will flex and leak in the ocean. The flexing will open seams, no matter how they are arranged.

The largest wooden ship ever built, the Wyoming (about 1/2 as long as the stated length of the ark) required pumps to remove leakage, and sank in heavy seas, when the pumps could not keep up.

 

[hawkman]

Compromise.

Quantrill

Ahh , I have not left the thread ! Here is a link that has some interesting info . Maybe you have not seen it .
I need to go swim and exercise I will return .

https://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html