What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] The Reliability of the Whole Bible Depends on Genesis as History

Question for YEC.
You say dinosaur bones are no more than a few thousand years old. When did the dinosaurs live and how and when did they die. You say the earth is 6000 years old. Doesn't give much time for dinosaurs to roam the earth.
 
Sparrowhawke said:
Each person is free to base their conclusions on whatever evidence they feel is real. For some, this is an easier choice than for others.

Our courts have a system where twelve peers consider evidence and issue a verdict (their conclusion). This is designed to help eliminate mistakes. The burden of proof falls to the plaintiff or the person making the claim. If the defendant makes a counter-claim, they will then have the burden shifted to them for support of the contrasting or opposing allegation. There are differences between a "preponderance" of evidence, clear and convincing evidence and evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. Each evidentiary standard has its own requirement(s).

Many "discussions" ensue when the lines between each type of evidence is blurred. How much evidence exactly (is there a formula?) is required to constitute a "preponderance" and will serve to establish the burden of proof being satisfied? There is no clear rule. If a court or legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing "proof" isn't really a proof, but rather, a measure of the confidence of the jury involved. If it is considered highly probable to be true and the jury or judge has a firm belief or conviction in it it is called "Clear and Convincing". A greater degree of believability must be met with this type of "proof" than the common preponderance standard.

Much of what is discussed in the Christianity and Science forums pretends to meet the Beyond-All-Reasonable-Doubt standard. This might be the case if Jury Selection procedures were in place, where ones presentation would be heard only by those in prior agreement. But it just isn't so. There are many "reasonable" readers who refrain from full agreement to either side.
Click to expand...

It is true.
People are free to believe whatever tbhey wish.

And, welve members of a jury decide what evidence merits their individual verdict.
They can even ignore evidence.

But what we call "evidence" is ALWAYS sourced from some disciple or another which has rules that qualify what is offered as evidence in accord with the discipline.

For instance, the Discipline of Geometry lets one prove things by rules called theorms and postulates.
Science has Natural Laws, and mathematics has Alegbraic relationships which must be observed.

Heresay is not admissable unless two or more people can vouch for the exact same tesimony.

In these discussions, people tend to post what they believe, and some offer valid evidence for whatthey post, in accord with the idea of an apeal to a disciple.
Others can just refuse to acknowledge the whole discipline and believe whatever they wish.
 
Narwhalist said:
Question for YEC.
You say dinosaur bones are no more than a few thousand years old. When did the dinosaurs live and how and when did they die. You say the earth is 6000 years old. Doesn't give much time for dinosaurs to roam the earth.
Click to expand...


The problem for people who see dinosaurs as animals who lived along side of man is that we find their bones in rock layer well beneath those rocks layer above them.
In the top most rock layers we find human fossils, but never any dinosaur bones.
The reverse is true for the deeper layers which contain dinosaurs bones, but never human remains.

This evidences that man and dinosaurs were not concurrent.
It also contradicts te Noah tale, that all these animal died along with mankinds that were not like Noah and his three sons.
 
Exactly my point.
1) Nobody has ever found a dinosaur bone and a human bone embedded in the rock layers together.
2) Noah's account of the flood in Genesis 6 says, of all animals 2 of each kind. It does not say of all animals 2 of kind except dinosaurs. It's really sad when YEC's attribute the disappearance of dinosaurs to Noah's flood.

God is a God of processes, if not there would be no way to study His creation. If He waved His hand and poof (and He had the power to do this) everything appeared as 6 day creationists believe, there would be no way you can learn anything from the creation. Then Psalm 19 would be untrue.
 
:bump

Stone-yarder said:
"The Bible never claims to be a textbook on history or science, but if God is who He claims to be, then He has all knowledge and power, and never makes mistakes. Therefore, if the Bible is the Word of God, then it must be truthful, even when it touches upon matters of history and science. Otherwise, this Creator God is a liar. The very character of God requires the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be a trustworthy record."

http://www.icr.org/article/4824/
Click to expand...
:bigfrown
Narwhalist said:
Question for YEC.
You say dinosaur bones are no more than a few thousand years old. When did the dinosaurs live and how and when did they die. You say the earth is 6000 years old. Doesn't give much time for dinosaurs to roam the earth.
Click to expand...

That will be a discussion for another thread, please.
 
Narwhalist said:
Exactly my point.
1) Nobody has ever found a dinosaur bone and a human bone embedded in the rock layers together.
2) Noah's account of the flood in Genesis 6 says, of all animals 2 of each kind. It does not say of all animals 2 of kind except dinosaurs. It's really sad when YEC's attribute the disappearance of dinosaurs to Noah's flood.

God is a God of processes, if not there would be no way to study His creation. If He waved His hand and poof (and He had the power to do this) everything appeared as 6 day creationists believe, there would be no way you can learn anything from the creation. Then Psalm 19 would be untrue.
Click to expand...

If I understand your point correctly, in regard to the OP, one can not rely upon the mere statement in Genesis that certain things took place, but must find things to mke sense so one will and can go on reading.

I believe this is true and has three different affects upon readers:

1) The reader agrees with "the Reliability of the Whole Bible based on Genesis as Science-History" and reads on into the Gospels.

2) The reader disagrees with "the Reliability of the Whole Bible based on Genesis as Science-History" and sets the Bible aside.

3) The reader questions "the Reliability of the Whole Bible based on Genesis as Science-History" and comes to places like this, christianforums.net, where he hopes to find he has read things wrong and did not understand.
 
The reader can disagree with the literal reliability of genesis or the bible as a whole, but can continue to read and derives other kinds of truth besides literal/historical truth.
 
Some may be concerned with the "slippery slope" concept associated with 'questioning' God's word. My thought is that Grace is extended to each person whose call originates from the Lord Himself. Clearly, no person is born with full levels of maturity and God has provided all that is needed and more in order to accomplish His plan in the individual as well as for society at large. If we tune into the larger picture of what is being said, and I'm talking about things that even unbelievers readily understand, like the need for peace and forgiveness, we are then better equipped to follow. The question becomes, not so much one based on exegetical analysis, but instead, that of following God from a basis of a God-changed heart that envelopes love toward Him as expressed in our understanding and compassion toward others.

I honestly believe that the Lord, in His wisdom, considers all things and works in all things for the good of they that love Him.
 
I must re-state my list of what seemed to me to be only 3 possible affects in regard to "the Reliability of the Whole Bible, as it will Depend on Genesis as History/Science-fact."



I believe this is true and has FIVE (5) different affects upon readers:

1) The reader agrees with "the Reliability of the Whole Bible based on Genesis as History" and reads on into the Gospels.

2) The reader disagrees with "the Reliability of the Whole Bible based on Genesis as History" and sets the Bible aside.

3) The reader questions "the Reliability of the Whole Bible based on Genesis as History" and comes to places like this, christianforums.net, where he hopes to find he has read things wrong and did not understand.

4) The reader questions "the Reliability of the Whole Bible based on Genesis as History," yet he ignores these rather erroneous and/or anti-science statements, but reads on and accepts other things which seem reasonable and true to him.

5) The reader [doesn't] question "the Reliability of the Whole Bible based on Genesis as History" but sees [the possibility of such questions as] a "'slippery slope' [that may be] associated with 'questioning' God's word" [...] and states, "I honestly believe that the Lord, in His wisdom, considers all things and works in all things for the good of they that love Him."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cupid dave said:
I must re-state my list of what seemed to me to be only 3 possible affects in regard to "the Reliability of the Whole Bible, as it will Depend on Genesis as History/Science-fact."



I believe this is true and has FIVE (5) different affects upon readers:

1) The reader agrees with "the Reliability of the Whole Bible based on Genesis as History" and reads on into the Gospels.

2) The reader disagrees with "the Reliability of the Whole Bible based on Genesis as History" and sets the Bible aside.

3) The reader questions "the Reliability of the Whole Bible based on Genesis as History" and comes to places like this, christianforums.net, where he hopes to find he has read things wrong and did not understand.

4) The reader questions "the Reliability of the Whole Bible based on Genesis as History," yet he ignores these rather erroneous and/or anti-science statements, but reads on and accepts other things which seem reasonable and true to him.

5) The reader [doesn't] question "the Reliability of the Whole Bible based on Genesis as History" but sees [the possibility of such questions as] a "'slippery slope' [that may be] associated with 'questioning' God's word" [...] and states, "I honestly believe that the Lord, in His wisdom, considers all things and works in all things for the good of they that love Him."
Click to expand...

I think there are other possibilities, as well.

However, the basis of all possibilities comes down to a matrix of "This AND That," "This OR That," "This, NOT That," or "NEITHER This NOR That."
 
Stone-yarder said:
"The Bible never claims to be a textbook on history or science, but if God is who He claims to be, then He has all knowledge and power, and never makes mistakes. Therefore, if the Bible is the Word of God, then it must be truthful, even when it touches upon matters of history and science. Otherwise, this Creator God is a liar. The very character of God requires the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be a trustworthy record."

http://www.icr.org/article/4824/
Click to expand...

OK.

Lets review the matrix of affects of bible people opposing science people.

Does this disinfranchise science literate people from Christianity when they can not accept the teachings of Creationism that are dogmas of the mainstream churches?
Or, is there a meaningful % of those educated people who are able to read Genesis the way taught from Sunday School and assimilate both conflicting ideas while placing the Bible higher in their heirarchy of intellectual priorities?

Point:
Is telling the old interpretation chasing away unsavd peopled?
Would a theistic evolution over view accomodate the science minded people and bring them into the fold of Christ?


(understand the question here, egardless of what you might insist is true about Genesis for yourself)
 
If one understands the Bible to have shown man that He simply can not know all the manifest works of God, and if on the other hand, some come and say, "Urethra! I have found it" to announce that they do indeed know all such things (or are on the path to such knowledge, expected to be full and filled by their own efforts), then yes, there does seem to be a conflict. What does the Bible say about that? Look not at the detail, but instead look in a broad overview and hear what is said from the "mouth of God" about man's insolence. I'm using the term insolence or "cheek" or being audacious not because many will like to look at what may be seen, that's okay, it's natural, but instead because many take the observations to mean that God did not do as He declared. Too often there is twisting involved. People wind two strands together and that's okay too, except when it produces something other than the original intent. Each person must look and be responsible for their thoughts in these matters, hopefully guided not by their own "wisdom" but instead by the Lord who spoke and speaks to each of us.

By the way, this comment isn't directed at Intelligent Design, but instead at those who would go as far as to say, "There is no God." Or to those who wish to declare that there is a path apart from Jesus that brings men into god-like nature. Our perception of "truth" without thanks and acknowledgement of who Jesus is is not sufficient. No twisting allowed when Jesus says, "No man comes to the Father except through me." That does not mean that men may take their observations of "truth," so-called, or pseudo-knowledge as their salvation, nor may they rightly preach such things.
 
Grazer said:
Found a wonderful video by John Walton on Genesis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci-6ekUmQFE
Click to expand...
Filemarker 4:42: "If we can't get to it through the human author, we have no access to it." <---- by "it, the speaker means "God's purpose as written". I would disagree and take that as an admission the the speaker has not considered the role of the Holy Spirit as our Teacher and Counselor. But I'll continue to listen to the YouTube discussion and give the benefit of the doubt. He didn't really say that, but sounds more like rhetoric leading up to the basis of the "Historical Exegesis Model".

Here's a link to "Biblical Exegesis". I wonder about the "childlike" trust method? Certainly there are reasons to include other "methods" but do we really have to think in terms of "cosmic geography" (listening to filemarker 12:25). He's speaking about cultural awareness after thousands and thousands of years and talking about Egyptian gods now. I don't really believe that we need to fully understand such things to know what God has declared. Further, there is a difference between the way the Egyptians expressed their thoughts about the world around them and the inspirational method used while writing the bible. I've heard an analogy of a log, traveling on a river, where the inspiration and work of the Holy Spirit was the river. The "log" has no say about the direction it's going. This (I'll have to check to be certain) may be read in the Bible, pretty sure I came across the concept while doing biblical word studies.

I do agree that there is value in looking at how the "audience" (ancient Israel) would hear it. But the prophets themselves inquired about such matters and it was shown to them that they were not actually the intended audience. We are. Those who are within our times are the focus of what influenced and shaped their lives. (1 Peter 1:12)
 
Sparrowhawke said:
If one understands the Bible to have shown man that He simply can not know all the manifest works of God, and if on the other hand, some come and say, "Urethra! I have found it" to announce that they do indeed know all such things (or are on the path to such knowledge, expected to be full and filled by their own efforts), then yes, there does seem to be a conflict. What does the Bible say about that? Look not at the detail, but instead look in a broad overview and hear what is said from the "mouth of God" about man's insolence. I'm using the term insolence or "cheek" or being audacious not because many will like to look at what may be seen, that's okay, it's natural, but instead because many take the observations to mean that God did not do as He declared. Too often there is twisting involved. People wind two strands together and that's okay too, except when it produces something other than the original intent. Each person must look and be responsible for their thoughts in these matters, hopefully guided not by their own "wisdom" but instead by the Lord who spoke and speaks to each of us.

By the way, this comment isn't directed at Intelligent Design, but instead at those who would go as far as to say, "There is no God." Or to those who wish to declare that there is a path apart from Jesus that brings men into god-like nature. Our perception of "truth" without thanks and acknowledgement of who Jesus is is not sufficient. No twisting allowed when Jesus says, "No man comes to the Father except through me." That does not mean that men may take their observations of "truth," so-called, or pseudo-knowledge as their salvation, nor may they rightly preach such things.
Click to expand...

Aren't you "Twisting" the plain language, that Christ IS the Truth, and men can and are told to accept it in order to know the father of Truth...?
And are you not also avoiding the logic that the father MUST be the ever unfolding Reality which sires Truth in its wake?
Is not Truth the image of Reality?

You seem to be trying to sell the idea that there is a Truth you claim to be different than the things we determine to be True as men.
Be more straight forward without the platitudes and tell us, is there only one Truth or not?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Psalm 119:142

Thy righteousness [is] an everlasting righteousness, and thy law [is] the truth.



First, what is the law?

The law is light and the reproofs of instruction are the way Proverbs 6:23

The law is the knowledge of sin Romans 3:20

The law is spiritual Romans 7:14

The law is not of faith Galatians 3:12

The law is good if man use it lawfully Timothy 1:8


Now, what is written in the law?

Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.



Cupid, I would be careful of accusing others of platitude when the only thing you can say about the truth is that "Jesus is the son of unfolding reality." It is quite a shallow understanding and doesn't tell anything to anyone about the nature of truth or the nature of reality.


The words are loaded with expected meaning and so saying "truth is an aspect of reality" is redundant and speaks nothing of the magnitude of either, except that they are synonyms. You might as well be saying "The truth is the truth." How profound is that?


Not very.


If you've only got as far as there being a parent-object relationship between father and son or truth and reality in your theology, that's about as basic and rudimentary as one can get. Study the law if you want to know truth and pull the beam out of your own eye before you start charging others of being trite or hanging their worldviews on cliche.


Personal truths are often not true at all. They are perspectives, not truth. Truth is indeed seperate from perspective. What we determine to be true, through the finite scope of sensory inputs and faulty interpretation should not be confused for truth. If there is any truth at all, it certainly is seperate from "what men decide is true."

All one need do is look at the discarded sciences. Flat earth or geocentric universe? That's what man determined at one point.

There is only one truth, but since you have decided to redefine points of view made with incomplete knowledge as a type of truth, then the answer is obviously, YES. There is more than one truth, when you try to label subjective understanding as a type of truth.
 
Sparrowhawke said:
Filemarker 4:42: "If we can't get to it through the human author, we have no access to it." <---- by "it, the speaker means "God's purpose as written". I would disagree and take that as an admission the the speaker has not considered the role of the Holy Spirit as our Teacher and Counselor. But I'll continue to listen to the YouTube discussion and give the benefit of the doubt. He didn't really say that, but sounds more like rhetoric leading up to the basis of the "Historical Exegesis Model".

Here's a link to "Biblical Exegesis". I wonder about the "childlike" trust method? Certainly there are reasons to include other "methods" but do we really have to think in terms of "cosmic geography" (listening to filemarker 12:25). He's speaking about cultural awareness after thousands and thousands of years and talking about Egyptian gods now. I don't really believe that we need to fully understand such things to know what God has declared. Further, there is a difference between the way the Egyptians expressed their thoughts about the world around them and the inspirational method used while writing the bible. I've heard an analogy of a log, traveling on a river, where the inspiration and work of the Holy Spirit was the river. The "log" has no say about the direction it's going. This (I'll have to check to be certain) may be read in the Bible, pretty sure I came across the concept while doing biblical word studies.

I do agree that there is value in looking at how the "audience" (ancient Israel) would hear it. But the prophets themselves inquired about such matters and it was shown to them that they were not actually the intended audience. We are. Those who are within our times are the focus of what influenced and shaped their lives. (1 Peter 1:12)
Click to expand...

Who's the we though? The bible is certainly written for us as it is for everyone but its not written to us in the 21st century. I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that some understanding about the culture within which it was written is necessary to begin understanding it. How passages are interpreted has changed over time as more information has become available. Augustine was very much aware this would be the case and had no issues with it;

But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say

I don't see historic exegesis as a bad thing, as I said above I think it can be a very useful exercise. It's certainly helping me with getting to the messages God is conveying. It's also helping me with what it means for the bible to be inspired. Many don't need to do this, that's fine but I do and God is looking at with me.

I don't need Genesis to be an historical account to be a Christian, it simply isn't what my faith is based on.
 
Beginning?

Historical context is the key to unlocking the truth.
when was the bible assembled?

How?

Use of words? "Like that is one bad car!!". I would hate to be forced to take that literally when talking about a'69 GTO. But I would be careful drivingit in the rain.

Martin Luther? really? :shame
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top