Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-14-2018 11:46 AM
138 online now:
frako, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Tangle, vimesey (8 members, 130 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,066 Year: 18,889/29,783 Month: 834/2,043 Week: 386/386 Day: 43/107 Hour: 8/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Is the creation/evolution debate taboo in our churches?
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 309 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 31 of 51 (531429)
10-17-2009 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Arphy
10-16-2009 11:36 PM


Re: Is it taboo to explore different interpretations of scripture?
Arphy writes:

People should believe or reject Christianity based on whether or not it is true or not, as in whether the claims it makes are true. These claims come from the bible.

ALL of the bible? Really? So you think that New Testament, taken on its own, is an insufficient basis for believing in Christianity? (Honestly, I'm not well acquainted with the details here, but I would have thought that the NT would stand on its own, and accepting or rejecting Christianity would rest solely on one's acceptance or rejection of the NT; it is a departure from the OT, as much as it is an outgrowth or extension.)

Taking millions of years, common descent, etc. and adding them to the bible means that you are now adding claims to the bible. You are no longer evaluating the bible according to the truthfulness of what it claims.

Who said anything about adding common descent, millions of years, etc, to the bible? As I understand it, these things are not at all pertinent to the messages that make up the core and essence of the NT, so there's no point adding them there. And why should it matter to Christians even if anyone were talking about "adding" stuff like this to the OT (which also seems pointless)?

If you insist on treating the creation story and the flood story as "claims" whose "truthfulness" must be "evaluated" relative to objective evidence, then you've already left no choice for an objective observer but to reject those claims (or at least view them as grossly overstated and woefully oversimplified, seriously lacking important details). Must that really entail a rejection of Christianity as well?

On the other hand, if you think these two OT stories are relevant and even important to Christian faith, then it must be the case that they convey some sort of truth that does not intersect with (or contradict) objective claims about the past -- e.g. some truth about the nature of God, or the nature of sin, or the nature of grace or love or whatever you believe is important about these stories.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : (added parenthetical remark in next-to-last paragraph)


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Arphy, posted 10-16-2009 11:36 PM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 32 of 51 (531442)
10-17-2009 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Otto Tellick
10-17-2009 2:17 PM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
Do you consider it essential to your Christian faith to believe in Young Earth Creationism? If so, then yes, you must renounce astronomy, physics and geology at least

So you think there is no such thing as a YEC astronomer, physicist, or geologist?

To hold such beliefs is to ignore, misrepresent, or falsely deny the evidence. There's no way around it.
Ahh, thanks for informing me.
Obviously I don't think that your statement above is correct otherwise I wouldn't take the position i do.

at least, not as far as the creation and flood stories are concerned; presumably, they do view the stories about Christ as historical fact, which is a separate matter involving no dispute with major fields of science)
So why become inconsistent with belief in the bible when it comes to the creation and flood account?

it's an irrelevant topic for church-goers
or so many church-goers would like to believe. Unfortunatly it isn't irrelevant.

wooden literalism: Take this random example of a metaphor

Epic of Gilgamesh:

My friend, the swift mule, fleet wild ass of the mountain, panther of the wilderness, after we joined together and went up into the mountain, fought the Bull of Heaven and killed it, and overwhelmed Humbaba, who lived in the Cedar Forest, now what is this sleep that has seized you? (Trans. Kovacs, 1989)

A wooden literalism would be to say that the friend is actually a real live mule, and somehow also a real live wild ass, and also a real panther. It is quite obvious however that a metaphor is being used in describing the friend.

Same thing with the bible a natural literalism just reads the bible as you would read any other book. i.e. If something is written in a historical narrative style, that is because it is historical narrative. If it is a song/poem style then that is because it is a song/poem. Genesis is written as historical narrative, yet in order to fit in millions of years and evolution some people decide that the passages must be reinterpreted. Note that OEC ideas and the like do not originate from the bible. OEC brings an already accepted belief about the age of the earth and then reinterprets the bible. YEC's let the bible speak for itself and then interpret evidence in that framework.

With all due respect to scripture and to people who are sincerely devout, I believe it is inescapably in the nature of scriptural text and personal belief that each reader makes the text say what he/she wants it to say
Really? Is this so for every other book on the planet. I think that generally a historical narrative is quite recognisable. We read historical narratives everyday, nobody goes "oh, hey, maybe this is actually just an allegory, it looks like historical narrative, I agree with some of it but this part doesn't fit in my worldview therefore I am going to say that the author was using allegory, even though it doesn't look like it."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-17-2009 2:17 PM Otto Tellick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2009 12:00 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 34 by Meldinoor, posted 10-18-2009 12:24 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 35 by Granny Magda, posted 10-18-2009 6:46 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 36 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-18-2009 10:37 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 10-18-2009 11:29 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 33 of 51 (531443)
10-18-2009 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Arphy
10-17-2009 11:36 PM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
Do you consider it essential to your Christian faith to believe in Young Earth Creationism? If so, then yes, you must renounce astronomy, physics and geology at least

So you think there is no such thing as a YEC astronomer, physicist, or geologist?

You either follow the scientific method where it leads, or you follow some other a priori belief.

If you follow a fundamentalist belief that accepts scripture and "divine" revelation above the scientific method, and reject the overwhelming evidence for an old earth, then you are not a scientist in spite of any education or credentials you may have acquired. To purport otherwise is absolutely dishonest.

To hold such beliefs is to ignore, misrepresent, or falsely deny the evidence. There's no way around it.

Ahh, thanks for informing me.

Obviously I don't think that your statement above is correct otherwise I wouldn't take the position i do.


You either follow the scientific method, or you do not. Its that simple. If you reject the scientific method in favor of scripture or some other belief, at least admit that you are not doing science.

at least, not as far as the creation and flood stories are concerned; presumably, they do view the stories about Christ as historical fact, which is a separate matter involving no dispute with major fields of science)

So why become inconsistent with belief in the bible when it comes to the creation and flood account?

Because they have been shown to be inaccurate! The empirical evidence tells a much different story.

You can be as consistent as you need to be, but just don't claim to be doing science when you reject the scientific method and use "divine" revelation and scripture as your overriding sources of "knowledge."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Arphy, posted 10-17-2009 11:36 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Arphy, posted 10-18-2009 9:38 PM Coyote has responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2787 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 34 of 51 (531444)
10-18-2009 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Arphy
10-17-2009 11:36 PM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
Arphy writes:

If something is written in a historical narrative style, that is because it is historical narrative.

And you know this because...?

Arphy writes:

YEC's let the bible speak for itself and then interpret evidence in that framework.

Tell me. How is "interpreting evidence in that framework" following the scientific method?

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

PS. I'd be happy if you responded to my latest post in the "what is a kind" thread. We were getting so close to figuring out what a kind is, I'd hate to see you leave that thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Arphy, posted 10-17-2009 11:36 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Arphy, posted 10-18-2009 11:55 PM Meldinoor has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 35 of 51 (531472)
10-18-2009 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Arphy
10-17-2009 11:36 PM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
Hi Arphy,

So why become inconsistent with belief in the bible when it comes to the creation and flood account?

Well, as Coyote has said, it is because the flood story is demonstrably false. A literal interpretation (of whatever kind) is incompatible with reality.

Now, I know that you are going to disagree with that, so let me beg your indulgence here for a moment. What would you do if, hypothetically, you found a passage in the Bible that you could see was just wrong? I'm talking about a historical/factual type passage here, not one that is merely employing metaphor or poetry. What if you could see that the passage was simply at odds with reality?

Do you reinterpret the passage?

Do you regard the passage as being a human error, but maintain faith in a literal Bible in a more general sense?

Do you decide to treat the Bible as allegorical throughout, whatever the intentions of its authors?

Do you just cast it aside completely?

These are the kinds of questions that Christians (as well as Jews and Muslims) have been forced to confront over the years, as science and history have come into conflict with a literal interpretation of the text.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Arphy, posted 10-17-2009 11:36 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Arphy, posted 10-19-2009 12:35 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 309 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 36 of 51 (531516)
10-18-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Arphy
10-17-2009 11:36 PM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
With all due respect to scripture and to people who are sincerely devout, I believe it is inescapably in the nature of scriptural text and personal belief that each reader makes the text say what he/she wants it to say

Really? Is this so for every other book on the planet.

Yes, certainly, for every book that purports to be divine revelation (there are many of those). How can it be otherwise, given that such books cannot offer any objective basis for their assertions?

Each individual who takes the time to read such a book either rejects the content for whatever reason, or else they accept it, and in accepting it, they adopt an interpretation based either on their own ideas or else on the guidance of someone they decide to trust. It's important to understand that there is no assurance whatsoever that any one individual's interpretation is consistent with the original author's intent. This is a consequence of having only the words themselves, with no objective evidence, as the basis for interpretation.

I think that generally a historical narrative is quite recognisable. We read historical narratives everyday, nobody goes "oh, hey, maybe this is actually just an allegory...

But everyone should go "oh, hey, this directly contradicts another historical narrative, and that other one has a lot evidence to support it whereas this one does not, so this one appears to be inapplicable as historical narrative." This applies when assessing stuff that looks like historical narrative from Rush Limbaugh or the Book of Mormon, as well as from Genesis.

It's interesting that you quote a part of the Gilgamesh epic. I don't actually know (I haven't studied it in detail), but I'm curious: which is older, the Gilgamesh epic, or the story of Noah and the flood? The parallels are of course striking, and regardless of their relative ages, it's clear that when the OT was first put into writing, everyone in the Middle East knew some version of the same basic flood story, with a boat and animals.

The people who put the OT into writing (these were people, not God Himself) decided it would be taken amiss by their contemporaneous readers, all of whom had heard some version of the flood story since childhood, if the flood were not accounted for somehow in the book of Genesis. So the writers sought for some sort of divine inspiration about how to put it in.

Whether or not they got such inspiration is a matter of interpretation on the part of each individual who reads the story. In any case, over the thousands of years since that decision was made, this story in Genesis has been preserved and distributed to an extent far beyond what the original writers could have expected. Also, a lot has been learned about the earth and its natural history -- far more than they could have conceived. If they had known then what we know now, the story would have been written differently -- if indeed it would be included at all.

In science, you look at the older research literature, and on the basis of more recent objective evidence, you can work out where mistakes were made or important things were missing in those earlier writings; then you make a progressive record to correct the errors and fill in the gaps. As you do this, you can usually identify the issues where the latest research is still lacking or needs further work.

In religion, you either reject or reinterpret old texts, and perhaps you add new text, according to your current belief. If you are reading the text in an attempt to formulate or refine your belief, you will either be getting help from someone else who already has an interpretation in mind for you, or else you will be puzzling out an interpretation on your own (i.e. "making stuff up"). Your choice.

it's an irrelevant topic for church-goers

or so many church-goers would like to believe.

Exactly. Many people select the church they go to in order to hear the stuff that they like to believe. I don't have a problem with that. Personally, I choose not to go to any church, because my own beliefs don't agree with any of them.

Unfortunatly it isn't irrelevant.

... in your personal form of religious belief. I think I can understand how that would be unfortunate for you.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Arphy, posted 10-17-2009 11:36 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Arphy, posted 10-19-2009 3:56 AM Otto Tellick has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5365
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 37 of 51 (531524)
10-18-2009 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Arphy
10-17-2009 11:36 PM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
If something is written in a historical narrative style, that is because it is historical narrative.

Like, for example, The Lord of the Rings?

Note that OEC ideas and the like do not originate from the bible.

No, they originated, at least in Europe, from Christians actually studying the rocks beneath their feet and thinking hard about what they saw. Exposure to reality, in other words. You can find quite a good number of books that are over 150 years old that demolish any notion of a 6000-year-old earth or a Noachic flood. The last century and a half of actual digging only nails those notions' coffin shut to the point that the coffin lid is all nailheads now, Arphy.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Arphy, posted 10-17-2009 11:36 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 38 of 51 (531575)
10-18-2009 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Coyote
10-18-2009 12:00 AM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
Hi Coyote

You either follow the scientific method, or you do not. Its that simple. If you reject the scientific method in favor of scripture or some other belief, at least admit that you are not doing science.
Why should the scientific method be opposed to scripture? They are not opposites. They can work together quite fine. They have done so in the past and they will continue to do so.

Because they have been shown to be inaccurate! The empirical evidence tells a much different story.
When christians believe this they become inconsistent because they still believe the doctrines which are based on what they think is a "myth". These people are being inconsistent. If christianity and the bible are true then they must also be consistent with reality. I believe they are consistent with reality.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2009 12:00 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 10-19-2009 12:04 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
riVeRraT
Member
Posts: 5698
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 39 of 51 (531577)
10-18-2009 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Arphy
10-05-2009 2:46 AM


Hello Arphy, excellent topic!

1. I have yet to experience such a sermon in my church. But I am involved in leadership there, and have mentioned talking about it to my Pastor. Hopefully in the near future I might be able to give a talk on it, or perhaps create a small group about it.

2. The leadership of a church usually does not contain scientists, or scientifically minded people. My Pastor is probably the most relaxed on the subject out of all the leadership. It is a touchy area for some, and not necessary for some people to be concerned with. The reason being that regardless you are going to need faith to believe.

3. Again, not too many scientifically minded people in church. The younger people who go to college are more likely to be involved in such discussions. It is a challenging subject, and one that tests people's faith.

4. I don't know what you would apologize for. But there always seems to be a reason.

The only reason why I want to talk about it, and why I have continued all these years to be a part of this forum, is that in my heart, I don't want it to be a debate. I would love for the two to co-exist together. I want to educate people, especially those with evangelistic gifts, and a heart for spreading the Love of God to others, to be sensitive to it. Science and logic are very tangible and real, but so is love. Neither one is absolute.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Arphy, posted 10-05-2009 2:46 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Arphy, posted 10-19-2009 5:19 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 40 of 51 (531582)
10-18-2009 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Meldinoor
10-18-2009 12:24 AM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
And you know this because...?
ok we assume it is, because it is written in the style of a historical narrative. So unless the author is being deceptive, then it seems like a good assumption to make. Same goes for a work of fiction. If it is written in a fictional style then we presume that it is fictional.

Tell me. How is "interpreting evidence in that framework" following the scientific method?

How is it in disagreement with the scientific method?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Meldinoor, posted 10-18-2009 12:24 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Meldinoor, posted 10-19-2009 1:11 AM Arphy has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 41 of 51 (531585)
10-19-2009 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Arphy
10-18-2009 9:38 PM


Re: Inaccurate
Because they [creation story and global flood story] have been shown to be inaccurate! The empirical evidence tells a much different story.

When christians believe this they become inconsistent because they still believe the doctrines which are based on what they think is a "myth". These people are being inconsistent. If christianity and the bible are true then they must also be consistent with reality. I believe they are consistent with reality.

I too find that religious belief, to be "true," must accord with reality.

The problem is that so many posters to this, and other, websites hold opposing views. For example, many hold that everything in the bible is inerrant. They are completely unwilling to accept any evidence from the natural world that may be to the contrary, no matter how detailed or convincing that evidence may be to science.

The classic examples are the age of the earth and the global flood. More recently, many creationists have made extensive efforts to combat the theory of evolution on religious, rather than scientific, grounds.

So how do those who hold the bible to be inerrant reconcile the evidence for an old earth, the lack of a global flood about 4,350 years ago, and the mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Arphy, posted 10-18-2009 9:38 PM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


(2)
Message 42 of 51 (531590)
10-19-2009 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Granny Magda
10-18-2009 6:46 AM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
What would you do if, hypothetically, you found a passage in the Bible that you could see was just wrong? I'm talking about a historical/factual type passage here, not one that is merely employing metaphor or poetry. What if you could see that the passage was simply at odds with reality?
I have to say I'm not too sure what i would do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Granny Magda, posted 10-18-2009 6:46 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2787 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 43 of 51 (531592)
10-19-2009 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Arphy
10-18-2009 11:55 PM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
Arphy writes:

How is it in disagreement with the scientific method?

You're right, Arphy. The scientific method at its core doesn't address biased observations. Forget I said that.

Perhaps I can rephrase myself by saying that scientists strive for objectivity. To say that they must "interpret" the evidence within a biblical framework implies that you must start by assuming that the Bible is right, and then look at the evidence.

Can an objective scientist not find evidence for YEC? Do they really have to start by interpreting the Bible, and then applying their interpretation to the evidence?

Arphy writes:

ok we assume it is, because it is written in the style of a historical narrative. So unless the author is being deceptive, then it seems like a good assumption to make. Same goes for a work of fiction. If it is written in a fictional style then we presume that it is fictional.

This is curious, because in my experience many stories are written in what I'd consider a historical narrative style. This isn't necessarily because the writer is being deceptive, it's just that he tends to use that style.

More importantly, I wonder what prompts you to label Genesis as "historical narrative". Is there any telltale sign that gives it away as such?

I won't be able to post much in the next few days, but I think it would make for a good discussion in another thread, if you'd care to start one.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Arphy, posted 10-18-2009 11:55 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Arphy, posted 10-19-2009 4:59 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 44 of 51 (531601)
10-19-2009 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Otto Tellick
10-18-2009 10:37 AM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
Yes, certainly, for every book that purports to be divine revelation (there are many of those).

So we somehow read the language in these books differently from the language that we know and understand? My point is: Don't try to make the issue more complicated than it is. You read a book and generally if the book is well written most people should be able to understand what the author is saying. Yes, the bible is written in ancient hebrew and greek which does make it a bit more difficult, but not as difficult as people try to make it.

Note also that yes there are some ambiguous passages where hebrew scholars make an educated guess as to what they might mean. Even if we do not fully understand a passage it doesn't mean that it is incorrect.

But everyone should go "oh, hey, this directly contradicts another historical narrative, and that other one has a lot evidence to support it whereas this one does not, so this one appears to be inapplicable as historical narrative."
Yip.

Gilgamesh: Just googled metaphor and came up with the gilgamesh quote in the wiki article. But yeah I think Gilgamesh is supposed to be earlier than Moses.

The people who put the OT into writing (these were people, not God Himself) decided it would be taken amiss by their contemporaneous readers, all of whom had heard some version of the flood story since childhood, if the flood were not accounted for somehow in the book of Genesis. So the writers sought for some sort of divine inspiration about how to put it in.
And you know this how?

If they had known then what we know now, the story would have been written differently -- if indeed it would be included at all.

And you know this how?

In religion, you either reject or reinterpret old texts, and perhaps you add new text, according to your current belief.
Some people do, but i don't think they should, unless of course that is part of their religion.

If you are reading the text in an attempt to formulate or refine your belief, you will either be getting help from someone else who already has an interpretation in mind for you, or else you will be puzzling out an interpretation on your own (i.e. "making stuff up"). Your choice.
So what do people do when they read a news report in their newspaper, for example? Do you think most people interpret it by "making stuff up"? Is it unreasonable to assume that the journalist is trying to report the facts? Even if the facts are wrong the point is that the story is reported in a way that shows that the journalist thinks the facts are correct.

... in your personal form of religious belief. I think I can understand how that would be unfortunate for you.
Good. I don't think i am being unreasonable in asking christianity to back up its claims.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-18-2009 10:37 AM Otto Tellick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-19-2009 5:35 AM Arphy has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 45 of 51 (531611)
10-19-2009 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Meldinoor
10-19-2009 1:11 AM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
Hi Meldinoor

I like your attitude and content of your posts. Good work.

Can an objective scientist not find evidence for YEC?
Yes, I think you can find evidence for a young earth, intelligent design of organisms, the supernatural, etc. independantly, but in order to make sense of these various pieces of evidence you need a "story" that incorporates them. The bible gives a framework which seems consistent with this evidence. New evidence is tested to see if it is compatible with this framework, if so then we begin to trust the framework.

This is curious, because in my experience many stories are written in what I'd consider a historical narrative style. This isn't necessarily because the writer is being deceptive, it's just that he tends to use that style.
True, but we still recognise fiction from non-fiction. Why? I think some language expert would be able to give you a more in-depth answer, but I think there are usually grammatical signs which allow us to recognise the type of writing we are dealing with.

More importantly, I wonder what prompts you to label Genesis as "historical narrative". Is there any telltale sign that gives it away as such?
Yes, there are grammatical features which indicate that it is (hermeneutics). It is interesting to note that from Genesis 12 onwards most people agree that the bible is written as historical narrative, but when it comes to the first 11 chapters people make up all sorts of arguments why they shouldn't be historical narrative even though grammatically no one can work out where this supposed transition takes place.

To everyone in general:
hmm... yes, i find all this quite interesting but I would also like a bit more discussion on the OP topic.
btw, if you want to just address the topic in general, without answering the individual questions that's fine too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Meldinoor, posted 10-19-2009 1:11 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018