Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance?

quote:

---

eg. the six days of creation. Some reasoned that the evidence disproves the earth coming together in 6 literal days and researched more diligently until they discovered that the original hebrew word could mean any length of time. This is why there are some christians who do not accept the 6 literal days of creation.

---

That's rationalizing. Trying to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation. How the story is written conflicts with what they know of how long it takes things to happen. They're trying to make the story fit their evidence instead of accepting that it is a story.Why the need for an old story to fit with current evidence?
If it is just 6 literal days, why or how does that affect one's beliefs?
If it doesn't affect one's beliefs, then why rationalize?Edited by purpledawn, : Word changeEdited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

quote:

---

its about understanding what is written and if adapting our beliefs to what is written is rationalisation, then bring it on.

---

But the scenario you gave isn't adapting the belief to what is written. The scenario you gave adapts what is written to current knowledge. IOW, changing what is written.

quote:

---

Genesis was originally interpreted by someone who did not fully understand ancient hebrew. But its important that our faith be based on accurate knowlege otherwise how can we explain it logically to others?

---

That's rationalizing again. The accurate reading of Genesis conflicts with our current knowledge. Why the need to cast doubt on someone elses skills to remove the conflict?The logical explanation is that it is a story.Out of curiosity, who originally interpreted Genesis?
I assume the seventy scholars who first translated it into Greek. Genesis 1 was probably written about 550—400 BCE and the Septuagint was written 300-200 BCE. Is it really realistic that the scholars of the time didn't understand the language or remember the point of the stories? When a meaning is lost it is usually noted.

quote:

---

Imagine trying to explain a legal document in a court of law if you dont understand legal terminology. You are bound to get thing wrong. First understand what the terminology means, then you can logically explain it and come to accurate knowledge. Its the same with the bible. Understanding Hebrew is paramount to coming to an accurate knowledge of it.

---

I agree and ignoring the rules of language can lead to inaccurate knowledge. When one ignores the basic rules of language, whether English or Hebrew, the person is trying to rationalize away the conflict.Why do they need the ancient text to agree with current knowledge?
Why try to fit a square peg into a round hole?

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

do not scientists re-interpret their research when new evidence comes to light?

​

why can't those who study the bible do the same?

---

There's a difference between reinterpreting research and concluding that the original research conclusions were wrong given the new evidence and reinterpreting what the original researcher actually said. They don't try to reconcile the old conclusion with the new one; especially not by ignoring the basic rules of reading language.That's the difference. They don't have a problem with letting go outdated info.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

purpledawn writes:

​

But the scenario you gave isn't adapting the belief to what is written. The scenario you gave adapts what is written to current knowledge. IOW, changing what is written.

​

it does no such thing.

​

The word Yom was studied and found to be used in many varied ways in the hebrew language. This gave some people the idea that it does not only mean a 24 hour day.

​

its as simple as that.

---

Your scenario in Message 63 is not adapting belief to what is written. In that scenario you are trying to adapt what is written to current knowledge. You're trying to make the conflict go away.As it has been told to you many, many, many, many times before; how the word is used in a sentence determines which meaning is used. Yes, even in the Hebrew language. When there are no pointers that tell us to use the figurative meaning, we don't just decide to use it anyway. Just because a word has many meanings, doesn't mean we just arbitrarily pick the one we want.By picking the meaning that suits your purpose, as opposed to what the writer was saying; you are trying to change what was written to fit with current evidence.That is not what scientist do when they reevaluate research or find new evidence.Just a reminder that this thread isn't a discussion about the word yom, so don't take it down that road.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

This interpretation fits with my opinion on the subject; cognitive dissonance increases along with the importance one places on being correct in their beliefs. People who have "faith" are not disturbed by cognitive dissonance because they are not particularly concerned about their beliefs being true.

---

I think it depends on where the foundation of that faith lies. From your original link on faith: For CS, the flood doesn't appear to be the foundation of his faith. I feel that if their foundation presents a conflict with reality the person will probably feel the discomfort you speak of until they decide which way to go.I had patches of mental discomfort on my journey to understanding the reality of the Bible. Some realizations didn't bother me and some did. Don't ask me which ones bothered me, it has been a long time and I didn't commit it to memory.Once a decision is made to either accept the new evidence or hang on to the old in spite of it; the discomfort would be gone.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

But the physical evidence should lead us to conclude that the word in this instance means a very long time....thousdands of years, hundreds of thousands of years, millions of years or a billion years....it could be any of them.

---

No, physical evidence gives us knowledge and can help us understand if what was written is fact or fiction, or outdated.You're rationalizing because what is written conflicts with the physical evidence you have.One has to decide whether or not to accept the physical evidence regardless of what the text says or one can rationalize and adjust what the text says to agree with the physical evidence.Does it make you uncomfortable when Bible texts conflict with physical evidence?

quote:

---

i dont know why this is hard for you to understand, but you are still missing the point.

---

I'm not missing your point.Your point concerning yom: Since current knowledge tells us that it takes more than 24 hours for extreme changes to take place on this planet, then the creation story in Genesis 1 must not be referring to 24 hour days because that would be incorrect given the current knowledge. In searching through the Bible, scholars have found that the word yom can carry a figurative meaning of differing lengths of time. Therefore, there is no conflict in Genesis 1 with current knowledge because yom can mean differing lengths of time. How'd I do?

quote:

---

I know you wont accept that explanation because you have fought tooth and nail against it for a long time but its not going to change the fact that the word yom can mean various lengths of time.

---

The fact that figuratively yom can mean various lengths of time is not the point of our contention. The fact that yom has been used to express various lengths of time in the Bible is also not the point of our contention.It all boils down to usage within the specific sentence in question. That is what determines what meaning of a word is used. That is our point of contention and one you have yet to address. If you wish to address it, please go to the appropriate thread. (I can reopen the literal vs non-literal thread if you wish.)Those who rationalize to make the information in the Bible mesh with current knowledge tend to ignore the rules of reading a language, whether English or Hebrew. The other thing some do and you tend to do is add more backstory to make the conflict disappear.The question is, does it make you uncomfortable when any Bible text conflicts with physical evidence?Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

quote:

---

we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

---

You don't agree that when a word has more than one meaning, the usage within the sentence tells us which meaning is to be used? If yes, that explains a lot.

quote:

---

hebrew grammar is nothing like english grammar and the rules in hebrew are completely different. We've been down this track before and im not going down it again.

---

The rules may be different, but there are rules and whatever rules are in place in Hebrew to determine which meaning is to be used when there is more than one meaning available is what we have to follow. You haven't even shown the pointers within the Hebrew rules.

quote:

---

lets just agree to disagree,hey.

---

We can, but unfortunately this is your SOP. This is your form of rationalization and it's going to keep popping up. The only explanation you have is that the word has more than one meaning. I suggest you figure out before the next encounter how the reader was/is supposed to determine which meaning is to be used within the sentence. Until you figure that out, you're just creating a scenario that fits your needs.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Since this Yom discussion is getting off topic and you do seem to want to continue, there is now a thread available. Discerning Which Defintion to UseI look forward to your response.