Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 126 (8772 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2017 10:39 PM
365 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, edge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (4 members, 361 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,263 Year: 18,869/21,208 Month: 1,628/3,111 Week: 423/707 Day: 119/78 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
171819Next
Author Topic:   Some water measurements for the Flood
Faith
Member
Posts: 25583
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 226 of 276 (730127)
06-24-2014 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Coyote
06-24-2014 12:03 AM


Re: Busted!
If you found a source of knowledge that guarantees truth you would also put it above whatever any other source of knowledge had to say. There is nothing at all illogical or even unscientific about putting the Bible above science.

And as usual of course you are absolutely wrong: the only areas where there is a conflict between the Bible and science are the historical sciences that purport to know things about the past they have absolutely no way of knowing, yet they reject the one way of knowing that we do have: the Biblical report. THAT's what's irrational and illogical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Coyote, posted 06-24-2014 12:03 AM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15946
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 227 of 276 (730130)
06-24-2014 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
06-23-2014 4:43 PM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
I don't reject scientific knowledge at all, except where it clearly contradicts the Bible.

"I don't break the law at all, except when it's to my advantage to do so."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 06-23-2014 4:43 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 2:22 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25583
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 228 of 276 (730133)
06-24-2014 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Dr Adequate
06-24-2014 12:46 AM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
False analogy of course. I don't reject science except where superior science requires it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-24-2014 12:46 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-24-2014 4:10 AM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15946
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(3)
Message 229 of 276 (730135)
06-24-2014 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Faith
06-24-2014 2:22 AM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
Despite its name, biblethumpology is not actually a science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 2:22 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 9:30 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3784
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 230 of 276 (730139)
06-24-2014 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
06-23-2014 3:32 PM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
What?!

What I wrote was pretty simple

Some physicalistic picture of actual openings in the sky as "windows" is the literalistic rendering I'd object to

Yeah, God couldn't do that, create water and pour it down on the Earth. He's far too impotent. I guess we know that because you told him he couldn't and he does whatever you say?

You are always in favor of a simple literal reading of a passage except where it's obviously (to you) poetry. I think that a possible interpretation is that God opened some holes in the sky (nothing like rain clouds) and created water and poured it through the holes. It appears that you don't like this interpretation because it's literal. Or maybe because you think God is not capable of doing something like that. Either way, you are telling God what he may or may not do by adding to the text.

{ABE} I see you have no response to my latest message about the impossibility (absent miracles) of a vapor canopy. Very telling. When you have nothing, just deny, deny, deny.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 06-23-2014 3:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 9:39 AM JonF has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25583
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 231 of 276 (730141)
06-24-2014 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Dr Adequate
06-24-2014 4:10 AM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
Despite its name, biblethumpology is not actually a science.

Despite its status as science, oldearthdogmalogy is not actually a science, and Bible truth beats it all to Hell.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-24-2014 4:10 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by nwr, posted 06-24-2014 9:40 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25583
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 232 of 276 (730143)
06-24-2014 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by JonF
06-24-2014 8:03 AM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
Dear JF, I don't recognize anything that purports to show the Bible is in error, it's obviously wrong and has to be rethought.

The vapor canopy makes the best sense of the Biblical terminology and the amount of water that flooded the earth, that's all. If you have a better idea that fits the Bible I'm all ears.

As for the word "windows" the Bible uses metaphors frequently (God's "hands" for instance, or "Lamb of God," or "Bride of Christ" and so on) and the ancients could see there are no holes in the sky same as we can.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by JonF, posted 06-24-2014 8:03 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by herebedragons, posted 06-24-2014 9:52 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 236 by NoNukes, posted 06-24-2014 10:21 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 237 by JonF, posted 06-24-2014 10:30 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5530
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 233 of 276 (730144)
06-24-2014 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Faith
06-24-2014 9:30 AM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
Despite its status as science, oldearthdogmalogy is not actually a science, and Bible truth beats it all to Hell.

It's interesting to read that "Bible truth" is in the lead in the race to go to hell as fast as possible


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 9:30 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1334
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


(2)
Message 234 of 276 (730145)
06-24-2014 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
06-23-2014 4:43 PM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me you let science do a lot more than just change the way we interpret the Bible, or like No Nukes if the contradiction is too severe you just decide to interpret the Bible allegorically or something like that?

This is exactly what I want to get across to you. In principle, how we handle the text is not that much different, it may be a matter of scale or we may disagree about certain conclusions, but in principle it is not that different.

In this case, though, literal openings in heaven contradict science -- contradict simple observation --

You have based your conclusion on observations made externally to the text. You have NOT concluded that the description "windows of heaven" is a metaphor FROM the text itself but from external observation. And not observation you have really made yourself. You have not been to the parts above our atmosphere where such a dome would be located. You rely on observations made by others who have traveled to the outer reaches of our atmosphere.

But certainly, if you believe that the ToE is a massive conspiracy to discredit the Bible, then you could also see space exploration as a massive cover-up / conspiracy to hide the fact that there is indeed a giant dome that covers our earth. And there are those who DO believe this.

Because the contradiction isn't all that severe,

So it comes down to a personal opinion of what constitutes "severe?"

Well let's use the age of the earth as an example. That the earth is young and was formed in six literal days contradicts science, and I believe contradicts simple observation. I believe the evidence that the earth is very old is so simple and straightforward that one could not honestly look at the evidence and come to any other conclusion unless they reject those simple observations out of hand. The evidence that the earth is very old is as clear and as simple as the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe and that there are not "windows of heaven" situated in a dome above the surface of the earth. Just as simple and clear!

or in fact there really isn't a contradiction at all.

That's the thing. I don't see that an old earth contradicts the Bible at all. I don't believe that Genesis was written to describe a historic, literal account of creation. Instead it was written to refute and oppose the creation mythology that the Hebrews would have been exposed to during their time in Egypt. Everything in the story is a direct confrontation to the Egyptian creation myths and their gods and it establishes God's place in the cosmos and his relationship to the creation (and ours as well).

So no contradiction at all! The creation account in Genesis served a specific purpose and did so in language and with a cosmological framework that the people of that day could relate to. It is not meant for us in the 21st century to use as a science book.

My point is not to argue the age of the earth, but to illustrate that in principle what we have done is not that different, it is a matter of "severity," not principle. But for the reasons above, I don't think accepting an old earth is all that severe a treatment of the text. It does not diminish my appreciation for the text at all - in fact, it enhances it. Now the text actually makes sense. It makes sense why the author uses strange language like "windows of heaven," "placed the stars in the firmament," and "evening and morning - the first day." (this one was a direct confrontation to the Egyptian myth that Ra, the sun god, went into the underworld every evening and struggled against the dragon and only after defeating it could he rise again the next morning. The God of the Hebrews had no such struggle, there was nothing that opposed him during the night, he did not struggle in the underworld like Ra had to)

No, I never look at it that way although of course I notice that there are no actual windows or openings in the sky, which affects my understanding that the word must be metaphorical, but I would assume even the ancients should have seen it that way so their physicalistic rendering seems odd to me.

In fact I'd think even an ancient Israelite should have taken it as metaphorical. All you have to do is look at the sky.

No, the ancients had a pretty messed up view of cosmology, I don't doubt they thought that there were literally windows in the dome of the sky. If you look at the cosmologies of other societies both before and during that time, you will find they are rather similar in their ideas about how the universe was structured. They simply did the best they could with what they could observe and understand. If God had intended Genesis to be a scientific explanation of the cosmos, don't you think he would have corrected those misconceptions about the structure of the universe, not used the same ancient terminology to describe it?

Nobody reads the Bible in a total vacuum, that would be impossible.

Exactly. And today we have so much more knowledge about how the universe works than they did in ancient Israel. So we need to look at the text, in the best way possible, from the eyes of those it was written to, not as if it was written in the 21st century.

So I am OK with you believing what you believe. But, what is not OK is that you try to make those who have different views less Christian than you (if Christian at all) when what they do in principle is really no different than what you yourself do. All because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of how it should be and your opinion of what constitutes "severe". As in when you say:

In this case, though, literal openings in heaven contradict science -- contradict simple observation

What is not OK is that you consider scientists to be liars and frauds, intent only on discrediting the Bible simply because they are trying to understand the world around us in the best way possible.

So, if you want to hold to the premise that we can not be sure about the past, fine. But as for me and many others, we believe we can know a lot about the past with a fair amount of certainty. And that knowledge must color our understanding of the Bible. To do otherwise would be to read the Bible in a vacuum and quite frankly, would be dishonest.

It's a natural reading in my opinion.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : corrected spelling of "principle"


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 06-23-2014 4:43 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by JonF, posted 06-24-2014 10:32 AM herebedragons has responded
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 10:33 AM herebedragons has responded
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 12:15 PM herebedragons has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1334
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 235 of 276 (730146)
06-24-2014 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
06-24-2014 9:39 AM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
The vapor canopy makes the best sense of the Biblical terminology and the amount of water that flooded the earth, that's all. If you have a better idea that fits the Bible I'm all ears.

No it doesn't. There is simply no mention of a vapor canopy or anything that resembles a vapor canopy. That is simply trying to cram modern science (although terribly faulty science) into the text. The explanation that makes the best sense of the Biblical terminology is this:

or maybe this:

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 9:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9721
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 236 of 276 (730150)
06-24-2014 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
06-24-2014 9:39 AM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
As for the word "windows" the Bible uses metaphors frequently

Of course windows or floodgates are a metaphor. That is not the major problem. As I indicated before the issue is the violence you must do elsewhere to the text. In particular, problem is that the water vapor canopy you want so badly must is described thusly:

quote:
Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

The water canopy then is "above" the sky not in the sky. It is not described as part of the atmosphere. And it is not described as vapor at all. The waters are nothing at all like clouds. What makes clouds produce rain is no mystery (yes, I saw your question about that before you deleted it) but whatever actually happened when the floodgates opened, it was not just super rain.

quote:
Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years

So the sun and moon are in the vault, below the waters in heaven. Is this too a metaphor? What isn't a metaphor? Or is it just bad science? Is there more bad science?

And the waters above are still there in Psalms 148. They did not go away after the Flood.

The water canopy as you and some of your fellow Creationists would have it is non-Biblical. If the entire point of it is to make the Flood natural rather than supernatural, then the rend of the text serves a very questionable purpose.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 9:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3784
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 237 of 276 (730151)
06-24-2014 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
06-24-2014 9:39 AM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
The vapor canopy makes the best sense of the Biblical terminology and the amount of water that flooded the earth, that's all.

The vapor canopy makes no sense whatsoever in any paradigm.

I notice that you are running from answering my questions:

quote:
Do you agree that water back then was like water today? Or are you going to argue that back then the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry were wildly different and water was something totally unlike water today?

Or perhaps the formulas for the surface area and its volume were different?

Maybe energy wasn't conserved? Magically heat energy disappeared?


If you have a better idea that fits the Bible I'm all ears.

I've already given it. Miracles. (Assuming for the sake of argument that there was actually a fludde)

As for the word "windows" the Bible uses metaphors frequently (God's "hands" for instance, or "Lamb of God," or "Bride of Christ" and so on) and the ancients could see there are no holes in the sky same as we can.

And the Bible often uses literal meanings. I could accept no actual holes in the solid (as the Hebrews thought of it) sky, but an inundation of miraculously produced water could easily be ascribed to holes in the solid sky even if they couldn't be seen in the rain. Or do you think they could see the sky during the rain?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 9:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3784
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 238 of 276 (730152)
06-24-2014 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by herebedragons
06-24-2014 9:42 AM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
Principal --> principle.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by herebedragons, posted 06-24-2014 9:42 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by herebedragons, posted 06-24-2014 10:56 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25583
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 239 of 276 (730153)
06-24-2014 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by herebedragons
06-24-2014 9:42 AM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
You have based your conclusion on observations made externally to the text. You have NOT concluded that the description "windows of heaven" is a metaphor FROM the text itself but from external observation.

But this is a very misguided objection. There is no way to read at all without including your own personal observations and experiences. We don't read in a vacuum as I said. Do I believe that Jesus was actually a lamb because He's called the Lamb of God? That would be ridiculous. But how do I know He's not a literal lamb? Because I know from my own experience that a human being is not a lamb. Likewise I know from my own personal experience that there are no openings in the sky, so I know that "windows" is a metaphor just as "lamb" is.

And not observation you have really made yourself. You have not been to the parts above our atmosphere where such a dome would be located. You rely on observations made by others who have traveled to the outer reaches of our atmosphere.

Actually I think it's from my own observations as I say above. I can see that there are no holes in the sky and so can everybody else.

But certainly, if you believe that the ToE is a massive conspiracy to discredit the Bible, then you could also see space exploration as a massive cover-up / conspiracy to hide the fact that there is indeed a giant dome that covers our earth. And there are those who DO believe this.

Well there are lots of unintelligent people, and people who don't know how to read the Bible either. Are you going to require me to say all points of view are equal or something?

Because the contradiction isn't all that severe,

So it comes down to a personal opinion of what constitutes "severe?"

let's say it comes down to an educated personal opinion of what constitutes "severe." Some opinions are better than others.

Well let's use the age of the earth as an example. That the earth is young and was formed in six literal days contradicts science, and I believe contradicts simple observation. I believe the evidence that the earth is very old is so simple and straightforward that one could not honestly look at the evidence and come to any other conclusion unless they reject those simple observations out of hand. The evidence that the earth is very old is as clear and as simple as the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe and that there are not "windows of heaven" situated in a dome above the surface of the earth. Just as simple and clear!

Interesting you are so insistent about this without giving an example to show why it's so "simple and straightforward" that that the earth is old. As a matter of fact there is no simple and straightforward evidence that could possibly tell you that. There is also no certain, obvious, simple and straightforward evidence that it is young. The fact is that simple observation cannot tell you the age of the earth, observation of ANYTHING as a matter of fact. It's ALL theory. And remember please, that up until I was almost fifty I believed in an ancient earth too, because, well, because it just SEEMS it MUST be old. I don't know why, I guess because it's big and complicated and the universe is gigantic. But more telling, we've all been taught that it's old. And we've also been taught that natural processes explain everything. And that's all you have too.

And the contradiction between this belief and what the Bible says is very severe indeed, it's not at all like the idea that "windows" aren't literal, which is not a contradiction at all, since the Bible doesn't require them to be literal, nor does observation, nor does science. But the age of the earth that we can determine from the Bible is certainly severely contradicted by the billions of years science has been piling up on this poor little planet over the last couple of centuries. All based on ideas, not facts (it just MUST have taken such and such a phenomenon a long long time to form), not on anything that can be called simple and straightforward fact or observation.

or in fact there really isn't a contradiction at all.

That's the thing. I don't see that an old earth contradicts the Bible at all. I don't believe that Genesis was written to describe a historic, literal account of creation. Instead it was written to refute and oppose the creation mythology that the Hebrews would have been exposed to during their time in Egypt. Everything in the story is a direct confrontation to the Egyptian creation myths and their gods and it establishes God's place in the cosmos and his relationship to the creation (and ours as well).

But in order to claim that the old earth doesn't contradict the Bible you have to accept this whole other explanatory system you are now laying out that would be impossible for a simple reader to glean from the text alone. What ordinary reader is going to have any knowledge of "Egyptian creation myths" for instance, but you are putting that reader in the position of being completely unable to understand the text for lack of such arcane extrabiblical knowledge.

So to maintain your position you have to disqualify the average reader's ability to read the text. I can agree that it does take some external historical knowledge to understand the Bible well, and the more informed the reader and the more educated in language and other basic knowledge the better, but I can't agree that it takes the mindset of ancient Israel's experience of Egypt to do so. If the Bible is the word of God it is meant for everybody.

So no contradiction at all! The creation account in Genesis served a specific purpose and did so in language and with a cosmological framework that the people of that day could relate to. It is not meant for us in the 21st century to use as a science book.

And yet it is written to the average reader HBD. And it certainly includes factual statements that are awfully specific genealogical records that do in fact give very specific reference points for calculating times and years of the generations from Adam and Eve through Noah and beyond, so that it is possible to do the math and arrive at least at a rough estimate of the time from Adam to the Flood and so on, and it isn't more than thousands of years. In other words you have to bend the text to external suppositions, reinterpretations, allegorizations or whatever, to make it support an old earth because a natural reading of it does severely contradict such an idea. Your claim just doesn't hold water HBD.

My point is not to argue the age of the earth, but to illustrate that in principal what we have done is not that different, it is a matter of "severity," not principal. But for the reasons above, I don't think accepting an old earth is all that severe a treatment of the text.

I suppose you mean all that severe a contradiction with the text. But it is that severe a contradiction, as I've laid out above.

I'll continue this later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by herebedragons, posted 06-24-2014 9:42 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by herebedragons, posted 06-24-2014 12:35 PM Faith has responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1334
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 240 of 276 (730158)
06-24-2014 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by JonF
06-24-2014 10:32 AM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
stupid autocorrect

thanks

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by JonF, posted 06-24-2014 10:32 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
171819Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017