Biblical contradictions.

Jet writes:

---

I do not attempt to interpret the Bible, per se, as the Bible interprets itself quite nicely.

---

Isn't this different from what you said earlier? I asked how you know you have the correct interpretation of the Bible, and you said study, prayer, etc.While the Bible may have no trouble interpreting itself, humans have much difficulty with Biblical interpretation, as there is a wide variety of opinion. How do you decide whose interpretation is correct?--Percy

This is beside the point, but I'll address it in the name of accuracy:

xxx writes:

---

At the end of the book of Job (chapter 38-41) is an amazing and very revealing piece of literature, for it claims to be the direct word of God proclaiming the wonders of his creation to Job and his friends. If this segment of writing is what is says it is, then we would expect to find some pretty amazing scientific insight. And that's exactly what we find:

​

"Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loose the chords of Orion?" Job 38:31

---

If you ask anyone what this passage means in an astronomical sense, they would not say it means that the Pleiades are moving together while the stars of Orion's Belt are moving independently. This is yet another example of ambiguity being the father of many thoughts.Also significant is that the Pleiades are not "bound together" as you stated. Even the observations of Trumpler make this clear when he likens them to a flock of birds.The Pleiades is a cluster of relatively young stars formed from the same stellar nebula. They are in relative close proximity to each other right now, but their actual motions are not "bound together" except by normal gravity, and the cluster will cease to be within 250 million years or so as the individual stars gradually scatter their separate ways.But the original question wasn't whether a particular interpretation of Job yields an observation consistent with modern astronomy, but rather how interpretations based upon revelation, study, reflection and prayer can be considered scientific.--Percy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[b]

Jet writes:

---

I do not attempt to interpret the Bible, per se, as the Bible interprets itself quite nicely.

---

Isn't this different from what you said earlier?***No, I don't believe that it is.***JetI asked how you know you have the correct interpretation of the Bible, and you said study, prayer, etc.While the Bible may have no trouble interpreting itself, humans have much difficulty with Biblical interpretation, as there is a wide variety of opinion. How do you decide whose interpretation is correct?--Percy***I believe that I have already answered that question but here is my answer again. Study, prayer, guidance and revelation from the Holy Spirit.The argument you are attempting to use is circular. Through intense study of Gods' Holy Word, mingled with fervent prayer, and accepting the guidance and revelation that is provided by the Holy Spirit, the erroneous interpretations that abound are made self evident.Was Saul correct in his persecution of what he perceived to be a cult that threatened his Judaic beliefs?
Was the Catholic Church and its' officials correct in their Inquisition?
Were they guided by the Holy Spirit?The answer is a resounding NO! And that is verified by the Holy Word of God. Neither action could be justified by the Word of God as written in the Holy Bible.Someone once said:
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."The same can be said of those who are perishing by their own volition.
"You can show a man the truth of Gods' Holy Word but you can't make him believe it." Shalom Jet------------------
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!".....................Jet"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

Jet writes:

---

The argument you are attempting to use is circular.

---

I think you must mean repetitive, not circular. It could only be circular if in successively addressing points I return to my original argument. If you peruse the messages you'll see I ask the same question in about the same words in each one.

---

Through intense study of Gods' Holy Word, mingled with fervent prayer, and accepting the guidance and revelation that is provided by the Holy Spirit, the erroneous interpretations that abound are made self evident.

---

And yet different interpretations abound! Millions of humble souls study the Bible, pray, accept the guidance and revelation of the Holy Spirit, only in the end to arrive at a variety of conclusions.Something must be amiss with your approach, and hence the question that I keep repeating. How do you decide whose interpretation is correct?--Percy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
How do you decide whose interpretation is correct?--Percy[/B][/QUOTE]The apriori interpretation that places faith/bias in the Gospel--the Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection for a sin-cursed creation--as the key to understanding the Bible, is absolute amongst most evangelicals (at least they say something to that effect).Innumerable biblical passages support the above dogma (no need to recap them here as this is not meant to be a pulpit). All other apriori interpretations are incorrect and cause the creationist scheme to crumble readily. I.e., There must be the science of Christ-crucified apriori for one to interpret the Bible, from the evangelical’s theories to root into. It is this evangelical faith/bias that supports creation science, not the legalistic old Testament readings.After absolute Gospel interpretation is ‘reached’, the Bible becomes non-cantankerous debate regarding the details: i.e., YEC vs OEC vs ToE vs ToM (theory of mega-mutants), etc.; wherein everyone has a different perspective.But the absolute interpretive rule of Gospel-faith applies to all biblical arguments from most evangelical perspectives.

Philip writes:

---

After absolute Gospel interpretation is ‘reached’, the Bible becomes non-cantankerous debate regarding the details: i.e., YEC vs OEC vs ToE vs ToM (theory of mega-mutants), etc.; wherein everyone has a different perspective.

---

Both YECs and OECs cite the Bible as a fundamental source. YECs cite Genesis 1-2 in support of an the earth only a few thousand years old, while OECs cite the very same Genesis in support of an earth billions of years old.How do you decide whose interpretation is correct?--Percy

Originally posted by Percipient:I think you must mean repetitive, not circular.***No, I mean just what I said. You argue that creationism is not scientific because of its' base, that being the Bible, which is a religous work and not a scientific work. You also argue that because the Bible is not a scientific work, but rather a religious work, that it can not be used to support the numerous facts which support creationism, thereby making creationism unscientific. That seems pretty circular to me.The Bible was never meant to be a scientific work, but that does not mean that it does not contain some amazing scientific insight. In a previous post, I offered you some verses from Job that clearly point out a scientific understanding of some stars/constellations that science has only recently been able to verify. Rather than accept something that is obvious to even the novice student, you choose rather to dismiss it out of hand.When I was a child growing up, adults used a very true statement when someone of the younger generation dismissed the obvious out of hand. They said, "Willful ignorance is no excuse!" That simple statement stills holds true today, and I remind my own children of it every time it becomes necessary to do so, which, thankfully, is not very often at all.***JetOriginally posted by Percipient:.......Millions of humble souls study the Bible, pray, accept the guidance and revelation of the Holy Spirit, only in the end to arrive at a variety of conclusions.***This is a rather vague statement. Are you attempting to suggest that "Millions of humble souls study the Bible, pray, accept the guidance and revelation of the Holy Spirit", only to arrive at different conclusions as to how creation occurred and who the Creator is? If so, what are theses differing conclusions, and just who, if anyone, is openly declaring them to the Body of Christ?***JetOriginally posted by Percipient:How do you decide whose interpretation is correct?***Perhaps it would help me to answer your oft repeated question if you would offer a variety of examples of how different translations, (or even the same translation), result in millions arriving at different interpretations as to how creation actually occurred and who the Creator actually is.***Jet Shalom ------------------
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!".....................Jet"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

[QUOTE][b]No, I mean just what I said. You argue that creationism is not scientific because of its' base, that being the Bible, which is a religous work and not a scientific work. You also argue that because the Bible is not a scientific work, but rather a religious work, that it can not be used to support the numerous facts which support creationism, thereby making creationism unscientific. That seems pretty circular to me.[/QUOTE][/b]A circular argument is one in which the conclusion is required to support a presupposition on which that conclusion is based. For example, to claim that the Bible is necessarily inerrant because it contains no errors, and then to claim that it necessarily has no errors because it is necessarily inerrant throughout (See AiG SoF Article F).The result is:(1) The Bible is inerrant because it contains no errors.
(2) The Bible contains no errors because it is necessarily inerrant.We argue that Creationism is unscientific because of its methods, ie, the presupposition that the Bible is "inerrant throughout" (see AiG SoF; Article F) precludes any genuine inquiry into whether the Bible really is inerrant.The two arguments you claim are circular are:(1) The Bible is not scientific because it is religious.
(2) The Bible cannot support scientific facts because it is not scientific.I don't see any circularity here, I only see that one claim ("The Bible is religious") being a supposition for the conclusion "The Bible cannot support facts because it is not scientific". [QUOTE][b]The Bible was never meant to be a scientific work, but that does not mean that it does not contain some amazing scientific insight.[/QUOTE][/b]Which is dependant upon the interpretation, of course. You can claim that great astrophysical insights are contained in the Bible but I'm sure that the 'fact' that the Bible contains such insights was 'discovered' only after the astrophysical discoveries were found by entirely secular means! [QUOTE][b]In a previous post, I offered you some verses from Job that clearly point out a scientific understanding of some stars/constellations[/QUOTE][/b]Which was it, stars or constellations? One is important to science, the other useless. (I'm splitting hairs though.)

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-29-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:Which was it, stars or constellations? One is important to science, the other useless. (I'm splitting hairs though.)***You can say that again!***Jet Shalom ------------------
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!".....................Jet"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

Jet writes:

---

In a previous post, I offered you some verses from Job that clearly point out a scientific understanding of some stars/constellations that science has only recently been able to verify. Rather than accept something that is obvious to even the novice student, you choose rather to dismiss it out of hand.

---

Actually, I provided a detailed answer in message 168 of this thread, and you haven't yet replied. But I felt your Job quote was a side issue. The important question was how interpretations based upon revelation, study, reflection and prayer rather than evidence could be considered scientific.

Percy writes:

---

Millions of humble souls study the Bible, pray, accept the guidance and revelation of the Holy Spirit, only in the end to arrive at a variety of conclusions.

---

Jet replies:

---

This is a rather vague statement. Are you attempting to suggest that "Millions of humble souls study the Bible, pray, accept the guidance and revelation of the Holy Spirit", only to arrive at different conclusions as to how creation occurred and who the Creator is?

---

I thought the topic was the Bible and science. The different conclusions I refer to are YEC, OEC, ID and any sub-varieties or hybrids.So one person studies the Bible, prays, accepts the guidance and revelation of the Holy Spirit, and in the end concludes the earth is 5000 years old and had a vapor canopy.Someone else does precisely the same and concludes the world is 10,000 years old and the flood was fed from glaciers.The people from Reasons to Believe do the same, ie, study, pray, accept the guidance and revelation of the Holy Spirit, and conlude the earth is billions of years old.Michael Behe does the same and concludes that many microbiological structures must be due to an Intelligent Designer.How do you decide which Biblical interpretation is correct?--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

How do you decide which Biblical interpretation is correct?
--Percy

---

The scriptures appear open to different interpretations and perspectives, even as regards the clocks. The Biblical interpretation is most correct that satisfies the faith of the individual, otherwise it is sin. One man’s interpretation thus becomes another’s sin. The OEC (which is appalling from many evangelical perspectives) is acceptable to many Christian perspectives, and in God’s eyes may be more accurate, at least for that person’s objective perspective.Who am I to say one interpretation is absolute (save the Gospel itself)?Matthew calls Christ the ‘King’, Mark the ‘servant’, Luke the ‘son of man’, John ‘the son of God’, etc. These all rightfully conflict yet form an extremely well rounded and accurate portrait/interpretation of the Christ. No man can put his sole interpretation on the ‘black box’. The same is true regarding the creation: Some men perceive days as years. Some see redemption as mutational-evolution. Some see ex-nihilo events, while others see ‘gap’s, etc.Thus, you alone learn which Biblical interpretation is correct. Certain aspects will conflict with others to yield the truth

This brings us back to my original point from many posts ago, that the various viewpoints of Creationism are personal and subjective rather than evidence based and thus have no place in science class.I know I keep hitting on this rather narrow point, but it's at the very center of the debate. The only reason for the public Creation/Evolution debate is evangelical efforts to teach Creationist views in science classrooms. Absent these efforts there would be little public attention paid to these private religious beliefs.So your characterization of Creationist views on origins is extremely significant, since any Creationist concessions that their views are personal and religious rather than objective and scientific is tantmount to a concession of defeat.--Percy

I believe I understand your problem with creationism. Many read the Bible and yet many arrive at different opinions as to when the earth was created. But do they not all arrive at the same conclusion, that being, that the earth and its inhabitants were indeed created by a Creator? No one, not even the feeble minded, could read the Bible and come to any other logical conclusion than that the earth and its inhabitants were indeed created by a Creator and that neither the earth nor its' inhabitants are simply the result of chance plus time.I guess it is a comfort to evolutionists that scientists never, ever disagree on any issues concerning the age of the earth, let alone the process of evolution and its inevitable outcome.
(Insert sarcastic laughter here!)It almost makes me wish I was an evolutionist so that I could share in the unanimity of thought that every evolutionist must enjoy.
(Insert uncontrollable sarcastic laughter here!)CHANCE PLUS TIME = EVOLUTION.....................MAN, WHAT A CONCEPT!
Where do I sign up? Shalom Jet------------------
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!".....................Jet"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

I think I said at the outset, if not in this thread then in a very similar one, that my interest in the Creation/Evolution debate stems from Creationist efforts to have their views represented in public school science classrooms. Creationism exists solely to legitimize as science an inherently religious viewpoint. I probably have nothing worthwhile to disagree about with those who do not support these efforts.So would it be correct to say that you do not want Creationist views taught in public school science classrooms? If so then I'm surprised, because I thought the point of many of your posts, for example the one about Job, was that the Bible contains scientific information, which is traditional Creationist fair.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I think I said at the outset, if not in this thread then in a very similar one, that my interest in the Creation/Evolution debate stems from Creationist efforts to have their views represented in public school science classrooms. Creationism exists solely to legitimize as science an inherently religious viewpoint. I probably have nothing worthwhile to disagree about with those who do not support these efforts.

​

So would it be correct to say that you do not want Creationist views taught in public school science classrooms? If so then I'm surprised, because I thought the point of many of your posts, for example the one about Job, was that the Bible contains scientific information, which is traditional Creationist fair.

​

--Percy

---

You would be correct to say that I do not promote the teaching of creation or evolution in the public school unless they are offered as electives that the student may request or reject. I was taught about evolution in school from the elementary level on up. Field trips were held weekly, and at least one of those per month was a trip to the science museum. While most of the children, myself included, found the trip to the museum to be a fascinating adventure, very few of us were willing to accept the concept of evolution as it was presented to us.Evolution simply made no sense when examined in light of all the other concepts of knowledge and education that we were being exposed to. Mathematics, chemistry, biology. All were presented to us. All were well ordered. Evolution was the exception. Evolution had no order. Evolution made no sense. Evolution still makes absolutely no sense. With its' reliance upon chance plus time, the concept of evolution becomes a non sequitur. Chance plus time always results in nothing other than lost time. Order never comes from chaos without an intervening intelligence.Should both evolution and creation be taught in school? Yes, I think that they should both be offered. It makes no difference that one or the other claims to be supported by science. Neither teaching should be required and neither should be taught as science. Both are firmly rooted in religious beliefs. Science deserves better! Shalom Jet------------------
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!".....................Jet"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow