Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
655 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, Tangle (6 members, 649 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,028 Year: 5,140/6,534 Month: 560/794 Week: 51/135 Day: 3/25 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 1939 (753236)
03-18-2015 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by kbertsche
03-18-2015 11:51 AM


I would not describe it as "a liberal taking of poetic license".

Okay, let's not take it as poetic license. What is still being said here is that familiarity rather than accuracy was Moses goal. It is suggested that Moses actually knew better (something for which there is zero evidence ) but wrote down to the audience in order to reach them. (In my opinion, that's close enough to poetic license)

The result is still a lack of literal accuracy that we can only appreciate by knowing the correct answer via a scientific investigation of nature. How can we tell when Moses is resorting to dumbed down writing? Is the same thing occurring in his list of generations? In the described sequence of creation events? In his description of the number of animals on the ark?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Je Suis Charlie

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

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 165 by kbertsche, posted 03-18-2015 11:51 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by kbertsche, posted 03-18-2015 1:23 PM NoNukes has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1402 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 167 of 1939 (753250)
03-18-2015 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by NoNukes
03-18-2015 12:00 PM


Okay, let's not take it as poetic license. What is still being said here is that familiarity rather than accuracy was Moses goal. It is suggested that Moses actually knew better (something for which there is zero evidence ) but wrote down to the audience in order to reach them. (In my opinion, that's close enough to poetic license)

Calvin apparently believed that the biblical writers (Moses, David, etc.) "knew better" but "accommodated" their language to the audience. It probably would have been a more defensible position to claim that God is the one who accommodated His message, both to the audience and to the biblical writers. But this is a relatively minor modification to Calvin's principle of "accommodation".

The result is still a lack of literal accuracy that we can only appreciate by knowing the correct answer via a scientific investigation of nature. How can we tell when Moses is resorting to dumbed down writing? Is the same thing occurring in his list of generations? In the described sequence of creation events? In his description of the number of animals on the ark?

Good point and good questions. Yes, it is difficult to tell which details are meant to be taken literally and which are accommodations to the audience. I believe our only hope of getting this right is to study the historical and cultural context of the original audience and the grammar of the original text.

Note that we have exactly the same problem with modern speech. The newspaper lists the times of the "sunrise" and "sunset". Taken literally, a Martian could believe that we hold to geocentrism and we think that the sun is actually moving around us. But being immersed within the culture we automatically know that this is phenomenological language and we do not mean it literally.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2015 12:00 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2015 2:08 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 1939 (753262)
03-18-2015 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by kbertsche
03-18-2015 1:23 PM


It probably would have been a more defensible position to claim that God is the one who accommodated His message, both to the audience and to the biblical writers. But this is a relatively minor modification to Calvin's principle of "accommodation".

A minor modification to Calvin, but to a modern fundamentalists, the ramifications might be more important.

In any event, I view the term sunset a bit differently. There is no question that the term is a holdover from a time when it was believed that the earth did not rotate on its axis. So a martian would be completely correct in reading a literal meaning to the term. The error would be in making the inference that modern man never did figure things out.

I believe our only hope of getting this right is to study the historical and cultural context of the original audience and the grammar of the original text.

Well, no. That's rather the point. In some cases we can ascertain the facts independently of the Bible. Surely disagreement with facts can be a clue. We don't need to do a language study to figure out that the sky forming a dome over the earth is metaphoric language.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Je Suis Charlie

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

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 167 by kbertsche, posted 03-18-2015 1:23 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 169 of 1939 (753265)
03-18-2015 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by kbertsche
03-17-2015 4:55 PM


The Reformers on Science
Calvin is a bit harder to figure out. He seems to have been more open to science than Luther. He frequently noted in his commentaries that biblical language was "accommodated" to human understanding; God could only communicate with mankind in what was essentially an over-simplified "baby-talk", which should not be read more literally than intended.

Did Calvin use wording that is fairly understood to mean "baby talk?" The idea that "biblical language was accommodated to human understanding" is a pretty standard idea, not particularly Calvinistic, though any implication that it was mainly geared to pre-scientific humanity is awfully self-centered of modern man. None of us, then or now, can grasp the realities of God, we can only grasp them through language that reflects our own earthly experience. This is the wisdom and mercy and graciousness of God to us that He gives us a way to understand Him from our own point of view, not JUST the point of view of an ancient nomadic culture but ALL cultures in all time. One of the things we can look forward to as we continue in the Christian life is beginning to understand some really amazing things about the nature of God.

Calvin apparently held the generally-accepted Ptolemaic astronomy rather than the newer, controversial Copernican system, but he didn't make a huge issue of this.

Well, the Reformers were all originally Catholics, steeped in Catholic theology, and Catholic astronomy came from Ptolemy rather than the Bible. It took a while for some of the Catholic legacy to be thoroughly subjected to the Reformers' critical eye, which they addressed more pointedly to their most important theological disagreement with Rome, salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

In any case, Biblical language about the movements of the planets is simply written from our own point of view, which we all naturally use still and will never stop using because that's how we experience it: the sun RISES AND SETS. There is nothing false about this although we understand the actual movements from Copernicus.

HOWEVER, this is all off topic in this thread.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by kbertsche, posted 03-17-2015 4:55 PM kbertsche has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Percy, posted 03-18-2015 5:33 PM Faith has replied
 Message 172 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2015 5:50 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20830
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 170 of 1939 (753271)
03-18-2015 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
03-18-2015 3:46 PM


Re: The Reformers on Science
Faith writes:

HOWEVER, this is all off topic in this thread.

But your final comment on the topic was just a couple days ago in Message 131:

I'm giving up on this thread at this point. I've concluded I didn't have the OP thought out and don't have the evidence I thought I had. Thanks.

So I didn't bother replying to your last message to me, and I didn't poke my nose in as moderator when the topic drifted because you, the thread's originator, had abandoned it.

But if your comment that the thread is now off-topic means you want to resume discussing the topic then I think only a statement of what you really meant to say in the OP is needed.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 03-18-2015 3:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 03-18-2015 5:36 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 171 of 1939 (753272)
03-18-2015 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Percy
03-18-2015 5:33 PM


Re: The Reformers on Science
True, I don't want to resume it so I suppose its being off topic shouldn't matter. My mistake.

ABE: ON THE OTHER HAND, does my not wanting to continue the topic of the OP preclude me from responding to the off-topic posts?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Percy, posted 03-18-2015 5:33 PM Percy has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2015 11:16 PM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 1939 (753273)
03-18-2015 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
03-18-2015 3:46 PM


Re: The Reformers on Science
which we all naturally use still and will never stop using because that's how we experience it: the sun RISES AND SETS.

kbertsche did not say anything much about Biblical language with regard to sunrise and sunset. He was instead using an analogy of something a martian might look at.

And regardless of our perception, because our experience is misleading, the sun actually does not rise or set.

The astronomical definition for sunrise is the point at which the sun is completely below the horizon. That definition has nothing at all to do with a geocentric versus heliocentric point of view. Arguably talking about the sun rising might impute a particular view point.

On the other hand, other some verses clearly do imply a view point. When the Bible says that the passage of a day was halted by commanding the sun to stop, there is an open question about whether the expression describes a misunderstanding on the part of the Biblical author or whether we can take it as poetic license.

Did Calvin use wording that is fairly understood to mean "baby talk?" The idea that "biblical language was accommodated to human understanding" is a pretty standard idea, not particularly Calvinistic, though any implication that it was mainly geared to pre-scientific humanity is awfully self-centered of modern man.

In the case of the sun, "human understanding" clearly means misinformed ancient human understanding. It is pretty clear to all but a very few that geocentricism is wrong. Calvin suggests that even astronomers of his time had access to better information that can be found in the Bible.

Calvin's view is in my opinion at least somewhat reasonable although I am not so convinced as kbertshe that Calvin does not make some of Luther's mistakes. But clearly Calvin's view is also at odds (somewhat) with Luther's and some other Protestants views on the same subject.

As for the accusation that there is something peculiarly Catholic about this error, one might well point out that Copernicus was Catholic. We know and understand the threat the Catholic Church felt regarding the issue. What was Martin Luther's excuse?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Je Suis Charlie

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

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 169 by Faith, posted 03-18-2015 3:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 03-18-2015 6:39 PM NoNukes has replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 1644 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 173 of 1939 (753275)
03-18-2015 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by kbertsche
03-17-2015 4:55 PM


Kbertsche writes:

Calvin apparently held the generally-accepted Ptolemaic astronomy rather than the newer, controversial Copernican system, but he didn't make a huge issue of this.

When you preach as Calvin did that upon the authority of the scriptures those asserting the earth moves are possessed by the devil, I have a hard time classifying that as 'not making a huge issue of it'.

JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by kbertsche, posted 03-17-2015 4:55 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 174 of 1939 (753277)
03-18-2015 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by NoNukes
03-18-2015 5:50 PM


Re: The Reformers on Science
On the other hand, other some verses clearly do imply a view point. When the Bible says that the passage of a day was halted by commanding the sun to stop, there is an open question about whether the expression describes a misunderstanding on the part of the Biblical author or whether we can take it as poetic license.

I'd say it's neither of those, but what I said already: describing the event from the physical perspective of earth, the way WE would see if it happened today as well. It's not a scientific or analytic statement, it's purely descriptive.

I don't think any of the Biblical descriptions can be called "geocentrism" even if that's what people made of it in the early scientific age. It's just a perfectly natural description from the point of view of earthlings.

It is important to say that the Ptolemaic view was the official position of the Roman church because it shouldn't have been. Ptolemy and Aristotle, who also inspired way too much of their theology, are pagan thinkers they allowed to eclipse a strictly Biblical world view. Calvin and Luther also should have known better, but as I said, they too had been steeped in Catholicism. As for Copernicus, he was as much a rebel from Romanism as the Reformers. There were quite a few of those down the centuries who nevertheless didn't break with the RCC as the Reformers finally did.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2015 5:50 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 03-18-2015 7:10 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 179 by NoNukes, posted 03-19-2015 3:23 AM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 175 of 1939 (753278)
03-18-2015 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
03-18-2015 6:39 PM


Re: The Reformers on Science
Faith writes:

I'd say it's neither of those, but what I said already: describing the event from the physical perspective of earth, the way WE would see if it happened today as well. It's not a scientific or analytic statement, it's purely descriptive.

Since the incident did not happen it has to be simply fable, story telling.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 03-18-2015 6:39 PM Faith has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 1939 (753292)
03-18-2015 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
03-18-2015 5:36 PM


Re: The Reformers on Science
does my not wanting to continue the topic of the OP preclude me from responding to the off-topic posts?

That depends on what your goal is.

First off, nothing precludes you from posting. Your posts can only be addressed after they are submitted.

As to whether or not you should, well that is up to you.

As to how you'll be responded to for what you post, well that is up to us.

Moderation depends on the rules we all agreed to.

"It really is that simple".

So if you don't want to be treated like an X then don't act like an X.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 03-18-2015 5:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 12:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 177 of 1939 (753299)
03-19-2015 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by New Cat's Eye
03-18-2015 11:16 PM


Re: The Reformers on Science
Huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2015 11:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2015 2:04 AM Faith has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 1939 (753305)
03-19-2015 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
03-19-2015 12:37 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
Which part were you incapable of understanding?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 12:37 AM Faith has taken no action

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 1939 (753307)
03-19-2015 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
03-18-2015 6:39 PM


Re: The Reformers on Science
I don't think any of the Biblical descriptions can be called "geocentrism" even if that's what people made of it in the early scientific age. It's just a perfectly natural description from the point of view of earthlings.

Actually you are wrong. The difference between stopping the sun from rotating around the earth, and stopping the earth from rotating on its axis produce different results that would easily be distinguished on earth; at least the could be distingushed by people with an understanding of physics. The Biblical description of the event is only equivalent to reality if those differences are ignored.

In short, it is pretty clear that the underlying picture of the universe expressed by the writer's was completely wrong. If everyone actually knew better at the time, then there would be no harm in expressing what actually happened.

Ptolemy and Aristotle, who also inspired way too much of their theology, are pagan thinkers they allowed to eclipse a strictly Biblical world view. Calvin and Luther also should have known better, but as I said, they too had been steeped in Catholicism.

Faith, what you write above is complete revisionist nonsense. First, there is no information in the Bible that would assist you in avoiding a geocentric view of the solar system. Accordingly, there is nothing Christian about the correct view nor is there anything particularly pagan about Ptolemy's view. To the contrary, there are plenty of hints in scripture that might well be interpreted as geocentric. Is it really pagan that scientific interpretations were rejected? Don't you reject scientific interpretations of how the grand canyon was formed despite the fact that the Bible does not provide any testimony on the subject? Is that somehow pagan?

And where did the correction away from geocentric thinking come from? Largely from Catholics and ex-Catholics.

As for Copernicus, he was as much a rebel from Romanism as the Reformers.

Cough. Cough. Evidence please.


Je Suis Charlie

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

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 174 by Faith, posted 03-18-2015 6:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by kbertsche, posted 03-19-2015 10:59 AM NoNukes has taken no action
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 11:44 AM NoNukes has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1402 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 180 of 1939 (753334)
03-19-2015 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by NoNukes
03-19-2015 3:23 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
Actually you are wrong. The difference between stopping the sun from rotating around the earth, and stopping the earth from rotating on its axis produce different results that would easily be distinguished on earth; at least the could be distingushed by people with an understanding of physics. The Biblical description of the event is only equivalent to reality if those differences are ignored.

FYI, if you are speaking of "Joshua's long day", realize that Christians (even YECs) interpret this account in a variety of ways. In fact, Henry Morris and John Whitcomb disagreed on how it should be interpreted.

In short, it is pretty clear that the underlying picture of the universe expressed by the writer's was completely wrong. If everyone actually knew better at the time, then there would be no harm in expressing what actually happened.

I think you and Faith are both correct here. The ancient writers were using phenomenological language, not scientific language. They also would have accepted the geocentrism of their day without question. The purpose of Scripture is to teach about God, not about science, so God didn't try to use Scripture to correct their wrong view of the cosmos. He also didn't try to use Scripture to teach them medicine, particle physics, or numerous other details about His creation.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by NoNukes, posted 03-19-2015 3:23 AM NoNukes has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2015 11:51 AM kbertsche has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022