Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: jeremyp on October 08, 2015, 07:18:00 PM
-
Quoth TW
... why not start a thread and post the mistakes in Genesis I am waiting go for it allow me to wipe you clean.I am in the mood for you.Get posting the mistakes--waiting.
The context is TW's assertion that Genesis is a scientifically accurate account:
Also Gordon you forget {Very Convenient} the structure of the creation account,scientifically verified.
So we only need to consider scientific mistakes in Genesis.
To keep it easy for TW's wiping, a maximum of one mistake per post please. I'll go first:
The Sun was not created after the Earth.
-
Allegedly God separated day from night on the first day - which is plain daft if the Sun (which is fairly essential in the day vs night scenario) wasn't created until the fourth day.
Hopefully these days nobody is naive enough to treat the ancient Genesis story as being literal.
-
Allegedly God separated day from night on the first day - which is plain daft if the Sun (which is fairly essential in the day vs night scenario) wasn't created until the fourth day.
Hopefully these days nobody is naive enough to treat the ancient Genesis story as being literal.
Although you could take the separation day from night and the creation of light to have happened at the Big Bang.
But then a it's not literal I suppose :)
Day and night require our local star to be bright-eyed and bush-tailed though, which clearly torpedoes Genesis as being a literal account.
-
This thread, so far, is rather noticable for a stunning silence from the direction of TW!
]WAKE UP CREATIONISTS, YOUR THEORY NEEDS YOU!
DESPERATELY!
-
This thread, so far, is rather noticable for a stunning silence from the direction of TW!
]WAKE UP CREATIONISTS, YOUR THEORY NEEDS YOU!
DESPERATELY!
Not sure that Genesis 1-11 is meant to be literal, anyway. As I've pointed out before, the whole of these first 11 chapters were 1) written in the 6th or 5th century BC - post the return from exile; 2) are theological in construction (as can be see by the structure of the writing in the Hebrew - but not so clearly in the English) and 3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.
-
3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.
So actually very little eh ?????
-
3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.
So actually very little eh ?????
No, actually very much, Nick. Put succinctly, the God of the Jews was a loving Creator God, with all that that meant for humanity: the Babylonian gods were gods who created things through destruction.
-
Not sure that Genesis 1-11 is meant to be literal, anyway. As I've pointed out before, the whole of these first 11 chapters were 1) written in the 6th or 5th century BC - post the return from exile; 2) are theological in construction (as can be see by the structure of the writing in the Hebrew - but not so clearly in the English) and 3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.
So you're agreeing that Genesis is not scientifically accurate?
-
3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.
So actually very little eh ?????
No, actually very much, Nick. Put succinctly, the God of the Jews was a loving Creator God, with all that that meant for humanity: the Babylonian gods were gods who created things through destruction.
And YOUR god isn't ???
-
3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.
So actually very little eh ?????
No, actually very much, Nick. Put succinctly, the God of the Jews was a loving Creator God, with all that that meant for humanity: the Babylonian gods were gods who created things through destruction.
The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!
-
From the point of view of the author of the Pentateuch, the light on the first day probably came from God Himself. The pillar of fire (Exodus 13:21) that provided light for the Israelites is an example. Exodus 14:20 shows how, during the night, it brought darkness to the Egyptians and light to the Israelites. So it was effectively "separating light and dark" like in Genesis 1:4.
-
3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.
So actually very little eh ?????
No, actually very much, Nick. Put succinctly, the God of the Jews was a loving Creator God, with all that that meant for humanity: the Babylonian gods were gods who created things through destruction.
The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!
Every day, for years. But then, when you've nothing else to say, I suppose it passes the time.
-
And your 'point' is ???? ::)
-
The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!
Every day, for years. But then, when you've nothing else to say, I suppose it passes the time.
Rather like you then!
-
The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!
Every day, for years. But then, when you've nothing else to say, I suppose it passes the time.
Rather like you then!
Nobody can accuse you of having nothing to say: the trouble is, it's all tosh! :)
-
The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!
Every day, for years. But then, when you've nothing else to say, I suppose it passes the time.
Rather like you then!
Nobody can accuse you of having nothing to say: the trouble is, it's all tosh! :)
You should know - you spout it all the time and in vastly greater quantities that just about anyone else posting here.
-
The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!
Every day, for years. But then, when you've nothing else to say, I suppose it passes the time.
Rather like you then!
Nobody can accuse you of having nothing to say: the trouble is, it's all tosh! :)
You should know - you spout it all the time and in vastly greater quantities that just about anyone else posting here.
Go and hug a tree, or something ! :D
-
The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!
Every day, for years. But then, when you've nothing else to say, I suppose it passes the time.
Rather like you then!
Nobody can accuse you of having nothing to say: the trouble is, it's all tosh! :)
You should know - you spout it all the time and in vastly greater quantities that just about anyone else posting here.
Go and hug a tree, or something ! :D
No witty insult to come back with? Oh I am so sad for you!
"Tree-huggers" - this epithet was coined for the "New-Age" eco-warriors who tried to fight the growing destruction of the landscape by chaining themselves to trees. These were mostly not pagan but a few were and thus pagans are tarred with the same brush.
-
3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.
So actually very little eh ?????
No, actually very much, Nick. Put succinctly, the God of the Jews was a loving Creator God, with all that that meant for humanity: the Babylonian gods were gods who created things through destruction.
That was the 'loving creator' that wiped out humanity down to a single family, destroyed every living thing in Sodom and Gomorrah, arranged a situation to justify his slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt and created people with curiosity then turned people into pillars of salt for looking at something happening... that's the sort of 'love' that abusive spouses demonstrates. It might be a form of love, but it sure as hell isn't one you want to celebrate or be proud of.
O.
-
Often cited is the reference to the 'waters above the firmament' (Gen. 1: 7). Of course, there have been various attempts to read it as atmosphere or clouds, and so on. And it's a mistake only if you take it literally!
-
3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.
So actually very little eh ?????
No, actually very much, Nick. Put succinctly, the God of the Jews was a loving Creator God, with all that that meant for humanity: the Babylonian gods were gods who created things through destruction.
That was the 'loving creator' that wiped out humanity down to a single family, destroyed every living thing in Sodom and Gomorrah, arranged a situation to justify his slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt and created people with curiosity then turned people into pillars of salt for looking at something happening... that's the sort of 'love' that abusive spouses demonstrates. It might be a form of love, but it sure as hell isn't one you want to celebrate or be proud of.
O.
As I have said on many occasions, and will continue to say, Satan couldn't be any worse than the oh so 'loving' deity in the Bible!
-
So you're agreeing that Genesis is not scientifically accurate?
Have I ever said that it was or is meant to be? The Genesis account is a theological account of why God created; not a scientific account of how.
-
From the point of view of the author of the Pentateuch, the light on the first day probably came from God Himself. The pillar of fire (Exodus 13:21) that provided light for the Israelites is an example. Exodus 14:20 shows how, during the night, it brought darkness to the Egyptians and light to the Israelites. So it was effectively "separating light and dark" like in Genesis 1:4.
So is it scientifically accurate?
-
The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!
Yes, this has been pointed out innumerable times by your good self, Floo, but never with any plausible evidence for the assertion.
-
So is it scientifically accurate?
Maeght, I think the problem with the question is that science has to do with knowledge. 'Why' something happens is no less 'scientific' than 'how'. Whilst the narrow understanding of science is adhered to by some, we will never gain any depth or breadth of 'knowledge'
-
And your 'point' is ???? ::)
I think BA's point is that Floo makes this assertion in some way almost every day, yet never provides any plausible evidence for the assertion. Nor, for that matter. has any of the 'others' she refers to.
-
That was the 'loving creator' that wiped out humanity down to a single family, destroyed every living thing in Sodom and Gomorrah, arranged a situation to justify his slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt and created people with curiosity then turned people into pillars of salt for looking at something happening... that's the sort of 'love' that abusive spouses demonstrates. It might be a form of love, but it sure as hell isn't one you want to celebrate or be proud of.
O.
O, abusive spouses do not, in reality, punish their partners for anything that they have done; the perp. may think that they have when in the depths of alcohol-induced anger, depression or whatever. Furthermore, they don't give the partner the opportunity to ask for forgiveness or to change their way of living if they have done something wrong. In every occasion that you mention, bar the one about the innocents (which was purely Herod's fault anyway), God gave the wrongdoers the opportunity to repent and change their ways. I think you will agree that parents who are worth their salt do the same, applying any ultimate punishment only if a child refuses to apologise/admit to something that they are clearly guilty of/etc. Sometimes, some other degree of punishment, to get the child to accept the consequences of their action, also has to be administered.
-
Maeght, I think the problem with the question is that science has to do with knowledge. 'Why' something happens is no less 'scientific' than 'how'. Whilst the narrow understanding of science is adhered to by some, we will never gain any depth or breadth of 'knowledge'
Why something happens is begging the question. How something happens is not. Whilst people continue to presume there must be a 'why' in the absence of any justification, we will always be battling against superstition.
O.
-
As I have said on many occasions, and will continue to say, Satan couldn't be any worse than the oh so 'loving' deity in the Bible!
And I and others will continue to ask you for solid evidence that supports that continual assertion, Floo.
-
Why something happens is begging the question. How something happens is not. Whilst people continue to presume there must be a 'why' in the absence of any justification, we will always be battling against superstition.
I would disagree, O. On the occasios I had to punish one or other of my daughters, I would rarely explain in detail how I was going to punish them. I would, on the other hand, explain why I was punishing them - and in detail - so that they understood the reasoning behind the punishment.
Clearly, if one's philosophy of life doesn't include a reason for human life, the whole concept could be deemed to be 'begging the question', but then I suppose why would have to regard anything one does as having no real reason and therefore your having no real answer to anyone who asks why you do something.
-
O, abusive spouses do not, in reality, punish their partners for anything that they have done; the perp. may think that they have when in the depths of alcohol-induced anger, depression or whatever.
And the firstborn of Egypt had done something wrong? Not, of course, that ANYONE had done anything punishable, given that god forces Pharaoh to hold out until he has an excuse for the slaughter.
Furthermore, they don't give the partner the opportunity to ask for forgiveness or to change their way of living if they have done something wrong.
Why do they need to seek forgiveness for not having done anything wrong?
In every occasion that you mention, bar the one about the innocents (which was purely Herod's fault anyway), God gave the wrongdoers the opportunity to repent and change their ways.
1. Nothing has established these people had done anything wrong.
2. Even if some of them had, there is no way the children of Sodom and Gomorrah, the firstborn of Egypt or every child on the planet that wasn't the son of Noah had perpetrated sufficient crimes to warrant punishment
3. What crime justifies capital punishment by drowning?
I think you will agree that parents who are worth their salt do the same, applying any ultimate punishment only if a child refuses to apologise/admit to something that they are clearly guilty of/etc.
Really? I think, increasingly, people realise that there is less and less need for 'punishment' in any real sense, clearly expressing disappointment and reinforcing good behaviour is far more effective.
Sometimes, some other degree of punishment, to get the child to accept the consequences of their action, also has to be administered.
How much better is the behaviour of dead people after that level of sanction?
O.
-
I would disagree, O. On the occasios I had to punish one or other of my daughters, I would rarely explain in detail how I was going to punish them. I would, on the other hand, explain why I was punishing them - and in detail - so that they understood the reasoning behind the punishment.
Not a valid example: in this scenario you had a reason (a 'why') to administer whatever form of punishment you decided upon.
Clearly, if one's philosophy of life doesn't include a reason for human life, the whole concept could be deemed to be 'begging the question'.
Yep - as you so ably and regularly demonstrate, asking 'why' in some circumstances is begging the question.
but then I suppose why would have to regard anything one does as having no real reason and therefore your having no real answer to anyone who asks why you do something.
Nope - in some cases 'why' is a valid question and in other cases it is the fallacy of begging the question: the key thing is to only ask 'why' when it is an appropriate question to ask.
-
Why something happens is begging the question. How something happens is not. Whilst people continue to presume there must be a 'why' in the absence of any justification, we will always be battling against superstition.
I would disagree, O. On the occasios I had to punish one or other of my daughters, I would rarely explain in detail how I was going to punish them. I would, on the other hand, explain why I was punishing them - and in detail - so that they understood the reasoning behind the punishment.
However, the punishment was clearly happening, and you had reason to think there was a reason. There is no reason to think there is a 'reason' for creation.
Clearly, if one's philosophy of life doesn't include a reason for human life, the whole concept could be deemed to be 'begging the question', but then I suppose why would have to regard anything one does as having no real reason and therefore your having no real answer to anyone who asks why you do something.
As a conscious agent there are reasons for much of what I do (and some other things for which there is no conscious reason). In the absence of any evidence for a creator or a conscious element to 'creation' ...
O.
-
Having looked at JP's insane 1st post which is pure nonsense and having noticed Gordon chipping in and I notice he failed miserably to reply to my post on the other thread.
I will dismiss this thread as total delirium and let you get on with it.
~TW~
-
So is it scientifically accurate?
Maeght, I think the problem with the question is that science has to do with knowledge. 'Why' something happens is no less 'scientific' than 'how'. Whilst the narrow understanding of science is adhered to by some, we will never gain any depth or breadth of 'knowledge'
Yes, science has to do with knowledge. The thread is about the idea that Genesis is scientifically accurate i.e. the information conforms with our knowledge which has been derived from scientific study. My point in re asking the question is that other aspects of interpretation are not related to the very specific point made in the OP about claims made by TW and others. The thread todate doesn't seem to be addressing that but drifting off on a tangient.
-
Having looked at JP's insane 1st post which is pure nonsense and having noticed Gordon chipping in and I notice he failed miserably to reply to my post on the other thread.
I will dismiss this thread as total delirium and let you get on with it.
~TW~
Would be better to explain why the OP is insane and pure nonsense.
-
Having looked at JP's insane 1st post which is pure nonsense and having noticed Gordon chipping in and I notice he failed miserably to reply to my post on the other thread.
I will dismiss this thread as total delirium and let you get on with it.
~TW~
Would be better to explain why the OP is insane and pure nonsense.
Judging by TW'S standards anything that's clearly expressed, grammatically correct and spelt properly qualifies as pure nonsense.
-
As I have said on many occasions, and will continue to say, Satan couldn't be any worse than the oh so 'loving' deity in the Bible!
And I and others will continue to ask you for solid evidence that supports that continual assertion, Floo.
And I will keep asking you and others like you what is 'loving' about the Biblical deity? If any human behaved in the way it is supposed to have behaved, they would be roundly condemned by all right minded people, and steps would be taken to eliminate them.
-
As I have said on many occasions, and will continue to say, Satan couldn't be any worse than the oh so 'loving' deity in the Bible!
And I and others will continue to ask you for solid evidence that supports that continual assertion, Floo.
And I will keep asking you and others like you what is 'loving' about the Biblical deity? If any human behaved in the way it is supposed to have behaved, they would be roundly condemned by all right minded people, and steps would be taken to e...
I think you've been asking that silly question now for about ten years: so maybe you're wasting your time. No, you're wasting your time
-
Having looked at JP's insane 1st post which is pure nonsense and having noticed Gordon chipping in and I notice he failed miserably to reply to my post on the other thread.
I will dismiss this thread as total delirium and let you get on with it.
~TW~
Would be better to explain why the OP is insane and pure nonsense.
Judging by TW'S standards anything that's clearly expressed, grammatically correct and spelt properly qualifies as pure nonsense.
There will never be a chance of having a sensible discussion if people just make little unnecessary digs all the time though.
-
And the firstborn of Egypt had done something wrong? Not, of course, that ANYONE had done anything punishable, given that god forces Pharaoh to hold out until he has an excuse for the slaughter.
Yet he had given Pharoah several chances to let the people of Israel go, before getting to this final stage. Pharoah had chosen not to.
Why do they need to seek forgiveness for not having done anything wrong?
Read my post again; I didn't said that they had to.
1. Nothing has established these people had done anything wrong.
2. Even if some of them had, there is no way the children of Sodom and Gomorrah, the firstborn of Egypt or every child on the planet that wasn't the son of Noah had perpetrated sufficient crimes to warrant punishment
3. What crime justifies capital punishment by drowning?
O, I should have pointed out that, since the Flood story occurs within the first 11 chapters of Genesis, it is a theological treatment, not a historical account. My apologies, though I would hope that most people here would have been aware of this undertanding in view of the various occasions I've pointed it out.
Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, they are considered to be pretty horrendous places even outside of the Biblical record, so I suspect that there are things that we have little of no knowledge about now.
Egypt: If one thinks about punishment, it only really works when it impacts on something that the person being punished holds dear. In the Ancient Middle East, the first-born was probably the most important thing for a family. There had been a steadily escalating degree of punishment for every time that Pharoah, as the representative of his nation, refused to release the Jews. Sometimes he would agree, only to retract his agreement; sometimes, he simply refused. In the particular circumstances, it was the norm that the nation shared the 'punishment' suffered by a defeated leader.
I think you will agree that parents who are worth their salt do the same, applying any ultimate punishment only if a child refuses to apologise/admit to something that they are clearly guilty of/etc.
Really? I think, increasingly, people realise that there is less and less need for 'punishment' in any real sense, clearly expressing disappointment and reinforcing good behaviour is far more effective.
Can't say that I've noticed this, let alone ever reading any evidence to support this idea. Reinforcing good behaviour only works when it goes hand in hand with allowing a child to experience the consequences of their wrong-doing.
How much better is the behaviour of dead people after that level of sanction?
I didn't realise that Pharoah, for instance, died with his first-born.
-
I think you've been asking that silly question now for about ten years: so maybe you're wasting your time. No, you're wasting your time
BA, I think that Floo hopes that, by constant repetition of her assertion, she'll come to believe its truth. ;)
-
Having looked at JP's insane 1st post which is pure nonsense and having noticed Gordon chipping in and I notice he failed miserably to reply to my post on the other thread.
I will dismiss this thread as total delirium and let you get on with it.
~TW~
TW
You referenced a religious book that is over a century old, isn't a science book and where Outrider pointed out that what page 261 says (the page you specifically mentioned) is plain wrong - not much more need be said.
If you want to talk about the science I'd say you need to at least reference genuine up-to-date science literature from professional scientists, and not this type of old religious nonsense or modern creationist drivel.
-
I think you've been asking that silly question now for about ten years: so maybe you're wasting your time. No, you're wasting your time
BA, I think that Floo hopes that, by constant repetition of her assertion, she'll come to believe its truth. ;)
You'd think she'd try and understand what the Gospel's true message is.
-
I think you've been asking that silly question now for about ten years: so maybe you're wasting your time. No, you're wasting your time
BA, I think that Floo hopes that, by constant repetition of her assertion, she'll come to believe its truth. ;)
Hope one day you might actually answer the much asked question, "what is loving about the Biblical deity." I won't hold my breath though, because you can't!
-
Yet he had given Pharoah several chances to let the people of Israel go, before getting to this final stage. Pharoah had chosen not to.
1 - yet when Pharoah was ready to submit God 'hardened his heart'.
2 - in what way does anything Pharoah does justify killing (other people's) children?
Why do they need to seek forgiveness for not having done anything wrong?
Read my post again; I didn't said that they had to.
Your post implies that they could have avoided punishment by seeking forgiveness, at least that's how it reads to me.
1. Nothing has established these people had done anything wrong.
2. Even if some of them had, there is no way the children of Sodom and Gomorrah, the firstborn of Egypt or every child on the planet that wasn't the son of Noah had perpetrated sufficient crimes to warrant punishment
3. What crime justifies capital punishment by drowning?
O, I should have pointed out that, since the Flood story occurs within the first 11 chapters of Genesis, it is a theological treatment, not a historical account. My apologies, though I would hope that most people here would have been aware of this undertanding in view of the various occasions I've pointed it out.
I get that it's not, in your opinion, a literal account - I'm still curious as to what the object lesson is supposed to be. I'm struggling to find the 'morality' of an implicit threat to entire communities for the actions of some, to the veneration of a man that would offer up his own children for rape to avoid homosexual activity, that posits lethal punishment for either curiosity or disobedience.
Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, they are considered to be pretty horrendous places even outside of the Biblical record, so I suspect that there are things that we have little of no knowledge about now.
Perhaps, but surely a lesson about 'rescuing' the good and/or innocent from the dens of iniquity would have been a better moral lesson than their destruction in entirety? Even if it's a post hoc rationalisation for a previous war/natural event a tale that spoke of the innocent being rescued or at least mourned would speak better?
Egypt: If one thinks about punishment, it only really works when it impacts on something that the person being punished holds dear. In the Ancient Middle East, the first-born was probably the most important thing for a family. There had been a steadily escalating degree of punishment for every time that Pharoah, as the representative of his nation, refused to release the Jews. Sometimes he would agree, only to retract his agreement; sometimes, he simply refused. In the particular circumstances, it was the norm that the nation shared the 'punishment' suffered by a defeated leader.
Why is a god limited by the savagery of the human cultures of the time? Why is god not setting the example we'd expect now, or better the one we can only dream of in the future?
Can't say that I've noticed this, let alone ever reading any evidence to support this idea. Reinforcing good behaviour only works when it goes hand in hand with allowing a child to experience the consequences of their wrong-doing.
Consequences of actions, yes, but punishment isn't an intrinsic consequence, it's a choice on your part.
How much better is the behaviour of dead people after that level of sanction?
I didn't realise that Pharoah, for instance, died with his first-born.
I was actually thinking more along the lines of Sodom and Gomorrah, but even if we're talking Pharoah and it was effective, that still doesn't even come close to justifying the idea of the slaughter of even Pharoah's child, let alone anyone else's.
O.
-
And your 'point' is ???? ::)
I think BA's point is that Floo makes this assertion in some way almost every day, yet never provides any plausible evidence for the assertion. Nor, for that matter. has any of the 'others' she refers to.
You're off on one again Hope; once you manage to establish in an incontravertible way that your, at present only an idea of, god exists perhaps you might then be able to explain to Floo how you've managed to come to a conclusion that she has got it wrong.
Remember Hope it's you that are referring to a god thingy that you have, to date, been unable to come up with credible evidence that would support your god idea/belief/faith, define the soppy idea however you wish to.
You and your fellow reliosos came up with the god idea so it's for you and yours to justify it, before there is any need for any kind of argument about whatever it is your god idea is supposed to have done or not.
I can't think why it is that you seem to be so totally unable to understand the above Hope, is it because you suspect somewhere in the deepest corner of your mind that the the god idea is in fact a load of old tripe, which it more than likely is, so you feel there is a need invite others to to prove something that, could if evidence of god was found, would remove this nagging thought in that darkest corner of your mind where you have this alarming, to you, thought, that these atheists might have got it right?
ippy
-
From the point of view of the author of the Pentateuch, the light on the first day probably came from God Himself. The pillar of fire (Exodus 13:21) that provided light for the Israelites is an example. Exodus 14:20 shows how, during the night, it brought darkness to the Egyptians and light to the Israelites. So it was effectively "separating light and dark" like in Genesis 1:4.
I would agree with that and it is a view which I think finds support right at the end of Scripture. In the description of the new Jerusalem in Rev 20:22 we read, 'And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of the Lord gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb'. Interesting that right at the beginning of time and again right at the end there is light but no sun. If the Lord is the light right at the end then it is fair to conclude that He is also the source of light right at the start.
-
DaveM,
I would agree with that and it is a view which I think finds support right at the end of Scripture. In the description of the new Jerusalem in Rev 20:22 we read, 'And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of the Lord gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb'. Interesting that right at the beginning of time and again right at the end there is light but no sun. If the Lord is the light right at the end then it is fair to conclude that He is also the source of light right at the start.
It's interesting isn't it this phenomenon - that you can take any data, ignore its plain meaning and then reinterpret it to fit any set of observable facts you like. I did it once on the old BBC Board by using premier league stats to "predict" whatever happened to be in the news that week. Sadly I've long since lost it, but I'm pretty sure there's a word for the process of doing it. Does anyone here know it?
Clearly the moment you fall into the trap of TW-ism and decide that Genesis is an accurate scientific description then reality will smack you in the face because the facts contradict pretty much everything it has to say. If you don't overreach though and take it as merely one of many early and crude attempts to explain the otherwise inexplicable, then it's interesting enough in its own right as a piece of folklore.
And that's the problem here I think - overreaching: social anthropology, yes; science, no.
-
It's interesting isn't it this phenomenon - that you can take any data, ignore its plain meaning and then reinterpret it to fit any set of observable facts you like. I did it once on the old BBC Board by using premier league stats to "predict" whatever happened to be in the news that week. Sadly I've long since lost it, but I'm pretty sure there's a word for the process of doing it. Does anyone here know it?
I think it is called 'Theology', Blue :)
-
Hi Gordon,
I think it is called 'Theology', Blue
Very droll :)
I'm sure there's a technical term for it though - when you twist any historic data to fit any current facts and then claim the historic data to have bee right all along even though it's no such thing. I'll have another look for it.
-
I think blue is right, that there is a word for this, I was thinking of post-rationalization, or post hoc rationalization, or retrofitting, and there is a term for buying something expensive and ignoring its defects, but I can't remember it. It is easy to do in theology, as for example, in looking at the OT and deciding that a particular text refers to Jesus.
There is 'postdiction' and 'hindsight bias' although I'm not familiar with them.
-
Also 'vaticinium ex eventu' although this refers to prophecies, written after the event, whereas postdiction means a genuine prophecy which is reinterpreted to fit the facts. (I think).
-
Hi Wiggs,
I think blue is right, that there is a word for this, I was thinking of post-rationalization, or post hoc rationalization, or retrofitting, and there is a term for buying something expensive and ignoring its defects, but I can't remember it. It is easy to do in theology, as for example, in looking at the OT and deciding that a particular text refers to Jesus.
Thanks for this. "Hindsight bias" (Wiki: "also known as the knew-it-all-along effect or creeping determinism, is the inclination, after an event has occurred, to see the event as having been predictable, despite there having been little or no objective basis for predicting it") is heading towards it, but I think there's a more specific term still. I suppose hindsight bias fits inasmuch as current science may conclude something, then someone says, "Ah, but if you take verse 3 of Genesis, re-translate it through the the babel fish converter, divide the resulting number of lines by six, take "lion" actually to mean "iPhone 6", then bingo-shmingo, Genesis was right all along!"
Maybe though we need a neologism for it: "TW-ism" perhaps?
-
Wiggs,
Also 'vaticinium ex eventu' although this refers to prophecies, written after the event, whereas postdiction means a genuine prophecy which is reinterpreted to fit the facts. (I think).
Yep, saw those too but again it's the prophecy bit that's slightly off. It's not that TW et al claim that Genesis prophesised the winner of the 4.30 at Kempton Park, but rather that it accurately describes the facts that modern science has only now worked out.
-
DaveM,
I would agree with that and it is a view which I think finds support right at the end of Scripture. In the description of the new Jerusalem in Rev 20:22 we read, 'And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of the Lord gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb'. Interesting that right at the beginning of time and again right at the end there is light but no sun. If the Lord is the light right at the end then it is fair to conclude that He is also the source of light right at the start.
It's interesting isn't it this phenomenon - that you can take any data, ignore its plain meaning and then reinterpret it to fit any set of observable facts you like. I did it once on the old BBC Board by using premier league stats to "predict" whatever happened to be in the news that week. Sadly I've long since lost it, but I'm pretty sure there's a word for the process of doing it. Does anyone here know it?
Clearly the moment you fall into the trap of TW-ism and decide that Genesis is an accurate scientific description then reality will smack you in the face because the facts contradict pretty much everything it has to say. If you don't overreach though and take it as merely one of many early and crude attempts to explain the otherwise inexplicable, then it's interesting enough in its own right as a piece of folklore.
And that's the problem here I think - overreaching: social anthropology, yes; science, no.
I need some clarification here. Where in my post did I say that I had decided that Genesis was an accurate scientific description?
-
DaveM,
I need some clarification here. Where in my post did I say that I had decided that Genesis was an accurate scientific description?
Here:
Interesting that right at the beginning of time and again right at the end there is light but no sun. If the Lord is the light right at the end then it is fair to conclude that He is also the source of light right at the start.
-
DaveM,
I need some clarification here. Where in my post did I say that I had decided that Genesis was an accurate scientific description?
Here:
Interesting that right at the beginning of time and again right at the end there is light but no sun. If the Lord is the light right at the end then it is fair to conclude that He is also the source of light right at the start.
No. I was drawing an analogy between two verses in Scripture, one right at the beginning of the Biblical narrative and one right at the end. This analogy is only valid provided the same interpretive approach is adopted towards both passages. Now apart from Chapters 2 & 3 of Revelation, which comprises letters written to real people in real churches with real issues, any attempts to enforce a rigid literal interpretation on the balance of Revelation is unsustainable. Therefore I am not applying literalism to Genesis 1. I am simply noting an important truth that can be gleaned from these two passages - a truth which is further reinforced by John 1:9 where the true light (Jesus) was coming into the world.
-
DaveM,
I would agree with that and it is a view which I think finds support right at the end of Scripture. In the description of the new Jerusalem in Rev 20:22 we read, 'And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of the Lord gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb'. Interesting that right at the beginning of time and again right at the end there is light but no sun. If the Lord is the light right at the end then it is fair to conclude that He is also the source of light right at the start.
It's interesting isn't it this phenomenon - that you can take any data, ignore its plain meaning and then reinterpret it to fit any set of observable facts you like. I did it once on the old BBC Board by using premier league stats to "predict" whatever happened to be in the news that week. Sadly I've long since lost it, but I'm pretty sure there's a word for the process of doing it. Does anyone here know it?
Clearly the moment you fall into the trap of TW-ism and decide that Genesis is an accurate scientific description then reality will smack you in the face because the facts contradict pretty much everything it has to say. If you don't overreach though and take it as merely one of many early and crude attempts to explain the otherwise inexplicable, then it's interesting enough in its own right as a piece of folklore.
And that's the problem here I think - overreaching: social anthropology, yes; science, no.
I don't think you can box it up that neatly. Scripture, unlike a scientific thesis can not be revised or abandoned in response to new data, so for a person living 2000 years since they were written they can only reinterpreted them as a way of integrating them into their religious beliefs. I don't see a problem with that, it's simply a neccesary part of an active faith.
Sure, the claims that come out of that can be as ludicrous or reasonable as any offered up by religion, but to see the reinterpretation itself as invalidating scripture then I think you misunderstand it's purpose and function for a person who believes it holds truth if some sort.
-
Thing is... does the Bible itself see Genesis as literally true???
-
Not sure that Genesis 1-11 is meant to be literal, anyway.
That' not important for the purposes of this thread. We are here to examine TW's assertion that the book of Genesis is scientifically accurate not whether it is meant to be scientifically accurate.
-
3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.
So actually very little eh ?????
No, actually very much, Nick. Put succinctly, the God of the Jews was a loving Creator God, with all that that meant for humanity: the Babylonian gods were gods who created things through destruction.
The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!
This thread is examining the assertion by TW that Genesis is scientifically accurate. The nature of God is irrelevant to that point.
-
DaveM,
No. I was drawing an analogy between two verses in Scripture, one right at the beginning of the Biblical narrative and one right at the end. This analogy is only valid provided the same interpretive approach is adopted towards both passages.
Well, it's "valid" in that it's internally consistent that way I suppose - much as Harry Potter not liking sprouts in both Book 1 and Book 7 would be valid.
Now apart from Chapters 2 & 3 of Revelation, which comprises letters written to real people in real churches with real issues, any attempts to enforce a rigid literal interpretation on the balance of Revelation is unsustainable.
Fair enough. TW will be pleased to learn that no doubt, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood you here.
Therefore I am not applying literalism to Genesis 1. I am simply noting an important truth that can be gleaned from these two passages - a truth which is further reinforced by John 1:9 where the true light (Jesus) was coming into the world.
Ah, but Jesus and his "true light" coming in to the world are factual claims. Which brings us full circle I guess.
-
Jeremy,
That' not important for the purposes of this thread. We are here to examine TW's assertion that the book of Genesis is scientifically accurate not whether it is meant to be scientifically accurate.
Actually he goes even further in his overreach and claims them to be "scientifically verified". Sadly all he has to back the claim is a scientifically illiterate text from a Reverend Collett published in 1909, but there it is nonetheless.
-
Right, it seems people have misunderstood the point of this thread. It is here only to examine the truth or otherwise of TW's assertion that Genesis is scientifically accurate.
I'd appreciate it if people would limit their replies to citing scientific inaccuracies in Genesis and discussion of those inaccuracies, please. Also, it would be nice if TW showed up to defend his assertion.
Thank you.
Another inaccuracy:
Rain doesn't fall through windows in the sky.
-
Did anyone mention that snakes don't talk.
-
Having looked at JP's insane 1st post which is pure nonsense and having noticed Gordon chipping in and I notice he failed miserably to reply to my post on the other thread.
I will dismiss this thread as total delirium and let you get on with it.
~TW~
Would be better to explain why the OP is insane and pure nonsense.
Why don't you try to explain why the OP is insane and pure nonsense rather than starting a thread about it on the faith sharing section?
-
I think you've been asking that silly question now for about ten years: so maybe you're wasting your time. No, you're wasting your time
BA, I think that Floo hopes that, by constant repetition of her assertion, she'll come to believe its truth. ;)
Yet, ironically, BA rather agrees with Floo as regards the god of the Old Testament. So you needn't snuggle up too close. You can hardly have forgotten that BA is a kind of latter-day Marcionite, have you? Perhaps the question of Marcion might be raised yet again - it might tempt BA away from his recent spate of playground behaviour.
-
This thread is examining the assertion by TW that Genesis is scientifically accurate. The nature of God is irrelevant to that point.
Is it examining whether Gensis as a whole is scientifically accurate, or just parts of it? After all, all we've had is reference to the first 11 chapters of the book, which is written in a very different style to the rest.
-
This thread is examining the assertion by TW that Genesis is scientifically accurate. The nature of God is irrelevant to that point.
Is it examining whether Gensis as a whole is scientifically accurate, or just parts of it? After all, all we've had is reference to the first 11 chapters of the book, which is written in a very different style to the rest.
As a whole no and if parts seem to be scientifically so it is from sheer luck or some form of common sense. What is the point of all this?
-
It's interesting isn't it this phenomenon - that you can take any data, ignore its plain meaning and then reinterpret it to fit any set of observable facts you like. I did it once on the old BBC Board by using premier league stats to "predict" whatever happened to be in the news that week. Sadly I've long since lost it, but I'm pretty sure there's a word for the process of doing it. Does anyone here know it?
So, why are you doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing, bhs? After all, Revelation chapter 2 onwards is widely acknowledged by both scholars and theologians, as well as by all Christians since the book was written, as revelation - in other words not to be understood in a literal manner. It is you who is ignoring 'its plain meaning and then reinterpret it to fit any set of observable facts you like'. I realise that many Christians have assumed that the whole of Genesis is 'real' but even the Jews didn't necessarily believe that it was - even before Christ arrived. That is why I would partially disagree with Samuel's Scripture, unlike a scientific thesis can not be revised or abandoned in response to new data, ...
Whilst the Scripture hasn't been changed, an earlier understanding that matches the language and literary style of the material far better that has probably only been ignored for about 1000 years, has been rediscovered by - ironically - people who have sought to reclaim Jesus for the Jews.
And that's the problem here I think - overreaching: social anthropology, yes; science, no.
And I would say that that understanding is no better than ~TW~'s original error. It's social anthropology - no; science - no; analogous theology - yes.
-
Hope,
So, why are you doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing, bhs? After all, Revelation chapter 2 onwards is widely acknowledged by both scholars and theologians, as well as by all Christians since the book was written, as revelation - in other words not to be understood in a literal manner.
I'm not. Whether it “reveals” anything (other than the beliefs of the people who wrote it) is, to put it mildly, moot but you’ve missed the point. I was commenting on those who would twist the text any which way so as to decide that it is literally true.
It is you who is ignoring 'its plain meaning and then reinterpret it to fit any set of observable facts you like'. I realise that many Christians have assumed that the whole of Genesis is 'real' but even the Jews didn't necessarily believe that it was - even before Christ arrived. That is why I would partially disagree with Samuel's
I’ve done no such thing – see above.
Whilst the Scripture hasn't been changed, an earlier understanding that matches the language and literary style of the material far better that has probably only been ignored for about 1000 years, has been rediscovered by - ironically - people who have sought to reclaim Jesus for the Jews.
No doubt. So? Newer and better translations of early creation myths are fascinating no doubt for those who study these things, but that’s of no relevance to those who overreach and claim this particular suite of myths to be literally true.
Which is what this thread is about.
And I would say that that understanding is no better than ~TW~'s original error. It's social anthropology - no; science - no; analogous theology - yes.
Then you would say wrongly. Social anthropologists study the customs, cultural beliefs, relationships etc of social groups – and Genesis is a good documented example of just those kinds of customs, cultural beliefs, relationships etc of the tribes who inspired or wrote it.
If you also want to give it a reading that you call “analogous theology” that’s fine, but you’d still have all your work ahead of you if you wanted to establish too that any of its factual claims are facts.
-
Dearly Misguided,
Page three on my old mate TW's ramblings :o :o
There are no mistakes in Genesis, well only if you think debating with TW will be a step forward.
And God saw that it was good, but he said, I better consult with TW just in case. ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
PS: I was two whole days without internet, I had to use my own brain for thinking :o :o
-
This thread is examining the assertion by TW that Genesis is scientifically accurate. The nature of God is irrelevant to that point.
Is it examining whether Gensis as a whole is scientifically accurate, or just parts of it? After all, all we've had is reference to the first 11 chapters of the book, which is written in a very different style to the rest.
TW claimed that Genesis was scientifically verified. Therefore, you are free to post scientific inaccuracies from any part of it.
-
TW claimed that Genesis was scientifically verified. Therefore, you are free to post scientific inaccuracies from any part of it.
jeremy, according to your OP, ~TW~ only claims that the creation story was scientifically verified. So, that is only the first two chapters of Genesis at best.
I realise that you have quoted another post of his which refers to mistakes in Genesis (the source thread of which isn't mentioned), but the gist of the poists so far have all been to do with the 'scientifically verified' claim.
May I suggest that a separate thread is started for 'the mistakes in Genesis as a whole', reserving this one for the verification issue, as there are two distinct genres of writing in Genesis - chapters 1-11 and 12 onwards.
With the exception of his dismissive post #35, ~TW~ hasn't posted any additional thought to this thread, so perhaps we ought to be restricting the debate to the parameters that you set in the OP.
-
TW claimed that Genesis was scientifically verified. Therefore, you are free to post scientific inaccuracies from any part of it.
jeremy, according to your OP, ~TW~ only claims that the creation story was scientifically verified. So, that is only the first two chapters of Genesis at best.
OK, in that case feel free to limit your posts to only the creation account.