Evening and Morning before the sun....

[Samurai]

Got time sooner than anticipated...
Originally posted by Samurai
Jim. I think our definition of facts are up for debate. I am a high functioning mutidegreed specialist doctor with an excellent understanding in science. I know what a fact is. I also know what conjecture is. Where something is not provable…. Let me repeat that word… provable… and it is in contradiction to God’s word, I will not believe it.
I would love to debate the facts with you. But so far, you will not. You claim an excellent understanding of science, yet you dismiss all conclusions contrary to your a priori assumptions. Surely you understand this is not how science works. You follow the data, searching for the best conclusion which fits it.

This is the pot calling the kettle black. Every one has a priori assumptions. The scientists, that everything is explainable naturalistically and that uniformitarianism is true. If you can’t see this you are either being dishonest or choose not too.

You claim the evidence for age is not provable. That is true - nothing in science is provable.
But that does not mean that the evidence is not clear or substantial. If you understand probability and the basics of science, then you understand that an alignment of millions if not trillions of data points with a single hypothesis is for all practical purposes proof that hypothesis is true. And lest we get bogged down in generalities, the state of this universe is 100% consistent with a billion year history and can not be cleanly fit into any history less than that. Not only are the stars themselves too far away to be seen without that passage of time, they exist in relationships with each other that themselves require millions of years to form,(tidal tails in galaxies) or there exists the remnants of events which span multiple millions of years (A set of shockwaves exist in Andromeda(m31) the remnants of a collision between itself and satellite galaxy m32 some 200 million years in the past.)

Ok. Not gonna get bogged down here. Real simple explanation…. You make assumptions certain things are true and are irrevocable to arrive at the conclusions you reach. You assume the speed of light is constant and there was no abrupt change. You assume that when the wolrd was cursed there was no change in the physical world. Or, when God created a rainbow for the first time, surely you can see the property of light may have changed here? Perhaps not, but you are still resting on assumption (uniformity and various constants). My assumption are that God is constant and His word trustworthy.

On the Earth there exist structures such as ice packs and lake varves which tell of hundreds of thousands or millions of annual events, and which, even though formed by very different physical processes, record variations in structure at the same relatvie 'times' as implied by their forming process. There are meanders carved into solid rock with vertical wall and 180 degree turns (something impossible with the kinds of water velocities required to carve through the same rock in <10,000 years).

Again uniformitarianism. Read this
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/icecore.asp. Assumptions color ones data interpretation.

So you are at least stuck with the idea God put false histories and events into the universe to make it appear old.
No. People when they abandoned their belief in Him and His word arrived at these conclusions. Re read the Romans passage. Its pretty clear where you end up when you abandon God.

But even more puzzling, given your approach to scripture and science, why then do you trust science to provide healing for the people you treat in your practive when the Bible says God is our healer, and that if anyone is sick we should call on the elders of the church to pray for us, and God will make us well? It is very, very clear this instruction in James. Why do you waste your time on the 'knowledge of men'? Do you not believe God means what He says there?

Absolutely I believe it. What does James say?
(James 5:14 KJV) Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
(James 5:15 KJV) And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Where does it say don’t go to a doctor in that passage?
Do you not believe that the Lord can and will heal? Did you miss the “prayer of faith” bit? In such circumstance Healing will take place. I have been healed before and can attest to the truth of this passage. So what of all the people that aren’t Christians? To whom are they to turn? What about the faithless Christian?
The bible has instances of healing where medicinal practices where also employed eg Isaiah and Hezekiah. Where there is the means for healing in the natural why would anyone suggest not taking it when God created the medicinal plants. So we are to let our child die in prefrence to taking the pills on the shelf? Don’t try and corner me into such foolishness.





That is what we are trying to establish. You say the text is clear. But it is not clear at all what an 'evening' or a 'morning' would be in an evironment where the Earth has no form and the sun and sky do not even yet exist. For you to say this is clear is simply stubborness on your part - an inability to accept there is a flaw in your assumptions and a certain amount of simple intellectual dishonesty on your part.

No my friend. God know’s what an evening and morning was. He said they were present before the sun. You are trying to say “not possible” when God says it was so. The internal constancy is there before the sun and after it was made. You have to say God didn’t know how to communicate what a day was and an evening and morning after the sun. You have demonstrated stubbornness in abundance in your “reinterpretation”.


The contradictions between your interpretation and the witness of creation are very, very real. You just refuse to acknowledge them. I suppose that gives you a certain amount of power in an unmoderated debate - I can't make you look at the real data, and I can't make you acknowledge what is as plain as the nose on your face, but you are the one that has to live with that when all it said and done. And those observing with their minds not already made up also can see quite clearly the dishonesty with which you approach this issue.

Your mind is very made up. You demonstrate this by telling me science is right and the bible has to be reinterpreted to fit. Excellent.

Actually, even this simple statement is not as clear as you would like it to be. Is that 6 work days (m-f,m) = 8 days. Is that 6 8hour 'days', 6 10 hour 'days', 6 4 hour 'days'. You see, the term 'day' when descibing the work we do is not sufficiently detailed give us a precise definition of what you are saying. And indeed, If I ordered a watch from you, depending on your sense of meaning and your working houly pay rate, I could make a good many false assumptions about how long it would take for me to receive said watch or how much it would cost. Also, if I was trying to determine how many watches you could make in a years time, I could also easily be off by a factor of 2.

Well done. But a futile effort on your part to try and muddy the waters. I actually feel sorry for you. You don’t have a bible you can trust. You don’t have a bible you can simply believe. Everything is simile and metaphor and open to misinterpretation. Even in my watch example, you couldn’t possibly arrive at “I made the watch in 6 years, 6 months or 6 hours”, yet that is the conclusion you have arrived at with the bible. Id be surprised if you would be honest and admit as such because that is exactly what you have done.

But in this text, we do not have a clear context in which to evaluate what 'day' is. But one thing is clear - 'day' and 'night' in the first day are not primarily about time, they are about the creation of that which allows a day to be - light and dark. It may be a light/dark period of 24 hours, it may not be. I do not deny you 'could' be right in how you look at it. What I am saying is that from the text alone you can't know for sure if you are right. This is obvious, and again, by holding such a rigid stance on the issue and refusing do discuss any aspect of it beyond declaring yourself correct, you display a very real intellectual dishonesty and arrogance towards your own capability to know that which simply can't be know with certainty.

We have discussed it. You refuse to listen. You are telling me that God in infinite wisdom and endless vocabulary wasn’t able to articulate what He meant. I have said He has. We have evening and morning after the sun as well as before it. we have day 4 etc. Everywhere in scripture where there is a numerical precursor to yom it is always translated and understood as a literal 24 hr day. To dispute that is like an ostrich. Why would the day if it was an eon, after the sun was made begin and end with evening and morning? I have shown from scripture that God Himslef is reffered to as light and Christ as the Sun (Malachi). We have a new heaven and new earth in the future where there is no sun, where God himself gives them light and you try and tell me to wave these passages away. It does fit very neatly you know... God himself giving light in Genesis 1 and the very last chapter of the Bible. there is complete and perfect symmetry if you care to look.



We can coun't rings in trees. We can count layers in lakes. We can observe the process that make them. And we can measure radioisotope ratios. Lake suigetsu has over 100,000 layers that today form annually. The layer count and c14 date for those layers to the limits of measurement precision match virtually 1:1, and. coincidently, match the c14/tree ring callibration curve data.

Please lead me to an article where in a single tree they have counted more than 10000 rings. I would be happy to read it.


Again, this is not man's account you are rejecting. It is the clear implication of the state of creation you are rejecting.

Grow up. What scientists say is what I am rejecting. Walking around experiencing nature I see zero/nada/zip/nil evidence of anything they suggest is true. Age of the universe isn’t obvious. I see design.

The issue is this, you allow your reason to function as you read the Bible, but you must turn it off and declare it invalid when looking at creation.

No. Design, and order with like begating like is everywhere.

It is absolutely true that the most obvious implication of the observable state of creation is great age.

How? Do the rocks talk to you and say I am old? You look at mountains and think because they are growing so slowly they have always done so? You are living proof of the powers of indoctrination. You think you are using reason when looking about and parrot the propaganda fed to you. Regurgitation isn’t learning you said. Yet you regurgitate the musings of scientists and pretend you are using your own reason.

And you could not prove that statement wrong, though I'd love to see you try.
Just did. See above.


But at the same time you are an 'ambassador for Christ'. If you present the Gospel in a clown suit, you aren't functioning very will as a credible ambassador.

Wrong. I am His ambassador. I will not be ashamed when I stand before Him. You cannot claim being a good ambassador when you cannot believe what He says in His word. You are more an ambassador of science than God or His word.

I said proposing the world is only 10,000 years old dresses the gospel up as a clown. Can you show me a verse in the Bible that gives an age for the Earth? You arrive at an age through a series of assumptions, not a direct reading of the text. And you ignore obvious clues from the text and creation that those assumptions are false. In doing so, you dress up the gospel as a clown and present an unnecessary stumbling block to faith.

There are genealogies that give an estimate.



[COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]You do that. In your version a day, when it is defined by morning and evening, isn’t a day. Nope. For in 6 days… doesn’t mean 6 days. Plant life came about before the sun according the bible, yet you believe we can still say the word is accurate to unbelievers ie compatable with evo? The Bible says a woman was made from Adam’s rib but evolution had men and women arising together. The Bible has the sun/moon/stars after the earth, hardly compatable with modern cosmological arguments. With just a few points highlighted you can’t claim the bible to unbelievers as an authority if it to be contorted in these few examples to accommodate the modern unprovable, conflicting arguments.[/COLOR[/i][/b]
I've got news for you. Presenting those statements as you have and as superficially as you have does not give anyone confidence in the authority of the Bible. To claim that is the correct reading of the text is to send whoever you are talking to on to the next religion on their list. You must either address the science which renders such statements absurd, or address the interpretive mode which produces such absurdity. You appear unwilling to do neither.

I am sorry, but all I hear is mindless rhetoric. Those statements aren’t in the least bit superficial. You can’t claim the Bible has authority when you deny what it is saying. It clearly says the sun and stars were made after the earth but you also clearly believe otherwise. Here is your opportunity to show me how one could rehash the text using some credible form of logic to arrive at a meaning other than what is obvious. Go on. Show me. Whilst there, show me how the Bible is correct when it says plants came about before the sun. Give me some rule of language, biblical interpretation or other that would allow you to change the order whilst maintaining the texts integrity. The point is you can’t.


There are over 30,000 protestant denominations on this Earth. And each one thinks they through prayer and revelation have 'got it right'. Some of them you would find absurd. Some you would agree with. They can't all be right. But the attitude you display, that there is no way you could possibly be misunderstanding the text, is why we have 30,000 protestant denominations.

No it isn’t the reason. The church is hardly a fine example of Christianity and they have shown what happens when you don’t believe your bible and when you read it using “personal interpretation” as you do when you read genesis. The Bible is very clear that God is against factionalism, and had these people actually read their bibles they would see that. So you end up with factions when you don’t read or accept the Bible in its entirety. You end up with factions when you aren’t walking with God.
Are you walking with God? Are you in a relationship with Him? Do you believe the Bible? Do you accept it as true? Do you have faith in Him and His word? Or are you too distracted and busy trying to prove science right and rewriting genesis in the process to match?

Think about that.

[oxmixmudd]

I would love to debate the facts with you. But so far, you will not. You claim an excellent understanding of science, yet you dismiss all conclusions contrary to your a priori assumptions. Surely you understand this is not how science works. You follow the data, searching for the best conclusion which fits it.

This is the pot calling the kettle black. Every one has a priori assumptions. The scientists, that everything is explainable naturalistically and that uniformitarianism is true.

This is not entirely true. Scientists do not necessarily think everthing is explainable naturalistically - they try to understand how nature works on its own without the intervention of an intelligence or a God. There is a difference. That is, what science is about (from a theistic perspective), is understanding the order which God has established.

Science does not assume uniformitarianism is true either. But it does try to explain the present by assuming the same kinds of processes that are in play today have always been in play. And it knows that is an implicite assumption, and it looks for any evidence it can find that might support or undermine that assumption.

If you can’t see this you are either being dishonest or choose not too.

What I see is that you grossly oversimply what science does and then build you case from that over simplification.

You claim the evidence for age is not provable. That is true - nothing in science is provable.
But that does not mean that the evidence is not clear or substantial. If you understand probability and the basics of science, then you understand that an alignment of millions if not trillions of data points with a single hypothesis is for all practical purposes proof that hypothesis is true. And lest we get bogged down in generalities, the state of this universe is 100% consistent with a billion year history and can not be cleanly fit into any history less than that. Not only are the stars themselves too far away to be seen without that passage of time, they exist in relationships with each other that themselves require millions of years to form,(tidal tails in galaxies) or there exists the remnants of events which span multiple millions of years (A set of shockwaves exist in Andromeda(m31) the remnants of a collision between itself and satellite galaxy m32 some 200 million years in the past.)

Ok. Not gonna get bogged down here.

It is my experience generalizations like the one you use above only work of you don't look at specific examples ...

Real simple explanation…. You make assumptions certain things are true and are irrevocable to arrive at the conclusions you reach.

I don't think so, but let's see if you can put meat on those bones ...

You assume the speed of light is constant and there was no abrupt change.

No, I assume that if there was a change in the speed of light, we would be able to observe the consequences. We are looking out across million and billions of light years of space. If the light from a billion light years away moved at so fast it crossed all but the last 6,000 light years in a few hours or days and then slowed down to the current speed so as to reach us today, there would be observable consequences. And event in that galaxy that occured over a few days would be stretched into an event that took millions of years to observe. We would notice that. We don't see anything like that. The timeframe of events in supernova a billion light years away match the time frame of events 160,000 light years away, or 1000 light years away.

It there some really bizarre paradigm that would get informaion from a galaxy to us instantly? Yes, some kind asymmetric speed of light. But it would have to be so complex and bizarre the only explanation is that it was designed to behave like it is uniform throughout the universe despite the fact it is not. We are back to a deceptive God again.

And this does not help the andromeda collision situation. You see, all the light from that galaxy tells us events over there happen just like they do here. Only, its 2.5 million light years away. Further, as I mentioned, there is a huge set of shockwaves in the gas and dust of that galaxy left behind by the passage of a satellite galaxy through it. We can see the shockwaves. We can measure the motion of the companion galaxy and the rotation of andromeda. Everything is exaclty as it should be if we play those motions back in time. The shock waves would propagate out from the impact point as observed. M32 is where it should be if that event occured and going the correct direction it should be. The state of the galaxy is exactly as it should be if that event occured 200 million years ago. This is not just a matter of tranlating light across the vast distance so we can see what's going on over there. There is a clear history there that implies at least 200 million years of time has passed. Yet, according to you, it didn't.

andromeda-m32 collision.jpg

Now just what are my assumptions? That the universe is stable and reflects the nature of God (his eternal and consistent nature). That if I see the remnants of an event(shockwaves) and the players are still in view (m31/m32), thne I am seeing something that is real and not a fiction put in place just to trick me.

And that is the way the whole universe is structured. This little 'apparent collision' between m31 and m32 is not the only bit of history out there. There are whole sections of galaxies falling hundreds of thousands of light years of space towards another galaxy (tidal tails). Do you know how long it takes for those stars to fall across that open space? Are you going to propose God just put them there exactly where they should be if they had been falling for millions of years just to trouble folks like me?

NGC3628longtail.jpg
No, there is another of my assumptions. I believe God is not out to fool as many of us as possible. That He didn't make the creation look like it was billions of years old to infinite precision just to trick anyone who dared to wonder if the fact a real evening did not exist on day 1 of Genesis might mean something other than a 24 hour day took place then.

And that is my final point. The universe IS absolutely consistent with a billion year history. It is exactly as one would expect it to be if it had started from a single point and evolved over billions of years of history to the present day. Further, it is impossible to explain the current state of the universe as the result of a 6,000 to 10,000 year history. The only way this universe could be as it is now and be only 10,000 years old or less would be if God designed it to look billions of years old even though it is not.


And that IS the rub. That is the part you gloss over. You can't explain that away (though you can assert it is not true). So rather than wax on eloquent, I ask you to explain that simply fact.

Why is the universe consistent with the assumption that the processes of today are the processes of yesterday. And why does that simple assumption lead to the result that the universe itself is billions of years old, and, in addition, why is everything in it consistent with that conclusion? You see, if it was just coincidental that a few structures looked old, we would soon find ones that contradicted that assumption. BUT WE DON"T!

Again, statistically the only way this universe could be so consistent wrt a billion year history is if is was designed to appear consistent with a billion year history - or if it actually has a billion year history.


Jim

[Samurai]

I think this is the 4th time I have posted this. Please respond
I am sorry, but all I hear is mindless rhetoric. Those statements aren’t in the least bit superficial. You can’t claim the Bible has authority when you deny what it is saying. It clearly says the sun and stars were made after the earth but you also clearly believe otherwise. Here is your opportunity to show me how one could rehash the text using some credible form of logic to arrive at a meaning other than what is obvious. Go on. Show me. Whilst there, show me how the Bible is correct when it says plants came about before the sun. Give me some rule of language, biblical interpretation or other that would allow you to change the order whilst maintaining the texts integrity. The point is you can’t.
Out of here... for now

[rogue06]

I think this is the 4th time I have posted this. Please respond
I am sorry, but all I hear is mindless rhetoric. Those statements aren’t in the least bit superficial. You can’t claim the Bible has authority when you deny what it is saying. It clearly says the sun and stars were made after the earth but you also clearly believe otherwise. Here is your opportunity to show me how one could rehash the text using some credible form of logic to arrive at a meaning other than what is obvious. Go on. Show me. Whilst there, show me how the Bible is correct when it says plants came about before the sun. Give me some rule of language, biblical interpretation or other that would allow you to change the order whilst maintaining the texts integrity. The point is you can’t.
Out of here... for now

The Bible does have authority Sam. It's just that certain interpretations of it that is being questioned. And just to be clear, a literal reading is still an interpretation.

[Faid]

Samurai, since you are still around, one more question:

Is your belief in Geocentricity a result of your literal reading of the Bible, of do you just believe in it, although you don't think the Bible says anything about it with any certainty?

[wattsr1]

No it isn’t the reason. The church is hardly a fine example of Christianity and they have shown what happens when you don’t believe your bible and when you read it using “personal interpretation” as you do when you read genesis.

??

Well what sort of an example of Christianity is the following:-

Every one has a priori assumptions. The scientists, that everything is explainable naturalistically and that uniformitarianism is true.

You do realize that the above latter two statements are something of half-truths? (And that to carry out its own arguments, at times AiG uses its own brand of uniformatarianism?)

Why ask Jim if he is “walking with God”, if he has “a relationship with Him” etc. when you accept half truths uncritically all the while claiming that it is Jim who is at fault?



Regards, Roland

[oxmixmudd]

I think this is the 4th time I have posted this. Please respond
I am sorry, but all I hear is mindless rhetoric. Those statements aren’t in the least bit superficial. You can’t claim the Bible has authority when you deny what it is saying. It clearly says the sun and stars were made after the earth but you also clearly believe otherwise. Here is your opportunity to show me how one could rehash the text using some credible form of logic to arrive at a meaning other than what is obvious. Go on. Show me. Whilst there, show me how the Bible is correct when it says plants came about before the sun. Give me some rule of language, biblical interpretation or other that would allow you to change the order whilst maintaining the texts integrity. The point is you can’t.
Out of here... for now

First of all, I would begin by applying similar logic that you did here to allow yourself to be a doctor when the scripture tells us to pray for the sick:

Absolutely I believe it. What does James say?
(James 5:14 KJV) Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
(James 5:15 KJV) And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

The very first thing you do, even before asking the questions below, is you recognize that not everyone gets healed when such a prayer is said. Everything you say follows from this stark realization that if you take this passage superficially, many will die or never recover. This I liken to recognizing that the universe is indeed very old. Our understanding of nature, of life, of reality forms the basis from which we approach our readng if the text. You demonstrate this quite well below as you expound on James. Remember that when we get to the end of this post.

Where does it say don’t go to a doctor in that passage?

The first thing you do is ask "what is not said". That is, you don't take the passage as necessarily a complete statement but you look at what the possibilities are beyond the conclusion of a superficial reading. The passage doesn't mention doctors or human efforts at healing. Here are a few possible reasons why:

1) God intends us to exclude human efforts at healing. This could be for many reasons. He may even be hostile to the idea because He wants us to put full trust in Him.
2) God isn't talking about what is possible for men, but trying to tell us what He can and is willing to do and what is the appropriate way to approach prayer for healing.

Do you not believe that the Lord can and will heal?

ASIDE: Interesting how just the mention of the fact that this statement is not a complete treatise on healing (that God does not always heal supernaturally) causes you to immediately question if I believe God does indeed heal supernaturally ever. This illustrates what I see as a major problem with your apprach to scriptural interpretation. You seem to think asking questions or admitting seeming contradictions implies a lack of faith.

Answer to your question:

Yes I believe God does supernaturally heal.
No, I do not believe He heals supernaturally everytime He is asked.

Did you miss the “prayer of faith” bit?

No I didn't. But your response begs the question: I pray for someone to get healed of cancer. They die. Does that mean my prayer was 'faithless'?

In such circumstance Healing will take place. I have been healed before and can attest to the truth of this passage. So what of all the people that aren’t Christians? To whom are they to turn? What about the faithless Christian?
The bible has instances of healing where medicinal practices where also employed eg Isaiah and Hezekiah.

Now you look elsewhere in the Bible for examples that expand our understanding of this simple passage in James. These other examples don't necessarily answer why James fully excludes human efforts, but they do show us resorting to human efforts are not always bad. But I could make the case that those you mention where in the old testament, the Bible means what it says, and it doesn't mention going to doctors in James. I could ask you why you would be adding to scripture, or distorting it, or being so unbelieving as to not take it for what it says. But I don't and won't, because that is not how I approach scripture. I approach it in general (including Genesis) more like how you have approached resolving the issue in James.

Where there is the means for healing in the natural why would anyone suggest not taking it when God created the medicinal plants. So we are to let our child die in prefrence to taking the pills on the shelf? Don’t try and corner me into such foolishness.

And now you appeal to two examples in nature. You use your logic to reason that if God has provided useful methods of healing in natural plants and herbs, it is probably because He intends for us to use them. Likewise, the consequences of ignoring them can be fatal, should God not intevene as we requested. Indeed, that God may want us to expand our own knowledge of how to heal, and use it.


So it is the same with Genesis. I look at what other scripture has to say. I look at what is NOT said. I look at the information God has provided us in nature. All these together lead me to understand that what Genesis says superficially is not all of the story. Just as you understand that what is said in James is not all of the story.

The questions you list above all assume the passage is meant to literally map in time and space to the order and mechanics of the act creation, That it is a technical 'highlights' paper on creation. This is similar to assuming the James passage is a 'prescription' for health that you follow to the letter, adding nothing and taking away nothing. You understand that is foolish in James. You do not understand it is equally foolish in Genesis.

As I have mentioned several times and you do not accept as valid, there are clues in this passage and in the rest of scripture that tell us your appoach to this text is wrong and overly rigid. You ASSUME that because the word evening is used in the first day, there was a literal evening. You INSIST this is true, in spite of the fact there is no sun, no sky, and no form to the Earth. You ASSUME there is another source of light, even though it is not mentioned. Yet, even faced with all these contradictions, you do not allow for any other possibilities than those implied by your assumptions. You do not even recognize your assumptions as assumptions.

This I liken to those who ASSUME if human efforts at healing where the way to go, they would have been mentioned in James.And those who INSIST we do not seek human doctors, but trust only in God. After all, James is telling us precisely what to do if we are sick. They ask questions like: "If God had wanted us to use doctors, He could have told us to." or "Can't God speak plainly? Why did he leave doctors out?" And they would say to you and me, "Why do you rely on the knowledge of men rather than trusting in God" or "why do you add to what the Bible clearly says". And when confronted with the clear evidence from nature of people dying even though this 'prescription' is followed: "Why do you not have faith, why do you yield to what you can see rather than trusting God and having faith? Maybe these people sinned, or didn't have faith".

I know you can see the folly of these lines of reasoning in James. But why don't you see the folly in the same application in Genesis?

Finally, to answer your specific questions about Genesis: I believe the answer lies not in trying to provide a 1 to 1, time oriented mapping of a superficial reading of this text to the real history of the Earth and Universe. It is very likely this text is not even the kind of revelation you think it is. That its correlations to the technical history of the universe are symbolic or metaphorical, not literal. That is was inspired yet written from within the point of view of humans who only understood a flat earth, a domed sky and so forth. And as such I am amazed not at what is wrong with it, but what is right with it. That, to me, is evidence of its inspiration and authority.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I think this is the 4th time I have posted this. Please respond
I am sorry, but all I hear is mindless rhetoric. Those statements aren’t in the least bit superficial. You can’t claim the Bible has authority when you deny what it is saying. It clearly says the sun and stars were made after the earth but you also clearly believe otherwise. Here is your opportunity to show me how one could rehash the text using some credible form of logic to arrive at a meaning other than what is obvious. Go on. Show me. Whilst there, show me how the Bible is correct when it says plants came about before the sun. Give me some rule of language, biblical interpretation or other that would allow you to change the order whilst maintaining the texts integrity. The point is you can’t.
Out of here... for now

I split out my reply to address two separate issue here. In this reply (which will be short), I must take serious issue with the bolded statements.

1) What I wrote was the farthest thing from 'mindless rhetoric'. You seem to deal with this issue by just pretending formations like the andromeda shockwaves and tidal tails just don't even exist. This is just about as 'mindless' as one can get. Sure, you can live in a fantasy world for a while, but eventually reality does intrude. In this case, the universe IS in a state fully consistent with billions of years of history. If you do not deal with that then you have no answers to give someone seeking to understand this issue - nor have you faced reality yourself. All you offer is mindless fideism. Blind faith. Believe what you say or the highway. That is not a legitimate apologetic for the faith, nor can it stand any application of reason.

2) You did not identify which statments you refer to here. The issues in Genesis arise from a superficial reading. Your statements about uniformitarianism were superficial and showed a weak understanding of science. The issue of order/mapping Genesis to science I addressed above.

[Samurai]

Against my better judgement I thought I'd respond to that last one...

You deserve a 10 out of 10 for choreography in a tap dance that has failed to address my points at all. You keep saying I am reading things “superficially”, a word that has derogatory overtones and tries to implicate stupidity, naivety or that your “more scientific” approach has superior merit. Lets give you a simple example, that, may enable you to see your foolishness. I pray God will show you the errors of your ways, as I cannot, on my own.
Now, to the example… I say “I had eggs for breakfast”. One could “superficially interpret” that statement as… “I did indeed have eggs for breakfast”. Alternatively you could look in my refrigerator, see no eggs, nor an egg stained, dirty frying pan in the sink, nor eggshells in the garbage can. You could on “deeper/scientific interpretation” and a process of deduction conclude “I had bacon for breakfast” (the evidence of an open bacon container is in the fridge and a smell in the air) ie. I made a mistake or I am a liar and you don’t believe me. Now in case you missed it, I am in the first group and you are in the second. Now you can say I am child-like in my approach to the scriptures, but I am believing God and you are not. You are attempting, rather sadly, to dress that unbelief up in a: “I am so intelligent and scientific skirt” but it will always be, and currently is, simply, unbelief.

Now you have rambled on and on but failed to address a simple point. I am sure I am not the only one who has noticed it (even your comrades would be able to see it)…
Give me some rule of language, biblical interpretation or other that would allow you to change the order of creation to fit with evolution, whilst maintaining the texts integrity.

Ok you say it must be allegorical or simile or metaphor but that makes zero sense and again that is just poor camouflage for unbelief. If it was written for people who saw the world diferently, that begs the question, why would God have given them a false account, or given them something they could understand and then have it as a stumbling block for those who accept current world beliefs? God doesn’t provide “truth” to one generation (or an acceptable but false representation of reality) and falsehood to another. Your position is very unsound. He provides simple truth to both the people at that time and today. It is a choice as to what you believe.


(James 5:14 KJV) Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
(James 5:15 KJV) And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

The very first thing you do, even before asking the questions below, is you recognize that not everyone gets healed when such a prayer is said.
Everything you say follows from this stark realization that if you take this passage superficially, many will die or never recover.

Wow. The number of times you misrepresent my position and then shoot it down is amazing. Yes you use straw-man arguments.

When did I say: “when such a prayer is said not everyone gets healed”? That’s correct. I didn’t. When such a prayer is said, the sick are healed. I don’t take the passage superficially. I believe it. I also take it in concert with the rest of the Bible.

This I liken to recognizing that the universe is indeed very old. Our understanding of nature, of life, of reality forms the basis from which we approach our readng if the text. You demonstrate this quite well below as you expound on James. Remember that when we get to the end of this post.

Ummm. See above and other comments. I don’t adjust my reading of James by my knowledge of medicine or even in the fact God told me to be a doctor. I believe this passage and all other passages related to healing in the Word.


Where does it say don’t go to a doctor in that passage?

The first thing you do is ask "what is not said". That is, you don't take the passage as necessarily a complete statement but you look at what the possibilities are beyond the conclusion of a superficial reading. The passage doesn't mention doctors or human efforts at healing. Here are a few possible reasons why:

1) God intends us to exclude human efforts at healing. This could be for many reasons. He may even be hostile to the idea because He wants us to put full trust in Him.
2) God isn't talking about what is possible for men, but trying to tell us what He can and is willing to do and what is the appropriate way to approach prayer for healing.

Again, you attempt to misrepresent my position. I addressed what was not said because you incorrectly implied the lack of mention of a doctor in the passage implied you mustn’t go to one or “why do I trust in science as a doctor when James doesn’t mention one?” It’s like me saying “Put your shoes on” and then you incorrectly implying you mustn’t wear socks. Let this be made clear to you. A prayer in faith will heal the sick. This is internally consistent with the remainder of the Bible. Each verse needs to be internally consistent with the whole Bible and other scriptures relevant to the doctrine in question. Please reread that last sentence. I never said, consistent with science and I certainly never said, the scripture must be allegorized or twisted in the light of science. Therein lies the huge difference in our positions.

There are scriptures that give reasons why God will not hear our prayers, so those things along with faith also need to be addressed.

Now, it is clear from scripture that God does endorse medicine. You can do the referencing of those, or if that is in dispute I can provide them for you.
My point again is, the scriptures are internally consistent and where one scripture addresses a portion of the canvas others fill in the remaining picture.
Genesis says 6 days and Exodus reinforces it. Jesus endorses and quotes from it (Gen) as a reliable source, not some obscure maze of un-interpretable allegory.

Satan when tempting Jesus tried using scriptures incorrectly and Jesus showed that the scriptures need to be taken as a whole.

Again, previously you told me to ponder “why are there up the 30,000 denominations” thing in a previous post. Your treatment of this passage in James highlights the reasons behind so many incorrect positions beautifully. If you take a solitary verse and run with it, ignoring other verses on the subject in the process you end up with an incorrect position.

You seem to think asking questions or admitting seeming contradictions implies a lack of faith.

Which “seeming contradiction” are you referring to? Evolution and modern cosmology contradict the Bibles record. They can’t both be right.


Yes I believe God does supernaturally heal.

Great.


But your response begs the question: I pray for someone to get healed of cancer. They die. Does that mean my prayer was 'faithless'?

Yes. Or there was some other reason (the bible provides examples of why) God didn’t listen to your prayer.

These other examples don't necessarily answer why James fully excludes human efforts, but they do show us resorting to human efforts are not always bad. But I could make the case that those you mention where in the old testament, the Bible means what it says, and it doesn't mention going to doctors in James. I could ask you why you would be adding to scripture, or distorting it, or being so unbelieving as to not take it for what it says.

Answered above. I don’t add or subtract from scripture. I also don’t rewrite it when science contradicts it.

But I don't and won't, because that is not how I approach scripture. I approach it in general (including Genesis) more like how you have approached resolving the issue in James.

OK. So you look at James in the light of other scriptures (I think this is what you are trying to say). What other scripture therefore allows you to reinterpret Genesis? What scripture says Genesis is allegory? What scripture allows you to change the order of creation given in Genesis? What scripture says trust in man over God’s word?

And now you appeal to two examples in nature. You use your logic to reason that if God has provided useful methods of healing in natural plants and herbs, it is probably because He intends for us to use them.

I use them because you have a penchant for endorsing science over the Word. I also use this as an example of the error one gets into if you appeal to the natural over scripture. God made marijuana, cocaine etc. Now because they are there doesn’t mean we are meant to snort or smoke them now does it?
This is precisely why I don’t try and massage the biblical text into an incorrect rendition in the light of “science” or what is seen in nature.

Scripture as I have already said, endorses medicine, it doesn’t endorse illicit drug use.

So it is the same with Genesis. I look at what other scripture has to say. I look at what is NOT said. I look at the information God has provided us in nature. All these together lead me to understand that what Genesis says superficially is not all of the story. Just as you understand that what is said in James is not all of the story.

No the rest of the “story” is filled in scripture not in the Nature journal. So where in scripture lends support to you allowing you to contradict the order of creation and allegorize the text in Genesis? Please give some specific references. I am happy to wait.

The questions you list above all assume the passage is meant to literally map in time and space to the order and mechanics of the act creation, That it is a technical 'highlights' paper on creation.

Well it is pretty clear to all but the most stubborn that it is a narrative of creation. The order is the order. You allegorize and twist it without a shred of scriptural support.

This is similar to assuming the James passage is a 'prescription' for health that you follow to the letter, adding nothing and taking away nothing.

I don’t add or take anything away. Other scriptures endorse and clarify the scripture. Same in Genesis. Other scriptures clarify the 6 day issue namely Exodus 20. I am yet to see anything that says there was death before the sin of Adam and Eve or that the days were billions of years.

You understand that is foolish in James. You do not understand it is equally foolish in Genesis.

See above. I don’t add or subtract in Genesis or James. You do in Genesis.

As I have mentioned several times and you do not accept as valid, there are clues in this passage and in the rest of scripture that tell us your appoach to this text is wrong and overly rigid. You ASSUME that because the word evening is used in the first day, there was a literal evening. You INSIST this is true, in spite of the fact there is no sun, no sky, and no form to the Earth. You ASSUME there is another source of light, even though it is not mentioned.

There was light wasn’t there? Please site for me an example “Oh scientific One” an example, of light, without a source since you constantly appeal to science. I would love to hear this one!!
We have light and dark, they are enough when separated to divide a 24hr day. God says it was so. You say otherwise. I will believe Him and not your faithless arguments. Again I have referenced in previous posts God being the giver of light etc in numerous passages, which you either failed to notice or simply ignored in favor of an appeal to science. The source of light is even clearly seen in the Genesis passage. The dividers of night and day are the light sources (Genesis 1.14). Who divided light from darkness before the sun?

Yet, even faced with all these contradictions, you do not allow for any other possibilities than those implied by your assumptions. You do not even recognize your assumptions as assumptions.

I don’t see contradictions in scripture, only in your faulty self derived interpretations of it. I don't recognise my assumptions? Now may be time for you to god back and reread my opening example of "I had eggs for breakfast". The only thing I assume is that God is capable of communicating intelligably and that He says the truth.

This I liken to those who ASSUME if human efforts at healing where the way to go, they would have been mentioned in James.

No it isn’t. Safe medical practice is endorsed in the Bible elsewhere. AND the passage in James is true. Other passages in the Bible endorse the Genesis account and don’t say you can allegorize it. So ,NO, it is not the same.

And those who INSIST we do not seek human doctors, but trust only in God. After all, James is telling us precisely what to do if we are sick. They ask questions like: "If God had wanted us to use doctors, He could have told us to." or "Can't God speak plainly? Why did he leave doctors out?" And they would say to you and me, "Why do you rely on the knowledge of men rather than trusting in God" or "why do you add to what the Bible clearly says".

Again your arguments are empty. Whilst James does tell us what to do it is a single verse of MANY, related to healing. It needs to be taken in concert with the other verses. Genesis, likewise, if you have difficulty understanding the very simple prose in English is clarified in Exodus 20.11…“for in 6 days”. It doesn’t say somewhere else evolution is true. It doesn’t say trust in man. Nor does it say science trumps the word.


That is was inspired yet written from within the point of view of humans who only understood a flat earth, a domed sky and so forth.

See first section. So God had it clear for one generation and unclear for another that would have to reinterpret it to the point of being unrecognizable as what is currently in print in Genesis?


.

1) What I wrote was the farthest thing from 'mindless rhetoric'. You seem to deal with this issue by just pretending formations like the andromeda shockwaves and tidal tails just don't even exist. This is just about as 'mindless' as one can get.

I haven’t addressed andromeda as mindless rhetoric. I never addressed them at all, but I did address your failing to provide some concrete reasons and justification from scripture or other common language skills that allows you to reorder the creation account. I have addressed your rewriting of Genesis with zero scriptural support or license for you to do so.


I am still waiting for a real response to this and not an appeal to science.


Sure, you can live in a fantasy world for a while, but eventually reality does intrude.

I could say the same. God has intruded in my life and shown me the genesis account is true. I can’t shoot down every contrary scientific argument but where contradictory to His word, they are false. You will encounter reality one day. Clearly from your arguments you haven't had a real encounter with Him yet, as you still have science above God's word.


All you offer is mindless fideism. Blind faith. Believe what you say or the highway. That is not a legitimate apologetic for the faith, nor can it stand any application of reason.

I have to offer the truth. You may not recognize it as such, but it is. I may not have all the scientific “know how” you profess but I know God well enough that He is capable of speaking intelligibly both to the current and past generations. I know that science doesn’t trump the word. And I do understand enough of evolution to know it is just conjecture and not science.

2) You did not identify which statments you refer to here.

Statements like - Genesis says earth first, sun and stars later. Sun came after the plants. These are not superficial statements. You can dissect the text ad infinitum but the order is the order!

The issues in Genesis arise from a superficial reading.
Right. You can read it deeply and meditate on it a month. The order of creation will not change unless you play a game of word interchangeability. Last time I checked “the words of the Lord are pure words…” You turn Genesis into a “word salad”.

Your statements about uniformitarianism were superficial and showed a weak understanding of science.

Groundless. Scientists assume present rates of ice build up has been relatively stable. Decay rates are stable. Tectonic plate movements are relatively constant. Etc etc.
In reference to my weak understanding in science…Same old garbage from both the atheist and the Christian evolutionists all the time. If you don’t agree with something you are ignorant, stupid or “you just don’t get it”. Conformists however are intelligent and have a deep understanding in science. Sure. You are ace mate! I got an A+ average and 11 years of tertiary education, with simply regurgitating but never understanding it. It is possible to understand it and not agree, or is that simply the domain of the evolutionist of the Yec position? Again I am not getting into the nitty gritty science arguments for the simple reason: You are using science to rewrite/allegorize the Bible. On the one hand you agree science provides no proof but in the next breadth talk about “evidence” without stopping to recognize that the “evidence” is data interpreted in the light of a hypothesis that may or not be true. When I do ask for “hard” evidence like a single tree with more than 10000 rings within, I am met with silence or attempted distraction.

The issue of order/mapping Genesis to science I addressed above.

Well, I’ll grant that you tried. The stuff you find inconvenient to the theories you worship, just get allegorized away.

[Jorge]

Against my better judgement I thought I'd respond to that last one...

You deserve a 10 out of 10 for choreography in a tap dance that has failed to address my points at all. You keep saying I am reading things “superficially”, a word that has derogatory overtones and tries to implicate stupidity, naivety or that your “more scientific” approach has superior merit. Lets give you a simple example, that, may enable you to see your foolishness. I pray God will show you the errors of your ways, as I cannot, on my own.
.
.
.


Well, I’ll grant that you tried. The stuff you find inconvenient to the theories you worship, just get allegorized away.

*************************************************************************************************

It was refreshing and most edifying to have read the above (entire) post, Samurai. The reason for this is seeing confirmation, to a T, of what I myself have been saying to O-Mudd for a very long time (so long and so many times that I've just about given up on trying). I found it uplifting to find you saying to him essentially the very same message (at times almost the very same words!) that I've said to him. I see spiritual confirmation here.

What O-Mudd doesn't seem to understand (or doesn't want to understand) is simply that God's Word has ultimate authority in all matters. He then wishes to interpret that statement as saying that we must "deny the evidence of science". Nonsense! As you have repeated numerous times (has he ever listened?), all he's looking for is justification for his unbelief.

Lest anyone think that I've got something against O-Mudd specifically, I say exactly the same about all others that compromise God's Word so that the edicts of "science" may prevail against that Word. That last statement usually gets distorted into saying that people like you and me "deny science" and are "anti-science". Hogwash! Our science is every bit as valid as their science. What happens is that most people can't differentiate between true science and "science". For instance, 'species diversify' is true science. OTOH, 'all species came from a single-celled common ancestor that existed 3.5 billion years ago' is NOT true science -- it's a mixture of science with (Naturalistic) ideology. Yet it's deceptively packaged and sold to the general public as 'true science'. Then, people such as O-Mudd who can't or won't see this deception get very upset when folks like you and me point out that their emperor is stark naked -- it's mind boggling!

Anyway, keep up the excellent work, Samurai, it's noticed and valued.


Jorge

[Faid]

Jorge, are you a Geocentricist? Apparently not, judging from your Space Travel thread.

Can you explain to Samurai WHY you are not a Geocentricist?

[oxmixmudd]

Jorge, are you a Geocentricist? Apparently not, judging from your Space Travel thread.

Can you explain to Samurai WHY you are not a Geocentricist?

Yep - Jorge thinks he doesn't have his reading of scripture influenced by our understanding of nature (science) - but it is self-deception. Otherwise he'd join Samurai and be a geocentrist.

Of course, Geocentrists allegorise/phenomenologize the sun 'rise', sun 'set', and of course there are those nasty four corners, and the pillars of the Earth they don't take literally.

Gecentrists do take the Raqia (firmament) seriously though, they believe the heavens are some 'plank density' medium/ether that is moving at superluminal speeds at its boudary and above which is water ...

However, I have no idea how they get water 13.7 billion light years away back to the Earth for the flood.

Oh well, does no-one read the Bible 'literally' anymore ....

In actuality - attitudes about Bible interpretiation (especially from the likes of Jorge/Samurai) are a lot like driving a car on the freeway. You go slower than me, you're a slow pain in the butt. You go faster than me, you are an idiot.

Likewise with reading the Bible. You allegorize a passage I take literally - you are a Liberal compromiser. You take a passage I allegorize literally, you are an ignorant hyper-conservative.

I really try to avoid those kinds of trivializations of the study of scripture. There are components/doctrines one must draw a line on - historically these have found their way into various creeds and define historical Christianity. But the age of the Earth and structure of the universe never quite made it to that level ... till now.



Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Against my better judgement I thought I'd respond to that last one...

You deserve a 10 out of 10 for choreography in a tap dance that has failed to address my points at all. You keep saying I am reading things “superficially”, a word that has derogatory overtones and tries to implicate stupidity, naivety or that your “more scientific” approach has superior merit. Lets give you a simple example, that, may enable you to see your foolishness. I pray God will show you the errors of your ways, as I cannot, on my own.
Now, to the example… I say “I had eggs for breakfast”. One could “superficially interpret” that statement as… “I did indeed have eggs for breakfast”. Alternatively you could look in my refrigerator, see no eggs, nor an egg stained, dirty frying pan in the sink, nor eggshells in the garbage can. You could on “deeper/scientific interpretation” and a process of deduction conclude “I had bacon for breakfast” (the evidence of an open bacon container is in the fridge and a smell in the air) ie. I made a mistake or I am a liar and you don’t believe me. Now in case you missed it, I am in the first group and you are in the second. Now you can say I am child-like in my approach to the scriptures, but I am believing God and you are not. You are attempting, rather sadly, to dress that unbelief up in a: “I am so intelligent and scientific skirt” but it will always be, and currently is, simply, unbelief.

That is an interesting example. The only problem is, it isn't really an analogue of the actual situation. Let me give you a better example:

You tell me your house was built in 6 days. But in your house I find pictures showing it framed in in the early spring (no leaves on the trees yet), sheetrocked and roofed later(nice fresh green leaves, dogwoods in full bloom), and then finished off in the early summer (I can tell from the state of various plants in the pictures, and even the positions of certain shadows). Further, I can go downtown and examine the county records and see the building permit was purchased on March 13, and the final inspection was done on June 23.


Now I can conclude:

1) you are lying
2) you mean something other than what my first impression is of what you meant.
3) you falsified the pictures and public records of the event.

1 and 3 don't speak well of your character. If I think you are a decent sort of fellow, I will conclude 2.


Jim

[wattsr1]

Against my better judgement I thought I'd respond to that last one...

[snip]

Groundless. Scientists assume present rates of ice build up has been relatively stable.

Huh.

Again, this is simply untrue. The simple fact of glacials and interglacials shows this claim to be false.

Decay rates are stable.

Yes. Evidence shows this is the case.

Tectonic plate movements are relatively constant.

This is untrue. Movements between plates currently vary by a factor of 10. In the past, movements have varied by at least this much.

Are you suggesting that 1cm/year and 10cm/year are relatively the same?

Etc etc.

You got one out of three correct. Doesn’t look good for your “etc.s” now does it.

So again, why tell Jim that your god has decided to toss his hat in with you, when you cannot get even your simple facts correct? Given that this post is “against your better judgment” – is it therefore an unauthorized one?

Groundless. Scientists assume …

No they do not. They go out and collect evidence and from that evidence they conclude that ice does build up and that it builds up at varying rates.

Going back to your self-serving “I had eggs” analogy. Jim would be assuming if:-

1) He accepted your statement with no further consideration as to whether you are trustworthy or not.

2) He concluded that you did not have eggs, but rather you had bacon and he gathered absolutely no evidence to support his assertion.

But scientists do not do this. The gather evidence and test and test and test.

You are ace mate!

Suggesting that Jim is cocky and arrogant? If so then you are projecting here. Jim is not.

I got an A+ average and 11 years of tertiary education, with simply regurgitating but never understanding it.

It shows.

Besides, having a good memory hardly means a person is thereby a good thinker. It simply means they have a good memory.



Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

*************************************************************************************************

It was refreshing and most edifying to have read the above (entire) post, Samurai.

[snip]

Jorge

I can only endorse Faid's post 161 Jorge. How about it?


Regards, Roland