The miracles of the Genesis creation account

[Calminian]

No, it's not splitting hairs. It is a demonstration of a limitation of science to "declare" anything as conclusively as seanD said it was doing. Even given such tortuous circumstances, "Science" does not "declare that a three day dead corpse cannot come back to life".

Sorry, but it does.

Oh, look. Calminian's resorting to chopping out the text that qualifies a statement to make it seem weaker. That's not like him

To be precise I sliced into several pieces.

"Medical miracle" ≠ supernatural intervention.

Maybe in your dictionary.

Well, you can cite the positive evidence against the Resurrection, if you like. As for YEC interpretation of the Creation account, let's start with radiometric dating techniques. Would you like to discuss this within the limitations of scientific inquiry or will you simply argue that, because miracles can occur, our interpretation of historical events is necessarily unreliable?

I'll let the scientists work all that out. First you need to understand the issue of miracles and how they effect scientific extrapolation. Until you get that, you'll never know when to use science and when it does not apply.

[Ansgar Seraph]

It's the exact same thing. It's the same culture. The same writers who used the same methods, the same type of allegory and symbology. Genesis is myth as you claim. They both are extraordinary accounts that defy science. How are they dissimilar? The NT writers used portions of this myth, as you call it, and incorporated into their own writings, in many cases used it to explain the theory of soteriology. Since God doesn't inspire myth, he obviously didn't think it necessary to inspire Gensis, so why would he inspire the incredible accounts of Christ?

They are dissimilar because one has positive evidence that falsifies it, whilst the other does not.

Furthermore, it is not the exact same culture, unless you're arguing that the authors of Genesis lived in a Roman-occupied, Hellenized Palestine. And there's the roughly 500-2000 year time span separating the writings.

And I never said that God doesn't inspire mythology — you said that and I said that was a modern and ignorant idea.

But since we're on this roll, are you going to explain why Job 9:7 attributes solar eclipses to God commanding the sun not to shine rather than God positioning the moon between the earth and the sun? Will you admit that in one of the oldest books of the Bible, there are phenomenological descriptions that are not clearly identified as phenomenological?

—Sam

[wattsr1]

Again, you're coming at it from the perspective of uniformitarianism—the present is the key to the past. But we have not witnessed these creatures coming into being, nor have we witnessed life evolving from non-life in nature. You can argue that we have seen species change in the present, but this still doesn't tell us about the past or their starting point. Even if I granted that evolution is happening in the present, this still doesn't tell us everything evolved from non-life elements, graduating to single cell and then multi cell animals.

How do you know that miracles are very rare events Cal?

You apparetly accepted Flew's definition of miracle, therefore my point stands.

If you wish to argue as you do above, we do not really observe rain forming, wind forming or frost forming. These are beyond our direct observation. All we have are our naturalistic theories. The Bible tells us our naturalistic theories are wrong. Given that we do not directly see rain, wind, snow, frost actually originating, then do you accept that these really are supernatural miracles?

This is again where philosophical thinking must precede scientific thinking. Science cannot verify any of the above scenarios. It certainly can't verify nor falsify miracles.

Then clearly the weather is also a philosophical issue.

As I say, science cannot directly observe the origin of these phenomena. We have our theories. Theories are not direct observations.

If science cannot verify or falsify miracles, then how do you know that miracles are very rare?

Let me put it do you again, given that many people claim miracle on a daily basis, and given that the Bible is not explicit on the subject, and given that science cannot verify or falsify miracle, then how do you know that which you claim to know?

God could have created the first kinds with the ability to evolve. The starting point could have been multiple fully developed kinds of animals and plants, etc.

God can supernaturalistically cause every rain drop, supernaturalistically cause every snow flake to fall too. Couldn't he. So why when it comes to the weather do you allow science to precede theology, when the Bible is explicit - God causes these things, directly.

So it comes back to the question I continually ask. How do you know that miracles are very rare?



Regards, Roland

[oxmixmudd]

Yes, but this says nothing about how we should view or experience a day. The jewish work week was not 6000 years of labor and 1000 of rest.

Nor does the typical Jewish laborer create an entire universe in one week.

The fact that 1000 years goes by for God like a day goes by for us, does not mean that you can simply say a day = 1000 years whenever it's convenient.

I am neither saying day = 1000 years nor am I using that equation when it is convenient.

First of all, Psalm 90:4 is not setting up an equivalence relation for human time vs. God time. It is saying simply that time for God is not at all like time for us, and that great lengths of time for him are nothing, like a mere day for us. Add to that Paul's extension:

"1000 years is like a day, and a day is like 1000 years"

And Jesus: "Before Abraham was, I am"

And the Bible's teaching about time for God vs time for us is complete. He is not affected by time, we are. He can see the shortest instant the same as the longest eon.

Its' a silly argument.

Well it may well be. But it is not the argument I am using.

If God wanted to convey the Genesis days as morning evening cycles, He couldn't have been more explicit.

Likewise if he wanted to express His work of creation as an analogue or our working week.

I suppose Bishop Spong could come back at you and say Christ was in the grave 3000 years. Ouch! Now what do you say?

I say you don't want to listen to what is being said and try to demean those who see things differently than you do.


Jim

[Ansgar Seraph]

Sorry, but it does.

To be precise I sliced into several pieces.


Maybe in your dictionary.


I'll let the scientists work all that out. First you need to understand the issue of miracles and how they effect scientific extrapolation. Until you get that, you'll never know when to use science and when it does not apply.

Brilliant, Cal. No refutations, an acknowledgment of dishonest cutting, saying that I mooted my own point because I use a different definition for "medical miracle" than you (it was I who wrote it, so we should be using my definition) and topped off by you asking if I wanted to support my claims and then backing out because of a philosophical quagmire that youve been trying to pull people into since our first conversation.

Classic.

—Sam

[Calminian]

So how do you know that miracles are very rare events?

They are rare events by definition. That's what the term means. A miracle is a rare addition to natural providence in which God communicates His authority over nature.

If an event like this is not rare, it is not a miracles.

I think what you're asking is, why do I believe miracles happen? To that I would answer that the testimonial evidence in the Bible is overwhelming.

A great book to read on this is The Testimony of the Evangelists, in which Simon Greenleaf applied legal cross examining principles to the 4 gospels. He was an atheistic jew when he first did this and later became a christian as a result. He was also one of the most brilliant legal minds of all time.

I can switch on the TV each morning and see a lot of them. I remember as a youth reading many books where all sorts of modern day miracles were being claimed. I remember listening to lots of visitors to our church making the claim.

I think you should apply that same principles and determine if they have any validity. I can't say if they were true or not as I don't have the specifics about the testimony given.

[Calminian]

Brilliant, Cal. No refutations, an acknowledgment of dishonest cutting, saying that I mooted my own point because I use a different definition for "medical miracle" than you (it was I who wrote it, so we should be using my definition) and topped off by you asking if I wanted to support my claims and then backing out because of a philosophical quagmire that youve been trying to pull people into since our first conversation.

Classic.

—Sam

You offered nothing to refute. You just proclaimed you were right. What do you want me to say. Put your arguments up there and I'll deal with them.

[oxmixmudd]

They are dissimilar because one has positive evidence that falsifies it, whilst the other does not.

Furthermore, it is not the exact same culture, unless you're arguing that the authors of Genesis lived in a Roman-occupied, Hellenized Palestine. And there's the roughly 500-2000 year time span separating the writings.

And I never said that God doesn't inspire mythology — you said that and I said that was a modern and ignorant idea.

But since we're on this roll, are you going to explain why Job 9:7 attributes solar eclipses to God commanding the sun not to shine rather than God positioning the moon between the earth and the sun? Will you admit that in one of the oldest books of the Bible, there are phenomenological descriptions that are not clearly identified as phenomenological?

—Sam

And which formed the basis for religious doctrine enforcing erroneous understandings of the structure of the natural world based on equating the church's understanding of the text with the truth of the text itself, which then resulted in massive resistance to understanding the true structure of the cosmos.

A pattern which continues to play out even today.

Jim

[Calminian]

How do you know that miracles are very rare events Cal?

Roland, please, trust me on this. You're not thinking properly. By definition a miracle is a break from the normal.

Your question is akin to asking, how do you know the unicorns have horns? Dude, that's what a unicorn is, regardless of whether they exist or not.

The right question is, do unicorns exist?

[Ansgar Seraph]

You offered nothing to refute. You just proclaimed you were right. What do you want me to say. Put your arguments up there and I'll deal with them.

I explained exactly why "Science" doesn't make broad claims like seanD said it does. "Science declares that people stuck underwater in freezing water for 80 minutes can't come back to life" is a perfect example of why "Science" doesn't make those broad claims . . . because every so often, something happens that defies scientific experience.

You and seanD claim that "Science" does make these claims . . . you have to back up a positive assertion.

And further, I offered to argue the scientific case for radiometric dating and you declined. You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that even if a miracle does occur, it will be a cause that has natural effects. You argue that God supernaturally removed the Flood waters, even though the text says that they receded steadily . . . such recession will have natural effects common to what we can test from other flood recessions.

I can just as easily claim that the universe was created by Ra 27 days ago but all "scientific" methods to examine the universe will assume uniformitarianism and thus give inaccurate data. Your proposal leads swiftly and inescapably to epistemological relativism.

—Sam

[seanD]

But since we're on this roll, are you going to explain why Job 9:7 attributes solar eclipses to God commanding the sun not to shine rather than God positioning the moon between the earth and the sun? Will you admit that in one of the oldest books of the Bible, there are phenomenological descriptions that are not clearly identified as phenomenological?

—Sam

I explained it already. Just because things are explained naturally, doesn't mean God is not someone guiding or manipulating those forces. They simply cut out the middle man. And I never denied the fact that Jewish writings contain psalms, poetry, and allegory. Jews told parables, metaphors, fact similes, allegory, but they did not write allegorical narrative books. The Torah was not written as allegorically, it would have been written as myth. Since you don't have a problem with that, then where do you draw the line? How do you know that Genesis was a myth but the Easter story wasn't? If God didn't care enough to inspire Genesis to at least get an accurate number of days it took to create everything, so that there wouldn't be any doubt and confusion in an age that eventually developed modern science to confirm it wasn't so, then why would you believe he inspired the incredible resurrection claim that is equally challenged by the same scientific age?

[oxmixmudd]

You offered nothing to refute. You just proclaimed you were right. What do you want me to say. Put your arguments up there and I'll deal with them.

Cal - do you really want to proclaim that you are so weak minded you could not comprehend what Ansgar has said? That what he said flew right over your head in such a way you could not even perceive it? The rest of us can tell what you ignored. What you are avoiding.


There is plenty there for you to chew on. Go back and reread Angar's posts and deal with the points he made ... if you can.



Jim

[wattsr1]

They are rare events by definition. That's what the term means. A miracle is a rare addition to natural providence in which God communicates His authority over nature.

My dictionary says nothing about them being very rare.

Here's a typical definiton:-

"1. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause
2. any amazing or wonderful event
3. a person or thing that is a marvellous example of something the bridge was a miracle of engineering
4. (Performing Arts / Theatre) short for miracle play
5. (modifier) being or seeming a miracle a miracle cure"

from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/miracle

Here is another:-

"Main Entry: mir·a·cle
Pronunciation: 'mir-i-k&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3 Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law "

from http://cougar.eb.com/dictionary/miracle

The closest it gets is "unusual". How is "unusual" very rare?


From:-

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/5-miracles

I searched for the word "rare" but could not find it.

If an event like this is not rare, it is not a miracles.

See above.

I think what you're asking is, why do I believe miracles happen? To that I would answer that the testimonial evidence in the Bible is overwhelming.

I am not asking what you believe. I am asking you to support what you believe.

I can support what I believe about the natural origin of things via empirical evidence - experiments and observations from nature. So I am asking you to support what you believe.

A great book to read on this is The Testimony of the Evangelists, in which Simon Greenleaf applied legal cross examining principles to the 4 gospels. He was an atheistic jew when he first did this and later became a christian as a result.

I'm interested if you can use his evidence for his arguments to support your own claims.

I think you should apply that same principles and determine if they have any validity. I can't say if they were true or not as I don't have the specifics about the testimony given.

Let me get this correct - I should be skeptical of modern day claims for miracle but not past claims for miracle? I should be skeptical of other religious claims for miracle, but not your religous claims?

Why should I accept unsupported claims from fallible Calminian above those of any other fallible human?



Natural science demands evidence, even for its theories on origins. Why should you be able to get away with simple assertion and private definitions?



Regards, Roland

[Nathaniel]

Nor does the typical Jewish laborer create an entire universe in one week.



I am neither saying day = 1000 years nor am I using that equation when it is convenient.

First of all, Psalm 90:4 is not setting up an equivalence relation for human time vs. God time. It is saying simply that time for God is not at all like time for us, and that great lengths of time for him are nothing, like a mere day for us. Add to that Paul's extension:

"1000 years is like a day, and a day is like 1000 years"

And Jesus: "Before Abraham was, I am"

And the Bible's teaching about time for God vs time for us is complete. He is not affected by time, we are. He can see the shortest instant the same as the longest eon.

Jim

Genesis 1: 26 Begins with "Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." Who is this "us" being referred to? The angels? Has God ever given them joint creation power? Do they have a likeness unto man? No. This is the earliest reference that God was in separate Persons. Christ was with God then and we are made in the Trinity's image.

Above is an extension to what Jesus said. I bet it is the only instance of God using a plural pronoun in regards to Himself in the Old Testament.

The "days" God used were simply the simplest form He could describe for the Israelites the six day work, seventh day rest pattern He wanted them to have. It need not be literal because that wasn't the point.

You have to look deeper and study it as each small verse contributing to the whole of the divine/ mortal drama.

EDIT: Oxmixmudd, those questions are rhetorical, I am not actually directing them to you though you are free to answer. Like I said, I was merely extended your reference. And the "You" is more toward Cal.

[Calminian]

And which formed the basis for religious doctrine enforcing erroneous understandings of the structure of the natural world based on equating the church's understanding of the text with the truth of the text itself, which then resulted in massive resistance to understanding the true structure of the cosmos.

A pattern which continues to play out even today.

I would argue that just as the church today attempts to apply modern evolutionary naturalistic ideas to scripture, so the church of old attempted to do the same with their contemporary beliefs. It's a very natural tendency. Primitive cosmologies, don't come from scripture, but were often projected onto scripture. In fact, much of scripture was misunderstood because of this. I've written some article on how these ancient cosmologies, such as geocentrism, may have affected views of heaven throughout history.

But I find it amazing that when read very closely, and in a straightforward way, scripture is not compatible with primitive cosmologies. It actually is more compatible with universe much like that which we observe today. Not that it gets specific, but it is is uncanny how it avoids the very beliefs that were prevalent during the time of its writing.