Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Genesis 2:2 He rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI see. So where would you say that the poetry in genesis ends and the history begins? Besides that, being poetic doesn't make it not a myth.
So say you. Anyway, regardless of whether it is poetry or prose, the fact remains that the beginning of the universe was 14 billion years ago, and it took all those 14 billion years to pass before humans began to exist. Even the dinasaurs ruled the earth for millions of years prior to the existence of humans. You don't find any of that odd considering God supposedly created it all for humans. 14 billion years!
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostTime is not an issue for God. So no, it matters not a whit if the universe is 6000 years old or 13.8 billion years old.Last edited by JimL; 11-11-2017, 08:27 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostDid you read what rogue was responding to?
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIIRC, Fortunatianus saw various events described as having symbolic meaning not that they were fictitious stories.
"The earliest Latin interpretation of the Gospels has been brought to light by a British academic – and it suggests that readers should not take the Bible literally.
Lost for 1,500 years, the fourth-century commentary by African-born Italian bishop Fortunatianus of Aquileia interprets the Gospels as a series of allegories instead of a literal history. Dr Hugh Houghton, of the University of Birmingham, who translated the work, said it was an approach which modern Christians could learn from..."
"The approach differs from the trend of biblical literalism adopted by modern evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, which interprets the Bible as the literal word of God which is not open to interpretation. This has been the basis for beliefs such as the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old and that it was created in seven days".
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3373“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostYou're falling into the same mistake literalist YECs do here. The creation account is poetry, not a science lesson.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostThe idea that the creation account is poetry is definitely one take, but there are, of course, other takes on the narrative that do not preclude a literal reading, and that do not reject an old earth view. I went into some examples of this a couple of years ago. A modified Historical Creationist view, for example, answers a number of objections that skeptics may have about the Genesis narrative. The Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer, for instance, suggests that the sun, moon, and stars were created on day 1. John Piper's website's summary of Sailhamer's work puts it this way,
On day four, God did not create the sun, moon, and stars (they had been created in the beginning, as we have seen), but declared the purpose for which He had created them. This is made most evident from comparing verse 6, which speaks of God bringing into existence an expanse that had not been there before, and verse 14, which speaks of God's command concerning the heavenly bodies that had been there from the beginning. While the text in verse six clearly says that God brought about an expanse that had not been there before, in verse 14 the syntax is different-which suggests that God is doing something other than bringing about what had not been there before.
Sailhamer writes that the "Hebrew verbal construction in verse 14 is significantly different from verse 6" even though
[indent]our English translations don't always reflect that difference. In the Hebrew text of verse 14, God does not say, 'Let there be lights in the expanse to separate the day and night...' as if there were no lights before His command and afterward they came into being [which is the way it was with the expanse in verse 6]. Rather according to the Hebrew text, God said, 'Let the lights in the expanse be for separating the day and night...' God's command, in other words, assumes that the lights already exist in the expanse. To be sure, there has been no mention of these 'lights' earlier in Genesis 1, but their existence is assumed in the expression 'heavens and earth' in Gen 1:1. (131-132).
Thus, on the fourth day God was not creating the sun and stars, but stating the purpose for which he had already created them "in the beginning"-to provide light on the land for man and to be measurements for keeping time. It is amazing that God had His purpose for man in mind eons earlier when He created these heavenly bodies![/cite]
And all for us.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer was a biblical inerrancist and faculty member of such institutions as Biola University and Gateway Seminary, which holds to literal creationist dogma. Therefore he can be expected to interpret the Genesis creation narratives consistent with his literalist presupposition.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostGood of God, but overkill somewhat, given that not only is our solar system one of billions of solar systems in the Milky Way Galaxy, but that this galaxy is but one of billions of galaxies in our universe alone.
And all for us.Last edited by Adrift; 11-12-2017, 03:28 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI've never heard John Sailhamer describe himself as an inerrantist, but even if he was, so what? Tassman,
“We believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which we understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture. We believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical...” Annual confirmation required by all faculty members.
Thus Sailhamer’s research will be seen through the prism of literal Creationism. That is his starting point. In short, scholarship based upon biased assumptions.
you have an incredibly poor record of positing the genetic fallacy for every hypothesis that rubs you the wrong way.
What is the argument here exactly? That God is good? Um..ok. I agree. That God is eternal, and that he has all the time in the world?...I also agree.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostSo it’s not a new phenomenon and it’s a perfectly valid position to take given the evidence...or lack thereof.My Amazon Author page: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0719RS8BK
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostFor John Sailhamer to on the faculties of Biola University, Gateway Seminary and Dallas Seminary, as he was, he had to be committed to biblical inerrancy, e.g. Dallas’ Mission Statement:
“We believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which we understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture. We believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical...” Annual confirmation required by all faculty members.
Thus Sailhamer’s research will be seen through the prism of literal Creationism. That is his starting point. In short, scholarship based upon biased assumptions.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYOU have “an incredibly poor record of positing” blame on the other person for every argument that rubs YOU the wrong way”.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThat’s not the argument. The argument is that the claim: “God had His purpose for man in mind eons earlier when He created these heavenly bodies” (i.e. the sun, moon and stars) is absurd.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe utter vastness of the universe renders the argument that Man is the centre and purpose for it all is arrogant, egocentric nonsense.
Comment
-
I'm also fairly certain that the size of the universe has nothing to do with the worth of mankind.My Amazon Author page: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0719RS8BK
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rational Gaze View PostI'm also fairly certain that the size of the universe has nothing to do with the worth of mankind.
And if you are going to make the argument that time is not an issue for god, then you need answer the question that I posed to rogue which he failed to respond to. If time is no issue for god, being that he exist outside of time, then time is no issue for the universe either.
"So, if you believe otherwise then please give a cogent explanation as to how time can be both static and flowing dependent on ones perspective?"
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
21 responses
92 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 09:53 AM
|
||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
150 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
103 responses
559 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 11:43 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
251 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
154 responses
1,017 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
04-12-2024, 12:39 PM
|
Comment