christians-evolution - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 04:58 PM
 
lilkat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 916
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
If the assumptions are unjustified, then the theory is unjustified. ... It should be immediately obvious to any Christian that whatever status science has in the process of acquiring knowledge about reality must be defined by the foundation for all knowledge: Scripture.
How do you justify the assumption that scripture is the foundation for all knowledge?

treehugger.gif geek.gif Mama to Lauren Philippa Elethea (3) energy.gifand expecting a little Jay bird March 2012! 3rdtri.gif

 

***4***8***12***16***20***24***28*babygirl.gif*32***36***40**

lilkat is offline  
#62 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 05:06 PM
 
mamajama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,037
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilkat View Post
How do you justify the assumption that scripture is the foundation for all knowledge?
beats me.
Although as I say I bet he bases a lot of his beliefs somewhat (if not entirely) on the ontological argument which is circular:
God is perfect. Existence is an attribute necessary to perfection. Therefore God exists.
mamajama is offline  
#63 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 05:13 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
mamajama: That series of articles is an excerpt from his book, so it's designed to be read in conjunction with the rest of his Christian apologetic, or by someone familiar with presuppositional thinking. In the above quote he's referring to (among other things) the doctrine of occasionalism, but it's rather more complex than that. Rather than derail the thread I can recommend some more complete works on the topic, if you like, or we can continue this discussion via PM. But of course, even if you don't accept Christian science as a viable alternative to secular science, the logical and epistemological problems presented by the secular scientific method, as he describes them, are still insurmountable. (ETA: Where do you get the notion that he uses the ontological argument? I can't find that in his posts anywhere, and when I asked him he said 'LOL, no'...)
Quote:
how is using empiricism as an epistemological foundation self refuting?
By definition. 'Knowledge is gained through the senses', the first principle of empiricism as an epistemological foundation, is not a statement which can be tested by the senses.

Quote:
By knowledge, I think you are referring to the definition: justified true belief. This definition, it's true, has been refuted (most famously in Gettier's paper). But then, of course, Gettier's paper has been criticised and the classical definiton of knowledge (justified true belief) amended, expounded upon, replaced...
Pretty much. I think Gettier's objection simply stems from a different view of the 'justified' part, which I wouldn't call 'justified' at all, simply 'seemingly justified'.

Quote:
basically, by disputing empiricism, it seems as if you are suggesting that the only other option is idealism. I disagree. As a number of catholics and other practicing religious people on this thread have stated: it is possible to study and embrace both creationism and evolution, science and spitrituality, etc. In fact, many posters on this thread are including as evidence the fact that many scientists and other thinkers from the past and present were and are devout christians. That can serve as evidence that the two schools are not dichotomous.
It's not about disputing empiricism; you misunderstand. Christians use empirical methods all the time. It's about philosophically justifying empiricism, which secular science is unable to do. (Not that Christians justify empiricism-as-epistemology, but they can justify it as a fairly reliable tool--part 5, I think, of my husband's blog entry deals with this). The alternative to empiricism is not idealism but occasionalism. And while I am aware that many Christians view secular science and Christianity as compatible, I disagree with them. The plain reading of Genesis 1-3 is clear, and in order to be textually honest, I think a six-days reading of Creation is necessary. (Incidentally, most of the 'Christian scientists of the past' weren't working under a secular scientific framework at all, but under a scientific framework based on Christian principles. The principle at least of occasionalism was present, whether or not it was defined--which I should look up. Certainly it was around in Calvin's day).

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#64 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 05:17 PM
 
mamajama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,037
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Gotta go for now. Thanks for clarifying though. I'd love to discuss this further. Especially fun cause I fundamentally disagree with a lot of your points. Maybe we could start a new thread in religious studies? My PMs are all screwy--- for some reason I can't delete to clear space.
mamajama is offline  
#65 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 05:22 PM
 
sugarbeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
http://www.discoverymagazine.com/index.html

Is this a parody? I mean, look at this:
http://www.discoverymagazine.com/act...r/sixday1.html
Holy crap. How anybody can read the articles on this site and even remotely believe that this is teaching kids science completely baffles me.

http://kids4truth.com/hometwo.asp

Boy, those are some pretty flash animations. Not teaching any science though.

Quote:
(And frankly, the kids websites are way easier to understand than the adult creation websites...I am not particularly science brained.)
You think? Maybe it's not such a good idea that you are going to be your child's science teacher, then.
sugarbeth is offline  
#66 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 05:22 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Hehe. Sure, if you like. I'll be away for much of today buying things for the baby's room (yay!), but I'm happy to keep going in RS if the good mods let us.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#67 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 05:23 PM
 
Equuskia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 3,259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by transformed View Post
Hey creationists: I found this cool website http://www.discoverymagazine.com/index.html

and this: http://kids4truth.com/hometwo.asp



(And frankly, the kids websites are way easier to understand than the adult creation websites...I am not particularly science brained.)
I read "Evolution is against the law!" from the first link. It is scientifically inaccurate and perpetrates the same mistakes that other creationists make:

Quote:
Evolution is against the Law of Biogenesis! Evolutionists tell us that living things came from nonliving matter.
Uh...no they don't. Evolution does not explain how life on earth began. Abiogenesis is one of the theories given for how life began. And biogenesis is not a law, it is a theory. The author also does not understand the theory, or how it came about. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Quote:
They also tell us that one kind of animal gave rise to a different kind of animal.
No, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next, which causes populations of organisms to change over time. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms. Such new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

Quote:
Further, evolutionists tell us that this happened over and over again to produce all the millions of animals which have ever existed. But that would break the law!
What law?

Quote:
The Law of Biogenesis is real, and accepted as true by all scientists.
It is? Where is the evidence? Which I must say, this article was lacking in references.

Saint Augustine said it best:
Quote:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, . . . and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. (Augustine 1982, 42-43)

Equuskia in with Nodtveidt DD1 : DD2 :
Equuskia is offline  
#68 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 05:46 PM
 
Stevi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ummm, I'd like to say two things.

#1. I'll play Gods Advocate first. The Christian God did NOT write the bible, it was compiled from writings by numerous authors, so why do Christians insist on calling the text therein God's Words?

#2. Do Creationists still teach their children that girls have one more rib than boys? As a teen I met 3 little boys who insisted that I had one more rib than they, because God took a rib from Adam to create Eve.

43 w/Emphysema - TTC from 2005 - 2013. 2 miscarriages in 2008. Good things do not come to those who wait.

Stevi is offline  
#69 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 05:48 PM
 
Sileree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 1,079
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So yeah, I looked at answersingenesis.com, and all I saw were research articles using quotes from science textbooks to try to prove their argument.

I did not see any experiments or real exercise of the scientific method going on.

ANYONE can critique past work.

ETA: Admittedly I did not look a every single page of the site, so if there were actual experiments going on that anyone wants to point out to me, that'd be great.

intactivist.gif  ribbonpb.gif RN student, bellycast.gif birth doula since 2006
Sileree is offline  
#70 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 05:59 PM
 
Equuskia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 3,259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevi View Post
Ummm, I'd like to say two things.

#1. I'll play Gods Advocate first. The Christian God did NOT write the bible, it was compiled from writings by numerous authors, so why do Christians insist on calling the text therein God's Words?

#2. Do Creationists still teach their children that girls have one more rib than boys? As a teen I met 3 little boys who insisted that I had one more rib than they, because God took a rib from Adam to create Eve.
I have to admit, this post make me lol.

Creationists say that they take the words in the bible literally and at face value. I ask then, do they take Matthew 5:29-30 and Matthew 18:9-10 literally?

Equuskia in with Nodtveidt DD1 : DD2 :
Equuskia is offline  
#71 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 06:09 PM
 
Just_Isabel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Equuskia View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevi View Post
Ummm, I'd like to say two things.

#1. I'll play Gods Advocate first. The Christian God did NOT write the bible, it was compiled from writings by numerous authors, so why do Christians insist on calling the text therein God's Words?

#2. Do Creationists still teach their children that girls have one more rib than boys? As a teen I met 3 little boys who insisted that I had one more rib than they, because God took a rib from Adam to create Eve.
I have to admit, this post make me lol.
Me too.
The rib thing also confuses me. Actually, the couple times I tried to read the Bible it left me with many more questions than it answered.
Just_Isabel is offline  
#72 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 06:11 PM
 
Sileree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 1,079
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevi
#1. I'll play Gods Advocate first. The Christian God did NOT write the bible, it was compiled from writings by numerous authors, so why do Christians insist on calling the text therein God's Words?
Well, He divinely inspired those authors to write those stories, and then divinely inspired the Council of Nicea as to what stories were REALLY God's work and what was just heresy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevi
#2. Do Creationists still teach their children that girls have one more rib than boys? As a teen I met 3 little boys who insisted that I had one more rib than they, because God took a rib from Adam to create Eve.
I was taught the importance of Bible stories to Christians ought not to be an illogical belief that everything it tells us happened literally, but that they each had a moral something to get out of them. Because which Bible is really the true one? The Orthodox? King James? The original Greek or Hebrew? They all tell it differently, but I think the moral stays the same. What about in Genesis, which creation story is real? The one where Adam and Even are created at the same time or the one where Eve comes later? I remember Jesus seemed to speak in parables a lot. Did those things really happen, or were they meant to be used to help people have a higher understanding? You can get caught up in being determined to believe in every sentence is fact and miss the whole point.

intactivist.gif  ribbonpb.gif RN student, bellycast.gif birth doula since 2006
Sileree is offline  
#73 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 08:13 PM
 
Stevi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sileree View Post
I was taught the importance of Bible stories to Christians ought not to be an illogical belief that everything it tells us happened literally, but that they each had a moral something to get out of them. Because which Bible is really the true one? The Orthodox? King James? The original Greek or Hebrew? They all tell it differently, but I think the moral stays the same. What about in Genesis, which creation story is real? The one where Adam and Even are created at the same time or the one where Eve comes later? I remember Jesus seemed to speak in parables a lot. Did those things really happen, or were they meant to be used to help people have a higher understanding? You can get caught up in being determined to believe in every sentence is fact and miss the whole point.
You didn't answer my 2nd question.
I was curious as to whether parents still teach their children that men & women have a different number of ribs.
I did not ask if it should be taught, that should be obvious by looking at any x-ray.

43 w/Emphysema - TTC from 2005 - 2013. 2 miscarriages in 2008. Good things do not come to those who wait.

Stevi is offline  
#74 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 08:44 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
I was curious as to whether parents still teach their children that men & women have a different number of ribs.
There may be a few crackpots who do, but AFAIK it's not generally taught. After all, it doesn't even make sense from a Biblical point of view--if Adam had had a leg amputated, it wouldn't have meant his sons were born with only one leg... Certainly none of the Christians I know teach their kids that.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#75 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 09:04 PM
 
Sileree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 1,079
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevi View Post
You didn't answer my 2nd question.
I was curious as to whether parents still teach their children that men & women have a different number of ribs.
I did not ask if it should be taught, that should be obvious by looking at any x-ray.
I wasn't really meaning to answer your question as much as start off on my own ramble. Sorry.

intactivist.gif  ribbonpb.gif RN student, bellycast.gif birth doula since 2006
Sileree is offline  
#76 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 11:02 PM
 
steffanie3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,690
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainsun View Post
Well, gravity is a "theory" as well.........

The term theory used in a scientific context differs greatly from the common theory used in everyday speech.

From wiki



Bolding mine. Believe what you want, but please do not use the argument that evolution is "just a theory," to refute it.

I really cannot believe that in this day and age children are being taught that dinosaurs didn't exist, and such. Boggles the mind. What about all the fossils? All of the physical evidence?? Is all that stuff just made up?
Big bang is just a guess, no one here was around for it. I have seen gravity work.

Who said on here dinosaurs didn't exist? They are not incompatable with a young earth.

Stephanie married to Jerry  partners.gif  mama to  modifiedartist.gif (10) and superhero.gif(7) and 3rdtri.gif
steffanie3 is offline  
#77 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 11:36 PM
 
mamajama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,037
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
Hehe. Sure, if you like. I'll be away for much of today buying things for the baby's room (yay!), but I'm happy to keep going in RS if the good mods let us.
waiting for dinner to cook now. I think we can keep it civil.
mamajama is offline  
#78 of 118 Old 02-04-2008, 11:51 PM
 
witchygrrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If dinosaurs exist in young earth cosmology, how do Creationists explain carbon dating? Are we just never to believe science whatsoever? That it's all a trick? Methinks not.

Personally, I think taking Genesis literally (glossing over the fact that there are 2 creation stories) and not acknowledging that there are multiple traditions within Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch (Elohist, Yahwist, Priestly and Deuteronomic, written by multiple people at different times starting from the 10th century BCE), weakens what is Genesis: a mythological narrative, much in the common style of the region, meant to provide figurative/theological Truth. Yes, it is what the people of the times truly believed, but they had not the tools we have now to discover what our world is like, and how we began in the physical sense.

And yeah, translations are never as good as the original.

Come ponder with me about food!
witchygrrl is offline  
#79 of 118 Old 02-05-2008, 12:08 AM
 
Equuskia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 3,259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by steffanie3 View Post
Big bang is just a guess, no one here was around for it. I have seen gravity work.

Who said on here dinosaurs didn't exist? They are not incompatable with a young earth.
Have you thoroughly studied the mathematical and astronomical evidence in order to say that big bang is "just a guess"?

And as a pp mentioned, dinosaurs would not be compatible with a young earth unless you completely dismiss carbon and radiometric dating, to which then you are completely dismissing all the mathematics, physics and chemistry behind these dating methods.

Equuskia in with Nodtveidt DD1 : DD2 :
Equuskia is offline  
#80 of 118 Old 02-05-2008, 12:14 AM
 
angelpie545's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Near water, with a refreshing rain
Posts: 6,669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Touchy issue, but this is what I believe and what I have taught my kids (we are born-again Christians, btw):

The earth is millions of years old. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Then, Genesis 1:2 says that "But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was brooding over the waters" (quoted from the Recovery Version Bible printed by Living Stream Ministries). Obviously, there is a huge gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. We believe that in between these two verses is when Satan's fell happened, and when that happened, all of creation was somehow damaged (I think the dinosaurs existed in that time, that their demise happened in that time as well, but that's just a guess; only God knows for sure). The next group of verses after Genesis 1:2 illustrate God restoring the Earth and then creating man. Thus, it is possible for the Earth to be millions of years old, and I believe that it is. I do not believe that creation took place six thousand years ago, and I believe the Bible is very clear about this.

Bethany, crunchy Christian mom to Destiny (11) Deanna (9), and Ethan (2)

angelpie545 is offline  
#81 of 118 Old 02-05-2008, 12:33 AM
lab
 
lab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: everywhere baby!
Posts: 3,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
kids websites are way easier to understand than the adult creation websites...I am not particularly science brained
Clearly.


:


Good googelly moogelly

who knew

Trying to do the right thing with three kids and a hubby. 
ds20, dd18, ds17
lab is offline  
#82 of 118 Old 02-05-2008, 12:42 AM
 
kblackstone444's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: MA
Posts: 3,839
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
[QUOTE=Wolfmeis;10451869I teach my children that (for the simplicity of a message board post) God made the big bang and that evolution is part of his extremely way-cool design.

Honestly, as a Christian, I do not see a conflict between real science and faith.[/QUOTE]

Same here.

I pray for the day Family Court recognizes that CHILDREN have rights, parents only have PRIVILEGES.  Only then, will I know my child is safe.
kblackstone444 is offline  
#83 of 118 Old 02-05-2008, 01:00 AM
 
steffanie3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,690
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Equuskia View Post
Have you thoroughly studied the mathematical and astronomical evidence in order to say that big bang is "just a guess"?

And as a pp mentioned, dinosaurs would not be compatible with a young earth unless you completely dismiss carbon and radiometric dating, to which then you are completely dismissing all the mathematics, physics and chemistry behind these dating methods.
We weren't there, so it is just a guess and some peoples ideas.

There are problems with dating as well, no standard.

Stephanie married to Jerry  partners.gif  mama to  modifiedartist.gif (10) and superhero.gif(7) and 3rdtri.gif
steffanie3 is offline  
#84 of 118 Old 02-05-2008, 03:08 AM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Creationists say that they take the words in the bible literally and at face value. I ask then, do they take Matthew 5:29-30 and Matthew 18:9-10 literally?
So if one takes part of a text literally, one must therefore take the entire text literally? That's ridiculous. Any text must be read using commonsense principles of interpretation. If a text is obviously intended to be taken as literal history, it should be read as such; if as allegorical poetry, it should be read as such; if parable, metaphor, simile, hyperbole, satire or irony, it should be read as such. And of course, many or all of these features frequently coexist in a single text. If you are reading a biography of Audrey Hepburn, which is clearly meant to be taken as historical narrative, and you come across the phrase 'she skyrocketed to fame', do you assume that because the majority of the text is literal, this means she actually achieved fame by skyrocketing? Of course not. You realise that a literary device has been employed. The inability of people to employ this very simple rule of common sense with the Bible perpetually amazes me.

Quote:
I was taught the importance of Bible stories to Christians ought not to be an illogical belief that everything it tells us happened literally, but that they each had a moral something to get out of them. Because which Bible is really the true one? The Orthodox? King James? The original Greek or Hebrew? They all tell it differently, but I think the moral stays the same. What about in Genesis, which creation story is real? The one where Adam and Even are created at the same time or the one where Eve comes later? I remember Jesus seemed to speak in parables a lot. Did those things really happen, or were they meant to be used to help people have a higher understanding? You can get caught up in being determined to believe in every sentence is fact and miss the whole point.
This is a very strange line of thinking. Why do you believe it is impossible to determine the merits of various translations? The redundancy and accuracy of the Biblical texts is remarkable; surely you have no problem believing, on far less textual and scholarly evidence, that it is possible to determine (say) which translation of the Kalevala or the Iliad is closest in spirit, style and accuracy to the original?

As for the 'conflicting' Genesis accounts, you are mistaken. There are not 'two versions'. The Genesis 1 account, an overview, simply says that Adam and Eve were both created on the sixth day. The Genesis 2 account, which focuses in on the human element, says nothing to contradict this. Eve was created after Adam on the sixth day... what's the problem here?

As for parables, see above regarding genre. The Bible is a mix of genres, and I have never seen any compelling textual evidence to indicate that Genesis is anything but what it appears to be--poeticised historical narrative. (I did have one guy at Uni try to convince me it was written in apocalyptic poetry, which just went to show he didn't know as much about apocalyptic poetry as the graphics on his T-shirts would seem to indicate). The only reason for reading the early chapters of Genesis as myth, or parable, or any other genre unsupported by the text, is because of a prior assumption of the truth of evolutionary theory. Which indicates, at best, a severely messed-up epistemology.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#85 of 118 Old 02-05-2008, 05:05 AM
 
Equuskia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 3,259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
So if one takes part of a text literally, one must therefore take the entire text literally? That's ridiculous. Any text must be read using commonsense principles of interpretation. If a text is obviously intended to be taken as literal history, it should be read as such; if as allegorical poetry, it should be read as such; if parable, metaphor, simile, hyperbole, satire or irony, it should be read as such. And of course, many or all of these features frequently coexist in a single text. If you are reading a biography of Audrey Hepburn, which is clearly meant to be taken as historical narrative, and you come across the phrase 'she skyrocketed to fame', do you assume that because the majority of the text is literal, this means she actually achieved fame by skyrocketing? Of course not. You realise that a literary device has been employed. The inability of people to employ this very simple rule of common sense with the Bible perpetually amazes me.
So who determines what is literal history and what is poetry or a parable or a metaphor when it comes to the bible? Why is Genesis literal history, but what Jesus said in Matthew a metaphor? And yes, I know the Matthew verses are a metaphor. Why are the Psalms considered poetry, but Proverbs

Quote:
22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
should be taken literally and should beat my child so they behave? Is Revelations literal, allegorical poetry? Who decides this stuff? And as for the inability to employ common sense with the interpretation of the bible? The exact same thing can be said for people who take Genesis at face value, never mind that most of the creation story, the great flood, etc, was already found in other cultures' literature long before the bible was written. But I guess they don't count. Darn heathens.

Equuskia in with Nodtveidt DD1 : DD2 :
Equuskia is offline  
#86 of 118 Old 02-05-2008, 06:18 AM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Are you serious? Nobody 'determines' the genre of a text, if you mean arbitrarily imposing a genre on one. The genres of the Bible are figured out in exactly the same way as any other text--by linguistic analysis. Who 'decides' whether Shakespeare is poetry or prose? It's obvious. Who 'decides' when he's using metaphor or hyperbole? It's obvious.

Quote:
The exact same thing can be said for people who take Genesis at face value, never mind that most of the creation story, the great flood, etc, was already found in other cultures' literature long before the bible was written. But I guess they don't count. Darn heathens.
What is your argument here, precisely? Anthropological evidence exists for the Flood and Creation... I hardly see how that strengthens your case. The fact that variations of the same stories appear is a corroboration of their truth rather than otherwise. Indeed, while Christians believe the Bible was divinely inspired, and therefore a true and uncorrupted version of the events it describes, we would expect to find similar concepts, events and themes in the history of other cultures, albeit distorted through time. The uncanny similarity of the Flood myths worldwide, indeed, is one I have never heard satisfactorily explained away.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#87 of 118 Old 02-05-2008, 10:47 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paradise
Posts: 8,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
First of all, in response to the questions of literalness, the book of Genesis doesnt say "The Earth is 6000 years old." Nor does it say "the earth is millions and millions of years old." I never based my opinions on the actual text stating it so clearly. If it was clearly stated, it wouldn't be a question for me.


I personally think there are questions to be answered that evolutionists don't have a good answer for like Why are there paintings on cave walls of men walking with dinosaurs? Do you think they were fantisizing about dinosaurs or something?

Ok, my kids are at it again, so thats all for now.
transformed is offline  
#88 of 118 Old 02-05-2008, 12:16 PM
 
mountainsun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: sw fl
Posts: 1,996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
I personally think there are questions to be answered that evolutionists don't have a good answer for like Why are there paintings on cave walls of men walking with dinosaurs?
How old are these paintings you are speaking of?

  homeschooling, earth loving Mama to 3 crazy, wonderful boys, ages 10 & 7, & 3 mos.,3 spirit babies                                Inch by inch, row by row.  Gonna make this garden grow  
mountainsun is offline  
#89 of 118 Old 02-05-2008, 02:08 PM
 
sugarbeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
The uncanny similarity of the Flood myths worldwide, indeed, is one I have never heard satisfactorily explained away.
ummm...because floods happen all the time? Isn't that pretty obvious? There was a huge tsunami recently...I'm thinking that got written down. There is no evidence for a worldwide flood. NONE.


Quote:
Originally Posted by transformed View Post
I personally think there are questions to be answered that evolutionists don't have a good answer for like Why are there paintings on cave walls of men walking with dinosaurs? Do you think they were fantisizing about dinosaurs or something?
Oh for crying out loud...you just learned that from that Discovery Kids website, didn't you? http://www.discoverymagazine.com/act...ch/dino01.html
Please, for your kids, pick up a basic biology textbook.

And please, it's not "evolutionist" - it's "scientist" or "biologist". Nobody uses the word "evolutionist" except creationists.
sugarbeth is offline  
#90 of 118 Old 02-05-2008, 02:57 PM
 
witchygrrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just found the website, No Answers in Genesis:

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/

And yes, there are standards to dating methods. Scientists don't assign dates on a lark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
------------------------------------------------------------
As for the two Creation stories in Genesis, they were written at two different times in two different traditions. However, the first presents the first man and woman being created at the same time in God's image. The second has Eve being created after Adam, but with Adam's rib. There is an important theological distinction that is being made here that shows the difference between the two traditions about the status of women and men.

And who do Adam and Eve's descendents procreate with? Did Adam and Eve have daughters that their son(s) married?

Just as no one saw the Big Bang (sigh), no one saw the Earth being created in 6 days with God resting on the 7th. However, much research has given us plenty of evidence that the Big Bang is a far more likely scenario than Genesis.

Come ponder with me about food!
witchygrrl is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off