For those of you who are interested in an example of how one does exegesis, here's one from my pastor, on the subject of the Creation.
It might take a little practice (tracieh), but it can be worth it, if for no other reason than not to look like a fool when discussing with a Christian.
(YEC = Young Earth Creationism/t)
23 comments:
ROFL! Right, because clearly a fool is the last thing you'd resemble when having a serious discussion about young earth creationism. Oh wait..
2 Peter 3:3 - "Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,"
Right on schedule, prophetically no less rob k! Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.
Oh, so in addition to the earth being 6000 years old we are also in the End Times? I see...
I've never understood why people hold to YEC when the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the Earth is more like 4.5 billion years old. How do you account for this?
Do you believe that God created the Universe with the appearance of age? From my experience with these types of discussions, that seems to be the only way out for the YECreationist.
Yes, the universe appears in many ways to be older than it is. Much like Adam and Eve, who were created fully-grown.
If you're really looking to understand, reading this might help.
If you to refuse to listen to what the infallible eyewitness and performer of the creation incident (ie, the God of the Bible) has said about it and instead trusted the limited instrumentation, limited knowledge, limited wisdom, and limited methodology (not to mention disregarding its total lack of ability to observe what happened) of humankind in order to construct an alternative hypothesis, that you would find exactly what you were looking for (ie, anything other than evidence for a divine creation) wouldn't be surprising.
I'm not really interested in discussing evolution as this is not my area of expertise except to say that my views line up again with the scientific majority. My main interest was the 6000 vs 4.5 billion age of the Earth point and to see if you had a new explanation but I've heard the "appearance of age" before.
Of course this is the ultimate wild card to play for YEC because it implies that things are not always as they seem to humans. The decision on what to believe about the world is left to the personal interpretation of a holy text.
This is a rock.
No actually it's a taco because my interpretation of my Holy Text revealed it to be so.
Well ok then..
Where has anyone ever argued that X is a taco, not a rock?
You're kind of shrill, throwing around stuff that no one believes. Maybe you mistook this blog for a Raelian blog.
Your argument is that the earth is 6000 years old, yes? Do you know how many industries (like my own) would not exist if this was true?
Why?
B/c the oil in the ground wouldn't have had time to form or something?
Please - that's much like the "but what about the light from distant stars?!?!" argument.
Oil can form more quickly that many people are willing to admit, for one thing.
But God could simply have created the Earth with the oil in the ground, like He would have created the distant stars along with their lightbeams stretching between Earth and the star, or partway between.
ROFL I'd love to hear how oil can form more quickly than "most people" realize. There are about 1000 CTO spots with your name on it.
Please explain.
If you stick around here long enough, you'll know that I don't go in much for that which is normally labeled "creation science", though I do think a lot of what they say is valid. I just don't know much about it, so I don't bother defending it.
But here are a few things to munch on:
http://www.icr.org/article/259/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil
Even if that stuff is wrong, my main argument is that God could have put it there.
Of course, you don't know how it got there either. You can't observe how it happened. You make judgments based on massive assumptions, some or many of which are quite dubious.
Ahh ok well I won't bother refuting arguments that you don't claim as your own. Like you said, even if they are wrong, which they most certainly are, God could have put it there.
That was really my initial point anyway because "God putting it there" or "God creating the universe with the appearance of age" is really a conversation stopper because there is no argument to be made against that position. It goes back to what I was trying to get at before which is that human perception and analysis of the world cannot be trusted in some circumstances under this view. It's the ultimate trump card.
"You make judgments based on massive assumptions, some or many of which are quite dubious."
Not just me but entire corporations and so far, things have worked.
The argumentum ad corporatum is often not popular at all among atheists, who tend towards leftish politics. But any port in a storm, I guess.
Rhology,
Oh what an ignorant man you are. You take on faith the word of uneducated ancients and choose to stick your head in the sand in response to the many marvelous things that science has discovered since. For shame, Rhology, for shame. Please grow up and get a real education. The dogma you attempt to propagate is very disturbing. This thread indicates to me that we are certainly doomed as a species due to gross ignorance as you have displayed.
Prove that all the men who wrote the Bible were uneducated.
Moses wasn't. Paul certainly wasn't. Isaiah wasn't.
And so what if we as a species are doomed? On naturalism, what difference does it make?
Of course, you're an anonymous troll - nobody expects a substantive answer from someone like you.
Rhology
Reading of the bible is enough to prove this foolishness. They did not understand astronomy, had no concept of physics or chemistry, no evidence of prowess in mathematics, biology, etc. Must I continue. Show me what these Ancients, you worship, understood. Nothing but yet another book of Mythology.
People need to stop thinking there is some magical existence in the beyond. You die that's it. There is no magic man to deal with afterwords.
As a species we will pass into oblivion like so many before us. However, I would hope it is not due to our own ignorance.
Job said the Earth hangs on nothing.
Job said the world is a sphere.
Jeremiah said the stars are fixed in place.
They could add and subtract, you know. These ancients are among the same that built Stonehenge and Machu Picchu and the ziggurats in Ur.
See this article and this one along with the ones linked-to in it.
This is just unjustifiable, moderno- and ethno-centric bias.
I notice that you didn't even attempt to answer my challenges, you just make naked assertions and then just leave it alone. Pitiful. Try backing up your statements some time - you might like it.
People need to stop thinking there is some magical existence in the beyond. You die that's it. There is no magic man to deal with afterwords.
And so what if people think there is some magical existence? If naturalism is true, so what? What does it matter either way?
However, I would hope it is not due to our own ignorance.
There is no place for hope in naturalism. If we are ignorant, it's OK - we will not be selected for, and nature will go on. So what?
I was referring to the ignorant ancients that wrote your holy babble, not all ancients were ignorant. The ancient Egyptian astronomers were quite capable as far back as 2500 BC. The ancient Hebrews could have learned from them. Your bible references are suspect. Please tell me how you got to "Job said the world is a sphere" from scripture. The stars are not fixed either as "Jeremiah" claimed.
What about the "pillars" that the earth is resting upon referenced in the OT ? Your other attempts to show the OT lack of ignorance falls flat with me. Please explain further.
Prove the ancients who wrote the Bible were ignorant.
Make sure to provide rebuttals to the arguments in the posts I linked to.
The ancient Egyptian astronomers were quite capable as far back as 2500 BC. The ancient Hebrews could have learned from them.
Oh, so suddenly they're not ignorant anymore, right? When you learn from someone, you cease to be ignorant. Thanks, it's not every day that someone defeats their own point in the very next sentence!
Your other attempts to show the OT lack of ignorance falls flat with me.
As if I care much what you think. You have no viable argument for your position. That doesn't change your feelings (though it should, if you were intellectually honest).
Job 26: 7"He stretches out the north over empty space
And hangs the earth on nothing.
Is. 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in...
Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
Prov. 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth...
More info here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html
Rhology,
I will only respond to your first comment today. Stayed tuned for further comments.
As I said:
The ancient Egyptian astronomers were quite capable as far back as 2500 BC. The ancient Hebrews could have learned from them.
And you replied:
Oh, so suddenly they're not ignorant anymore, right? When you learn from someone, you cease to be ignorant. Thanks, it's not every day that someone defeats their own point in the very next sentence!
The ancients I was speaking of were the ignorants that wrote your holy babble. NOT ALL ANCIENCTS !!
Please get that through your thick head. They did not learn anything from others about the natural world unfortunately that they could have. Instead we have a book of mythology known as the OT.
But where were the OT writers ignorant? You have yet to show anything like that.
Rhology,
You have confused Ignorance with lack of Intelligence (once again you argue well but you don't know what you are talking about, were you home schooled ?). The ancients of your holy book were ignorant about many things regarding the natural world. Their writings show this, as the pathetic examples you showed me. One cannot deny that the the history of science was known to them. Do you really think they understood the nature of the solar system for example ? Perhaps you could find a way to apologize to Copernicus and Galileo for the church's dogma resulting in their persecution.
The ancients of your holy book were ignorant about many things regarding the natural world. Their writings show this, as the pathetic examples you showed me.
Showed what? You haven't even interacted with my examples. You're certainly good at making naked assertions, though.
One cannot deny that the the history of science was known to them
You probably meant "was not known to them".
And...you know, since science's history stretches over many millennia and these guys lived several millennia ago, yes, you're right. Kind of obvious.
But it does not necessarily follow that they were ignorant about some of these things of which you are making issue. Flat earth, for ex.
Do you really think they understood the nature of the solar system for example ?
They understood the earth was a sphere and that it was unsupported by anything physical. As I showed.
Perhaps you could find a way to apologize to Copernicus and Galileo for the church's dogma resulting in their persecution.
You lack any understanding about those situations. Galileo, for example, was persecuted by the SCIENTIFIC establishment of his day, and the church did nothing to him until he started insulting the Pope and meddling in theological affairs, and even then all that happened to him was a house arrest type of situation for a time. There is far more to it than you are willing to say. Maybe YOU should apologise to the Roman Church for such a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
Of course, that was the doing of the Roman church, which I don't claim as a viable forebear to my own faith, so even if they had murdered him and killed everyone in his hometown just for kicks, I would condemn them right along with you. They have not much to do with me.
Rhology,
Your understanding of Galileo is quite wrong. What scientific community were you referring to ? The people of his time followed the church dogma of the day. A clash with the church was inevitable. When it happened he was treated rather harshly. Hardly a scientific community reaction. Telling the truth is NOT meddling in theological affairs. In the present, why was Hawking so interested in their church Galileo records when he visited the Vatican ? Just vacationing ??
By the way, Galileo ran afoul of the Roman Catholic Church in the 17th century for supporting Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun. The church insisted the Earth was at the center of the universe. In 1992, John Paul issued a declaration saying the church's denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Whatever the hell that is supposed to mean (i.e. the church f'd up).
Post a Comment