Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[Rob Osborn]

If you want to understand what the scriptures mean, a historical critical background is an excellent tool. A literal reading of the English translation of an often-edited Hebrew text is a good way to misunderstand the meaning of the text.

Whats that supposed to mean? We have modern latter day scripture that also testifies of the flood. The main problem with critical arguments against biblical text is they dont believe anyway so whats even the point?

[Rob Osborn]

NOT ONE WORD of the Bible was written by God. EVERY WORD was written, and rewritten, and rewritten by man. So are you now elevating fallible man to a perfect God? Even the ancient Greeks knew about dinosaurs, though they did not call them that. Moreover we don't believe in those same Gods. 

 

Do you really want to be lumped in with these people?

 

Except that is the direct opposite of what the evidence shows.

SEE https://www.google.com/search?q=rock+layers+youngest+to+oldest&client=firefox-a&hs=4ux&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=LbAHU4m6KpDooAT5kIKwBg&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=568

So what about modern revelation and modern scripture?

In ancient times they knew dinosaurs as dragons and they really did fight them off. You chalk everything up as myth including your god who has supernatural magic powers so whats the point in debate? I might as well get a bag of hammers to talk to.

[Gray]

Whats that supposed to mean? We have modern latter day scripture that also testifies of the flood. 

 

One of many reasons not to obsess over literalism of latter-day scripture and look more at the message.

 

 

 

 

The main problem with critical arguments against biblical text is they dont believe anyway so whats even the point?

 

Belief or unbelief isn't really an the issue. 

[Rob Osborn]

One of many reasons not to obsess over literalism of latter-day scripture and look more at the message.

 

 

 

Belief or unbelief isn't really an the issue.

There are some things to be taken literalfrom scripture and yet all if them are rejected or unsupported by mainstream science. Where does that leave us? Heres a few-

A literal Adam and Eve

A literal Creator who brought about life

A literal global flood

A literal division of land in biblical times

A literal resurrection and immortality

A literal restoration of the land masses into one land again

Etc,

Etc

Should we just chalk up every teaching because scientists dont support it? Perhaps were all myth samecas God and any notion of resurrection and eternal life?

[Gray]

Should we just chalk up every teaching because scientists dont support it? 

 

It is a great Mormon principle that we should accept all truth, not matter what the source. 

 

That doesn't mean you have to throw out your scriptures. It may mean that you read them a little more deeply, though. 

[thesometimesaint]

So what about modern revelation and modern scripture?

In ancient times they knew dinosaurs as dragons and they really did fight them off. You chalk everything up as myth including your god who has supernatural magic powers so whats the point in debate? I might as well get a bag of hammers to talk to.

 

We have a modern interpretation of ancient beliefs.

 

The ancient Greeks also believed in a geocentric universe of just the sun and 5 planets, and Zeus was just one of their Gods. Christians believed that if you went up a high mountain you would see the entire earth. They also believed dragons breathed out fire. Neither Dragonflies nor Komodo Dragons breathe fire. Your familiar with the childrens fairey tale of Humpty Dumpty? Most likely a king of some European country. Well back in those dayss it wasn't a good idea to insult the king. So his misdeeds were couched in poetic license of an egg so saving your neck.

 

Myth isn't necessarily false. King Arther of Round Table fame probably really did exist. However all the stories of what he did are not literally true.

 

There is nothing wrong with the supernatural. However whatever it is, it is not science.

 

Science really isn't about public debate. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. So whether El, Zeus, Brahma or some other "divine" entity created this world is entirely besides the point.

 

The second you(anyone) makes a testable claim about our world/universe. Then it is no longer a matter for beliefs, but one for science.

 

My feelings exactly.

[thesometimesaint]

There are some things to be taken literalfrom scripture and yet all if them are rejected or unsupported by mainstream science. Where does that leave us? Heres a few-

A literal Adam and Eve

A literal Creator who brought about life

A literal global flood

A literal division of land in biblical times

A literal resurrection and immortality

A literal restoration of the land masses into one land again

Etc,

Etc

Should we just chalk up every teaching because scientists dont support it? Perhaps were all myth samecas God and any notion of resurrection and eternal life?

 

I have no problem with a literal Adam and Eve.

I have no problem with God doing it.

A global flood is a physical impossibility.

A literal division of the continents in Biblical times is a physical impossibility.

I have no problem with a literal resurrection and/or Eternal life.

A literal restoration of all land masses into one in human time scales is a physical impossibility.

 

Ask a testable question of science and you will get a science based answer. Ask a religious question of a scientist and you'll get whatever religion that scientist happens to be as an answer.

[Rob Osborn]

We have a modern interpretation of ancient beliefs.

 

The ancient Greeks also believed in a geocentric universe of just the sun and 5 planets, and Zeus was just one of their Gods. Christians believed that if you went up a high mountain you would see the entire earth. They also believed dragons breathed out fire. Neither Dragonflies nor Komodo Dragons breathe fire. Your familiar with the childrens fairey tale of Humpty Dumpty? Most likely a king of some European country. Well back in those dayss it wasn't a good idea to insult the king. So his misdeeds were couched in poetic license of an egg so saving your neck.

 

Myth isn't necessarily false. King Arther of Round Table fame probably really did exist. However all the stories of what he did are not literally true.

 

There is nothing wrong with the supernatural. However whatever it is, it is not science.

 

Science really isn't about public debate. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. So whether El, Zeus, Brahma or some other "divine" entity created this world is entirely besides the point.

 

The second you(anyone) makes a testable claim about our world/universe. Then it is no longer a matter for beliefs, but one for science.

 

My feelings exactly.

Let me get this one simple fact across to you-

I don't believe anything supernatural exists.

[danielwoods]

It only diminishes so far as it distracts from the message. There is no intrinsic value in the idea that Adam was the first man, even if it were literally true. It's a data point. The underlying meaning is never about facts.

 

In other words it doesn't diminish the value unless you believe it is false. 

[thesometimesaint]

Let me get this one simple fact across to you-

I don't believe anything supernatural exists.

 

Then you don't believe God exists. The dictionary defines supernatural as pertaining to God. Strange admission coming from a LDS.

[Rob Osborn]

Then you don't believe God exists. The dictionary defines supernatural as pertaining to God. Strange admission coming from a LDS.

To not digress anymore on this subect in this post i started another that deals specifically with the "supernatural". You can read about my philosophy over there on the subject.

[thesometimesaint]

To not digress anymore on this subect in this post i started another that deals specifically with the "supernatural". You can read about my philosophy over there on the subject.

 

I don't give a rats behind about your idiosyncratic use of the word. Let's just stick with the dictionary.

[Gray]

In other words it doesn't diminish the value unless you believe it is false. 

 

What moral teaching does a literal take on Adam and Eve impart that a figurative one does not? 

[bcuzbcuz]

So what about modern revelation and modern scripture?

In ancient times they knew dinosaurs as dragons and they really did fight them off. You chalk everything up as myth including your god who has supernatural magic powers so whats the point in debate? I might as well get a bag of hammers to talk to.

I keep looking for a LOL behind your posts, or a "just kidding", but apparently, you believe the stuff you write. But seriously, fire breathing dragons? Let me know when any fossils have been found where dinosaurs contain pouches that could have included flammable gases or liquids. But as to your last point, my genealogy says that my family name used to be Hammarsköljd, which means "hammer shield", close enough to your bag of hammers.

[danielwoods]

What moral teaching does a literal take on Adam and Eve impart that a figurative one does not? 

 

You are demonstrating it's importance by arguing against it.  Why are you arguing against it? You believe it to be false, historically, or at the very least not accurate. 

 

Why does it matter to you? The same reason it matters to me. 

 

The same person who stated that you shall not lie. Also said that everything was created in Six days, and then God rested. 

 

If the latter is seen to be false (or believed to be), then why follow the former command because clearly God lied? 

 

 

If God didn't do as he proclaimed, then how can we trust him? 

 

 

What does it do to take something non-literal, when it was intended to be literal? 

 

Let's take our kids for example. 

We tell them don't hit others. Now, if we don't believe that to be a literal teaching for us, and we hit others, then that undermines the teaching of our kids. They will see us and think that they can take our teaching as non-literal also. 

Edited February 24, 2014 by danielwoods

[JLHPROF]

A global flood is a physical impossibility.

A literal division of the continents in Biblical times is a physical impossibility.

A literal restoration of all land masses into one in human time scales is a physical impossibility.

 

Walking on water is a physical impossibility.

Turning water into wine is a physical impossibility.

Feeding 5 small fish to thousands of people is a physical impossibility.

Causing the dead to live again is a physical impossibility.

 

I don't see why we're so ready to accept God doing some impossible things and not other impossible things.

[thesometimesaint]

Walking on water is a physical impossibility.

Turning water into wine is a physical impossibility.

Feeding 5 small fish to thousands of people is a physical impossibility.

Causing the dead to live again is a physical impossibility.

 

I don't see why we're so ready to accept God doing some impossible things and not other impossible things.

 

Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.

Galileo

[Gray]

You are demonstrating it's importance by arguing against it.  Why are you arguing against it? You believe it to be false, historically, or at the very least not accurate. 

 

Why does it matter to you? The same reason it matters to me. 

 

The same person who stated that you shall not lie. Also said that everything was created in Six days, and then God rested. 

 

If the latter is seen to be false (or believed to be), then why follow the former command because clearly God lied? 

 

 

If God didn't do as he proclaimed, then how can we trust him? 

 

 

What does it do to take something non-literal, when it was intended to be literal? 

 

Let's take our kids for example. 

We tell them don't hit others. Now, if we don't believe that to be a literal teaching for us, and we hit others, then that undermines the teaching of our kids. They will see us and think that they can take our teaching as non-literal also. 

 

I think the literal approach distracts us from the underlying moral teaching. The point was never the story, the point was always the message. The stories are merely conveyances for deeper teachings. If you focus all your attention on the make and model of the vehicle, you'll lose sight of the journey and the destination.

 

 

 

 

If God didn't do as he proclaimed, then how can we trust him? 

 

 

When did God ever make a proclamation? Humans make proclamations. God is in the quiet moments of reflection. 

Edited February 24, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

 

We tell them don't hit others. Now, if we don't believe that to be a literal teaching for us, and we hit others, then that undermines the teaching of our kids. They will see us and think that they can take our teaching as non-literal also. 

 

Apples and oranges. That's a moral teaching. The Adam and Eve story is not a moral teaching at the surface level - it only becomes one when you seek the deeper meaning of the story. 

[danielwoods]

I think the literal approach distracts us from the underlying moral teaching. The point was never the story, the point was always the message. The stories are merely conveyances for deeper teachings. If you focus all your attention on the make and model of the vehicle, you'll lose sight of the journey and the destination.

 

 

 

 

When did God ever make a proclamation? Humans make proclamations. God is in the quiet moments of reflection. 

 

Who said the following:

 

"Exodus 20:¹¹ For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day"

 

Matt. 19:"⁴ And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,"

 

 

Apples and oranges. That's a moral teaching. The Adam and Eve story is not a moral teaching at the surface level - it only becomes one when you seek the deeper meaning of the story. 

 

No it's an example of what happens to the message when it's not taken as it was intended to be taken. When something is taken non-literally, when it was intended to be taken literally, the message is undermined. This principle is true even when applied to moral teachings of don't hit others. 

[The Nehor]

Walking on water is a physical impossibility.

Turning water into wine is a physical impossibility.

Feeding 5 small fish to thousands of people is a physical impossibility.

Causing the dead to live again is a physical impossibility.

 

I don't see why we're so ready to accept God doing some impossible things and not other impossible things.

 

The difference is one of evidence left behind. Miraculously walking on water for a short time on a lake leaves nothing behind. Turning water into wine leaves no evidence once the wine is drunk. Same with the fish. Causing the dead to live again is definitely miraculous but would leave no clues unless the resurrected being chooses to visit you.

 

Separating continents, flooding the whole earth, and so forth could be miraculously done but this is a jarring change to things we can later study and all evidence suggests it never happened. You can argue that God also miraculously covered up all the evidence but why? That comes dangerously close to outright lying. If all things denote there is a God that seems incompatible with God hiding his handiwork.

 

This is why I hate this kind of reasoning. It argues God hides the miraculous in spectacular events.....so it undermines belief in smaller miracles.

 

God can do anything He likes of course. I am not limiting His power. I just find no reason to believe in a spectacular miracle when evidence suggests a less dramatic one occurred. This does not diminish God's power.

[Rob Osborn]

I keep looking for a LOL behind your posts, or a "just kidding", but apparently, you believe the stuff you write. But seriously, fire breathing dragons? Let me know when any fossils have been found where dinosaurs contain pouches that could have included flammable gases or liquids. But as to your last point, my genealogy says that my family name used to be Hammarsköljd, which means "hammer shield", close enough to your bag of hammers.

Do you know that even the scriptures speak of dinosaurs/dragons who breathed fire?

 

 14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

 15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.

 16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.

 17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.

 18 By his ^aneesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

 19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

 20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

 21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

 22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.

 23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.

[thesometimesaint]

Who said the following:

 

"Exodus 20:¹¹ For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day"

 

Matt. 19:"⁴ And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,"

 

 

 

No it's an example of what happens to the message when it's not taken as it was intended to be taken. When something is taken non-literally, when it was intended to be taken literally, the message is undermined. This principle is true even when applied to moral teachings of don't hit others. 

 

Circular reasoning.

[thesometimesaint]

Do you know that even the scriptures speak of dinosaurs/dragons who breathed fire?

 

 14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

 15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.

 16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.

 17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.

 18 By his ^aneesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

 19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

 20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

 21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

 22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.

 23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Rob Osborn]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

How so