volgadon Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 It doesnt work. The scriptures are clear on certain things regardless of what or how man trys to bend those truths. The scriptures may be clear on certain things, but that doesn't mean that they match up with your preconceptions as you come from a dramatically different time, culture, and language. 3
canard78 Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Actually, this is exactly my view of the results of devotion to overly simplistic views of scriptures. "They make one bad assumption and then everything that follows becomes corrupted or false also therefore making history a fable." 1 upvote for Rob, 5 upvotes for David. Reassuring.
thesometimesaint Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Ken Ham did win the debate with Nye so not really get where you are coming from. No he did not. Public argument is not science. Mr. Ham is famous for his tautological arguments.My religious belief is true therefore everything following it is fact, because my religious belief is true.
cdowis Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 It doesnt work. The scriptures are clear on certain things regardless of what or how man trys to bend those truths. Like the flood for instance, we are told specifically it was the whole earth that was flooded. So when man comes along and says "its not really the whole earth" its looking through the lens of man to interpret truth and not through the lens of scripture. Nibley points out the concept of "point of view" in the scriptures. He gives the example of the creation account in Genesis where the stars were "created", but that clearly refers to their appearance on earth during the creation process.
bcuzbcuz Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Hum, let me get this straight- Ham debates a science guy with science and sends Nye packing and you think Ham knows nothing about science...No, I said Bill Nye is not a very good debater. Furthermore, his persona,, Bill Nye the Science Guy, is an acting job. Bill is a qualified mechanical engineer. He is a actor and entertainer. I think he let his TV persona mix with his real life, where he thinks he's qualified to take on another actor, entertainer, sales guy, Ken Ham. As I stated, it really doesn't make any difference who anybody thinks won, neither are qualified scientists, well, except that Nye is a mechanical engineer and if he had stuck to that subject, he might have put up a better argument. But do I think Ken Ham knows anything about science? Certainly his comments in the debate did nothing to assure me of that fact. What are his degrees in and which qualified university gave him those degrees? That would be my starting point. But degrees aren't everything. A person can have a degree but still be a complete idiot anyway. Take me, for example. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 No, I said Bill Nye is not a very good debater. Furthermore, his persona,, Bill Nye the Science Guy, is an acting job. Bill is a qualified mechanical engineer. He is a actor and entertainer. I think he let his TV persona mix with his real life, where he thinks he's qualified to take on another actor, entertainer, sales guy, Ken Ham. As I stated, it really doesn't make any difference who anybody thinks won, neither are qualified scientists, well, except that Nye is a mechanical engineer and if he had stuck to that subject, he might have put up a better argument.But do I think Ken Ham knows anything about science? Certainly his comments in the debate did nothing to assure me of that fact. What are his degrees in and which qualified university gave him those degrees? That would be my starting point. But degrees aren't everything. A person can have a degree but still be a complete idiot anyway. Take me, for example.Ken Ham earned a Bachelor of Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology, at Queensland Institute of Technology and a diploma in Education from the University of Queensland.[36][37][38]He has been awarded two honorary degrees: In 1997 from Temple Baptist College in Cincinnati, Ohio and in 2004 from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.[36]
Rob Osborn Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 The scriptures may be clear on certain things, but that doesn't mean that they match up with your preconceptions as you come from a dramatically different time, culture, and language. This- another case of looking through the lens of man.
Rob Osborn Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Nibley points out the concept of "point of view" in the scriptures. He gives the example of the creation account in Genesis where the stars were "created", but that clearly refers to their appearance on earth during the creation process. So, are you suggesting here that the flood was seen just from their point of view and thus just local? If so, then again- just another case of looking through the lens of man. Moses records the event in vision and sees the whole earth (so much for a limited POV) and he states it was the whole earth.
Ron Beron Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Female fetishes are quite common in antiquity.I agree that fetishes are common, but masks? I couldn't find any except for some more modern.
volgadon Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 This- another case of looking through the lens of man. Are you saying that ancient Israelite culture was identical to yours? 1
Rob Osborn Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Are you saying that ancient Israelite culture was identical to yours? No, as I have been saying all along, we are trying to view the evidence through the lens of man without first sifting the evidece through the lens of gods word.
thesometimesaint Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 No, as I have been saying all along, we are trying to view the evidence through the lens of man without first sifting the evidece through the lens of gods word. God can take care of himself, and he certainly doesn't need you to "sift the evidence".
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 God can take care of himself, and he certainly doesn't need you to "sift the evidence". But we humans here cant see the forest because of all the trees. We will never find God through mans lens.
thesometimesaint Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 But we humans here cant see the forest because of all the trees. We will never find God through mans lens. I find him all the time, but then I know where to look.
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 I find him all the time, but then I know where to look. Just as long as evolution is true, there was no globals flood, and man has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, its all good heh? Just as long as you can keep interpreting gods word through the lens of mans understanding of science...
volgadon Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 No, as I have been saying all along, we are trying to view the evidence through the lens of man without first sifting the evidece through the lens of gods word. So you don't think that there could be cultural differences?
Ron Beron Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 No, as I have been saying all along, we are trying to view the evidence through the lens of man without first sifting the evidece through the lens of gods word.The problem with that is God's word isn't all that old and certainly a conflation of earlier accounts, legends, and stories. 1
bcuzbcuz Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 So, are you suggesting here that the flood was seen just from their point of view and thus just local? If so, then again- just another case of looking through the lens of man. Moses records the event in vision and sees the whole earth (so much for a limited POV) and he states it was the whole earth.Do your research. The books of Moses were not written by Moses. They were compiled a thousand years after his existence, and 3000 years after the supposed starting date that you refer to as approx. 4000 BC. They consist of stories told over and over, many hundreds of thousand of times, before finally being committed to paper. Look up Torah on Wikipedia. Torah: probably written down during Babylonian period (600 BC) and probably completed 400 BC.Any story repeated a hundred times will get changed in the telling and re-telling. Even good story tellers change details depending on the audience and purpose of the telling.
thesometimesaint Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 Just as long as evolution is true, there was no globals flood, and man has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, its all good heh? Just as long as you can keep interpreting gods word through the lens of mans understanding of science... It has little to nothing to do with evolution. Water has weight(about 8 LBS per gallon). Enough water to cover the entire globe as described by Noah(The high hills) would superheat thus crush and cook everything living thing on the planet including Noah and his family. IE; The planet Venus.
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 It has little to nothing to do with evolution. Water has weight(about 8 LBS per gallon). Enough water to cover the entire globe as described by Noah(The high hills) would superheat thus crush and cook everything living thing on the planet including Noah and his family. IE; The planet Venus. The flood water is all still here on the earth- in our ocean basins, so why aren't we getting cooked?
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 So you don't think that there could be cultural differences? I believe in modern revelation. I believe in prophets of God and I believe in the word of God and discerning his word through the holy spirit. We may be as dfferent culturally of the ancients as if one compared the night with day, but we do have the power of discernment manifest in many forms.
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 The problem with that is God's word isn't all that old and certainly a conflation of earlier accounts, legends, and stories. So what is legend and what is truth? Were Adam and Eve our first parents on the earth? Did Noah and the global flood really exist? Was Christ real? Is the resurrection real or fable? Will we live again with God?
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 Do your research. The books of Moses were not written by Moses. They were compiled a thousand years after his existence, and 3000 years after the supposed starting date that you refer to as approx. 4000 BC. They consist of stories told over and over, many hundreds of thousand of times, before finally being committed to paper. Look up Torah on Wikipedia. Torah: probably written down during Babylonian period (600 BC) and probably completed 400 BC. Any story repeated a hundred times will get changed in the telling and re-telling. E ven good story tellers change details depending on the audience and purpose of the telling. Perhaps we should just burn the bible then? Looking through the lens of man...But believe this- 9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend. (Mosiah 4:9)
thesometimesaint Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 The flood water is all still here on the earth- in our ocean basins, so why aren't we getting cooked? Because that water is not in the air.http://www.123rf.com/photo_7884395_dead-planet-earth-without-water--the-global-ecological-catastrophe-a-fantastic-assumption-of-the-fut.html
David T Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 (edited) Perhaps we should just burn the bible then?You seem to be the only one here who would rather have a burned Bible than one with multifaceted incomplete human perspectives as Essential partners in its composition and narrative presentations. Edited March 16, 2014 by David T 1
Recommended Posts