Teancum Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 29 minutes ago, The Nehor said: The level of tectonic activity needed to create mountains in less than ten millennia would be cataclysmic and geology would be a very different field. Oh, and it probably would have involved a lot of mass extinctions and a lot of other ‘fun’. Fact conflicts with faith ALL THE TIME. So much on this thread is scientifically falsifiable.
Teancum Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 3 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Now, all that being said, I'm pretty sure that God could have created the earth in one nanosecond, in the next nanosecond put A&E into the Garden, and we think it had to have happened 150,000 years ago because He "salted" the earth with all the evidence needed to make it seem like it was 4.5 billion years old. Why would God do such a thing? This makes absolutely no sense at all. 3 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Pick one or the other, I don't care. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. If God created it he is not trying to trick us. 3 minutes ago, Stargazer said: But if God made the evidence seem like the solar system is 4.5 billion years old, then maybe He wants us to believe it's that old. And maybe it IS that old. It doesn't take away from the idea that God made it. Again to what end? 3 minutes ago, Stargazer said: And I can imagine God trying to tell Moses that the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago, and that humans started out as one-celled organisms, and He eventually directed life in such a way so that it ended up humans popped up. And Moses would be like "Wha...??" And then God sighs and tells him what we read in Genesis 1. So Moses was not bright enough to understand something God may want to teach him. Could God have not expanded his intellect? 1
Stargazer Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 5 minutes ago, Teancum said: It seems that there are believers here that may view Adam and Eve as figurative and not literal. Is it literal that all humans descend from Adam and Eve? I believe that Adam and Eve were real and that we are descended from them. I don't believe they were popped into the GofE in 4004 BC, though. I'm perfectly willing to believe that they lived on the earth waaaayyy longer ago than we think they did. The interesting thing is that Cain goes out after killing Abel and finds a wife. A woman who is never mentioned before that moment, and where did she come from? Is she a direct descendant of Adam and Eve? Who knows? I recall some activist atheist somewhere making fun of the story by saying that she had to be Cain's sister, or else, a niece who was also the product of an incestuous relationship between two other unmentioned children of Adam and Eve, and perhaps she was Abel's daughter. And what kind of trouble might there have been from everyone being too closely related? Anyway, I'm pretty sure we don't have the whole story. 2
Calm Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 1 minute ago, Stargazer said: Anyway, I'm pretty sure we don't have the whole story. I accept Adam and Eve as the first covenant couple. Given they lived significantly in the past, I am thinking we are all descendants of them, but they are not our first or only ultimate ancestors, just our first covenanted ancestors. 1
Teancum Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 3 minutes ago, Calm said: I accept Adam and Eve as the first covenant couple. Given they lived significantly in the past, I am thinking we are all descendants of them, but they are not our first or only ultimate ancestors, just our first covenanted ancestors. But this is a twist on what has been taught because science refutes all of us descending from a literal Adam and Eve around 6000 years ago.
Calm Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 1 minute ago, Teancum said: But this is a twist on what has been taught because science refutes all of us descending from a literal Adam and Eve around 6000 years ago. So? 2
bluebell Posted January 4, 2022 Author Posted January 4, 2022 22 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Maybe God should have tried to teach Abraham quantum theory instead of just astronomy. Just think, we could have had the atomic bomb in 2000 BC! Wouldn't that have been a kicker! I don't think He was even trying to teach Abraham astronomy. It's not really like Him to be all "I'm going to send you to the Egyptians to have you teach them, and what I really want you to focus on is astronomy. They are a little weak in that field." I think, after listening to smart people teach the chapters (including an egyptologist), that God was teaching Abraham how to teach about God to the Egyptians in a way that they would understand. Because the astronomy isn't exactly correct from what I've read. But what it teaches symbolically about God and man works perfectly for Egyptian culture. 2
Chum Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 3 minutes ago, Teancum said: But this is a twist on what has been taught because science refutes all of us descending from a literal Adam and Eve around 6000 years ago. Here it is. Science doesn't align with biblical teachings of human origins. Well, okay. What that doesn't mean: That I must immediately make some decision in response to that understanding. What I do: File that info away for a generation or three, while I sort out where God may have fit in things. Loial is right. Humans don't need to be so hasty. 3
Stargazer Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 2 minutes ago, Teancum said: Why would God do such a thing? This makes absolutely no sense at all. Heck, I don't know why He would. I just made up a fantastic scenario ("fantastic" as in "fantasy"). Don't take it too seriously. But why would God do such a thing? Isaiah 55:8,9. 2 minutes ago, Teancum said: The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. If God created it he is not trying to trick us. Of course he isn't. The earth condensed out of the solar nebula about 4.5 billion years ago, and it's made of material that dates all the way back to the Big Bang, about 13.5 billion years ago. I was just saying that you can't tell God what he can't do. 2 minutes ago, Teancum said: Again to what end? I'm just handing out a reason for the anti-scientific among us to just chill and not get too worked up if science says it's 4.5 billion years old. Because if that's what it looks like, then it is either actually 4.5 billion years old, or it isn't, but God wants us to believe it is. 2 minutes ago, Teancum said: So Moses was not bright enough to understand something God may want to teach him. Could God have not expanded his intellect? You know, I was presenting a ****-a-mamie scenario (I was only joking) as to why God might not have started with a graduate-level course in cosmology and astrophysics while explaining to a 2nd millenium BC sheep farmer how He created the earth. I wasn't saying Moses was stupid, for crying out loud. And as it turns out, God did expand his intellect. We read about that in the Book of Moses. See chapter 1. Moses 1:27 - And it came to pass, as the voice [of God] was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God." Read the whole chapter. It's quite a story, and even states quite categorically that God has created other worlds with other Adams and Eves. God showed Moses everything that pertained to the earth and what was to come, and who was to come. He saw so much that after God left him at some point, that he was totally exhausted for many hours, the scripture tells us. But the doctorate that Moses got that day did not get carried over into Genesis because the people who were going to read it weren't ready for a flipping 20 volume explanation for how God created the world. That's what I was trying to say. In a joking kind of way. Sorry you didn't get the humor! 2
Stargazer Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 17 minutes ago, Calm said: I accept Adam and Eve as the first covenant couple. Given they lived significantly in the past, I am thinking we are all descendants of them, but they are not our first or only ultimate ancestors, just our first covenanted ancestors. I'm happy with that. 1
The Nehor Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 22 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Maybe God should have tried to teach Abraham quantum theory instead of just astronomy. Just think, we could have had the atomic bomb in 2000 BC! Wouldn't that have been a kicker! 3
Teancum Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Calm said: So? You are changing doctrine to fit your own narrative. THis happens often when the truth of science conflicts with the myths that are believed on faith. When it is clear what has been taught cannot be true then people move the goal posts. That is what you have done as many do. I used to do it as well. Edited January 4, 2022 by Teancum
The Nehor Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 31 minutes ago, Teancum said: Fact conflicts with faith ALL THE TIME. So much on this thread is scientifically falsifiable. Not really. It is just not provable and there is little evidence for the theory. The resurrection seems incredibly unlikely but it is not falsifiable. The evidence from a scientific standpoint is basically non-existent for all but a few.
CV75 Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 38 minutes ago, Teancum said: It seems that there are believers here that may view Adam and Eve as figurative and not literal. Is it literal that all humans descend from Adam and Eve? What does the Church teach on that point?
Teancum Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 9 minutes ago, Stargazer said: That's what I was trying to say. In a joking kind of way. Sorry you didn't get the humor! My wife says I have no sense of humor. Sorry about my post.😏
Teancum Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 1 minute ago, CV75 said: What does the Church teach on that point? I would say the church teaches they were literal persons who all humans are descended from. 1
Chum Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 2 minutes ago, Teancum said: I would say the church teaches they were literal persons who all humans are descended from. You seem to be correct on both counts. Quote As descendants of Adam and Eve, we inherit a fallen condition during mortality. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 51 minutes ago, Teancum said: Fact conflicts with faith ALL THE TIME. So much on this thread is scientifically falsifiable. 17 minutes ago, Teancum said: You are changing doctrine to fit your own narrative. THis happens often when the truth of science conflicts with the myths that are believed on faith. When it is clear what has been taught cannot be true then people move the goal posts. Ah the irony of these statements. You can literally reverse them and have equally correct statements.
Calm Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Teancum said: You are changing doctrine to fit your own narrative. THis happens often when the truth of science conflicts with the myths that are believed on faith. When it is clear what has been taught cannot be true then people move the goal posts. That is what you have done as many do. I used to do it as well. If the scriptures had ever taught it was a “one and done” learning experience or if the Church taught scriptures or leaders’ understandings were infallible, that might be a problem. Instead scriptures teach continuing revelation and church leaders say take truth where you find it. Edited January 4, 2022 by Calm 1
JustAnAustralian Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 Don't confuse literal with historical. One is about the method of describing, the other is about the thing being described. 3
CV75 Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 47 minutes ago, Teancum said: I would say the church teaches they were literal persons who all humans are descended from. OK, that seems to answer your question -- but I would think an actual quote would prove more satisfactory. At any rate, a literal interpretation certainly seems to provide an acceptable working model of the plan of happiness that helps people from all walks of life enjoy the companionship of the Holy Ghost. Can spiritual things be literal, or only temporal things? Of course, so many things in our doctrine are both temporal and spiritual. 1
InCognitus Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 You can't have a discussion about reading the Old Testament "literally" without including Ben Spackman: Literal Interpretation of the Scriptures: Why We Need MORE: Quote To summarize, a literal interpretation is not a surface reading of English— however plain— but one which tries to recover as much context as possible about the author’s setting, culture, language, history, intent, etc. And that requires work. We have to work to put scripture back into context. If we don’t do that work, we are reading scripture out of context by default. An out-of-context reading is absolutely NOT a “literal reading.” In short, I agree that we need to read scripture literally; but “literal” says nothing about the genre of a given text, whether it is history, historical fiction, parable, etc. To read literally, we must do some work to recover the “the conditions of [the author’s] time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current.” Assuming all scripture is historical by default also isn’t reading literally. It’s misreading. A reading of Genesis (or Moses or Abraham) which assumes it must be speaking about natural history and scientific facts isn’t a literal reading. It’s a misreading based on post-Enlightenment assumptions that truth means fact, and fact means science and history, and the meaning of the passage can be ascertained without any kind of context at all. Those are deeply flawed assumptions. So when I advocate that we need to read scripture literally more, I am not woodenly declaring everything to be history. Rather, I am calling for us to give up our literal lazy surface readings, to empty our cupboard of theological Twinkies, and engage in deeper, closer reading, to make effort to seek out contexts for our scriptures… as the prophets have said. Only then can we lay claim to a literal reading of scripture. 2
mfbukowski Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 5 hours ago, CV75 said: Of course the value of our understanding and belief is found in our behavior, so as long as someone is becoming Christlike, it doesn't matter whether we (or they) take things literally or figuratively and we (and they) learn from experience which works, and how well, and under what circumstances, etc. Dang! 100 rep points That is the definition of Pragmatism; the AFFECTS and EFFECTS the BELIEF causes in our lives, defines the possible utility and "truth" of the belief. The better it works, the "truer" the belief becomes. Beliefs are tools to build actions, both in science and religion. We form the belief that medication abc will improve disease xyz; through experimentation we find it does. We believe God is our Father, and the belief gives us spiritual peace, and helps us to see all humans as our family, and fosters a less violent culture. This is one way science and religion are similar 1
mfbukowski Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 (edited) 6 hours ago, bluebell said: So where do you believe all the animals came from after the flood receded, since they all would have drown during it? (I'm not arguing, just sincerely wondering how you've solved that dilemma). The flood story teaches us that God can and does save us and takes care of his children and the world he gave us, and there are natural consequences for our actions globally... ...IF we follow his directions on how to live in his world Otherwise natural consequences can take all of us out. Edited January 4, 2022 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts