Interesting serious starting on PT

[Teallaura]

Hi GR!!! Nice to see you!




*We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in something resembling progress...

[grmorton]

Hi GR!!! Nice to see you!




*We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in something resembling progress...

Nice to be seen since according to a doctor 10 years ago I am not supposed to be seen any longer. :-) How are you?

[Teallaura]

Fine, thanks - and glad you're still proving that doctor wrong!

[klaus54]

By historically true, I mean it actually happened. Now that I have defined it, maybe you can either tell me that I am wrong, that you do take it as a historical set of events or that you don't. and if you don't, please answer my question, "Why would you believe that which is proclaimed to be historically false?" I don't see why that is such a hard question to answer, but maybe Jorge has rubbed off on you. :-)



I would point out that if God creates in a fashion different than what the account said, then there is a misfit between the account and actual history. Either God lied about how he created, or you believe that which is ahistorical.



Well, Duh. so you believe in the historicity of Genesis 1:1 but disbelieve in the historicity of Genesis 1:2-31. Upon what basis do you make this distinction? Please explain your position here.

As an aside to my friend Oxmixmudd: Ox, you once said I have a mean streak. As I told you then, I do and I am displaying it now as I slice and dice this guy's illogic.



I hear this all the time. Will someone please explain to me why in the H what the ancient Hebrews understood about the account is so darn important? Are they to be the sole judge of what God was saying? Klaus, we have learned a thing or two since their day in case you haven't noticed.



We are not far different on this point, but it isn't a second creation story. It is the fulfillment of the planning that took place in Genesis 1.



The garden story is when man became a moral agent. But I suspect your thought process is a bit sloppy. Please tell me precisely WHEN in history this event took place. If you don't have a point in time for this historical event, then you are blowing smoke rings out from where the sun don't shine.



Relevant? that sounds like psychobabble talk. My grandkids are relevant to me. My job is relevant to me. false stories are not very relevant to me. Define relevant, Klaus.



You sound like Adam saying "She gave me the fruit" I am not talking about Jorge. He is hopeless. I am talking about the illogic in your position. Is relevancy all you are after? Relevancy is meaningless and unverifiable. Historicity is verifiable and powerful. What do you want out of your Christianity, pablum relevancy or actual history?



A nutter is someone that others dislike, even if the 'nutter' is correct. Look at how scientists punish those with different ideas that eventually turn out to be correct to get an idea our about how much I care about your character assassination of Omniskeptical. If I think he is right on something, I will agree with him. If I think he is wrong I will disagree. But I doubt he is a nutter completely. People are so intolerant of those who hold different views. They label them with bad names. Don't do that, Klaus. It isn't Christian and it shows that you have run out of logical arguments against their position.

"It" actually happened. WHAT actually happened? The text is vague and arcane and AMBIGUOUS? Do you think there were literal days? "Evening" and "Morning"? Where does the HISTORY start for you? Please be explicit?

Oh, and apparently you're a generationalist who is blessed with knowledge the Ancient Hebrew didn't have. God's people have been wallowing in their ignorance for generation upon generation until Glenn Morton -- the Prophet of Historicity -- comes along and sets them straight. Unbelievable hubris!!

And what the ANE culture understood the stories to mean? VERY likely something different to ours -- other than for example that Elohim is the creator of all, animals and heavenlies are not to be worshipped. Talk to scholars of ANE culture if want to flesh that out.

If it's not sufficient for you THAT Elohim/YHWH Elohim creates then YOU are adding to Scripture in the same way Jorge is.

If you want to shove your vague concordism into the stories, be my guest. I have no problem with that.

What I want out of Christianity is NOT some stupid interpretation of the creation stories. REGARDLESS of how mankind came to be and REGARDLESS of how the ANE understood this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to with the work of Christ. Now if you disagree and want to add your Genesis creation concordism as sine qua non, then I would worry about the foundation of your faith. Is it Christ, or it is OT interpretation -- which is it?

And your classification of a historical critical interpretation of the Genesis stories as "pablum" is EXTREMELY insulting.

K54

[klaus54]

I want to be as historical as I can be. But communication with God doesn't require God having lungs. You are really getting silly here. I think I am getting to you. Do you think God communicates with humans? You claim to be a Christian so I assume you would say that God does communicate with people. If you agree that God communicates with humans, then Are you now claiming that all of God's communication with the prophets required God to have a set of lungs in order to say something? That would truly be a strange Christian belief given that the Bible says "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit" So are you now denying that god is a Spirit? Please explain this interesting and strange belief system you have. Do you believe that God has a body?

If you say God doesn't communicate with humans, then I would ask how you could say Christianity is true? The very heart of Christianity is that God became flesh to show us the way to salvation.

Take a chill pill Klaus. You are looking a wee bit fanatical--something like you say Jorge does.

I'm not being silly in the least. How "literal" do you want to be? Where is the "historical"/culturally accommodated boundary for you? It's like asking an anti-evolutionist were's the boundary between micro- and macro-evolution.

Be specific.

So when Elohim "speaks" it's not really spoken words.

How about the "days" -- evening and morning are not global markers of days. So what are the "days"? How are they "historical"?

How do you explain the literary form of organizing and filling? "Eretz was without form and void" -- what does that mean "historically"? "Days" 1-3 involve separation: giving form, "Days" 3-6 involve filling the void with life.

What is the "historical" linkage between the two creation stories? Why is the order and methodology different for the creation of man and woman?

How does geologic and biological history fit "historically" into the creation stories?

How is the firm ra'qia (stereoma) fit in "historically"?

If you can't flesh these questions out in (hopefully) unambiguous "historical" terms, then you're no better than Jorge with his insistence on a literal 6/24 day creation 6-10Ka and yet being unable to explain that interpretation in any way that maps to physical reality.

At least you aren't a coward like Jorge. For that I certainly admire you.

K54

P.S. Omniskeptical is either a troll or mentally ill. If you don't believe me, read through his posts on the Atomic Clocks! thread - a self-proclaimed nuclear physics expert he. He(she?) also classifies him(her)self as a "Unitarian non-evolutionist" but like most nutters won't explain what he means.

[Omniskeptical]

P.S. Omniskeptical is either a troll or mentally ill. If you don't believe me, read through his posts on the Atomic Clocks! thread - a self-proclaimed nuclear physics expert he. He(she?) also classifies him(her)self as a "Unitarian non-evolutionist" but like most nutters won't explain what he means.

I have never proclaimed myself a nuclear physics expert. Just because you are a moron, it doesn't give you the right to slander.

[grmorton]

"It" actually happened. WHAT actually happened? The text is vague and arcane and AMBIGUOUS? Do you think there were literal days? "Evening" and "Morning"? Where does the HISTORY start for you? Please be explicit?

Sigh, this is why I can't stand this place. People either can't, don't or won't read. I wrote last night:

"I take the Days of Proclamation view of Genesis 1. Nothing happened at the Proclamation. The ancient Jews in the Talmud viewed the Law as having been written before time. The Days of Proclamation view holds that Genesis 1 is the planning of the universe, and one can plan something in any order one wishes. Execution of the plan my be in a different order. St. Basil in the 4th century took that view Day 1 was pretemporal. Whiston and Capron took the whole of Genesis 1 as pre-temporal. Genesis 2 was billions of years after the creation of the universe.

If you look at every day in Genesis 1 it has the pattern of "God Said..." "and it was so" The "and it was so" was added by the writer later. It doesn't say "And it was so IMMEDIATELY". It could have taken several billion years for the completion of some of the pre-temporal proclamations.

I don't believe that includes 'literal days'

Oh, and apparently you're a generationalist who is blessed with knowledge the Ancient Hebrew didn't have. God's people have been wallowing in their ignorance for generation upon generation until Glenn Morton -- the Prophet of Historicity -- comes along and sets them straight. Unbelievable hubris!!

And what the ANE culture understood the stories to mean? VERY likely something different to ours -- other than for example that Elohim is the creator of all, animals and heavenlies are not to be worshipped. Talk to scholars of ANE culture if want to flesh that out.

Apparently you can't actually answer questions you are asked about your position. I asked you why what the ancient Hebrews beleives was so important. You respond by saying they understood things differently than we do. I agree. So what? That isn't a reply to my question. Let me rephrase it. Why should we care what they understood of the text? Are they the only judges of the meaning of the message? I will freely grant that they are the judges of what the individual words mean, but not necessarily the message formed by those words.

Example: For some reason people think that when God said, "Earth! bring forth living creatures after their kind", it means that animals can't change and thus evolution is ruled out. But even in the Hebrew it doesn't say "animals give rise to animals after their kind" Indeed, the sentence is a command to bring forth various kinds of animals. The fact that the Hebrews might not have seen evolution in that verse is not important. They are not the end all of Biblical interpretation.

[quuote]

If it's not sufficient for you THAT Elohim/YHWH Elohim creates then YOU are adding to Scripture in the same way Jorge is.[/quote]

Ah, I see that if one doesn't match your expectations you proclaim them a heretic. Great logical argumentation, Klaus--and you said Jorge was irrational.

If you want to shove your vague concordism into the stories, be my guest. I have no problem with that.

It is not vaque. It is very specific and detailed. The problem is that it is unknown to you because you didn't take my suggestion to go do some research on me. And things that are unknown to you, you label with names like 'vague'. Do you actually present arguments for your position or do you just call people and things you don't understand names or paste them with monikers that make you feel better?

What I want out of Christianity is NOT some stupid interpretation of the creation stories. REGARDLESS of how mankind came to be and REGARDLESS of how the ANE understood this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to with the work of Christ. Now if you disagree and want to add your Genesis creation concordism as sine qua non, then I would worry about the foundation of your faith. Is it Christ, or it is OT interpretation -- which is it?

Let me state the issue that nearly drove me to atheism. Everything depends upon the historicity of the resurrection. As Paul says, If Christ be not raised we are to be most pitied. But whether we like it or not, we are forced to have faith in the observational data reported by the disciples, meaning we must trust them before we can beleive in the resurrection. They must be truthful.

But I grew very disgusted with both sides of this debate and worried that if the disciples were as bad at logic and data handling as are modern Christians, how could I trust their claim that Jesus arose? Here is the problem.

I find the logic of the liberals atrocious and I find the science of the YECs atrocious. Neither position is worth a darn to me. Religious liberals tend to not care about historicity or miracles. The liberals remove miracle after miracle from historicity. This leads ultimately to what some have suggested, that it really doesn't matter if Jesus actually/historically rose from the dead. To me that is the logical end of the Liberal track where one removes miracle after miracle from the Bible leaving only philosophy as the remnant. If the disciples were theological liberals, I am not sure I could believe their claim that Jesus rose because it might merely mean that such a view was 'relevant' to use a term you did, or deeply meaningful even if it didn't happen (to use a term you didn't).

On the other hand, the YECs want historicity, but tie the Scripture to a dead science. What they have is like wearing a rotting albatross around one's neck and expecting the lass to accept your invitation to dance. If the disciples were like modern YECs in their ability to handle observational data, I again couldn't trust what they said about the resurrection. Modern YECs can't deal with straightforward observational data without dithering. Thus to me, there was no other way than to find a way to make Genesis 1-6 historical or give it all up as hokum.

And your classification of a historical critical interpretation of the Genesis stories as "pablum" is EXTREMELY insulting.

K54

What a hoot, you thing I am insulting you when I insult what you believe? You have a very thin skin and maybe a strange view of your self-identity. Grow up. there are people out there that don't agree with you. You shoudn't be so whiney when your favorite view is whacked. I don't respond to expressions of personal weakness as that above.

[grmorton]

I'm not being silly in the least. How "literal" do you want to be? Where is the "historical"/culturally accommodated boundary for you? It's like asking an anti-evolutionist were's the boundary between micro- and macro-evolution.

Be specific.

So when Elohim "speaks" it's not really spoken words.

How about the "days" -- evening and morning are not global markers of days. So what are the "days"? How are they "historical"?

Sigh. Are you reading this thread? see above. I answered that.

How do you explain the literary form of organizing and filling? "Eretz was without form and void" -- what does that mean "historically"? "Days" 1-3 involve separation: giving form, "Days" 3-6 involve filling the void with life.

Ever hear of a nebula? Our solar system began as one. There are other possibilities as well.

What is the "historical" linkage between the two creation stories? Why is the order and methodology different for the creation of man and woman?

Sigh. Days of Proclamation. It seems beyond your ability to understand this but Gen 1 represents the preplanning of the universe. It is events in pretemporal... hmmm what do I call it. Before the Big bang.

How does geologic and biological history fit "historically" into the creation stories?

Sigh, do you read? I have already outlined that. go back and look where I talk about Earth! bring forth living creatures. You really need to try to comprehend what the other guy is saying.

How is the firm ra'qia (stereoma) fit in "historically"?

Well, if Christians had been a little more open minded than restricting their views solely to those held by the ancient Hebrews they could have used Raqia to predict the expansion of the earth. If we had been a little more flexible in our interpretive schemes we could have easily accepted evolution because it is implied when God commands the Earth to do the work of bringing forth living creatures of various kinds.

But you aren't listening and this is what I find here all the time. People try to shoehorn everyone into their pre-existing categories. I don't fit them. My views don't fit them.

If you can't flesh these questions out in (hopefully) unambiguous "historical" terms, then you're no better than Jorge with his insistence on a literal 6/24 day creation 6-10Ka and yet being unable to explain that interpretation in any way that maps to physical reality.

At least you aren't a coward like Jorge. For that I certainly admire you.

Well you are a coward. you still haven't answered WHY you believe that which you proclaim as historically false! ANSWER THE DANG QUESTION

[shunyadragon]

It has been a long long time since I have been on TW, and I am not sure I have the stomach for this nonsense any longer. I am so bored after the end of a 4 year project that I have decided to come back here, at least for the night.

That said, I simply dislike the condescensional and arrogant attitude I see towards things Biblical here. Yes, Jorge has not given a possible literal reading of Genesis that fits the facts of science. Just because Jorge can't doesn't mean it is impossible. I have given such an account in my 2 books and in multiple articles. No one likes my view, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is a way to make the Biblical account historically true. To me there is no reason to believe something if it is untrue historically/factually. I know, I am a throwback to the age of logic in a post-modern world where actual truth values of propositions is considered meaningless.

Klaus, you wrote: "I too am a Christian. I too am sad to see the anti intellectual approach of too many Christians to science and rational thinking in general."

I guess I would say I am tired of the liberal-minded christian mumbo-jumbo that the Bible is historically false but should be believed by one and all anyway? How can we ask people to believe that which we proclaim as untrue? Why do you believe the Bible when you believe it is historically false?

Nice to see you here again. I recommend you do not get your hopes up that much has changed.

I consider the Bible not necessarily historically accurate nor historically inaccurate. I consider it a compilation of narratives, some of the writers were inspired by God, set in history in the context of the times and culture they were written

[Cerebrum123]

Nice to be seen since according to a doctor 10 years ago I am not supposed to be seen any longer. :-) How are you?

I'm trying to limit my posting in this area, but I figured I should say this. I'm glad to hear that you proved him wrong.

[Jorge]

That said, I simply dislike the condescensional and arrogant attitude I see towards things Biblical here. Yes, Jorge has not given a possible literal reading of Genesis that fits the facts of science. Just because Jorge can't doesn't mean it is impossible.

Welcome, GR. I'm sincerely glad to see that you are doing well (recalling your struggle with a serious illness some time ago).

The attitude towards the Bible that you refer to is merely status quo - God's Word has been and must be attacked because, if God's Word stands then it demolishes all other worldviews, most especially Materialism and they will not tolerate that.

As for me "not given a possible literal reading of Genesis that fits the facts of science" that is simply not being fair to me. Over the years I've provided countless examples, arguments and explanations towards that topic. While I may not have done so in a single post (since it would require something of a dissertation-level length), I most certainly have provided all of the essentials. Unfortunately, the reception has been far less than honest. Am I to continue wasting my time trying to beat a dead horse into a race?

I have given such an account in my 2 books and in multiple articles. No one likes my view, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is a way to make the Biblical account historically true.

Anything can be fabricated into a story if (IF!) we are willing to accept certain things as "true" while at the same time ignoring everything that opposes the story. That is what Materialists/Atheists/Humanists do all the time.

To me there is no reason to believe something if it is untrue historically/factually.

Who would want to believe in something that is patently untrue? Only a lunatic or a sicko.

I know, I am a throwback to the age of logic in a post-modern world where actual truth values of propositions is considered meaningless.

Well, that's makes two of us and heaven forbid that we should ever abandon that. IMHO the post-modern attitude you rightfully speak of is an affront to God and explains much of the chaos that we see daily.

Klaus, you wrote: "I too am a Christian. I too am sad to see the anti intellectual approach of too many Christians to science and rational thinking in general."

I guess I would say I am tired of the liberal-minded christian mumbo-jumbo that the Bible is historically false but should be believed by one and all anyway? How can we ask people to believe that which we proclaim as untrue? Why do you believe the Bible when you believe it is historically false?

Seriously, have you become a Biblical Creationist again? I ask because those are PRECISELY the same questions that guys like me ask the Christian Theistic Evolutionists and Old Age advocates. No one - not I nor anyone - can have their cake and eat it too. Speaking only of Genesis 1-11 (although the entire Bible applies), if we cannot trust what God says here then how can we trust what He says elsewhere? The logical answer is: we cannot! Enter, stage left, your recent comment about post-modern, Orwellian 'logic' where right is wrong, down is up and war is peace.

Jorge

[Carrikature]

I would point out that if God creates in a fashion different than what the account said, then there is a misfit between the account and actual history. Either God lied about how he created, or you believe that which is ahistorical.

This last is actually a false dichotomy. The more common belief is that the accounts were written by men in terms of what they understood at the time. The events might have been real, but they're not portrayed in a way that is intended to be accurate (genre difference), and it's commonly accepted that God didn't bother correcting for lack of knowledge. This is still compatible with most understandings of inerrancy.

I hear this all the time. Will someone please explain to me why in the H what the ancient Hebrews understood about the account is so darn important? Are they to be the sole judge of what God was saying? Klaus, we have learned a thing or two since their day in case you haven't noticed.

It shouldn't be that hard to understand. It's their account. What the authors of a text were trying to say is always important to understanding what's being claimed. That ties in directly to how accurate an account is. You're going around this by claiming the actual message doesn't rely on the account. If that's the case, there doesn't have to be a word in the Bible that's historically accurate. The Real Message(TM) is still understandable. That's...kinda convenient...

[Jorge]

Sigh, this is why I can't stand this place. People either can't, don't or won't read. I wrote last night:

Just a quick comment: welcome to my world, GR - that's what I face ALL the time!

By the way, in Santa Klaus you've bumped into a real wacky-lulu
Methinks that if you stick around long enough he'll make you regret ever showing up again.

Jorge

[Carrikature]

"I take the Days of Proclamation view of Genesis 1. Nothing happened at the Proclamation. The ancient Jews in the Talmud viewed the Law as having been written before time. The Days of Proclamation view holds that Genesis 1 is the planning of the universe, and one can plan something in any order one wishes. Execution of the plan my be in a different order. St. Basil in the 4th century took that view Day 1 was pretemporal. Whiston and Capron took the whole of Genesis 1 as pre-temporal. Genesis 2 was billions of years after the creation of the universe.

If you look at every day in Genesis 1 it has the pattern of "God Said..." "and it was so" The "and it was so" was added by the writer later. It doesn't say "And it was so IMMEDIATELY". It could have taken several billion years for the completion of some of the pre-temporal proclamations.

This is what I'm talking about. You want to claim historical accuracy while completely changing the account so it retains accuracy.

[klaus54]

I have never proclaimed myself a nuclear physics expert. Just because you are a moron, it doesn't give you the right to slander.

Then why did you spout all your nonsense about Atomic Clocks! and radioisotopes when your pronouncements disagreed with nuclear scientists and radiometric experts?

Anyone can look up your threads and read your abject arrogance and stupidity.

And what the hell is a "Unitarian anti-evolutionist"???

And what IS your shtick? Is English not your native language? Are you eleven years old? Does your psychiatric facility give you a couple of hours per day access to the Internet? Why do persist in stinking up threads with ponderous ignorance?

K54