Why not deep time?

[Omniskeptical]

Jorge trots out his second dumbest argument: "since some parts of the Bible are historically accurate that means ALL of the Bible must be historically accurate".

I have to admit that was pretty clever. The bible is even errant.

Like when God tells can to improve his character just before killing Abel. I believe Clement of Rome's LXX of that verse has no such encouragement except that his stone masonry skills will return itself. Both versions of the tale are not correct, nor is the virgin birth predicted in Isaiah, but rather by Isaiah in a book of Jeremiah, being a book of Kings. The OT is so historically accurate.

[Kristian Joensen]

IMO this thread would be much better suited in one of the sub-forums in the Systematic Theology section.

[Jorge]

Lying again, Jorge?

Here is the talk.origins FAQ summary page, with links to more in-depth discussion. For example:

Q: Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?
A: No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.

Here is your dishonest drivel, which responds to the above thus:



Note that Jorge has omitted the links - despite claiming to have quoted the FAQ answers "verbatim" - exactly as I stated. Jorge's 'response' to this question concludes:

.

But one of the links Jorge omitted contains a list of the re-interpretations Jorge claims are never mentioned. So not only did Jorge omit the links, he then criticised the talk.origins FAQ for not mentioning areas they had actually referred to. Jorge's article was and is dishonest drivel, and he has no response except empty bluster and coccydynia.

Roy

P.S. It's worth mentioning that once on the pre-crash when 'quoting' his drivel Jorge reinserted the references to specific FAQs that his drivel omits. Jorge doesn't even quote himself honestly.

The Talk.Origins paper is there (and has been there) for all to see. I have nothing to hide.

As far as your comments: being the extremely intellectually-dishonest individual that you are, neither your words, interpretations or incomplete and/or out-of-context quotes are of any of interest to me - only to those that practice your brand of "honesty/integrity". Shove off, sailor!

Jorge

[klaus54]

IMO this thread would be much better suited in one of the sub-forums in the Systematic Theology section.

Not really. A certain form of Biblical exegesis is all that YEC has. Science trashes YEC. There is no such thing a Biblical Creation "Science". The only (scientific) option for the YEC is "Adam's Bellybutton" or some sort of highly advanced computer simulation.

A the YEC won't giive a physical fleshing-out of what Genesis 1 describes, so they're spitting in the wind scientifically.

I vote these kind of threads stay here. Else you have Bible interpretation of physical up almost the insurmountable fortress of the body of scientific knowledge.

K54

[klaus54]

The Talk.Origins paper is there (and has been there) for all to see. I have nothing to hide.

As far as your comments: being the extremely intellectually-dishonest individual that you are, neither your words, interpretations or incomplete and/or out-of-context quotes are of any of interest to me - only to those that practice your brand of "honesty/integrity". Shove off, sailor!

Jorge

Why can't you admit you lied by omission? Confession is therapeutic for the soul.

K54

[Jorge]

Behold, a person who is able to spot a weak place in an argument within milliseconds and attack it with all the savagery of a hungry orca.

Ooookaaaayyyyy ....

Do you agree that Genesis 1:1-2 does not preclude deep time? I think a while ago you did grudgingly allow that. If you do, we can then move on to the rest of the chapter.

Via ad hoc interpretation just about anything can be made to 'fit' a given text so you must begin by considering what is taking place here.

You start off with a very serious error - one that I cannot allow to slide: You speak of Genesis 1:1-2 in isolation. Here, watch and learn:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:" Matthew 5:38

So, if I take that verse in isolation then I am justified before God in seeking vengeance - right?

Yes, in isolation it would be right. The grievous error is that we cannot take Biblical verses in isolation. The entirety of God's Word must be considered. In so doing we discover that there is never biblical justification in seeking vengeance: "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Romans 12:19

People practice isolating biblical verses so that they may use the Bible to justify their personal agendas. Theistic Evolutionists, amongst others, practice this all the time.

In short, the entirety of Scripture does not allow for deep time to be inserted in Genesis 1:1-2.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Why can't you admit you lied by omission?

Because I did no such thing. Clear enough?

Confession is therapeutic for the soul.

K54

Physician, heal thyself!

Jorge

[Truthseeker]

If there was an online HTML rendition of the Masoretic text, I can copy from that to here. Otherwise, one will have to tell me how to write Hebrew characters in the TWeb editor.

[shunyadragon]

This is Natural Science 301. Moderator What is this thread do here?!?!?!?!

[klaus54]

Because I did no such thing. Clear enough?




Physician, heal thyself!

Jorge

Jorge,

You KNOW you "Deceived by Omission". It's been proved in this thread.

Now 'fess up or be considered an even bigger slimeball than you are already.

K54

P.S. And I agree with Shuny that this thread should be moved. Science overwhelmingly supports Deep Time regardless of how wants to massage the Scriptural source documents.

[Truthseeker]

I'm not against moving the thread.

[Jorge]

Jorge,

You KNOW you "Deceived by Omission". It's been proved in this thread.

Now 'fess up or be considered an even bigger slimeball than you are already.

K54

P.S. And I agree with Shuny that this thread should be moved. Science overwhelmingly supports Deep Time regardless of how wants to massage the Scriptural source documents.

How's that for a response to your insolence?

Jorge

[klaus54]

How's that for a response to your insolence?

Jorge

Par for your logic.

Why can't you admit that you were wrong? That YOU deceived by omission. The evidence is in this thread for all to see.

Is the YEC similar to the old Jesuits? "The end justifies the means."

K54

[Truthseeker]

I found a way to put the Hebrew text in, but I do wonder about Jorge. He seems unwilling to really engage any argument for deep time in the Bible. Take for instance this abridged passage:

Via ad hoc interpretation just about anything can be made to 'fit' a given text so you must begin by considering what is taking place here.

You start off with a very serious error - one that I cannot allow to slide: You speak of Genesis 1:1-2 in isolation.
<snip>

People practice isolating biblical verses so that they may use the Bible to justify their personal agendas. Theistic Evolutionists, amongst others, practice this all the time.

In short, the entirety of Scripture does not allow for deep time to be inserted in Genesis 1:1-2.

I have only begun to start. How would Jorge know what sort of argument I would produce? In particular he accuses me of a "very serious error," the failure to take context into account, when I have yet to produce a complete argument. Second, at least a while ago, Jorge seemingly looked at the PDF file "Genesis One and The Age of The Earth." His Septuagint attack made me suspect he only looked through the file cursorily, like he couldn't be bothered to produce a compelling argument or is too busy.

I will wait until I see that the thread has been moved before starting the debate on the PDF argument--ask Jorge about this or that. Or perhaps he will come up with a dissertation after all.

[Poor Debater]

Apparently, YECs take Genesis 1:3-5 as a description of what God did in the first day of the universe, "day" being literally 24 hours, even though the Sun did not exist then. And so on until the first Sabbath (the seventh day, Genesis 2:2), when God was finished with his work. If that statement is correct, we have an apparently irreconcilable conflict with the findings of modern science, which claims evidence for deep time (billions of years).

Could that exegesis by YECs be wrong? If so, what is the correct exegesis?

Yes, that exegesis could be wrong, and in fact it is.

The correct exegesis is that most (if not all) of the stories in Genesis are mythical.

Is there any argument against regarding Genesis 1:1-2 as a summary (or, if you like, executive summary)?

Sure. There are plenty of such arguments. I'd bet that you can think of a few yourself.