Is defending a 'young' earth necessary?

[klaus54]

Where, in Scripture, does it equate the "four corners" of the Earth to the cardinal directions? Even if they are references to the cardinal directions, how does it make any sense to refer to them as "corners" except in reference to a Flat Earth?

The following verse seems to contradict the "compass points" interpretation:

Source: BibleGateway

Psalm 103:12 (KJV)

As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

© Copyright Original Source

On a spherical surface, "east" and "west" eventually meet.

K54

[Jorge]

Jim

For what it's worth (probably little) I'm directing this at you since you were the last person to ridicule my article on Craters. I'd caption this as, "Well Wa-da-ya Know!"

"Although the origin of these craters remains somewhat mysterious, many scientists think they were created by explosions of high-pressure gas released from melting permafrost, or frozen soil, due to the warming of the climate."

http://news.yahoo.com/more-mysteriou...120514819.html

Yeah, O-Mudd, there may be something to my hypothesis after all - certainly more than you would ever want to admit. But, hey, who cares? After all, Biblical Creationists like Jorge "know no science", right?


Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

No, that is EXACTLY what you have done.

Then again, I must not forget that TEs have a very unique interpretation filter, one that is in tune with New Age a mentality and allows them to do incredible word-contortions. So, yeah, okay ... who the devil knows what you think you've said.

For the rest of us - those that grasp the meaning of words - I stand firm.

Jorge

Sorry Jorge, it just doesn't wash. The Galileo affair is a good example. The divisions that exist between all the major protestant denomination and the Catholic forms is another. IF the scriptures were as 'plain' as you insist they are, these issues just simply would not exist, or could be clearly resolved. But instead good honest men are convinced year after year of the truth of each view. The Presbyterians can justify their positions just as robustly as the Methodists and likewise the Pentecostals and the Catholics. You would sit in judgement of ALL of them as 'unwilling to listen to God' where they deviate from your own specific theology - and THAT is simply the proof that is in the pudding. You own capacity to hear God is NOT perfect. And you need to recognize that in your heart and not just acknowledge it with your words while you act is if you and those like you are the only ones who have it right, the ones that have the best possible understanding of the text.


Jim

[klaus54]

For what it's worth (probably little) I'm directing this at you since you were the last person to ridicule my article on Craters. I'd caption this as, "Well Wa-da-ya Know!"

"Although the origin of these craters remains somewhat mysterious, many scientists think they were created by explosions of high-pressure gas released from melting permafrost, or frozen soil, due to the warming of the climate."

http://news.yahoo.com/more-mysteriou...120514819.html

Yeah, O-Mudd, there may be something to my hypothesis after all - certainly more than you would ever want to admit. But, hey, who cares? After all, Biblical Creationists like Jorge "know no science", right?


Jorge

Are you still pushing your steam explosion crapola?

Two geological terms: shocked quartz and shatter cones.

Of course you know nothing about geology...

K54

[oxmixmudd]

For what it's worth (probably little) I'm directing this at you since you were the last person to ridicule my article on Craters. I'd caption this as, "Well Wa-da-ya Know!"

"Although the origin of these craters remains somewhat mysterious, many scientists think they were created by explosions of high-pressure gas released from melting permafrost, or frozen soil, due to the warming of the climate."

http://news.yahoo.com/more-mysteriou...120514819.html

Yeah, O-Mudd, there may be something to my hypothesis after all - certainly more than you would ever want to admit. But, hey, who cares? After all, Biblical Creationists like Jorge "know no science", right?


Jorge

Well Duh!

Did I EVER imply no crater like forms could ever be created by steam explosions? NOPE. Not ONCE.

The problem with your paper is your implication steam explosions can explain formations identified as asteroid/meteor craters!

I said that the craters that have been identified as asteroid impacts could not be produced by steam explosions because steam explosions can't produce enough pressure to create the shatter cones and shocked quartz (to name a few) that identify them as asteroid impacts.

Read for understanding Jorge.


Jim

[rogue06]

That is the point: it is not 'out and out falsehood'. But the problem is, you have a very limited view of what constitutes truth, and how truth is communicated.

As Klaus points out, 'raqia' in this context is phenomenal. The writer understood the sky to be a certain way, and he is saying God created the sky (which is absolutely true). But his conception of what the sky is was incorrect. So - does it make sense for God to take the writer by the hand and educate him as to what the sky actually is, or for God to refuse to allow the writer any participation and just dictate a bunch of words that may or may not make any sense at all to the writer or his audience, or does God accommodate His message to the time, language, culture of the writer?

God it NOT trying to tell us about the mechanics of creation in this passage. If that was the goal, then that long lesson in cosmology might have been necessary. But the form of this passage tells the world of the writer, as any creation epic from the time would, about its purpose, their purpose, and the relationship of that cosmos to mankind and to God. We can tell that by seeing how Moses constructed the passage. The gods of the pagan peoples are all belittled and treated as mere objects God has made. The creation is not some product of a violent oops by a bunch of precarious anthropomorphic 'gods' but the thoughtful workmanship is a loving a caring God whose whole focus is the creation of us, mankind, beings intended to a high calling and close fellowship with Him. Compare that to what mankind is in the pagan mythologies - just a castoff annoyance that survives the wrath of the gods by hook or by crook.

So God is bringing a far more important message to the world than how old things are, or how big things are, or how things are put together. He is telling us who we are in relationship to Him, and what the creation is in relationship to Him. And THAT message is communicated perfectly, and is inspired. But some of the details are from the perspective of the writer, and thus (from a scientific perspective) are 'wrong'. But the message of the passage is critical to us understanding and relating to God. And THAT message comes through loud and clear, ESPECIALLY as it relates to its initial intended audience!

And that kind of thing happens all throughout scripture. You must take into account the culture of the writer, because God is working from within that context. It is a necessary aspect of God becoming a man so that we can understand His love for us.


Jim

I think that you're correct to say that the description of "raqia" in this context could well be an example of "language of appearance" or "phenomenological language." The use of such does not mean as has been implied if not outright stated that the truth is not being stated. Human language has never been perfect and often employs shared concepts to relate one to another, and these concepts are products of our perception. This is merely the way our method of communication works.

As the very conservative Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul (who, btw and fwiw, is definitely no friend of evolutionary theory) noted in his "Knowing Scripture":

The Bible is written in human language. It is the only kind of language that we can understand, because we are humans. The limitations of human language apply throughout the Bible.

After concluding that despite all its faults it is still adequate for conveying information about God he notes that

When biblical writers describe the universe around them, they do it in terms of external appearances and not with a view to scientific, technological precision.

Calvin himself elaborated on this thusly in his "Institutes of the Christian Religion":

"For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height."

Even today the Reformed Church (Calvinists) holds that the Bible uses the "language of appearance" rather than using technical terminology when describing the cosmos. Is this lying? Only if you think that the Bible is intending to provide a technical, scientific explanation of the cosmos.

It is not being deceptive or untruthful any more than someone is being less than honest when they speak of "sunrise" or "sunset" which if taken in an overly literal sense indicates an immobile earth and sun that moves around it.

As an aside, it should be noted that modern geocentrists often admonish those who interpret as allegorical or phenomenological scriptural references about geocentrism declaring that such a reading could lead to the appearance that the Bible and therefore God might be lying.

The over all point though is that the Bible is not trying to provide us with a science lesson. It is concerned with other things -- conveying truths about the awesome power of God, described in the phenomenological language of the day. Our duty is it to read it as it is intended

As John H. Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College whose area of expertise is Genesis puts it in his "Lost World of Genesis One":

So when we realize that the Bible, using human language and common understanding of its original readers, describes things according to appearance, we realize that when the Bible describes the firmament as being a solid structure like some sort of bowl it is merely because, to our naked eye, that's what it looks like. Just like the Bible is not really saying that the sun revolves around the earth but rather it is merely saying that it looks like the sun moves and the earth does not.

[jordanriver]

What you're looking at here is the world's oldest pun, with its origins thousands of years before the inscription of Genesis. The beginning of Genesis is drawn almost exclusively from earlier Mesopotamian myth, from the flood of Ziusudra which gave birth to the Noah stories, to this, the story of Nin-ti, the mother "nin" of all living "ti", or by way of a homophone, the woman "nin" of the rib "ti."

As much as I appreciate your interest in exploring your sacred texts as a divinely inspired instruction manual, really, for the most part, the Bible is simply wasted on its adherents.

not trying to prove its divine.
Only what it says.

[rogue06]

How about Eve's creation from Adam's rib.

That was pretty plain...

Is it?

The account in Genesis 2, which includes Eve's creation from Adam's rib, describes a corporeal, physical deity with hands to work the dust/clay and a literal pair of lungs, mouth and nose to blow in the breath of life. To me that is an anthropomorphic expression much like Exodus 7:5 when it says:

"The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them"

I don't think of God actually stretching out a material, physical hand. Similarly in Psalm 57:1 when David spoke of being in the shadow of God's wings this does not mean that God is some sort of winged creature.

The purpose of such anthropomorphic language is to describe God in terms that are more understandable to humans not that God has a bodily form.

Now I'm not saying that it couldn't be done this way (after all God is God), but rather in instances where anthropomorphic language is employed we should proceed with caution about taking that text literally.

Finally, in Nick Peters (Apologiaphoenix) reviewed John Walton's (mentioned in my last post) latest book "The Lost World of Adam and Eve":

Source: Book Plunge: The Lost World of Adam and Eve

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[Jorge]

Well Duh!

Did I EVER imply no crater like forms could ever be created by steam explosions? NOPE. Not ONCE.

The problem with your paper is your implication steam explosions can explain formations identified as asteroid/meteor craters!

I said that the craters that have been identified as asteroid impacts could not be produced by steam explosions because steam explosions can't produce enough pressure to create the shatter cones and shocked quartz (to name a few) that identify them as asteroid impacts.

Read for understanding Jorge.


Jim

You're hopeless! Plus you need to apply your last suggestion to yourself.
Re-read my article (this time for understanding) to grasp what I've actually said.
You're still light years above Santa Klaus* and Beagle Boy but don't slip!

* in a post above ol' Klaus tries to 'educate' me about shatter cones and shocked quartz.
That shows how well he read my article in which I discuss both of those effects.
Oh well, ya got'ta forgive ol' Santa ... those elves must drive him cuckoo!

Jorge

[klaus54]

not trying to prove its divine.
Only what it says.

Reminds me of my signature quote from 'Mr. Black': "Just tell 'em to read the Bible."

No interpretation necessary...

K54

[Jorge]

Where, in Scripture, does it equate the "four corners" of the Earth to the cardinal directions? Even if they are references to the cardinal directions, how does it make any sense to refer to them as "corners" except in reference to a Flat Earth?

Nein !!!

Here, try this since it is an A+ answer to this (old) question:

http://creation.com/are-biblical-cre...dr-jp-moreland

You only need to read the first two pages although the entire article is excellent.

By the way, it totally obliterates J.P. Moreland (whom I admire very much) in that
Moreland is an OEC and makes some fairly basic yet fundamental theological mistakes.
Just goes to show that even prominent veterans may (and do) fail on this point.

Jorge

[klaus54]

You're hopeless! Plus you need to apply your last suggestion to yourself.
Re-read my article (this time for understanding) to grasp what I've actually said.
You're still light years above Santa Klaus* and Beagle Boy but don't slip!

* in a post above ol' Klaus tries to 'educate' me about shatter cones and shocked quartz.
That shows how well he read my article in which I discuss both of those effects.
Oh well, ya got'ta forgive ol' Santa ... those elves must drive him cuckoo!

Jorge

Staring in the mirror again?

Do you have a Narcissus complex?

You don't know about shatter cones and shocked quartz, else you'd know they take a lot more pressure to form than is available in a steam explosion.

So you are either ignorant of the geology of meteor impacts, or you're so brainwashed by YEC dreck that your mind is closed to facts.

But I'm loving today's comedy routine!



Do you write your own shrift or do Hovind and Wieland ghost write fer ya?

K54

Source: http://www.impact-structures.com/shock-metamorphism-page/

...n the 300 – 500 kbar (30 – 50 GPa) shock pressure range, the complete isotropization of quartz and feldspar is typical. In other words, the optically isotropic and x-ray amorphous diaplectic glass is formed by shock damage of a mineral and not by melting. According to current knowledge, diaplectic glass cannot be formed in endogenetic processes. Patchy shock isotropization in quartz starts at about 100 kbars.
...

© Copyright Original Source

The geostatic pressure gradient is around 1psi/ft, so at a depth of 30,000 feet the pressure would be 30,000 psi = approximately 200MPa, or 1/150 of 30Gpa.

[klaus54]

Nein !!!

Here, try this since it is an A+ answer to this (old) question:

http://creation.com/are-biblical-cre...dr-jp-moreland

You only need to read the first two pages although the entire article is excellent.

By the way, it totally obliterates J.P. Moreland (whom I admire very much) in that
Moreland is an OEC and makes some fairly basic yet fundamental theological mistakes.
Just goes to show that even prominent veterans may (and do) fail on this point.

Jorge

Did you read the Psalm about how far the east is from the west?

Let's see how you explain this via compass points?

Ever heard of the Greenwich Meridian?

It'll be entertaining to see how you squirm your way out of this.



K54

[Juvenal]

not trying to prove its divine.
Only what it says.

That's an odd misread. I've never encountered anyone trying to "prove" divine inspiration. For those who believe it, it's always been a given.

The point is that what you think it says has a lot to do with who — or Who as the case may be — you think is writing it. If you don't start with the idea that God is in some sense writing it, questions of whether inaccuracies reflect divine deception never come up. I believe such questions are simply wasteful, a distraction from the other things we can read in a straight-forward manner if we simply look at who, rather than Who, were the authors. In particular relation to the first millennium Eve story, a belief in divine inspiration blocks the view of the humans who provided the actual inspiration, in this case, third and fourth millennium Mesopotamians from the Kingdom of Sumer and Akkad.

Genesis portrays a flat earth because the people writing it thought the earth was flat, and they believed the earth was flat because that was the received wisdom from all of their antecedent surrounding cultures. It portrays waters above the sky because they thought there was water above the sky, and a recent creation because they thought creation was recent. None of these things are especially tendentious, or even surprising in context, until folks insert a divine invigilator into the writing process, in effect placing a God-sized door in front of the more human-sized window.

I love the Bible. There's nothing that can compare with its expansive view of the culture of its authors and the linkages it provides to the cultures with which they were in contact. I think it's a shame that adherents' similar love of the Bible comes into conflict with my own.

But it does.

As ever, Jesse

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Nein !!!

Here, try this since it is an A+ answer to this (old) question:

http://creation.com/are-biblical-cre...dr-jp-moreland

You only need to read the first two pages although the entire article is excellent.

That article makes the same bald assertion that you have, but it does not answer my questions, in the least. So, I'll repeat:

Where, in Scripture, does it equate the "four corners" of the Earth to the cardinal directions? Even if they are references to the cardinal directions, how does it make any sense to refer to them as "corners" except in reference to a Flat Earth?