On the reconciliation of scripture to science

[shunyadragon]

I'm not whining, but I am sort of intrigued by your approach to people here.

Why would you be intrigued? So far Mikeenders has pursued a combative approach to the dialogue similar to Jorge, and he has not presented a coherent referenced argument for his view.

[robrecht]

My approach to you was one of respect based on seeing your patience with another member for which I complemented you in another thread. However as soon as Deuteronomy was shown to you that took a turn from you and you became dismissive and wishing to go down a lane of what wouldn't convince anyone rather than the text and claiming to be leaving me to Jorge. If I didn't know better (an expression because I don't) it seems to bother some deeper philosophy on the Bible you hold to.So we are both intrigued - I that you are nowhere near what I thought. You just had no t been sufficiently challenged

but alas still here after three announcements of your departure so is there anything meaningful you would like to discuss about the text?

I never announced that I would depart. I just said that I was not going to argue this particular point with you. You can read it different ways, but I don't read it the way you do and I don't think you can be convinced by the readings of others. Thus it seems silly to even try. I have no idea why you think your reading of this text would supposedly bother some deeper philosophy of the Bible of mine. I don't follow your reasoning here. The way you read a text does not affect my philosophy of the Bible. Why would it?

Why is your reading of this text so important to you (if it is)? Is your view of the infallibility or inerrancy of the text at stake? Is it important to you that the text be shown to not be contradicted by findings, theories, or hypotheses of modern science?

[Mikeenders]

Why would you be intrigued? So far Mikeenders has pursued a combative approach to the dialogue similar to Jorge, and he has not presented a coherent referenced argument for his view.

Some people have no shame. Considering a debate I saw between you and robrecht you should be quiet on the issue of combative. Thats the thread I complimented him in for his patience ( but alas I guess this issue just struck closer to home).

[robrecht]

Why would you be intrigued? So far Mikeenders has pursued a combative approach to the dialogue similar to Jorge, and he has not presented a coherent referenced argument for his view.

That in and of itself is intriguing. I never met anyone with a fundamentalist approach to the Bible until I was a senior in high school and I guess it still shocks me somewhat when I do. Such a viewpoint is often accompanied by a combative approach to those with differing views.

[shunyadragon]

Some people have no shame. Considering a debate I saw between you and robrecht you should be quiet on the issue of combative. Thats the thread I complimented him in for his patience ( but alas I guess this issue just struck closer to home).

Please note the more recent scientific research on the Baltic basin that is frequently ignored by apologists trying to provide earlier scientific publications as supporting the possibility that the Biblical flood occurred there.

Again there is no evidence of a recent regional catastrophic flood that would fit the Biblical flood description, and Glenn knew that.

[Mikeenders]

I never announced that I would depart.

Why does every other person on Tweb try to fudge their words after the fact

you said you withdraw from silly discussions quickly and categorize this one as silly. Now if you tell me your idea of withdrawing is leaving the subject and still continuing with side comments regarding it then okay - then you don't know what the word means. Cool...that clear that up

Why is your reading of this text so important to you (if it is)?

Why is your reading so important to you? I've read you and generally you are a person of reasonable intelligence - normally. So I did not take it for a moment when you came back with Job and implied to read one passage with a phrase with more than one meaning means you read all passages the same as really an intellectually honest road to take. No in fact I know it wasn't and that surely anyone with even a low level understanding of studying texts would know otherwise.

Is your view of the infallibility or inerrancy of the text at stake? Is it important to you that the text be shown to not be contradicted by findings, theories, or hypotheses of modern science?

So is that it for you? Because I thought we were discussing a text and the words in it and their various usages but it seems by that bit of projection you are implying you think whats at stake is your own view on those subjects.

[Mikeenders]

Please note the more recent scientific research on the Baltic basin that is frequently ignored by apologists trying to provide earlier scientific publications as supporting the possibility that the Biblical flood occurred there..

Yes I noticed you cherry picking one paper as if any singular paper is the end all of an issue but like I said work has been done and is ongoing and some of that work does not agree. Science is not about who published last wins even if you think it is. You stated there was no evidence that fits the text. I stated there is and there is not that every issue was settled or even entirely proven.

[shunyadragon]

Yes I noticed you cherry picking one paper as if any singular paper is the end all of an issue but like I said work has been done and is ongoing and some of that work does not agree. Science is not about who published last wins even if you think it is. You stated there was no evidence that fits the text. I stated there is and there is not that every issue was settled or even entirely proven.

Actually, it is not only one article or research article it cites and reflects a series of of at least three conclusions of research articles on the subject. If you have any other research articles to support your view please cite them.

No cheery picking involved here. You're on my professional turf now! I pretty much know the paleo and recent geologic history of the Middle East and the Mediterranean. My background is an environmental and geomorphology geologist with published papers on geomorphology and coastal sedimentology.

On the old Tweb I had frequent dialogues with Glenn Morton, a petroleum geologist on this subject. We disagree frequently, but I know him personally and we respect each other as professional geologists.

Again nothing is ever proven in science, but I base my conclusions on the best and most recent research on the subject in professional peer reviewed journals.

[Mikeenders]

That in and of itself is intriguing. I never met anyone with a fundamentalist approach to the Bible

ah so now I get it! I didn't know your slant before. I thought this was discussion just about the text not that you had an issue about "Fundamentalists" (whatever that means) you wanted to work out

Okay got it! So You got dismissive because your dogma about the "fundamentalist approach" took a challenge you weren't expecting (especially if you checked the Hebrew and it matched). Thats where you live and so your patience ran out quick cause that wasn't suppose to happen with a "fundamenatalist". One of these days when people such as you self trot out labels as means of limiting perspectives on a discussion you really should spell out what the labels meaning in concrete terms.

Fundamental is a great word we should all gravitate toward - who doesn't want to have the fundamentals down in just about anything?

[shunyadragon]

Fundamental is a great word we should all gravitate toward - who doesn't want to have the fundamentals down in just about anything?

I do when it comes to science!

[robrecht]

Why does every other person on Tweb try to fudge their words after the fact

you said you withdraw from silly discussions quickly and categorize this one as silly. Now if you tell me your idea of withdrawing is leaving the subject and still continuing with side comments regarding it then okay - then you don't know what the word means. Cool...that clear that up

Trying to understand the motivations for someone's behavior is not necessarily a silly discussion.

Why is your reading so important to you?

This particular point is not that important to me. I think I understand it as it is usually understood, and thus it seems to make sense to me and others, but trying to convince you about this point is not important to me.

I've read you and generally you are a person of reasonable intelligence - normally. So I did not take it for a moment when you came back with Job and implied to read one passage with a phrase with more than one meaning means you read all passages the same as really an intellectually honest road to take. No in fact I know it wasn't and that surely anyone with even a low level understanding of studying texts would know otherwise.

That was not the intent of my question. I just wanted to get you to think about why you read the phrase one way in one context and in a different way this context. If you don't give a reason, I can only speculate about why you do so (eg, an attempt to harmonize inerrancy of scripture with your own interpretation of science).

So is that it for you? Because I thought we were discussing a text and the words in it and their various usages but it seems by that bit of projection you are implying you think whats at stake is your own view on those subjects.

No, not at all. I do not hold to scriptural inerrancy.

You are ignoring and deleting my questions to you. I am happy to answer your questions so there's no need for you to make assumptions and inferences about my views.

[robrecht]

ah so now I get it! I didn't know your slant before. I thought this was discussion just about the text not that you had an issue about "Fundamentalists" (whatever that means) you wanted to work out

Okay got it! So You got dismissive because your dogma about the "fundamentalist approach" took a challenge you weren't expecting (especially if you checked the Hebrew and it matched). Thats where you live and so your patience ran out quick cause that wasn't suppose to happen with a "fundamenatalist". One of these days when people such as you self trot out labels as means of limiting perspectives on a discussion you really should spell out what the labels meaning in concrete terms.

Fundamental is a great word we should all gravitate toward - who doesn't want to have the fundamentals down in just about anything?

I have not been dismissive of you, nor would I call my impression of those with a fundamentalist approach to scripture a dogma, but I do find it a limited approach. I'm not yet sure how I would characterize your approach because you have not been answering my questions. It is certainly good to have the fundamentals down in just about everything. For me, some of the fundamentals of the interpretation of texts is to try and understand the meaning in context, including the historical and sociological contexts of the authors and tradents, and not to assume that this can always be understood, nor should a text have a meaning imposed on it from a modern scientific or particular theological approach.

[robrecht]

Here are some articles that Jorge and Mikeenders can refute if they want to prove that one or the other approach is correct:



The Genesis Flood
Why the Bible Says It Must be Local
by Rich Deem: In order to accept a global flood, you must reject Psalm 104 and the inerrancy of the Bible.

[Mikeenders]

Trying to understand the motivations for someone's behavior is not necessarily a silly discussion.

You are not doing that. You are continuing the discussion and mingling in personal asides even labelling fundamentalists etc which is in fact a discussion on biblical position not motivation.why can't you just be honest? Labelling and classifying is not trying to understand any motivation and if you think it is you have issues. Shucks you are even now placing links for Jorge and I to consider How in the world is that withdrawing from the discussion as you claimed to be doing?

This particular point is not that important to me

and its not to me either. the silly thing on your part is you label me a fundamentalist but fundamentalist are usually of the global flood viewpoint. In truth I can accept any of them I just don't think you can make a compelling case as you have claimed that it is in fact global as supported by the text.

That was not the intent of my question. I just wanted to get you to think about why you read the phrase one way in one context and in a different way this context. If you don't give a reason, I can only speculate about why you do so (eg, an attempt to harmonize inerrancy of scripture with your own interpretation of science)

I've already given a reason (go back and read again) and to be honest its somewhat arrogant for someone to assume they have to get a person to think about the position they have as if they haven't already done so.

You are ignoring and deleting my questions to you.

I am doing no such thing but neither am I going to run all around the globe with you off topic. Your questions were leading and its perfectly clear why with your post about fundamentalists. I wish to have a conversation about the text I was asked about and you wish to explore my background to see if your biases about "fundamenatlists" fits in part because you really don't seem to have anything more to offer now that the "whole heaven" claim did not work out for you. It was only at that point I began hearing how unimportant the issue was to you, that you and Jorge can discuss it, and how silly it was. Its right there in this thread - only after abject failure in making the claim the whole heavens must be global

No, not at all. I do not hold to scriptural inerrancy.

Yes Yes - in fact thats exactly what I meant. You can have a stake in not seeing something as literally in the text as an inerrantist or as a non inerrantist. Bias is not a one way street

[Mikeenders]

I have not been dismissive of you, nor would I call my impression of those with a fundamentalist approach to scripture a dogma, but I do find it a limited approach.

You have been. Theres no way of entering into a discussion and then as soon as you are stymied by the facts of the text usage proclaim it silly.

I'm not yet sure how I would characterize your approach because you have not been answering my questions

and why is it so important to you to "characterize" approaches? Discuss the scriptures and it becomes evident someones approach to scripture not that its ever important to scripture to know how you "characterize" it. Get on something of substance.

. It is certainly good to have the fundamentals down in just about everything. For me, some of the fundamentals of the interpretation of texts is to try and understand the meaning in context, including the historical and sociological contexts of the authors and tradents, and not to assume that this can always be understood, nor should a text have a meaning imposed on it from a modern scientific or particular theological approach.

Great so theology and where you label or how you characterize is meaningless to the text. Can we get tot some text now?