Genesis 2:2 He rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.

[psstein]

Funny, no scholar of the NT/Patristics/etc. in any Western university interprets it in that way.

[Rational Gaze]

If god created the universe, and specifically the earth, specifically for man, then it is highly unlikely that Dinasaurswould exist and rule the earth millions of years prior to mans existence, or that it would be 14 billion years after its creation before human beings even existed.

Whilst I'd love to know just exactly what a 'Dinasaur' is, the more pressing question, I think, is, when, exactly, did you ask God what the likelihood was for His creating dinosaurs millions of years prior to humans and waiting billions of years, on balance, for His favoured creations to even appear? More importantly, how exactly did you manage to snag that interview? Is it recorded? Because I'd LOVE to see it. What was He like? Was He in human form when you spoke to Him, or did He do the whole 'disembodied mist' thing that He did with Moses? Also, if it's the former, did He have a beard, and, if so, what is an awesome one?

And if you are going to make the argument that time is not an issue for god, then you need answer the question that I posed to rogue which he failed to respond to. If time is no issue for god, being that he exist outside of time, then time is no issue for the universe either.

That's not a question. That's a statement. But in answer to your muddled query... the universe isn't outside of time? I mean, that's pretty basic, really. I mean, if the universe is all of time and space... how could it possible be timeless without begging the question in favour of a B-theory of time? And even on a B-theory you run into the problem of primary versus secondary causation and the inability of inanimate objects to initiate action. Had you an actually infinite number of train carriages, it would never move unless you had at least one train engine. The same problem applies to the universe. But, since an A-theory of time is self-evidently true, it's fairly obvious the universe began to exist, because then it wouldn't be a tenseless block, but a thing that began to exist.

1. Any geodesic that is, on average, in a state of positive expansion began to exist. (BGV Theorem)
2. The universe is a geodesic that is, on average, in a state of positive expansion. (Standard Big Bang Model)
3. Therefore, the universe began to exist. (From 1 and 2, via modus ponens)

1. A thermodynamically closed system is one that does not receive any additional matter or energy from outside of itself. (Definition of a thermodynamically closed system)
2. The universe has not received any additional matter or energy from outside of itself. (Standard Big Bang Model)
3. Therefore, the universe is a thermodynamically closed system. (From 1 and 2, via modus ponens)
4. Any thermodynamically closed system will tend towards thermodynamic equilibrium. (Second law of Thermodynamics)
5. If the universe had existed for an actually infinite amount of time, it would have reached thermodynamic equilibrium by now. (Evidently true)
6. The universe is not in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. (Standard Big Bang Model)
7. Therefore, the universe has not existed for an actually infinite amount of time. (From 5 and 6, via modus ponens.

Also, God's not strictly timeless, either. He's eternal and, whilst His eternity is essential to Him, the mode of His eternity is not. He was timeless sans creation, but entered into time with creation. Kind of like how God is essentially omniscient, but the content of His knowledge varies depending on which world He actualised. But then you probably haven't even heard of the time 'relational properties' before, have you?

"So, if you believe otherwise then please give a cogent explanation as to how time can be both static and flowing dependent on ones perspective?"

[Tassman]

Funny, no scholar of the NT/Patristics/etc. in any Western university interprets it in that way.

[Tassman]

First of all, one can have signed that confirmation and still not be an inerrantist,

so I'm not sure what you think that proves. There are plenty of non-inerrantists who agree that all scripture was given by inspiration of God to holy men who were moved by the Holy Spirit.

as per the Dallas Affirmation, are going to accept the Genesis creation accounts as historical and literally true...as revealed by inerrant scripture.

That comes straight from 2 Peter 1:20-21. A simple Bible believing Christian will have accepted that.

Interesting that you base your authority for inerrancy on a non-authentic very late pseudepigraphical epistle!

But even if it did mean that those who taught at these schools were required to first accept inerrancy, so what?

It means that the scholars are required to begin their research with the conclusion and then interpret the text in such a way as to reinforce it...i.e. the very reverse of what true scholarship is all about.

All universities, even the most secular of them, have written and unwritten standards and criteria that they require their faculty members to accept. For instance, as far as I know, Oxford isn't going to allow a holocaust denier on their staff. And if one arrives at a view of inerrancy through their own studies before accepting a position at the university, why shouldn't they sign a mission statement that they agree with? If they don't agree with the statement they can apply to the many universities that don't require acceptance of that particular article. But all of this is a Red Herring as Sailhamer didn't teach at Dallas Theological Seminary. Wikipedia states that he was briefly appointed as a provost there, but resigned before he could begin serving.

I just call it as I see it, and I'm right about this. You're a serial genetic fallacist.

No it isn't. Gee, that was easy.

Christianity teaches that God is the center and purpose of it all, not man, so, you're wrong about that. And what is the vastness of the universe to an eternal and omniscient being?

Your argument, based upon Sailhamer , was that God made the sun, moon and stars "in the beginning to provide light on the land for man and to be measurements for keeping time". You go on to say

Stop imagining that you know what it's like to be a god, Tassman.

What is the basis of this remark?

[psstein]

No. There's no evidence at all that anyone prior to Volney argued that Jesus didn't exist.

[Adrift]

As I said, one does not need to be an inerrantist to sign off on what you quoted.

as per the Dallas Affirmation, are going to accept the Genesis creation accounts as historical and literally true...as revealed by inerrant scripture.

Interesting that you base your authority for inerrancy on a non-authentic very late pseudepigraphical epistle!

Couple things here, 1.) I didn't base authority for inerrancy on 2 Peter, to the contrary, I pointed out that one need not be an inerrantist to accept it, "A simple Bible believing Christian will have accepted that." 2.) It is generally agreed that 1 and 2 Peter are derived from a Petrine community who were likely writing based on Peter's own teachings, and derive their authority from his Apostleship.

It means that the scholars are required to begin their research with the conclusion and then interpret the text in such a way as to reinforce it...i.e. the very reverse of what true scholarship is all about.

"True scholarship" begins with generally established premises all of the time. Again, no major secular university is going to be hiring a historian who rejects the Nazi genocide of Jews. No major secular university is going to be hiring a YEC to teach courses on human evolution. If a scholar feels that they no longer accept those generally established premises that their university requires them to accept, then they're free to move on, and a number of Biblical scholars have done just that.

I couldn't find an adherence to the doctrine of inerrancy in Gateway's mission statement, but, again, even if it did, it's not problematic as I've already demonstrated. I don't know what Sailhamer signed at Dallas Theological Seminary because, as I've already pointed out, he never started his position there.

Be that as it may, it is true that you are a genetic fallacist. That is your M.O. You routinely attempt to undermine the credibility of those scholars whom you disagree with rather than dealing with their arguments. At any rate, there's nothing invalid about Sailhamer's scholarship. He was generally considered one of the world's preeminent Old Testament scholars.

Your argument, based upon Sailhamer , was that God made the sun, moon and stars "in the beginning to provide light on the land for man and to be measurements for keeping time". You go on to say

Not sure if you noticed, but that was not my argument, nor my words, so I'm not sure why you're attributing them to me. If you reread that post you'll note that I highlighted the source. It comes from John Piper's website "Desiring God", in which the author is summarizing Sailhamer's argument from his book Genesis Unbound. Sailhamer's argument is that the cosmos was created at an indeterminate period in Genesis 1:1 (seen in the merism "heaven and earth"), and that the rest of the Genesis narrative concerns the preparation of the Promised Land. Describing the purpose of creation as it relates to humanity does not infer that humanity is the center and purpose of it all, to the contrary, chapter 9 is literally titled GOD AT THE CENTER, and Sailhamer goes on to point out that the Genesis narrative reveals important information about the nature of God,

You keep tripping over this idea of billions and billions of years. While the concept of billions and billions of years might seem heavy to limited ol you, it's absolutely nothing to a creator who has endless time and endless resources. That this universe is ancient, and that God, in his own time, ordered the universe to unfold as it did, simply points to the believer how great and majestic God truly is. Sailhamer is adamant that we must not rationalize the creation narrative, to the contrary he states,

"Each generation must ask how the Bible fits into its world. Yet if we are to understand Genesis 1 correctly, we must first read it on its own terms--without attempting to reconcile it with current scientific views. The full, rich, theological message of Genesis 1 and 2 must not be lost in an attempt to harmonize them with modern science. When we know what the biblical view is, only then can we attempt to correlate it with science."

What is the basis of this remark?

The idea that if you were God, the utter vastness and the age of the universe would be a waste of time and resources. You're not God. Stop presuming that to one who has unlimited time and resources that these things would be wasteful.

[Sparko]

Ah right, Genesis. But of course it is a myth, just like the myths, it is wrong in every way. Its a story based on ignorance. For instance, there was no light separating the day from the night on the first day, because there was no sun until the 4th day. There is also no skydome that separates the waters above from the waters below. And vegitation could't have sprung up on the 3rd day since there was no sun until the 4th day. And you must take into consideration that 1 day in genesis had to have equaled approximately 666,666,667 regular earthly days. So vegitation can't exist for 1 biblical day, 666,666,667 earth days, without any sun. Thats what you call a myth, its basically a guess, an uneducated guess, concerning the origins of the universe, and the fact they they have a modicum of truth in them means nothing. The only truths in the myths are already known, it's from out of those truths, i.e. from out of the observed facts about the universe, that the myths are fashioned.
The NT though, is also myth, though its a myth woven into a history, or perhaps it is more apropo to say that it is a history woven into a myth.


Actually the Christ-myth is scholarly, where do you think it came from.

Translation: "oops I just showed I have no idea what I am talking about since I can't even get the correct portion of the bible correct, but hey, I am right anyway!"

[Sparko]

If god created the universe, and specifically the earth, specifically for man, then it is highly unlikely that Dinasaurs would exist and rule the earth millions of years prior to mans existence, or that it would be 14 billion years after its creation before human beings even existed.

Why? He had to give Paleontologists something to do, and we needed the oil.

[JimL]

Whilst I'd love to know just exactly what a 'Dinasaur' is, the more pressing question, I think, is, when, exactly, did you ask God what the likelihood was for His creating dinosaurs millions of years prior to humans and waiting billions of years, on balance, for His favoured creations to even appear? More importantly, how exactly did you manage to snag that interview? Is it recorded? Because I'd LOVE to see it. What was He like? Was He in human form when you spoke to Him, or did He do the whole 'disembodied mist' thing that He did with Moses? Also, if it's the former, did He have a beard, and, if so, what is an awesome one?

Okay, so idiotic reply number 1.

That's not a question. That's a statement.

Try not to be a doofus RG.

But in answer to your muddled query... the universe isn't outside of time?

Never said it was, you obviously misread. God is said to be outside of time, that time, as well as space, is created.

I mean, that's pretty basic, really. I mean, if the universe is all of time and space... how could it possible be timeless

It couldn't be. Again must be a misreading of me on your part.

without begging the question in favour of a B-theory of time? And even on a B-theory you run into the problem of primary versus secondary causation and the inability of inanimate objects to initiate action. Had you an actually infinite number of train carriages, it would never move unless you had at least one train engine.

You've gone way off the rails RG, but just for fun, The universe, which includes everything, is it's own engine, it didn't, and doesn't, need a push.

The same problem applies to the universe. But, since an A-theory of time is self-evidently true, it's fairly obvious the universe began to exist, because then it wouldn't be a tenseless block, but a thing that began to exist.

Our particular universe began to exist, we all know that, but our particular universe is not necessarily the universe.

1. Any geodesic that is, on average, in a state of positive expansion began to exist. (BGV Theorem)
2. The universe is a geodesic that is, on average, in a state of positive expansion. (Standard Big Bang Model)
3. Therefore, the universe began to exist. (From 1 and 2, via modus ponens)

Again, we all know that our universe began to exist. You began to exist as well, but you have a mother to whom your physical ties were cut at birth.

1. A thermodynamically closed system is one that does not receive any additional matter or energy from outside of itself. (Definition of a thermodynamically closed system)
2. The universe has not received any additional matter or energy from outside of itself. (Standard Big Bang Model)
3. Therefore, the universe is a thermodynamically closed system. (From 1 and 2, via modus ponens)
4. Any thermodynamically closed system will tend towards thermodynamic equilibrium. (Second law of Thermodynamics)
5. If the universe had existed for an actually infinite amount of time, it would have reached thermodynamic equilibrium by now. (Evidently true)
6. The universe is not in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. (Standard Big Bang Model)
7. Therefore, the universe has not existed for an actually infinite amount of time. (From 5 and 6, via modus ponens.

Egad! These are old arguments RG. Everybody understands that our universe had a beginning, Hubble figured that out long ago. What isn't known is whether or not our universe is the universe.

Also, God's not strictly timeless, either. He's eternal and, whilst His eternity is essential to Him, the mode of His eternity is not. He was timeless sans creation, but entered into time with creation. Kind of like how God is essentially omniscient, but the content of His knowledge varies depending on which world He actualised. But then you probably haven't even heard of the time 'relational properties' before, have you?

Nice try. It explains absolutely nothing. A timeless being entering into time doesn't change anything concerning whether or not time itself is static or flowing.

I don't care what language you speak, just answer the question if you can. It's really a simple one. Give me a cogent explanation as to how time can be both static and flowing dependent upon ones perspective?

[Tassman]

As I said, one does not need to be an inerrantist to sign off on what you quoted.

http://defendinginerrancy.com/why-is...ncy-important/All Christians believe that scripture is inspired by God; not all Christians are inerrentists as per the proper definition of inerrancy.

Couple things here, 1.) I didn't base authority for inerrancy on 2 Peter, to the contrary, I pointed out that one need not be an inerrantist to accept it, "A simple Bible believing Christian will have accepted that." 2.) It is generally agreed that 1 and 2 Peter are derived from a Petrine community who were likely writing based on Peter's own teachings, and derive their authority from his Apostleship.

non-inerrantist Christians believe the creation narratives are just poetry or allegory...not literally true.

"True scholarship" begins with generally established premises all of the time. Again, no major secular university is going to be hiring a historian who rejects the Nazi genocide of Jews. No major secular university is going to be hiring a YEC to teach courses on human evolution. If a scholar feels that they no longer accept those generally established premises that their university requires them to accept, then they're free to move on, and a number of Biblical scholars have done just that.

I couldn't find an adherence to the doctrine of inerrancy in Gateway's mission statement, but, again, even if it did, it's not problematic as I've already demonstrated. I don't know what Sailhamer signed at Dallas Theological Seminary because, as I've already pointed out, he never started his position there.

Be that as it may, it is true that you are a genetic fallacist. That is your M.O. You routinely attempt to undermine the credibility of those scholars whom you disagree with rather than dealing with their arguments. At any rate, there's nothing invalid about Sailhamer's scholarship. He was generally considered one of the world's preeminent Old Testament scholars.

Not sure if you noticed, but that was not my argument, nor my words, so I'm not sure why you're attributing them to me. If you reread that post you'll note that I highlighted the source. It comes from John Piper's website "Desiring God", in which the author is summarizing Sailhamer's argument from his book Genesis Unbound. Sailhamer's argument is that the cosmos was created at an indeterminate period in Genesis 1:1 (seen in the merism "heaven and earth"), and that the rest of the Genesis narrative concerns the preparation of the Promised Land. Describing the purpose of creation as it relates to humanity does not infer that humanity is the center and purpose of it all, to the contrary, chapter 9 is literally titled GOD AT THE CENTER, and Sailhamer goes on to point out that the Genesis narrative reveals important information about the nature of God,

Both John Piper and Sailhamer are Baptist academics committed to biblical inerrancy. Hence they interpret the creation narratives in such a way as to leave their literal beliefs intact.

You keep tripping over this idea of billions and billions of years. While the concept of billions and billions of years might seem heavy to limited ol you, it's absolutely nothing to a creator who has endless time and endless resources. That this universe is ancient, and that God, in his own time, ordered the universe to unfold as it did, simply points to the believer how great and majestic God truly is. Sailhamer is adamant that we must not rationalize the creation narrative, to the contrary he states,

"Each generation must ask how the Bible fits into its world. Yet if we are to understand Genesis 1 correctly, we must first read it on its own terms--without attempting to reconcile it with current scientific views. The full, rich, theological message of Genesis 1 and 2 must not be lost in an attempt to harmonize them with modern science. When we know what the biblical view is, only then can we attempt to correlate it with science."

Indeed! can only be understood as poetry or allegory because as science it is demonstrably and verifiably wrong

The idea that if you were God, the utter vastness and the age of the universe would be a waste of time and resources. You're not God. Stop presuming that to one who has unlimited time and resources that these things would be wasteful.

[Sparko]

Hey JimL, how do you know that "THE universe" that you propose exists exterior to this universe isn't what Christians call "Heaven" which is inhabited by superior beings that created this universe and control it?

[Adrift]

http://defendinginerrancy.com/why-is...ncy-important/

I know what inerrancy means. To believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" is not synonymous with belief that the Bible is without error. I repeat, there are people on this very forum who believe that scripture is given by inspiration of God who do not consider themselves inerrantists.

All Christians believe that scripture is inspired by God; not all Christians are inerrentists as per the proper definition of inerrancy.

More or less correct. You'll find plenty of self-proclaimed Christians who will say that they do not believe that scripture is inspired, and the definition of inerrancy isn't hammered into stone either.

non-inerrantist Christians believe the creation narratives are just poetry or allegory...not literally true.

More or less correct. I'm not really sure why you're repeating back to me what I've been telling you, but at least something seems to be getting through. However, I'm sure there's a number of inerrantists out there who also believe the creation narrative is literally true (though that's probably not so common).

I've already replied to this. "True scholarship" (whatever that is), does, in fact, often begin with a number of accepted premises.

So you've said. I replied with, "I couldn't find an adherence to the doctrine of inerrancy in Gateway's mission statement, but, again, even if it did, it's not problematic as I've already demonstrated."


If you don't believe me, we can put it to a survey to see if other people see you as a genetic fallacist. I don't believe that this is just my observation of you. Perhaps if you see how other people see you, you'll come to rethink your position on the subject. Also, as previously stated, "true scholarship" (whatever that is) does in fact start with a number of established premises.

Both John Piper and Sailhamer are Baptist academics committed to biblical inerrancy. Hence they interpret the creation narratives in such a way as to leave their literal beliefs intact.

Incorrect. As I've already quoted from Sailhamer, "Each generation must ask how the Bible fits into its world. Yet if we are to understand Genesis 1 correctly, we must first read it on its own terms--without attempting to reconcile it with current scientific views. The full, rich, theological message of Genesis 1 and 2 must not be lost in an attempt to harmonize them with modern science. When we know what the biblical view is, only then can we attempt to correlate it with science."

Indeed! can only be understood as poetry or allegory because as science it is demonstrably and verifiably wrong

So you say. Sailhamer, an actual eminent Old Testament scholar says that it can be understood in a way that does not undercut our current scientific understanding.

As I previously stated, the Genesis narrative is not man-centered. It's God centered. I do agree that the author/s of Genesis likely had no idea what the universe consisted of or had little idea about how it functioned.


Most of this reply you wrote was you either doubling down on what you had already stated, and I had already replied to, or it was you repeating back to me my argument to you (which was a bit unnecessary). If you have something new to add to the conversation except more "nuh-uh" let me know, otherwise, like most conversations with you, this is quickly getting monotonous.

[JimL]

Hey JimL, how do you know that "THE universe" that you propose exists exterior to this universe isn't what Christians call "Heaven" which is inhabited by superior beings that created this universe and control it?

Different argument Sparko, perhaps you'd like to start a new thread.

[JonathanL]

Give me a cogent explanation as to how time can be both static and flowing dependent upon ones perspective?

RG explicitly told you he doesn't believe time is "both static and flowing dependent upon ones perspective" when he told you ". . . an A-theory of time is self-evidently true . . ."

[JimL]

RG explicitly told you he doesn't believe time is "both static and flowing dependent upon ones perspective" when he told you ". . . an A-theory of time is self-evidently true . . ."

Well, for one thing it isn't self evidently true. For another, time can not both flow from the perspective of one within it, and be static from the perspective of one outside it. Thats the dilemma I'm asking for clarity on from those of you who assert it.