Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Can we trust what God says?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
    You say so. Genesis doesn't say so.
    You say so. The Bible doesn't say so. ;)

    The Bible as a whole (including Jesus in the NT) says Genesis is God's Word.
    Not everything I write goes out of it's way to declare me as the author. That doesn't subtract from my authorship of it.
    Are you saying Genesis isn't the Word of God?
    Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by whag View Post
      Where did you get that from? I meant "illiterate" to describe the pre-transcribed revelation passed down to non-reading and non-writing Israelites (there, is that better?) and propogated from generation to generation. IOW, the initial receivers of God's transmission had no quills and papyrus.
      Well, the whole "illiterate, Bronze-Age, goat herders" is a favorite of atheist trolls. Given some of your other posts, I thought you were heading in that direction.

      Also, since Moses would have been the one writing down Genesis(the JEDP Hypothesis is garbage), illiteracy wasn't exactly an issue. He was taught and trained by the Egyptians. However if the oral tradition goes all the way back to Adam*, you are essentially getting eyewitness accounts. Other than preserving said account, not much inspiration is needed.

      I don't understand how revelation works, either. That does not preclude me from asking what you mean by "it's not a word-for-word dictation." Such an argument is meaningless if you don't explain what a non-verbatim translation of the divine message entails.
      I only pointed out that Mr. Black was not in his post ascribing to God a verbal dictation method if inspiration.

      You are also asking a loaded question. You keep putting in "verbatim", which is just trying to force your version of verbal inspiration in.

      If it's not verbatim, the translation has changed. The question is what's changed from the original transmission?
      Again, you are assuming a specific form of verbal dictation in your question.

      Here's an example, in Revelation you have both spoken words being given, and imagery in the form of visions. You can't do the latter "verbatim", but that wouldn't mean that something was changed.

      verbatim
      [ver-bey-tim] Spell Syllables
      Examples Word Origin
      adverb
      1.
      in exactly the same words; word for word:
      to repeat something verbatim.

      *As you probably know I am a YEC, but I am not here to argue that. I only posted in this thread to try and clear up what I perceived to be a misunderstanding by CBW.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
        Okay, sorry for misunderstanding you, brother!
        No worries, bro. :) I've done far worse.

        Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
        And yes we can trust what God says. Otherwise, we couldn't trust anything or anyone. Descarte anyone?
        I don't recall hearing that line of argument from Descartes. If you have the time, maybe you could unpack that a little?

        Blessings, brother. :)
        Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
          Well, the whole "illiterate, Bronze-Age, goat herders" is a favorite of atheist trolls. Given some of your other posts, I thought you were heading in that direction.

          Also, since Moses would have been the one writing down Genesis(the JEDP Hypothesis is garbage), illiteracy wasn't exactly an issue. He was taught and trained by the Egyptians. However if the oral tradition goes all the way back to Adam*, you are essentially getting eyewitness accounts. Other than preserving said account, not much inspiration is needed.



          I only pointed out that Mr. Black was not in his post ascribing to God a verbal dictation method if inspiration.

          You are also asking a loaded question. You keep putting in "verbatim", which is just trying to force your version of verbal inspiration in.



          Again, you are assuming a specific form of verbal dictation in your question.

          Here's an example, in Revelation you have both spoken words being given, and imagery in the form of visions. You can't do the latter "verbatim", but that wouldn't mean that something was changed.

          verbatim
          [ver-bey-tim] Spell Syllables
          Examples Word Origin
          adverb
          1.
          in exactly the same words; word for word:
          to repeat something verbatim.

          *As you probably know I am a YEC, but I am not here to argue that. I only posted in this thread to try and clear up what I perceived to be a misunderstanding by CBW.
          I forgot you didn't understand the basics of ancient literary genre but rather take Genesis literally. I'm not religious, but if I was, I'd certainly acquaint myself with epistemology before pretending I knew anything about the transmission of religious information.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by whag View Post
            I forgot you didn't understand the basics of ancient literary genre but rather take Genesis literally.
            Lots of people who understand far more than just the basics of ancient literary genre take Genesis as literal.
            Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
              Lots of people who understand far more than just the basics of ancient literary genre take Genesis as literal.
              Understanding the basics actually requires that you know Genesis 1-6 isn't history. You might have some knowledge of genre, but something's preventing you from accepting the scholarly consensus that those passages are allegory and not a description of what actually happened.

              I suspect it's fear or lack of education (or both) that causes YECs to be YECs.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by whag View Post
                Understanding the basics actually requires that you know Genesis 1-6 isn't history. You might have some knowledge of genre, but something's preventing you from accepting the scholarly consensus that those passages are allegory and not a description of what actually happened.

                I suspect it's fear or lack of education* (or both) that causes YECs to be YECs.
                Then there are non-YEC's who say that Genesis was intended to be historical information.

                Source: James Barr

                Thank you for your letter. I have thought about your question,
                and would say that [probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of
                Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe
                that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the
                ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the
                same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained
                in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from
                the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c)
                Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and
                animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the
                apologetic arguments which suppose the `days' of creation to be long eras
                of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be
                a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such
                professors, as far as I know.] The only thing I would say to qualify this is
                that most professors may avoid much involvement in that sort of argument
                and so may not say much explicitly about it one way or the other. But I
                think what I say would represent their position correctly. However, you
                might find one or two people who would take the contrary point of view and
                are competent in the languages, in Assyriology, and so on: it's really
                not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as of appreciation of
                the sort of text that Genesis is.

                © Copyright Original Source



                James Barr is no YEC.

                *Yeah, nice psychoanalysis there.

                Actually, the more I learn, especially about the theory of evolution, and it's history, the more I know it's completely false.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  Then there are non-YEC's who say that Genesis was intended to be historical information.

                  Source: James Barr

                  Thank you for your letter. I have thought about your question,
                  and would say that [probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of
                  Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe
                  that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the
                  ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the
                  same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained
                  in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from
                  the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c)
                  Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and
                  animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the
                  apologetic arguments which suppose the `days' of creation to be long eras
                  of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be
                  a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such
                  professors, as far as I know.] The only thing I would say to qualify this is
                  that most professors may avoid much involvement in that sort of argument
                  and so may not say much explicitly about it one way or the other. But I
                  think what I say would represent their position correctly. However, you
                  might find one or two people who would take the contrary point of view and
                  are competent in the languages, in Assyriology, and so on: it's really
                  not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as of appreciation of
                  the sort of text that Genesis is.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  James Barr is no YEC.

                  *Yeah, nice psychoanalysis there.

                  Actually, the more I learn, especially about the theory of evolution, and it's history, the more I know it's completely false.
                  You must be hardcore if you think evolution is "completely false."

                  Foxes bred for tameness develop dog-like personalities as well as highly varied coat patterns and colors. Are you saying that change is a figment of our imagination?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                    No worries, bro. :) I've done far worse.



                    I don't recall hearing that line of argument from Descartes. If you have the time, maybe you could unpack that a little?

                    Blessings, brother. :)
                    Umm... I can't be your brother, I'm a girl! I was making reference to Descarte's deceptive demon. How could we know anything when it might be a deception? But I think, therefore I exist.
                    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Then there are non-YEC's who say that Genesis was intended to be historical information.

                      Source: James Barr

                      Thank you for your letter. I have thought about your question,
                      and would say that [probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of
                      Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe
                      that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the
                      ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the
                      same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained
                      in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from
                      the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c)
                      Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and
                      animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the
                      apologetic arguments which suppose the `days' of creation to be long eras
                      of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be
                      a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such
                      professors, as far as I know.] The only thing I would say to qualify this is
                      that most professors may avoid much involvement in that sort of argument
                      and so may not say much explicitly about it one way or the other. But I
                      think what I say would represent their position correctly. However, you
                      might find one or two people who would take the contrary point of view and
                      are competent in the languages, in Assyriology, and so on: it's really
                      not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as of appreciation of
                      the sort of text that Genesis is.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      James Barr is no YEC.

                      *Yeah, nice psychoanalysis there.

                      Actually, the more I learn, especially about the theory of evolution, and it's history, the more I know it's completely false.
                      No problem with the intent of writers of ancient literature intended them to be true in ancient paradigms thousands of years ago. I actually agree, but that does nothing to justify considering them remotely true today
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by whag View Post
                        Understanding the basics actually requires that you know Genesis 1-6 isn't history.
                        You haven't argued for this. You've merely used bias language to make your comments sound persuasive. This is the fallacy of the question-begging epithet.

                        Originally posted by whag View Post
                        You might have some knowledge of genre, but something's preventing you from accepting the scholarly consensus that those passages are allegory and not a description of what actually happened.
                        This is the fallacy of appeal to majority, and faulty appeal to authority.
                        Jesus took Genesis as literal history. Jesus is God, cannot lie and knows everything and was there, so is a reliable witness to the events of Genesis. Therefore His testimony trumps that of ignorant men and women who can, and often do, lie, do not know everything, and were most certainly were not there.

                        Originally posted by whag View Post
                        I suspect it's fear or lack of education (or both) that causes YECs to be YECs.
                        Fallacy of question-begging epithet again. The all-knowing God of the universe who can't lie, and was there, is a far superior source of information than the ignorant "educated" "experts" to whom you appeal.
                        Last edited by Mr. Black; 08-27-2014, 05:27 PM.
                        Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                          Umm... I can't be your brother, I'm a girl!
                          Oh, my bad, lol. Sister then!

                          Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                          I was making reference to Descarte's deceptive demon. How could we know anything when it might be a deception? But I think, therefore I exist.
                          Oh, ok. I wasn't sure if you were appealing to that argument or not. I guess I tend to back away from using Descartes' argument there, as I believe it begs the question, as the statement "I exist" is built into the statement "I think". To say that he "thinks" or "does [anything]" he's already assumed that he exists to do it.
                          Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by whag View Post
                            You must be hardcore if you think evolution is "completely false."

                            Foxes bred for tameness develop dog-like personalities as well as highly varied coat patterns and colors. Are you saying that change is a figment of our imagination?
                            Okay, fair enough. I should have qualified my statement. I find universal common descent to be completely false, and random mutations and natural selection to be woefully inadequate to do much of anything.

                            I do not accept of fixity of species, but neither do I accept Darwinian Evolution*. I think that if more people actually read Darwin's works for understanding**, then with the exception of people like Dawkins, most others would too.

                            *Patterns of alleles changing frequency over time would be accepted by pretty much everyone on the planet, including major YEC organizations, so it doesn't make for a very good definition of "evolution" to contrast against "creationism"
                            **Most do not, or they blind themselves to the evils inherent in his works, and still being accepted today as "science".

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              No problem with the intent of writers of ancient literature intended them to be true in ancient paradigms thousands of years ago. I actually agree, but that does nothing to justify considering them remotely true today
                              You should already know by now, that as a Christian I seek to take the Bible as it was intended, and have that as my authority.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                To be fair, variations within a kind of thing (different breeds of foxes, felines, birds, k9s etc) is not the same thing as one kind of thing changing into a completely different kind of thing. Microevolution is not macroevolution. Microevolution is biblical, macroevolution is not.
                                Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by eider, Yesterday, 12:23 AM
                                42 responses
                                169 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post eider
                                by eider
                                 
                                Started by seer, 10-20-2021, 07:50 AM
                                32 responses
                                188 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Juvenal, 10-13-2021, 08:41 AM
                                19 responses
                                119 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 06:32 PM
                                9 responses
                                81 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Machinist  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 10-08-2021, 06:03 PM
                                5 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X