Jump to content
Joshpantera

LuthAMF verses Joshpantera: informal debate

Recommended Posts

On 6/5/2019 at 10:15 AM, LuthAMF said:

The variety of subjects that tie in to Genesis 1 is mind boggling. In this debate (or is it merely banter? You never answered.) we have already broached the existence of God, a young vs old cosmology, Textual Critical issues, the Trinity,  pagan mythology, morality...whew!

You make statements that dredge up whole swaths of history (see below: "...kill and imprison..") that are nearly impossible to address in the scope of this debate.

I may as well add another in light of this statement:

"This debate demonstrates that the bible starts off as Jewish scripture, according to what the Jewish author was privy to and believed in his own day and age."

1) May I ask, who is this "Jewish author"?

 

Your apologetic source claims it's Moses. That Moses wrote it all and there were not two different authors. Sticking to the old positions prior to scholarship finding problems and inconsistencies with that assumption. Scholarship has found evidence of two different authors between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (loosely speaking) by way of textual analysis (writing styles, names of god usage, etc., etc.) and just plain common sense applied to the issue. 

 

So the Jewish author of Genesis 1 left signs in the texts not as to who he was, because it's just a nameless priest at this point, but as to what he believed via the way he wrote. That's why Genesis 1 and the Creationism debate is focused on pulling out the evidences from textual analysis that show what this priestly writer believed, why, and how that fit in to the contemporary period associated with the writing.

 

But the problem here is that this type of research is not acceptable to believer PhD's or academics who feel strapped with the fact that jesus seemed to believe that the scriptures were literally true, therefore to admit they were not strikes at the heart of christian faith. It still looks to me like the only intellectually honest position for christians to take is to say that you have faith in the bible, period. You can not defend it with evidence. You just have to ignore logic and reason based arguments and believe something that isn't tenable at all in reality. Just because you do. 

 

On 6/5/2019 at 10:15 AM, LuthAMF said:
I'm sorry, Josh, but that is a blatant misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Are you referring to my Van Til quote? I made no such declaration or admission "...claiming to have substantial evidence..."  In citing Cornelius Van Til in God and the Absolute, his intention is to say that while "proof" for God is demanded, "It is well to note at once the nature of the argument; it is transcendental and not formally logical. An argument for the existence of God based on formal logic would imply the ability to define God and arrive at a comprehensive rationality of all our experience. A transcendental argument on the contrary, is negative in so far that it reasons from the impossibility of the opposite. If it be said that the impossibility of the opposite is a canon of formal logic after all, the reply is that every one must use formal arguments but that the important point is to define their bearing power." 
Maybe you understand that and maybe you don't. The existence of God is the a priori statement and THEN we move to a God who has spoken. 

 

Then clarify. Were you moving away from an evidence based argument in favor a faith based argument? If you were, then introducing the OEC apologists brought you back into evidence based arguing again. That was the question. I was asking you to clarify. 

 

On 6/5/2019 at 10:15 AM, LuthAMF said:

Maybe you understand that and maybe you don't. The existence of God is the a priori statement and THEN we move to a God who has spoken. 

 

I understand that you've made belief in a god apriori, assuming it from the outset, and then want to move right into assertions as to who that god is and what that god has spoken through whom. I also noted how JW's and Mormon's and all variety of deceptive proselytizer's utilize the same general "logic leaping." Because there is no obvious way for you to first substantiate your foundation claims before leaping forward into conclusions based upon the foundation claims which were never proven in any substantial way in the first place. Because of this, you risk building up a castle from "sand foundations." The only big problem I see with that is when someone has built upon sand foundations but CLAIMS they've built upon solid ground. 

 

Transcendental arguments are not solid ground. We can discuss. 

 

On 6/5/2019 at 10:15 AM, LuthAMF said:

2) That's what you expect me to stop and consider? Speculation as truth? ""Our concern here is truth....but not hard evidence nor absolute truth." 

Then the debate becomes futile.

 

What other truth do you have aside from the truth of uncertainty, speculation, etc., etc.? You've been given opportunity to provide certainty. So far you've not provided it. If you acknowledge that you can not provide certainty to this uncertain state of affairs, then perhaps it is futile to try and debate. And that's ok.

 

That would represent a realization that you've come to by interacting here with the ex christian community. Namely, the futility of trying to debate such a thing. I know it. Many members here know it. And now perhaps you're starting to see it as well. Still within analysis of only Genesis 1 at that. So we can then start drawing conclusions about the bible based on this up front realization just diving into Genesis 1 and without even getting any further. 

 

1) The bible can not be established as factually true from the outset.

 

2) If the bible can not be established as factually true from the outset, then does it change and transform to factually true at a later point in time? 

 

On 6/5/2019 at 10:15 AM, LuthAMF said:

Day 1 - Space (environment) > Day 4 - Sun, moon and stars (inhabitants of the upper heavens) 

 

Day 2 - Firmament separated from the waters (environment) > Day 5 - Fish and birds (inhabitants of the oceans and sky)  

 

Day 3 - Dry land (environment) > Day 6 - Land animals and man (inhabitants of the land) 

 

The above comes from a Jewish Rabbi who I read through years ago explaining the correspondence oriented sequencing of his own ethnic scriptures." That elicits a big "So what?" Argument from Authority?

 

No, in fact it's an argument from what's obvious, in our faces, and plain to see. The correspondence is exact. One, two, three environments and one, two, three sets of inhabitants for each environment.

 

Trying to make apologies that break the exact and precise correspondences in the ancient text, break the exact and precised correspondence in the ancient text. It's 'one way' of showing how by doing so many modern theologians break ways with the flow of what was written. 

 

On 6/5/2019 at 10:15 AM, LuthAMF said:

"What he's claiming, against the knowledge of Jews who understand their own scriptures in ways that the apologist does not..."  You mean like the Jews denying that Christ is the Messiah? 

 

Yes. And that's just as easily revealed. We'll get to the jesus myth and why the Jews never accepted it later. 

 

On 6/5/2019 at 10:15 AM, LuthAMF said:

I also can cite extensive work by Matthew Poole (whom some here claim familiarity). At any rate, your points are specifically addressed.

 

No, they are simply hand wave dismissed by apologists who don't want to own up to the obvious. Is that a big surprise? It's more of the same. And it's nonsensical.

 

They understand that there is a correspondence between day 1 and day 4. But then try to slip out of the following correspondences. The earth was a watery formless earth in the beginning. The oceans were separated from the atmosphere on the 2nd day. That is where the gods set up the environments of sea and air as two distinct environments of existence. This is all very simple. The day 2 to day 5 correspondence simply adds inhabitants to the separated seas and atmosphere. Fish and birds. The apologists have not refuted this, they deny what it obvious because it doesn't gel with the direction that THEY want to take this ancient text. Showing some urge and intent to try and move away from these correspondences by whatever means they try and muster up. 

 

On 6/5/2019 at 10:15 AM, LuthAMF said:
there is no reality in the parallelism which some discover between the second and
third days on the one hand, and the third and fourth on the other. On the second day the firmament or atmosphere is formed; on the fifth, the fish and fowl. On the third, after the
sea and land are separated, the plants are formed ; .^on the sixth, the animals of the dry land and man. Now, if the creation of the fowls which fill the air answers to that of the firmament,
the formation of tlie fish as the inhabitants of the waters ought to be assigned to the sixth day, and not to the fifth, as being parallel to the creation of the seas. The creation of the fish
and fowl on the same day is an evident proof that a parallelism between the first three days of creation and the last three is not intended, and does not exist.

 

There's no reason to assign the fish to the sixth day. That's stupid. Why would we? The seas and atmosphere are set up on the 2nd day, which corresponds exactly to the fish and fowl of the 5th day.  And the parallel is between the 3rd and 6th days. With dry land on day 3 perfectly corresponding to land creatures and man on day 6.

 

On 6/5/2019 at 10:15 AM, LuthAMF said:

Day 1 - Space (environment) > Day 4 - Sun, moon and stars (inhabitants of the upper heavens) 

 

Day 2 - Firmament separated from the waters (environment) > Day 5 - Fish and birds (inhabitants of the oceans and sky)  

 

Day 3 - Dry land (environment) > Day 6 - Land animals and man (inhabitants of the land) 

 

 

So the claim makes no sense. 

 

The 3rd day brings out dry land from the seas. Puts organic growth on the land, as part of THE land. It's all about setting up another environment, the environment of land. Day 6 brings in "land creatures" which includes man. It's a self evident parallel. But that's what apologist's are up against. That's what I'm teasing out of this discussion. People deserve to read through and see the interaction between apologists and people like myself who do not accept their apologizes at face value. But instead take apologist's to task exposing the nonsensical nature of the apologies. These are self evident and out there for people to read through and judge for themselves.

 

Some people just google an apology and think, 'well, there it is, an answer. If someone smart can give an answer then problem solved. The bible is true!' 

 

But, it takes some pretty convoluted twisting and manipulating to try and deny the obvious correspondences used by the writer of Genesis 1. This is the sort of thing that I put out there to argue. I show the correspondences, the apologist's answer how? I respond to their attempts to excuse or hand wave dismiss (demonstrated above). They claim a premature victory. But that's all smoke and mirrors when you actually look at what they're trying to claim, excuse and justify. The big problem here is that apologist's as a whole don't have anything besides smoke and mirrors, so this trend will continue over and over again, issue after issue. It has to. They can't do otherwise. Because they are strapped with trying to claim that something obviously not literally true any way, is true in some round about way. But it clearly isn't. 

 

I mean to point it out and then follow it closely when we do move forward through the bible. I ask that people pay close attention to the recurring trends that apologist's utilize. And this whole thing in my view is a learning experience that deserves to be aired out. We can link newbies and christian members to the debate whenever the situation arises. We can flesh out a lot of important issues in the process and I think it can be beneficial to anyone seeking out the truth about these sensitive topics. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2019 at 10:15 AM, LuthAMF said:
Moreover, if the division of the
work of creation into so many days had been the result of human reflection ; the creation of man, who was appointed lord of the earth, would certainly not have been assigned to the same
day as that of the beasts and reptiles, but would have been kept distinct from the creation of the beasts, and allotted to the seventh day, in which the creation was completed,—a meaning which
Richers and Keerl have actually tried to force upon the text of the Bible. In the different acts of creation we perceive indeed an evident progress from the general to the particular, from the
lower to the higher orders of creatures, or rather a steady advance towards more and more concrete forms.
 
But on the fourth day this progress is interrupted in a way which we cannot explain.
 
In the transition from the creation of the plants to that of sun, moon, and stars, it is impossible to discover either a "well-arranged and constant progress," or " a genetic advance," since
the stars are not intermediate links between plants and animals, and, in fact, have no place at all in the scale of earthly creatures. — I f we pass on to the contents of our account of the creation,
they differ as widely from all other cosmogonies as truth from fiction. Those of heathen nations are either hylozoistical, deducing the origin of life and living beings from some primeval
matter; or pantheistical, regarding the whole world as emanating from a common divine substance ; or mythological, tracing both gods and men to a chaos or world-egg. They do not even rise
to the notion of a creation, much less to the knowledge of an almighty God, as the Creator of all things.* Even in the Etruscan and Persian myths, which correspond so remarkably
to the biblical account that they must have been derived from it, the successive acts of creation are arranged according to the suggestions of human probability and adaptation.*

 

I should step in here again and just take to task the rest of Keil and Delitzsche's poor, poor reasoning skills. And yes, that's banter. 

 

These guys are so far off the mark that it's incredible to read through. Does man live on the land? If yes, problem solved. Day 3 sets up the environment of land, Day 6 corresponds with the creation of land dwelling creatures, which, includes man. Are they that dense? Or just that intellectually dishonest? Neither answer seems to bode well in any case. And that's NOT a false dichotomy. They are being extremely dense in this paragraph. And I want to get down to why. I'm not trying to ad hom them. I honestly suspect that they're playing stupid as part of an intellectually dishonest direction of christian apologetic's. 

 

In the second outlined paragraph it's just as bad. The progress is NOT interrupted at all. Because day 4 is a progression of beginning the work of filling the environments with corresponding inhabitants. And the sun, moon and stars are the inhabitants of the upper heavens, which, were created back at Genesis 1:1 Light was a general, ancient thought style of light independent of the sun, moon, and stars (they are not mentioned and do not yet exist in the text). Day 4 answers Day 1 specifically and that's the very obvious progression of the ancient text. Do these guys really not see that? Or are they playing stupid because of their religious biases and longing to interpret the scripture some way OTHER than the way it is written? 

 

I suppose their biases begin to reveal more around the bottom of the 2nd bold paragraph. What I hope people reading along are able to grapple and comprehend is that it is well known (refer back to all of the video and textual links I've posted so far for citation) that the Genesis myths borrow heavily from the near eastern pagan mythologies. In fact, ancient Israelite's showed every sign of polytheism and they were NOT monotheistic from the outset according archaeological findings and the other issues mentioned in my previous citations. And that's what these two dingle berries are trying to game for. They want to claim, at intellectually dishonest lengths, that Genesis 1 is NOT like the other pagan mythologies when that's exactly what modern scholarship has found Genesis 1 to be. All the other nonsense stems from that foundation. And they've gone off trying to create castles from sand foundations in so doing. It all comes crashing down with a little analysis. 

 

Please excuse me if I keep talking like captain obvious and repeating obvious things. I just want to make sure that people following along don't get lost trying to follow the back and forth of these posts. I'm holding to my guns here. Genesis 1 has been demonstrably, demonstrably wrong in terms of objective evidence that can be evaluated for truth content.

 

And I have to wonder, If Luth is correct and a god created the world and then went to inspiring writers to document this supernatural order of business, why couldn't the god do so much better than all of this?

 

Where's the damming evidence in the geological and stellar observation record that confirms every word of the bible?  That demonstrates, beyond question, the truth of the bible? 

 

If we're just going to agree to disagree about Genesis 1 than I would like to compare Genesis 2 (which is a separate creation account and the two are tossed into the bible together) and then move on to looking at the patriarchs from Adam to Noah in order to fast forward and get this thing moving a bit. Whenever Luth is ready of course. It's not a rush. That's just the over all game play for moving forward.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than immediately jump back in to the foray, Josh, I trust that you alone understand the reason for my inactivity. Unforeseen happenstance for one is Providential hindrance to another. At any rate, I will continue to the best of my ability. Hopefully no one was lacking in alternative forms of entertainment.

 

Having taken that prolonged break and now re-familiarizing myself with the content thus far, I am stunned at the numerous assumptions that tie in to your overall view, Josh. The goal of "sticking to the text" is, as I previously noted, secondary.

 

With so much being said both within and without the scope of the debate, I must admit I'm struggling on where to begin again. I think I've distilled it down to a couple points of relevancy so I will engage shortly.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Having taken that prolonged break and now re-familiarizing myself with the content thus far, I am stunned at the numerous assumptions that tie in to your overall view, Josh. The goal of "sticking to the text" is, as I previously noted, secondary.

 

Demonstrating that the bible is true or false would seem to primarily involve "sticking to the text," wouldn't it? How could it be secondary? It's the text and it's truth value that we're concerned with here. Reading the texts and then analyzing to the best of our ability with everything available in this day and age at our disposal. 

 

16 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

With so much being said both within and without the scope of the debate, I must admit I'm struggling on where to begin again. I think I've distilled it down to a couple points of relevancy so I will engage shortly.

 

I'm looking forward to hearing what you think about all of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I've recovered from a confirmation that I'm mortal,

Josh, you stated, "The real issue seems to be the question of what exactly is that 'something', which 'everything' arose from?"

Your very first question was  "Can you please explain how you interpret this verse? Thanks."

Yes. The answer is the same for everyone. At face value, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
There is no "interpretation" at that point as William made perfectly clear in saying "So no, I don't agree that all I can offer is speculation, I have a text in front of me and I care about what the author meant to convey." and  "Could you possibly exegete any of what you wrote from that verse? To suggest the verse meant any possible theory is eisegesis, that is, reading what the reader has in mind into the text. This is nothing more than putting words in someone's mouth." 

So, What I think about all of this?

(I apologize if I rehash what has already been said but this is more of a summary for myself of some main points.)

1) I think it is obvious that while you say "And the truth as I see it, is that we don't know for sure at this time. We have ideas and speculation, but not hard evidence nor absolute truth." you are perfectly willing to summon and utilize all manner of sources of unbelief and peddle them NOT as speculation but as fact debilitating to the established historical positions. 

Case in point, you discovered what is known as the Framework Hypothesis (FH) of Genesis 1 subsequent to reading the text of scripture and then, out of your sceptical unbelief, have imposed that upon scripture over and against contrary positions you deem "poor reasoning" from "dingleberries" simply because they do not agree with your secular source. 

On 6/17/2019 at 7:33 PM, Joshpantera said:
Even in the Etruscan and Persian myths, which correspond so remarkably
to the biblical account that they must have been derived from it, the successive acts of creation are arranged according to the suggestions of human probability and adaptation.*
 
"They want to claim, at intellectually dishonest lengths, that Genesis 1 is NOT like the other pagan mythologies when that's exactly what modern scholarship has found Genesis 1 to be."
Which "modern scholars"? Scholars, scholars, scholars. WHO??? Informed by more "who's?" They follow a trajectory of thought. So much so that you allow ONLY for views that perpetuate particular lines e.g. "it is well known (refer back to all of the video and textual links I've posted so far for citation) that the Genesis myths borrow heavily from the near eastern pagan mythologies. In fact, ancient Israelite's showed every sign of polytheism and they were NOT monotheistic from the outset according archaeological findings and the other issues mentioned in my previous citations." 
The videos are Joseph Campell-ish as to informing the text in question, so "scholarship" becomes silly putty and seem to me to be on the level of Holocaust Deniers.
 
So, I wish to examine the origin and "trajectory" of FH. It's origins are from 19th century German "theologians" and NOT historically and exegetically derived. Why is this necessary to point out? 
"In the first place, the critics who were the leaders, the men who have given name and force to the whole movement, have been men who have based their theories largely upon their own subjective conclusions. It does not even follow that because a man is a philological expert he is able to understand the integrity or credibility of a passage of Holy Scripture any more than the beauty and spirit of it.
In the second place, some of the most powerful exponenets of the modern HC theories have been Germans...and for hypothesis-weaving and speculation, the German theological professor is unsurpassed. 
In the third place, the dominant men of the movement were men with a strong bias against the supernatural. This is not an ex-parte (with respect to or in the interests of one side only or of an interested outside party.) 
statement at all. It is simply a matter of fact. Some of the men who have been most distinguished as leaders of the HC movement in Germany and Holland have been men who have no faith in the God of the Bible, and no faith in either the necessity or the possibility of a personal supernatural revelation.
The vast field of Textual Criticism involves what is known as Lower and Higher criticism; 
"Lower Criticism was employed to designate the study of the text of the Scripture, and included the investigation of the manuscripts and the different readings in the various versions and codices and manuscripts in order that we may be sure we have the original words as they were written by the Divinely inspired writers."
"Higher Criticism, the study of the literary structure of various books of the bible and mainly OT,...was employed to designate the study of the historic origins, the dates and authorship of the various books and Introduction." Cn Dyson Hague
 

In his book, Studies in Genesis One, E.J. Young points out the fallacy of the "framework" hypothesis:

The question must be raised, "If a nonchronological view of the days be admitted, what is the purpose of mentioning six days?" For, once we reject the chronological sequence which Genesis gives, we are brought to the point where we can really say very little about the content of Genesis one. It is impossible to hold that there are two trios of days, each paralleling the other. Day four . . . speaks of God's placing the light-bearers in the firmament. The firmament, however, had been made on the second day. If the fourth and the first days are two aspects of the same thing, then the second day also (which speaks of the firmament) must precede days one and four. If this procedure be allowed, with its wholesale disregard of grammar, why may we not be consistent and equate all four of these days with the first verse of Genesis? There is no defense against such a procedure, once we abandon the clear language of the text. In all seriousness it must be asked, Can we believe that the first chapter of Genesis intends to teach that day two preceded days one and four? To ask that question is to answer it.

 
2) Not only have you made use of the spurious Framework, you've also introduced the Documentary Theory in trying to discover the origins of the Pentateuch. From where does this theory originate? This needs to be answered as well, which I will do in the forthcoming response.
 
But to emphasize a point, you contend:
"But I at least want readers to understand all of the available options on the table. And the secular scholarship option is one of them."
**Not necessarily when it comes to biblical exegetical work!**
This is the equivalent of expecting Griswold to write favorably of Poe. The "secular sources" are so because of their unbelief and are by no means a neutral position. Karl Barth was a master exegete to tell us what the text actually said but in matters of theology he was willing to bring in many modern assumptions. He would agree with you that the final arbiter of theology is not the biblical text but your many assumptions. It's theology that matters in this discussion. There is a consistency throughout scripture built upon the foundation of Genesis and it seems you are all too eager to ignore it. While my role is to bring those things to bear, it must be assumed that since you all are ExC, no Christian sources were sufficient for you (which is indicative of something far deeper than a mere lack of information.)
Scripture exhorts in the particular way of II Timothy 3 - 4:6 which is the restating of the method throughout the entirety of scripture and which has been the method throughout the history of the Church in identifying and refuting error. Your use of "scholarship" means there can be no such thing as error in Christian doctrine since all is just mere speculation on this or that. 
**Of course, this is the very reason for ExC. The idea is that you all were once "theologically sound" with a firm grasp of Christian doctrine. Were you all to be examined individually, we would find glaring error. The more accurate moniker would be "ExChurch-goer.net" which implies no particular set of teaching at all. It's as nebulous as the "War on Drugs".**
 
 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2019 at 11:20 PM, Joshpantera said:

And all of the contradictions found just in Genesis here: http://contradictionsinthebible.com/category/genesis/

Then what are we doing here in this "debate"? Your scholar has identified for you all these alleged "contradictions". Why not just post one at a time and have me debate Dr. Mattel?  For it seems to me all the objections you raise are merely following his lead.

 

Am I to grant that you, as a "Christian",  took the time and made the effort to discover answers to these objections? How far did you, or anyone else get? Everyone, be honest. Looking at the list provided in the link, are you capable of giving the Christian, biblical explanation? Or do you just now use it as a blow to the opposition? I think this is a fair question in determining the basis for such strident cynicism. Nothing other than a basic lack of information drives your unbelief? And I'm not asking for anecdotal stories of woe. Could there be a spiritual reality at work as defined by scripture? Possible? Or have you disposed of that notion along with theological clarity?

 

Were we to sufficiently answer (and we have) even one of the objections raised, (and even then it must be to your ultimate satisfaction) you will skitter on to the next one as though nothing happened. Now I understand that you consider this as the "cumulative effect" that the sceptic utilizes to justify his scepticism, but again, considering trajectory of thought, to hold basic, fundamental errors will only serve to lead one far, far off course. The tactic is to isolate everything.

 

On that point, I am also willing to admit that even some of our more notable scholars have been swayed by certain arguments and have "made concessions" while hoping to maintain the integrity of scripture. This would address the charge that I presume "we" hold no biases. Yet it is also a fact that they can be recognized and corrected, these "concessions", in the same manner all error is exposed.

 

This is why I must repeat that in this day and age (by which do I mean only this one day or aeons? How long an "age"?) where sound exegetical preaching is severely lacking, and the church (to it's shame) is producing by the scores theologically deficient men and women, why am I to grant that ExC.net is not also a product of this lack? The boast here is that you all are "savvy and astute" yet each post betrays a willingness to embrace those fundamental errors.

 

So I may as well open up the link and proceed, independent of any "debate" format, and address at least 82 and upwards of 343 objections because all along the way, Dr. Mattel is your guide. You ask me "What I think about these things". Seems to me you think what Dr. Mattel tells you to think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on you, Luth. I'm glad you pulled through. And I'm pumping the brakes here on the banter. It can be hard not to have the banter between believers and non-believers because the tensions are very high due to the strong subject matter one person believing something and another person not believing it at all. Especially when the latter used to believe just as sincerely as the former. It's sensitive and emotional in very specific ways. I am grateful for the fact that you're willing to try and tackle such a debate / discussion as level headed and civil as possible. With what appears to be an open mind to trying to understand the opposing side. 

 

On 6/28/2019 at 1:02 PM, LuthAMF said:

So, What I think about all of this?

(I apologize if I rehash what has already been said but this is more of a summary for myself of some main points.)

1) I think it is obvious that while you say "And the truth as I see it, is that we don't know for sure at this time. We have ideas and speculation, but not hard evidence nor absolute truth." you are perfectly willing to summon and utilize all manner of sources of unbelief and peddle them NOT as speculation but as fact debilitating to the established historical positions. 

Case in point, you discovered what is known as the Framework Hypothesis (FH) of Genesis 1 subsequent to reading the text of scripture and then, out of your sceptical unbelief, have imposed that upon scripture over and against contrary positions you deem "poor reasoning" from "dingleberries" simply because they do not agree with your secular source. 

 

Here's where I'm at. I'm sticking to what I said. The truth is that in the context of the hard questions, we don't have hard absolute answers. You may say we have the bible. But you haven't shown the bible to be factually true concerning the hard questions. It is making claims or suggestions. But those claims have not been substantiated. This problem is no different with the theist than it is with any run of the mill new age beliefs and / or magick or similar issues. There are claims. Those claims without being substantiated are just claims that have not been substantiated. So then what to make of it? And I look into claims of all variety. Theistic, esoteric, etc. And I understand that without being able to firmly establish something as hard factual truth, there's no sense in even trying. 

 

Example. I seriously suspect that mind plays a much larger role in reality than what a lot of people generally think. It's something of a hunch. I talk about it. I Explore possibilities. I'm open to the possibility. But I'm disciplined enough to know what can be 'honestly claimed' and what can not be honestly claimed about any given pet idea which isn't necessarily provable at this time. The truth is that I don't know the absolute truth of any of it. And if I want to be intellectually honest and maintain the credibility of an intellectually honest person, I must concede these points. And we're still just on the first part of the above quotation. The part about absolute truths and not knowing the answers to the most ultimate questions. 

 

I know that I don't know the absolute truth. But do you know that you do not know the absolute truth either? 

 

I'm trying to encourage you to think about that honestly with yourself in this discussion. Is it possible for both of us to agree on a foundation of intellectual honesty before we continue? Do you understand that the bible is not something that can actually be used to make absolute truth claims? Because no matter which interpretation we go with, it hasn't been demonstrated as actually true yet via any of the interpretations available - not the ancient nor a few centuries old interpretations. There's any number of interpretations, including the FH, all of which do not demonstrate any absolute truth of universal, planetary nor human origins. That's where we're at right now. None of this has demonstrated the truth of the bible so far. Not in any factual way. 

 

And I am not calling the apologist's you cited "dingle berries" because they simply don't agree with me, I'm calling them "dingle berries" because they are trying to deny things are black and white obvious. It doesn't matter if some German intellectuals in the 19th century put a stamp on FH. It just means that they could have been the first people to notice it. Which, I doubt. I'll have to look into it deeper. But that really doesn't matter very much because we're discussing what is demonstrable about an ancient text in simple diagrams and in black and white terms. When you post their apologetic opposition pieces, those opposition pieces are demonstrably wrong. I went through that a few times already. I may have to go through that one more time before leaving it alone and letting it be an agree to disagree point. Just one more time. 

 

On 6/28/2019 at 1:02 PM, LuthAMF said:

In his book, Studies in Genesis One, E.J. Young points out the fallacy of the "framework" hypothesis:

The question must be raised, "If a nonchronological view of the days be admitted, what is the purpose of mentioning six days?" For, once we reject the chronological sequence which Genesis gives, we are brought to the point where we can really say very little about the content of Genesis one. It is impossible to hold that there are two trios of days, each paralleling the other. Day four . . . speaks of God's placing the light-bearers in the firmament. The firmament, however, had been made on the second day. If the fourth and the first days are two aspects of the same thing, then the second day also (which speaks of the firmament) must precede days one and four. If this procedure be allowed, with its wholesale disregard of grammar, why may we not be consistent and equate all four of these days with the first verse of Genesis? There is no defense against such a procedure, once we abandon the clear language of the text. In all seriousness it must be asked, Can we believe that the first chapter of Genesis intends to teach that day two preceded days one and four? To ask that question is to answer it.

 

For readers, the above is not Luth's words but a quote from his source material just to clarify. When I use the quote button it tags his name to all of the quotes. 

 

The purpose of mentioning six days goes back to the writer. He set it up that way. Three days of creating environments of existence, followed by three days of creating inhabitants for each environment in the exact same order. We've been over this many times. It's in the bibles for anyone to read for themselves and check for accuracy. The firmament of day two is the firmament that had been made by separating the waters above and below.

 

It is clear that the writer is referring to the sky and oceans as becoming two distinct environments. So he pairs day 5 with the inhabitants of those two specific environments. He pairs the heavens and earth, and the beginning of light and darkness (day and night) with day 4. He places the sun into the day time sky and the moon into the night sky that were created on the 1st day. Then he goes to making the birds and fish below that, accordingly, in their respective regions of sea and air which were created on day two. The apologist is trying to make excuses here because he doesn't like the FH for some reason. 

 

First triad Second triad
Day 1 Let there be light (1:3). Let there be lights (1:14). Day 4
Day 2 Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters (1:6). Let the water teem with creatures and let birds fly above the earth (1:20). Day 5
Day 3 Let dry land appear (1:9).
Let the land produce vegetation (1:11).
Let the land produce living creatures (1:24).
Let us make man (1:26).
I give you every seed bearing plant… and every tree that has fruit with seed in it… for food (1:29)

 

Creation Kingdoms Creature Kings
Day 1: Light Day 4: Luminaries
Day 2: Sky/Water Day 5: Birds/Fish
Day 3: Land/Vegetation Day 6: Land animals/Man
The Creator King
Day 7: Sabbath

 

These apologies, or excuses as they were, simply don't wash. This is not a knock on you personally, Luth. I'm calling the so called academic's "dingle berries" because they should bloody well know better than to act like this. They are credentialed academics and I'm holding them to that standard of thought conscious comprehension. They are subject to harsh peer review from other academics and that's the landscape of their professions. I expect a lot more from these guys than what I'm seeing. And the poor judgement stems from personal religious biases that disallow them to agree with things that are plainly clear in black and white terms. They have to fight upstream with excuses as logical points emerge. And the excuses are poorly thought out as I read through them. 

 

But not the average joe. I don't mean to insult the average joe christian by pointing out that these academic apologists are not making sense or thinking very clearly. Regular people depend on these guys getting it right, basically. It's not as if everyone sits around thinking about these things in depth. So these academics are held to a stricter standard in my book. I'm sorry if I sound too harsh in dealing with their excuses, poor or otherwise. But I want you and others to at least see what it is that I'm seeing, and perhaps understand what it is that I'm thinking. Me representing an joe average christian who's looked closely at all of this academic and theological back and fourth and then decided to continue on as an "ex christian."

 

On 6/28/2019 at 1:02 PM, LuthAMF said:
But to emphasize a point, you contend:
"But I at least want readers to understand all of the available options on the table. And the secular scholarship option is one of them."
**Not necessarily when it comes to biblical exegetical work!**
This is the equivalent of expecting Griswold to write favorably of Poe. The "secular sources" are so because of their unbelief and are by no means a neutral position. Karl Barth was a master exegete to tell us what the text actually said but in matters of theology he was willing to bring in many modern assumptions. He would agree with you that the final arbiter of theology is not the biblical text but your many assumptions. It's theology that matters in this discussion. There is a consistency throughout scripture built upon the foundation of Genesis and it seems you are all too eager to ignore it. While my role is to bring those things to bear, it must be assumed that since you all are ExC, no Christian sources were sufficient for you (which is indicative of something far deeper than a mere lack of information.)
Scripture exhorts in the particular way of II Timothy 3 - 4:6 which is the restating of the method throughout the entirety of scripture and which has been the method throughout the history of the Church in identifying and refuting error. Your use of "scholarship" means there can be no such thing as error in Christian doctrine since all is just mere speculation on this or that. 
**Of course, this is the very reason for ExC. The idea is that you all were once "theologically sound" with a firm grasp of Christian doctrine. Were you all to be examined individually, we would find glaring error. The more accurate moniker would be "ExChurch-goer.net" which implies no particular set of teaching at all. It's as nebulous as the "War on Drugs".**

 

You see, Luth, buddy, you are logic leaping here and my pointing it out is meant as a service to you and others following along. I'm not the enemy. I'm trying to open you up to taking in the big picture. You may still decide to stick to belief. But please just consider what is involved in such a logic leap. I'm not in some haste to simply deny theology. I'm challenging the theologian to first substantiate their claims before jumping off into a series of logic leaps that depend on accepting the initial premise without having first been established. We could be taking about ghosts, UFO's, Magick, or theology right now. It all comes down to the same general situation. 

 

Where is the initial proof that substantiates these claims in the first place? 

 

To say that it's a theological issue is the same as saying proving UFO's depends solely on UFOlogy, basically. Of course the believer in UFO's has no problem logic leaping from somewhere like space is huge, there must be more life in it, therefore all or most of these UFO sightings are true is a logic leap of the same magnitude. And what's more, I have personally (along with a large group of school mates in the early 90's) witnessed a silent object hovering in the night sky right in front of us. I've seen it. I can't prove it! I don't even try to prove it. Why? Because the truth is that it could have been any number of things. I did witness something beyond explanation. But that doesn't mean I can then logic leap to absolute conclusions about what I have seen. It doesn't mean that there is no other explanation. And in the end, the entire situation is an agnostic oriented one if I am to stick to intellectual honesty. I just don't know in any absolute way. This is what I mean about keeping it intellectually honest. 

 

I'm going to finish with a second response to your second post, but I have family to attend to. So it will be delayed. 

 

Thanks again for continuing with this debate / discussion. More to come later..........

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2019 at 10:29 AM, LuthAMF said:

Then what are we doing here in this "debate"? Your scholar has identified for you all these alleged "contradictions". Why not just post one at a time and have me debate Dr. Mattel?  For it seems to me all the objections you raise are merely following his lead.

 

Am I to grant that you, as a "Christian",  took the time and made the effort to discover answers to these objections? How far did you, or anyone else get? Everyone, be honest. Looking at the list provided in the link, are you capable of giving the Christian, biblical explanation? Or do you just now use it as a blow to the opposition? I think this is a fair question in determining the basis for such strident cynicism. Nothing other than a basic lack of information drives your unbelief? And I'm not asking for anecdotal stories of woe. Could there be a spiritual reality at work as defined by scripture? Possible? Or have you disposed of that notion along with theological clarity?

 

1) There may be a misunderstanding here. All of Dr. DiMattei's found contradictions in Genesis can be found at the cited link. For anyone interested in reading through them - you and anyone else included. I'm not saying that the only contradictions are found there. Just a lot of them. We are providing links to citation so people can read and explore without having to reproduce too much text here in our discussion / debate. The same with the video links. They are meant as a launching point to orient towards entire areas of research and study about the bible based on the last several hundred years of advancing research and study, as well as the most up to date contemporary findings coming from archaeology and other areas. And you've left links to apologetic critics who try and excuse what sources like the one's I've cited have aired out about the bible. The extimony video is largely based on Armstrong's "A History of God." Among other things. And it's meant to air out the issues. I keep summarizing the main points of the issues in the citations. 

 

2) About spiritual possibilities. Whether or not there is any type of greater reality, or ultimate reality is really an open question, Luth. I'm not saying that there isn't. Because I'm asking that we both stick to intellectual honesty. I know that it's not possible to honestly claim that there is no type of greater reality. The problem here is that whatever a proposed greater reality may be, I think there's a strong chance that none of us even know what that is in any direct, or literal sense. Not the christian, not the muslim, not the hindu nor buddhist nor amazonian native shaman for that matter. What I am showing is that religion is mythology. And mythology, at best, is not a literally true situation. It may be called metaphor. Granted. But metaphor for what exactly? Well, in terms of honesty, neither you nor I can say with certainty. And we can't say with certainty because words, thoughts, concepts and language in general do not reach that which is alleged to be "beyond" or "transcendent"of space and time. For instance, streets of gold, jeweled crowns, singing praises forever and ever to a deity or being of some imagined type - and other "conceptual" suggestions are all products of time and space - can not possibly be the final, literal, reality that one is suggesting. If one is suggesting a transcendent reality. At best, such concepts can be a metaphor, or symbolic representation of something that can't even be called, "something." Why? Again, because that's what "transcendent" means. It can't literally be streets of gold, crowned jewels, nor beings, or forms, or images for that matter. Because all of these are conceptual terms based on using things which are conceivable within the realm of time and space and do not, necessarily extend into the "beyond," "eternal," or "transcendent." 

 

In this process of trying to establish some ultimate, transcendent type of reality, we necessarily lose all language, thoughts and concepts. Gone. Done. So then what? It's not like I haven't scoured every inch of Joseph Campbell's books and lectures in my personal research over the years following my exit from christianity. I've taken the human spirituality issue as far I can possibly take it - to the point where it all dissolves into "transcendence." And that's an entire debate in and of itself which we don't need to get into yet. The debate about where christianity sits along side of other human spirituality in terms of depth, in terms of making claims and then keeping careful to stick closely to the claims that have been made. And spoiler alert, christianity actually fares very low on the list of human spiritual exploration and expression when it's studied to these depths. That's another reason that I remain ex christian, BTW. I know what little christianity has to offer in terms of human spirituality. Having gathered all of this knowledge post christianity, while seeking whatever truths can be found, I have expanded into areas that have made me more or less immune to christian proselytizing. I don't wonder, "what if they're right?" Because I'm way past that at this point. And that's an entire debate by itself worthy of it's own entire thread. 

 

There may be a greater reality. There may be much more going on than what we assume. But the smart bet is on christianity having it completely wrong. And a lot of that starts out with the fact that the bible doesn't start out demonstrably true in the first place. And is more deceptive than it is true as far as that goes.

 

On 6/29/2019 at 10:29 AM, LuthAMF said:

Were we to sufficiently answer (and we have) even one of the objections raised, (and even then it must be to your ultimate satisfaction) you will skitter on to the next one as though nothing happened. Now I understand that you consider this as the "cumulative effect" that the sceptic utilizes to justify his scepticism, but again, considering trajectory of thought, to hold basic, fundamental errors will only serve to lead one far, far off course. The tactic is to isolate everything.

 

We could get stuck going on for pages without end. Let's just leave it with we've each had opportunity to voice our opinions and make our observations about Genesis 1. I don't think going in circles for too long will do any good. I'm saying that it's not literally true, regardless of the interpretation. None of them fair well against the observable universe. You haven't reconciled this at all. You've pointed to some excuses, but those excuses haven't reconciled the problem between the texts and observable reality. YEC doesn't work out. And OEC doesn't work out either. The orders are off any which way we turn. It doesn't gel with knowable cosmology, geology or genetics. The whole thing has the trappings of ancient bronze age creation mythology which is not written literally true. That should be obvious. And probably should not be taken as literally true to begin with.

 

If you have something to offer that does gel Genesis 1 with something that can be substantiated then provide it. 

 

On 6/29/2019 at 10:29 AM, LuthAMF said:

This is why I must repeat that in this day and age (by which do I mean only this one day or aeons? How long an "age"?) where sound exegetical preaching is severely lacking, and the church (to it's shame) is producing by the scores theologically deficient men and women, why am I to grant that ExC.net is not also a product of this lack? The boast here is that you all are "savvy and astute" yet each post betrays a willingness to embrace those fundamental errors.

 

The problem here, Luth, is a common one. I have to point out that christians have been at each other's throats basically all along. You think you have it all figured out, that you're right and others are wrong. But those others think just as strongly that you are wrong in some areas and they are right. So who's right about christianity and the bible when everyone has their fingers pointed at one another declaring, "wrong?"

 

I grew up SDA. All of you, every last one of you sunday keeping christians are breaking the 4th commandment according to the bible. I was raised to bring you sun worshiping "heathens" back to jesus. To bible study you people into knowing gods "TRVTH," which is plainly spelled out in the bible. I never went to public school. SDA bible classes every year right on through. Who's right? Are you all sun worshiping heathens tricked by the devil into disrespecting the 4th commandment, all of whom break the 4th commandment every sunday?  Sunday worship is not scriptural, it's tradition. That's the argument........ 

 

And then you no doubt have excuses where you look somewhere else and put your focus on something other than the SDA. You excuse their biblical argument and launch some other argument of your own. And some other christian does the same. You all cherry pick your way through the bible accepting some things, glossing over or rejecting others. And then making bold claims that you are right and the others are wrong. When it seems more likely that you're all wrong, evenly, across the board in my opinion. Again, saying this is meant as a service to you and others reading. Wake up. Look at the landscape. Do some introspection. I'm trying to help you step out side of the box and look at the big picture, Luth. 

 

Who are the "real christians?"

 

Who could they be? Aside from anyone who believes in christianity in whatever form they believe it. There is no one true christianity to locate as far as I can tell. And this is a problem for taking the direction of the old "No True Scotsman" fallacy that you're trying to take here. You are a true christian because you believe some form of it. I was a true christian because I believed some form of it. We were true cult members, basically (even though there are arguments as to if it's technically a cult. I mean it's a cult like environment). You are currently a true cult member, basically. And when people leave the cult, others start alleging "No True Scotsmen" fallacies at those who have left. "You were never a true christian!!!"

 

The whole thing is a lot of nonsense in my opinion. Pot calling the kettle black, etc., etc. 

 

If what you're telling me is that we have to debate this only from theological grounds, then perhaps what you're saying is that you can't debate this. If so, you are conceding that you can not establish that the bible is demonstrably true and it all ends as of Genesis 1.

 

Because a theological basis doesn't have the ability, in and of itself, to demonstrate that the bible is true any more than UFOlogy can demonstrate on beliefs alone, that UFO's are literally true. Or paranormal experts can demonstrate that ghosts are true based on an orthodox history of beliefs about ghosts. You get the idea I'm sure. To prove any of this you have to take what is claimed in the bible and then demonstrate that what is claimed is true. Not what theologians (at each other's throats, btw) have opinionated about the bible over the years. And the whole thing tends to fold on that basis. 

 

We could go on anyways and just skim the patriarchs and you can say why you believe and I'll say why I don't. If you can't prove anything aside from using theology and suggesting that the bible proves the claims of the bible, then there's no sense in even trying to prove it. Because the bible isn't substantial to prove it's own claims. You could be taken off the hook in terms of proof. Instead you can just voice why YOU chose to believe something that you can't prove. You can still try and witness to people as we skim through the rest of the bible. If you feel up to it. The example will have been made. Then we can rest. If you're still up to it....

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2019 at 9:22 AM, Joshpantera said:

The problem here is that whatever a proposed greater reality may be, I think there's a strong chance that none of us even know what that is in any direct, or literal sense. Not the christian, not the muslim, not the hindu nor buddhist nor amazonian native shaman for that matter. What I am showing is that religion is mythology. And mythology, at best, is not a literally true situation. It may be called metaphor. Granted. But metaphor for what exactly? Well, in terms of honesty, neither you nor I can say with certainty. And we can't say with certainty because words, thoughts, concepts and language in general do not reach that which is alleged to be "beyond" or "transcendent"of space and time. For instance, streets of gold, jeweled crowns, singing praises forever and ever to a deity or being of some imagined type - and other "conceptual" suggestions are all products of time and space - can not possibly be the final, literal, reality that one is suggesting. If one is suggesting a transcendent reality. At best, such concepts can be a metaphor, or symbolic representation of something that can't even be called, "something." Why? Again, because that's what "transcendent" means. It can't literally be streets of gold, crowned jewels, nor beings, or forms, or images for that matter. Because all of these are conceptual terms based on using things which are conceivable within the realm of time and space and do not, necessarily extend into the "beyond," "eternal," or "transcendent." 

I keep utilizing summaries of your objections. You state them over and over. The idea is to stick to Genesis for the moment while ignoring how scripture ties together. The paragraph above is a total and absolute rejection of the Person and Work of Christ. You are the one willing to introduce "christianity" yet remove Christ from the definition in order to maintain your objection! It's a nifty little circle but it also compels you to now engage with the NT and Christ Himself.  But of course you cannot do that yet.

 

So you state it again:  "I think there's a strong chance that none of us even know what that is in any direct, or literal sense. Not the christian, not the muslim, not the hindu not  the  buddhist nor amazonian native shaman..." Don't forget to add the ExChurchgoer Atheist. But are you telling me that there is no reality to any of these? 

 

On 6/30/2019 at 9:22 AM, Joshpantera said:

In this process of trying to establish some ultimate, transcendent type of reality, we necessarily lose all language, thoughts and concepts. Gone. Done. So then what? It's not like I haven't scoured every inch of Joseph Campbell's books and lectures in my personal research over the years following my exit from christianity. I've taken the human spirituality issue as far I can possibly take it - to the point where it all dissolves into "transcendence." And that's an entire debate in and of itself which we don't need to get into yet. The debate about where christianity sits along side of other human spirituality in terms of depth, in terms of making claims and then keeping careful to stick closely to the claims that have been made. And spoiler alert, christianity actually fares very low on the list of human spiritual exploration and expression when it's studied to these depths. That's another reason that I remain ex christian, BTW. I know what little christianity has to offer in terms of human spirituality. Having gathered all of this knowledge post christianity, while seeking whatever truths can be found, I have expanded into areas that have made me more or less immune to christian proselytizing. I don't wonder, "what if they're right?" Because I'm way past that at this point. And that's an entire debate by itself worthy of it's own entire thread. 

This is ridiculous. "... lose all language, thoughts and concepts."???

Where does Christ not make sense in discussing the reality of the Father? You are calling Christ an outright liar without having engaged one tiny bit with his words. This is the problem. You claim you want to go "verse by verse" but then indict the entirety of the testimony based upon spurious (and refuted) theories imposed upon Genesis. So my initial statement stands that this "debate" is not about what you propose. How many times must I say it? 

 

But in order to maintain some consistency, since you jump back into this pet argument, I'll address it:

On 6/30/2019 at 9:22 AM, Joshpantera said:

None of them fair well against the observable universe. You haven't reconciled this at all. You've pointed to some excuses, but those excuses haven't reconciled the problem between the texts and observable reality. YEC doesn't work out. And OEC doesn't work out either. The orders are off any which way we turn. It doesn't gel with knowable cosmology, geology or genetics. The whole thing has the trappings of ancient bronze age creation mythology which is not written literally true. That should be obvious. And probably should not be taken as literally true to begin with.

"...observable reality."

You are a strict Uniformitarian. All MUST be now as it has always been and vice versa; All that has been is as it is now.  Talk about leaps of logic. All because of your insistence on sheer Materialistic Naturalism. Thus, all your proposed models must conform. Yet Genesis makes it clear this is not the case. Does it not? A straightforward reading without all your imposed theories indicates a defining change in the structure of what we know as nature.

Yet Genesis does not allow for strict Uniform-ism. The world which once was is no longer. The world which we now observe is not as it has always been. There is no debate when one dismisses out of hand what the text actually says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

I keep utilizing summaries of your objections. You state them over and over. The idea is to stick to Genesis for the moment while ignoring how scripture ties together. The paragraph above is a total and absolute rejection of the Person and Work of Christ. You are the one willing to introduce "christianity" yet remove Christ from the definition in order to maintain your objection! It's a nifty little circle but it also compels you to now engage with the NT and Christ Himself.  But of course you cannot do that yet.

 

So you state it again:  "I think there's a strong chance that none of us even know what that is in any direct, or literal sense. Not the christian, not the muslim, not the hindu not  the  buddhist nor amazonian native shaman..." Don't forget to add the ExChurchgoer Atheist. But are you telling me that there is no reality to any of these? 

 

And I'll repeat again how grateful I am for you hanging in there with such a dialogue. I can see that you're not understanding a lot of what I'm trying to say, but you are at least trying to. And you're not understanding because I'm talking about entire areas of research that go way, way past what any believer christian would likely have on their radar. Yes, of course the transcendent arguments pretty much bull doze judaism, christianity and islam because it exposes the weak oriented "spiritual" foundations of the lot.

 

And atheists who make claims to "know" that no gods exist cross a line with what can be honestly claimed. That is called gnostic atheism and it doesn't work any more than gnostic theism.

 

I don't mean gnostic as in the esoteric 1st and 2nd century sects, I mean it in the philosophical sense of "knowing" verses "not knowing." People who claim to "know" that god either does or doesn't exist are "gnostic" theists or atheists. I'm talking about agnostic theism and agnostic atheism when I speak of keeping it intellectually honest. The truth being that neither party can make a tenable claim of knowledge concerning the issue. That can extend into the spiritual, or ultimate reality issue as well as the god issue. I'm coming from an agnostic position on the unknown, basically. Because the unknown is, well, unknown. Possibly unknowable. 

 

I think the points have been made about Genesis 1. So we could just as well hear you out now without having allowed you to gloss over the facts about how the bible starts off from the beginning with it's claims, or metaphors. I know you want to wage arguments involving jumping between the OT and NT. Because that's what christianity is, that's what christianity does. So let's just do it. I was going to work down to the christian era in order, but it's not necessary to have to keep it in order I suppose. A lot of the points I want to make involve addressing the way in which christians jump back and fourth, butcher contexts in the process, and so on.

 

So just let it rip however you want to wage your arguments. I'm good with whatever. 

 

16 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

This is ridiculous. "... lose all language, thoughts and concepts."???

Where does Christ not make sense in discussing the reality of the Father? You are calling Christ an outright liar without having engaged one tiny bit with his words. This is the problem. You claim you want to go "verse by verse" but then indict the entirety of the testimony based upon spurious (and refuted) theories imposed upon Genesis. So my initial statement stands that this "debate" is not about what you propose. How many times must I say it? 

 

 

I'm sure you think it's ridiculous. No doubt. I'm attempting to show you something that you apparently don't already understand, Luth. Transcendent is being used as a reference to beyond time and space, a reference to the eternal. In the bible the eternal is being referred to as a "the Father." Is this literally a Father? A literal male personality that lives just past some boundary line beyond time and space called "eternal?" And as I said, let it role. Use any and everything from the bible that you would like to utilize to make your points. No restrictions. 

 

My verse by verse thing is only meant to keep it all in focus. Not to allow you to gloss over the foundation stone of the entire bible with all it's problems. That has been made clear. If we continued my way, it would have been even clearer, but I can hang with any which direction you chose to go. So I'd rather you have the opportunity to demonstrate whatever power you currently think you have to me and whoever's reading along. Let's see what you can do. 

 

16 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"...observable reality."

You are a strict Uniformitarian. All MUST be now as it has always been and vice versa; All that has been is as it is now.  Talk about leaps of logic. All because of your insistence on sheer Materialistic Naturalism. Thus, all your proposed models must conform. Yet Genesis makes it clear this is not the case. Does it not? A straightforward reading without all your imposed theories indicates a defining change in the structure of what we know as nature.

Yet Genesis does not allow for strict Uniform-ism. The world which once was is no longer. The world which we now observe is not as it has always been. There is no debate when one dismisses out of hand what the text actually says.

 

No, I'm not that rigid Luth. I have entertained a lot of theories. The Plasma Theories go in a direction that involves the early solar system chaotic with orbital differences to today. I've read up on alternative theories. Here's the problem with alternative theories:

 

 The burden of proof.

 

Making claims requires satisfying a burden of proof. Where's the convincing evidence? I've read contrarian's try and refute red light shift. But where's the convincing evidence that's strong enough to over turn the standard model cosmology? And these are secular alternative theories, not religious oriented ones. When we turn to religious motivated objections to the standard model cosmology, there's a lot of bias to over come. Even more than the secular objections to the standard model cosmology. People are free to overturn the standard model, if they can manage. Can you manage? 

 

I've not logic leaped in that way, Luth. I maintain that it's a work in progress. But that work in progress only gets older and older, not younger. And it keeps pushing towards past eternal, not a fixed beginning. And it keeps going in the direction of infinite and eternal space, away from the old finite concepts that apologist's like WLC have founded their arguments upon. I'm aware of all of this. I don't have to know the absolute truth in order to know that someone is giving me inconsistent information that isn't very compelling. And I'm not in a contest with you over which of the two of us have the absolute truth. I made that clear with my categories of gnostic and agnostic thinking, making clear my agnostic position taking. I'm open to change and open to new information. But let's see something compelling based on substantial evidence. 

 

Quote

The world which we now observe is not as it has always been. There is no debate when one dismisses out of hand what the text actually says.

 

And you can satisfy the burden of proof for the bolded claim how? 

 

And BTW, you dismiss out of hand what the text actually says when you cite sources who claim that the sun, moon and stars were created on the first day. It doesn't say that, first of all. And secondly, the interpretation you've provided suggests that entire epochs of years were going by for every "day," mentioned, when, the text says that "evening and morning," were the first and consecutive "days." The light and the darkness were one day. So how were entire epochs of years going by in between the light and darkness of one day? How was grass growing on the third epoch for millions or billions of years when you suggest that the sun, moon and stars were covered by a mist and not visible from the earth until the fourth epoch? And further, what does it mean that the sun was visible until the fourth epoch when there were no observers on the earth except for grass and vegetation anyways? 

 

You must substantiate this foreign world that we no longer observe as described by your apologetic's above. 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I know you want to wage arguments involving jumping between the OT and NT. Because that's what christianity is, that's what christianity does. So let's just do it. I was going to work down to the christian era in order, but it's not necessary to have to keep it in order I suppose. A lot of the points I want to make involve addressing the way in which christians jump back and fourth, butcher contexts in the process, and so on.

 

So just let it rip however you want to wage your arguments. I'm good with whatever. 

Excuse me???

I take note that you omitted the "paragraph above" that I cited where you introduced the concepts spoken of in the NT books and letters. Why do that? You then proceed to charge ME with bringing up the NT. I'm not the one "jumping between the OT and NT." But since you did, I made the proper connection that you reject the Person and Work of Christ while you insist all major religions engage in the same style arguments regarding your pitiable understanding of "transcendence", a term which must be utterly useless for you because it indicates nothing. What good is the word if it holds no "real" meaning? 

 

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Yes, of course the transcendent arguments pretty much bull doze judaism, christianity and islam because it exposes the weak oriented "spiritual" foundations of the lot.

And again, the "former Christian" does not understand the terms he claims to have once "believed". Sorry.

 

 

You said "What I am showing is that religion is mythology. And mythology, at best, is not a literally true situation. It may be called metaphor. Granted. But metaphor for what exactly?"

No, what you are asserting is that religion is always and only mythology. Religion. All must be subsumed under this one incredibly convenient vague and ubiquitous term. Ignore details or specifics. Toss it all in one basket and label it MYTHOLOGY.  Hardly compelling.

 

"So let's just do it." you say. "...jumping between the OT and NT. Because that's what christianity is, that's what christianity does. So let's just do it."

No, let's not. Again, YOU made the jump.

 

 

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

My verse by verse thing is only meant to keep it all in focus. Not to allow you to gloss over the foundation stone of the entire bible with all it's problems. That has been made clear. If we continued my way, it would have been even clearer, but I can hang with any which direction you chose to go. So I'd rather you have the opportunity to demonstrate whatever power you currently think you have to me and whoever's reading along. Let's see what you can do. 

My point exactly. Focus. Focus on the straightforward reading of the text of Genesis. But you have not done so. You immediately imposed upon the text (via Google) by introducing the Big Bang along with a NO Big Bang link!  And you tell us,

"All 'beginnings' are figurative as far as I can tell. And either way, the earth came much later. (sic) After the formation and development of stars."

"All 'beginnings' are figurative..." So "science" and all your models are figurative,  bogus nonsense as well!!! Stop being confusing. Are you saying you actually have answers and can prove the bible false or is everything open? With one word you say the bible is false. With another you say it could be true we just don't know. I hate duplicity.

 

But that "the earth came much later" is immediately wrong as evidenced by Gen 1:1 UNLESS and UNTIL you propose the Framework theory. And even then, the FH being proven wrong itself is of no assistance to you.

Verse by verse? Focus? Big botch there because you are only interested in a dismantling of the text via secular "scholarship". Why do you shy away from the historio/ grammatical approach which has driven the exposition of scripture from the beginning?

 

You're big on "fact checking" regarding the Creation account. By that, you mean you demand I (we) provide for you the mechanism by which God Created. Yet it's all figurative speculation. Why? Because of your naturalistic materialism. The fact remains, and I admit, we can provide no such thing for you. You consider that a slam dunk victory on it's face. I must say, you have done a brilliant job of following suit to the letter all the sceptical narrative provided for you. You fail to recognize your own inconsistencies e.g. the Documentary Hypothesis in light of the evidence for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch  and all the cosmological arguments that never even consider a created order.

 

Evidently you take exception to my point that all is not now as it once was. You said  "The earth doesn't show any signs of existing BEFORE the "development of galaxies, planets, etc."

What would these "signs" look like? How would we recognize them? How do you know? But does scripture tell us that it did? 

 

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:
Quote

The world which we now observe is not as it has always been. There is no debate when one dismisses out of hand what the text actually says.

 

And you can satisfy the burden of proof for the bolded claim how? 

 

And BTW, you dismiss out of hand what the text actually says when you cite sources who claim that the sun, moon and stars were created on the first day. It doesn't say that, first of all. And secondly, the interpretation you've provided suggests that entire epochs of years were going by for every "day," mentioned, when, the text says that "evening and morning," were the first and consecutive "days." The light and the darkness were one day. So how were entire epochs of years going by in between the light and darkness of one day? How was grass growing on the third epoch for millions or billions of years when you suggest that the sun, moon and stars were covered by a mist and not visible from the earth until the fourth epoch? And further, what does it mean that the sun was visible until the fourth epoch when there were no observers on the earth except for grass and vegetation anyways? 

 

You must substantiate this foreign world that we no longer observe as described by your apologetic's above. 

I apologize for evidently not making myself clear. I am NOT...not not, not an Old Earth Creationist. You mistake my citation of Gleason Archer as affirming an Old earth cosmology when in fact he is simply within the bounds of Christian scholarship to hold to that position. Believe it or not, the infallibility of scripture is still upheld. Archer is a staunch advocate for inerrancy.  For you to make him or myself otherwise is, quite simply, slanderous. Now, you would wish to pit one against the other (YE vs OE) in order to establish inconsistency but as Geerhardus Vos recognizes, image.thumb.png.399cba6c2002c690be816d40c05ebf02.png

 

 

 

 

"So going forward I'll just quote the rest of the first creation account in Genesis and point out all of the "nonsense" that you're obviously 'willing to accept' based on the first premise, for no good reason other than that you are unwilling to accept anything aside from the first premise."

I'm tiring rather quickly of condescending jabs like that.  Unlike yourself, I trust that we can take a literal approach to Genesis 1. It does NOT require us to impose a "framework" on the text to make sense. If needed, I will give further refutation of your preferred reading of the text.


  •  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I showed him the way out of the trap, out of courtesy. He has to let it go and admit that Genesis 1 can not be proven. And live with that. Let us know why he believes something that can't be proven instead of resisting the finger trap of trying to prove what can not be proven. But he's still trying to resist the finger trap despite the fair warning..."

 

This from the "Side Gallery". Sorry to make use of it since it is not part of the debate but I've gotta say..."Are you kidding?" 

I guess stroking your own ego counts for something here. 

 

If nothing else, I'm getting a good laugh out of the comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Excuse me???

I take note that you omitted the "paragraph above" that I cited where you introduced the concepts spoken of in the NT books and letters. Why do that? You then proceed to charge ME with bringing up the NT. I'm not the one "jumping between the OT and NT." But since you did, I made the proper connection that you reject the Person and Work of Christ while you insist all major religions engage in the same style arguments regarding your pitiable understanding of "transcendence", a term which must be utterly useless for you because it indicates nothing. What good is the word if it holds no "real" meaning? 

 

Another misunderstanding. You've been talking all along about the need to get to the NT in order to have the discussion we're having about the old. Haven't you? I'll have to look back and check. I thought that's the thrust of the theological arguments you want to wage. As in order to understand the old we must reflect upon the new. I was just saying, go ahead and let's do it. I don't want to be holding you back from making your arguments. 

 

14 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

And again, the "former Christian" does not understand the terms he claims to have once "believed". Sorry.

 

You don't even know what's coming, do you? What I'm saying is that I had a poor understanding of what transcendent even means BECAUSE of christianity. Having looked deeper I discovered how to detail those problems, which, I will share with you if entertain me doing it. 

 

14 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

You said "What I am showing is that religion is mythology. And mythology, at best, is not a literally true situation. It may be called metaphor. Granted. But metaphor for what exactly?"

No, what you are asserting is that religion is always and only mythology. Religion. All must be subsumed under this one incredibly convenient vague and ubiquitous term. Ignore details or specifics. Toss it all in one basket and label it MYTHOLOGY.  Hardly compelling.

 

"So let's just do it." you say. "...jumping between the OT and NT. Because that's what christianity is, that's what christianity does. So let's just do it."

No, let's not. Again, YOU made the jump.

 

You know when Gene Wilder is riding with Marty Feldman up to the castle in that scene in, "Young Frankenstein?" Where Feldman says, "there wolf, there castle." And Wilder says, "why are you talking like that?" Feldman responds, "I thought you wanted to." To which Wilder replies, 'no I don't.' Feldman comes in, "suit yourself, I'm easy." 

 

I feel like we're doing that right now. Do you, or do you not want to argue like a christian and use the NT to interpret the old? 

 

"Suit yourself, I'm easy!" 

 

 

image.jpeg
 

14 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

But that "the earth came much later" is immediately wrong as evidenced by Gen 1:1 UNLESS and UNTIL you propose the Framework theory. And even then, the FH being proven wrong itself is of no assistance to you.

Verse by verse? Focus? Big botch there because you are only interested in a dismantling of the text via secular "scholarship". Why do you shy away from the historio/ grammatical approach which has driven the exposition of scripture from the beginning?

 

What are you talking about? Please explain. According to the red light shifted, expanding universe that we observe, which can be reversed back through time, "the heavens and earth" were not immediately created at once in the "beginning." That's the standard model. Until it's been over turned that's what we have to work with concerning observation and evidence. If it's overturned with stronger evidence, then we can discuss where it's gone. 

 

In Genesis 1:1 "The gods," in the beginning, create the heavens and earth. In order. Act #1. A formless void earth where it's envisioned as watery. This is the literal reading. And has nothing to do with FH aside from being part of act #1, which will later correspond to act #4 when the writer goes that direction. There's no sun, moon, or stars. Just heavens and an unformed earth. If you propose over turning the standard model cosmology with a literal reading of Genesis 1, good luck to you. Please, tell us more about how you propose to do this. 

 

14 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

You're big on "fact checking" regarding the Creation account. By that, you mean you demand I (we) provide for you the mechanism by which God Created. Yet it's all figurative speculation. Why? Because of your naturalistic materialism. The fact remains, and I admit, we can provide no such thing for you. You consider that a slam dunk victory on it's face. I must say, you have done a brilliant job of following suit to the letter all the sceptical narrative provided for you. You fail to recognize your own inconsistencies e.g. the Documentary Hypothesis in light of the evidence for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch  and all the cosmological arguments that never even consider a created order.

 

At least you admit that you believe what you can not prove. That's a big step and requires a "that a boy!" for joining me on intellectually honest grounds. Keep it real. Keep it true. No doubt you believe it anyways, but at least you know and understand that claiming to have proof and evidence when you do not is intellectually dishonest and you're willing to refrain from it. Many apologist's will not do that. 

 

I'm not married to the DH, but it's much more logical than the old MA beliefs and ideas about the pentateuch, in my opinion. I just wonder if the DH is all figured out or there's even more to it. As in that it may be likely even later written than the DH presumes. 

 

14 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

I'm tiring rather quickly of condescending jabs like that.  Unlike yourself, I trust that we can take a literal approach to Genesis 1. It does NOT require us to impose a "framework" on the text to make sense. If needed, I will give further refutation of your preferred reading of the text.

 

Ok, so your citation wasn't meant to declare you as an OECist. That's why I was saying that you should spend more time telling us what YOU think. Let's get down to your interpretation then, shall we? If it's literal, then lay it out. Explain in your own words as you lay out the interpretation day by day. We can't very well move on yet if we're not finished. 

 

13 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"I showed him the way out of the trap, out of courtesy. He has to let it go and admit that Genesis 1 can not be proven. And live with that. Let us know why he believes something that can't be proven instead of resisting the finger trap of trying to prove what can not be proven. But he's still trying to resist the finger trap despite the fair warning..."

 

This from the "Side Gallery". Sorry to make use of it since it is not part of the debate but I've gotta say..."Are you kidding?" 

I guess stroking your own ego counts for something here. 

 

If nothing else, I'm getting a good laugh out of the comments.

 

If you're going to wage an attempt at literal interpretation as described above, well, watch that finger......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

In Genesis 1:1 "The gods," in the beginning, create the heavens and earth. In order. Act #1. A formless void earth where it's envisioned as watery. This is the literal reading. And has nothing to do with FH aside from being part of act #1, which will later correspond to act #4 when the writer goes that direction. There's no sun, moon, or stars. Just heavens and an unformed earth. If you propose over turning the standard model cosmology with a literal reading of Genesis 1, good luck to you. Please, tell us more about how you propose to do this. 

It does not say "the gods". There is no definite article before Elohim. I "propose" you abandon the "later correspondence" to "act 4".

 

Why are you allowed to overturn the literal reading? Seriously, Josh. No one can assume a nonliteral view by the straightforward reading. It's only when one introduces something and imposes it upon the text that it becomes something other. It's just silly. We can't get beyond it either as it is determinative of how all else follows. See, I'm still assuming Vacuum Man is present and listening. What possible reason can I give him if he recognizes I'm no longer reading the text as it is written?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

It does not say "the gods". There is no definite article before Elohim. I "propose" you abandon the "later correspondence" to "act 4".

 

Why are you allowed to overturn the literal reading? Seriously, Josh. No one can assume a nonliteral view by the straightforward reading. It's only when one introduces something and imposes it upon the text that it becomes something other. It's just silly. We can't get beyond it either as it is determinative of how all else follows. See, I'm still assuming Vacuum Man is present and listening. What possible reason can I give him if he recognizes I'm no longer reading the text as it is written?

 

Do we mean the same thing by "literal reading?" There's a good deal of confusion going on. It would be best to be clear. 

 

By literal meaning (growing up as a YEC literalist), I mean reading Genesis 1 literally. As in day one was one day. The evening and morning were one day, not years of time. Six days go by, each with creative acts. Then literally, on the seventh day, the Elohim (if you will) rests from the work of creation. And thereafter time keeping moves on to week #2, day #1, and repeats every week thereafter. Each week ending with the 7th day. Time and space (the universe), started with day 1. The luminaries began when they are made (asah) on day 4, as written. It may sound like a contradiction having days before the sun, but the bible says it so that's it. Either believe it or don't believe it and dwell among the lost. No more questions.

 

Prior to Genesis 1:1, I assume, there was only the eternal with no beginning - no time and no space

 

A literal Adam and Eve produce offspring which become the literal patriarchs of the old testament. Back dating all of this takes us back to a young earth which varies in age according to different literalist's. This leads us down to David, then down to Joseph, the unbiological father of jesus. And jesus believes, obviously, that Genesis 1 and 2 are literally true, along with the rest of the OT. 

 

What do you mean by a literal reading of the bible? And what do you mean by a young earth as opposed to an old earth? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll post this informative investigation into the "days" (yom's) of Genesis 1. And outlining old and young earth creationist's for vacuum man and all interesting in knowing: 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have asked me several times to state "What I think" on certain things. I watched this video and can only come away saying it really doesn't matter. With contrary opinions to literally everything, theres no point to anything at all. This video is the perfect example. So is the debate over? What more is there? 

 

Personally,  I hope not, but where do you think we go from here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

You have asked me several times to state "What I think" on certain things. I watched this video and can only come away saying it really doesn't matter. With contrary opinions to literally everything, theres no point to anything at all. This video is the perfect example. So is the debate over? What more is there? 

 

Personally,  I hope not, but where do you think we go from here?

 

I'm glad you did watch the video. Disagree as you may, at least you watched the content. A lot of christians just won't even engage the content at all. 

 

That's why I was saying that we could just go through the bible's major themes the rest of the way and comment on what we think about it. Explain why we think what we do. I think I've done a good of explaining why I don't take Genesis 1 literally. And why I don't see any significance to taking it symbolically where trying to understand how the universe really operates is concerned. You can't very well establish that Genesis 1 is true by way of evidence, observation, or anything that can honestly confirm it. 

 

Maybe we can just go through another section and state what we think (in our opinions) is true or false about the bible and what brings us to those opinions.

 

We probably should look at Genesis 2's creation account and compare the two as the next logical move. And if you want to utilize NT passages along the way, that's alright. If there are objections involved in that methodology for interpretation then I'll speak up. For example, using John to try and fill in the blanks in Genesis. There are objections to that sort of thing. But I'd just as soon let you do it anyways and then just address why certain people object to it in order to give both sides of the debate the opportunity to air out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2019 at 9:56 PM, Joshpantera said:

If I google "what existed in the beginning of the universe," I find contrary information: https://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html

I found a Christian physicist using this exact model to state evidence for creation. Isn't that interesting.  So who is interpreting the data correctly? Who is answering the questions the most consistently?

 

I'll say it again. If Genesis is not a literal reading, we have no reason to understand anything. I suppose some will take that as some extremist Christian position and use it as a basis for dismissing Christianity but that only reveals the deeper issue.

 

So if we move on, I think my focus may change. So far it seems we've really gotten nowhere.

 

Shall we continue?

 

As an aside, I made an extreme error in judgment by posting what I thought to be harmless. Seems there's no such thing around here. The claws, fangs and irrational offense came out very very quickly.

Folks made a big to do that's for sure. Seems there's a Ringleader in fomenting offense taken.

Lesson learned. Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

I found a Christian physicist using this exact model to state evidence for creation. Isn't that interesting.  So who is interpreting the data correctly? Who is answering the questions the most consistently?

 

Cite the source. Let's have a look at his interpretation of data and consider it. 

 

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

I'll say it again. If Genesis is not a literal reading, we have no reason to understand anything. I suppose some will take that as some extremist Christian position and use it as a basis for dismissing Christianity but that only reveals the deeper issue.

 

What deeper issue? 

 

And you still haven't answered my question about what you mean by literal reading. Do you and I mean the same thing by literal meaning as per the example I gave? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 9:32 PM, Joshpantera said:

"Cite the source. Let's have a look at his interpretation of data and consider it."

https://youtu.be/5JEFy-ZtEzg

This specific reference is at 11:15 and beyond. Of course, he is wrong by default.

 

"What deeper issue?"

The deeper issue being the condition of the man attempting to explain the scriptures.

 

"And you still haven't answered my question about what you mean by literal reading. Do you and I mean the same thing by literal meaning as per the example I gave?"

 

"By literal meaning (growing up as a YEC literalist), I mean reading Genesis 1 literally. As in day one was one day. The evening and morning were one day, not years of time. Six days go by, each with creative acts. Then literally, on the seventh day, the Elohim (if you will) rests from the work of creation. And thereafter time keeping moves on to week #2, day #1, and repeats every week thereafter.  Each week ending with the 7th day. Time and space (the universe), started with day 1. The luminaries began when they are made (asah) on day 4, as written. It may sound like a contradiction having days before the sun, but the bible says it so that's it. Either believe it or don't believe it and dwell among the lost. No more questions."

 

"Prior to Genesis 1:1, I assume, there was only the eternal with no beginning - no time and no space." 

 

"A literal Adam and Eve produce offspring which become the literal patriarchs of the old testament. Back dating all of this takes us back to a young earth which varies in age according to different literalist's. This leads us down to David, then down to Joseph, the unbiological father of jesus. And jesus believes, obviously, that Genesis 1 and 2 are literally true, along with the rest of the OT."

A straightforward reading of the text without any outside influences would ONLY lead one to understand this way. Since we also promote consistent history, why has there never been anything other than a seven day week? Mankind has always tracked time in this manner. Or did the Troglodyte not understand a week had passed? Was his concept of time just a continuation of the sequence of dark and light and he only saw the value of a day planner 200,000 years later? Why do we call Earth "Earth"? When was a day not a day? Even a Bang-bent mind uses the same terminology. You must answer the same questions from an evolutionary perspective. And don't tell me evolution has nothing to do with origins. That's a duplicitous dodge if you do so.

 

 

OK. I am hoping, at least on my part, all the frustrating distractions have run their course and we can seriously maintain a regular and focused dialog here. 

 

What I posted above is answer to the two pending questions. I have prepared a second response but will await your reply to this first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"Cite the source. Let's have a look at his interpretation of data and consider it."

https://youtu.be/5JEFy-ZtEzg

This specific reference is at 11:15 and beyond. Of course, he is wrong by default.

 

 

1) It's good to bring forward sources like this to analyze. My first thoughts are that he went right to red shifted light. I spent time going through a lot of anti-BBT cosmology and listened to several alternative theories which try and explain red shift differently. But the situation is that the direction of cosmology goes back towards a static universe. A universe with NO beginning. Because red shift is what caused everyone to come to conclusions of a finite universe. So the alternative cosmologies I've looked at go towards an infinite and eternal universe. Not created. Always there. That's basically where the rabbit hole of rejecting the standard model leads for the most part. 

 

2) At 18:04 the apologist starts in from the direction of the 'something from nothing' analysis, which, I went over early on in this debate. The source material would have to be eternal, there is no 'something from nothing' in a literal sense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANtpsunRYIs&t=474s

 

So the apologist is taking very common directions here (a straw man argument). I would say that he is wrong by default because there's no good evidence that Genesis was written to describe the physical universe in the first place. It describes the flat, round disk earth with a dome of sky overhead which was the cosmology of the time and place in which it was written. So the issue is that even if someone tries poking holes in the standard model cosmology, that doesn't do anything to up lift or bolster the Genesis cosmology. Because the Genesis cosmology has no strong evidence from observation by a long shot.

 

At this point, if I were take the poking holes at the standard model completely serious, I'd merely be looking at an errant biblical cosmology and also an errant standard model which would be in need of correction and change. And it's entirely possible that neither the old bronze age cosmology of Genesis nor the current standard model cosmology have it all figured out correctly. That's why I pay attention to alternative models here and there. Again, though, where's the strong evidence? Who has managed to overturn the standard model cosmology? Has this apologist overturned the standard model cosmology by trying to poke holes (many of which are straw men btw)? 

 

We can stop there and discuss if you'd like so we don't pile on too much at one time. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, I'll see your christian apologist and raise you a philosopher influenced by eastern philosophy on consciousness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE

 

Starting around 40:00 Russell goes into an alternative look at the speed of light from his primacy of consciousness perspective. The perspective that consciousness (or awareness) is fundamental and goes all the way down scale into the sub atomic realm. And light is analyzed from it's own perspective, rather than from our perspective of it. Interesting stuff to consider. Two examples of people from two different perspectives (monotheistic and panentheistic) straying away from the standard model's assumptions. 

 

Who's right? 

 

Who's wrong? 

 

By what methodology do you use to try and figure it out, Luth?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that is terrific for you as long as your "standard model" allows for only what you think the standard model allows for.

 

And what do you mean by a monotheistic view? Your Jews of the OT were polytheistic, remember? So if any one is going to speak on Genesis, they're drawing from the polytheistic world. Makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

All that is terrific for you as long as your "standard model" allows for only what you think the standard model allows for.

 

And what do you mean by a monotheistic view? Your Jews of the OT were polytheistic, remember? So if any one is going to speak on Genesis, they're drawing from the polytheistic world. Makes no sense.

 

It's an explanatory situation. What these alternative models lack is the scope of explanatory power to have the ability to overturn the standard model. And what I mean by monotheistic is that you posted a monotheistic apologist trying to poke holes in the standard model cosmology. Monotheists are evolved from polytheists, yes. That's what the evidence shows. And that should factor in to considering a monotheist trying to poke holes in the standard model. 

 

What is his alternative to the standard model? Is it the book of Genesis? If so, where is his evidence of plural "gods" (later envisioned as one god in three persons) referred to as Elohim creating the world and making man in "their" image, according to "their" own likeness? How many points of evidence are necessary for the apologist to set forward Genesis 1 as having superior explanatory to the standard model cosmology? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.