LuthAMF versus Joshpantera: informal debate on the bible as demonstrably false

[LuthAMF]

Artist renderings based upon a hypothesis. No "proof" to offer. Just an idea of what may have been.

This does not speak at all to the text being addressed. What is being ignored already?

[LuthAMF]

4 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I don't know, so I took the liberty of googling for us both to try and fact check the claims being made. That we may weigh out the possibilities and try and see if some make more sense than others. 

Oh. So Vacuum Man is out of the picture? I assumed I approached the man with the written text of a reliable translation. (Btw, which one are you using? I think I read which one but it's quicker if you tell me.)

Fact check? I thought we were dealing with the text.

[Joshpantera]

13 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Artist renderings based upon a hypothesis. No "proof" to offer. Just an idea of what may have been.

This does not speak at all to the text being addressed. What is being ignored already?

 

Does the bible have any proof to offer? If so, please present it for consideration. Is scripture "proof" of it's own claims? Regardless of observation? And what about the "evening and morning" of the first "day?" These still need explained. 

 

(I'm using the Names of God translation, to keep track of what names of God are being used)

[LuthAMF]

18 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Does the bible have any proof to offer? If so, please present it for consideration please. 

Well thus far we are just several verses in. But "proof" of what? That God created? It's acknowledged throughout but we're no more than a few sentences in.

But here we go again with "PROVE IT" after a few lines. This is how it's gonna go.

 

Look, go back to the opening four words and say "prove it" because all that follows hinges upon that. Google that and show the model that disproves it. Thats exactly why I said the wrong premise is being "debated". 

 

But I thought we were sticking to the text.

But ok...thats all for tonight. Late night and early morn. We having fun yet?

[LuthAMF]

 

"Does the bible have any proof to offer? If so, please present it for consideration. Is scripture "proof" of it's own claims? Regardless of observation? And what about the "evening and morning" of the first "day?" These still need explained."

 

So now we're back to the text. 

[Joshpantera]

22 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Well thus far we are just several verses in. But "proof" of what? That God created? It's acknowledged throughout but we're no more than a few sentences in.

But here we go again with "PROVE IT" after a few lines. This is how it's gonna go.

 

That a god created the universe. That the earth was at any point in it's history existing BEFORE the sun, that earth was ever void and formless prior to the sun existing, that the earth ever had "evenings and mornings" taking place long before the formation of the sun, or any other star in space existed for that matter. There's a ton of claims here just in the first "day" of creation. Claims that can be contrasted with observations. All of the information about observations and the consensus are in the links I provided. 

 

Is it out of line to wonder what the bible is even talking about with these claims? What sort of "light" exists? How is there a break between "light" and darkness" in a formless earth where the sun has yet to exist? You are taking the position that this is literally true. The real objective universe and it's origins explained via Genesis 1, the beginning of the bible. 

 

If you can not prove it, just say so. Or if it's not even provable, just say that. What is your honest answer? 

 

We will be contrasting between texts as we go along, BTW. You can count on that. Because I'm wondering if there are any self contradictions between the texts themselves. I've already found contradictions between the observable universe what the bible is claiming. But I suspect that the contradictions don't stop there. And we'll have to keep that in mind when we move through each of these "days." 

 

After you let me know what these "days" even are. 

 

Are you saying that the "days" are literal days, or symbolic days? 

[LuthAMF]

I'm still addressing the text as though Vacuum Man is still present with you. I cannot assume either of you are aware of anything regarding the text before us or particular influences. This is how you've framed the scenario to me. 

So let's then suppose one of you is incredibly bright (I'll grant that to you) and asks a very pertinent question after reading these few verses: "Who is this 'God'? Why am I here?"

Since I am the one who evidently possesses the scripture, it is expected I should have thought through some things myself and have answers to questions as they arise. Rather than going directly to a Cosmological Model to cast doubt upon what the text has said thus far, I offer an answer relevant to the question which has been helpful to me:

 

"All philosophy begins with experience and seeks for its implications. By experience we mean that which happens to and through human beings who find themselves in a spatio-temporal environment. We do not include in this term the implications or presuppositions that may be necessary to make it intelligible. As human beings we are here somehow, whatever we are, wherever we have come from and whithersoever we are going.
Beginning with the simplest of data Christian Theism contends that they imply the existence of an Absolute God. The origin, preservation and destiny of the phenomenal world have their explanation in God only. Without the conception of a self-sufficient God our human experience would be meaningless. 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. As to that it seems reasonable to hold that a position in which we can see contradiction is untenable. Moreover a position which reduces our experience to chaos cannot claim the adherence of rational creatures. That is, our basis for rejecting certain views is always that we conceive them to be irrational. On the other hand we accept a certain position in the philosophical world not because we can completely rationalize all experience upon it as a basis. Our metaphysics cannot be more geometrici demonstrata: you cannot prove your position to anyone unless you completely have comprehensive knowledge or at least are certainly on the way toward it. Accordingly, we do not seek to prove Christian theism but only try to show that we can find no meaning in our human experience unless there be a self-sufficient God to give it meaning."

 

I'll leave it at that for now but will credit the citation soon.

[Joshpantera]

On 5/30/2019 at 7:46 AM, LuthAMF said:

Beginning with the simplest of data Christian Theism contends that they imply the existence of an Absolute God. The origin, preservation and destiny of the phenomenal world have their explanation in God only. Without the conception of a self-sufficient God our human experience would be meaningless.

 

And how meaningless is it to suggest that "light" existed before the "sun" and "stars," that "evenings and mornings" were literally happening somehow around a "formless" earth, which, has no form such as the sphere we now know it to be?

 

What you seem to be suggesting is that (1) Without the conception of a self-sufficient God our human experience would be meaningless so (2) you'll interpret the ancient Jewish scriptures literally even your interpretation amounts to complete meaningless-ness, because of the first assumption that human experience would be meaningless otherwise. This tends to complete a circular loop of despair. 

 

And what if your first premise is completely wrong? And everything else is destined to be completely wrong thereafter? 

 

Many people lack belief in the need or necessity for an absolute god, and yet their human experience isn't meaningless at all. They live sound moral lives without accepting any of this. This is a very "it's all or nothing" attitude you're putting forward. And then it provides a ground level for accepting pure nonsense thereafter based on a faulty premise from the outset. 

 

This is how con artists can start out apriori with a faulty premise and then continue to layer it on, layer by layer, and fully take advantage of innocent people. And indeed, JW's will come to a door step and start out very similar to how you've started out here. First they'll start with a faulty premise that a god is needed or necessary, and then jump into shoe horning their particular cult beliefs. They will send someone to try and convince people who like science, that science leads back to their faulty premise god concepts. Been there, done that at the front door. 

 

On 5/30/2019 at 7:46 AM, LuthAMF said:

Our metaphysics cannot be more geometrici demonstrata: you cannot prove your position to anyone unless you completely have comprehensive knowledge or at least are certainly on the way toward it. Accordingly, we do not seek to prove Christian theism but only try to show that we can find no meaning in our human experience unless there be a self-sufficient God to give it meaning."

 

 

 

That just boils down the same general apriori assumption that cultists like JW's use to trick people and draw them in to a deceptive message which isn't very true. And that's a poor and weak platform to align one's self with in my opinion. I don't mind bantering with you two. Don't take any of this too personal or going in the direction of Ad Hom. It isn't meant to be. 

 

I honestly find the platform very deceptive in orientation. I assume that both of you are only trying to do what you think is right by accepting the faulty premise (necessity of an absolute god) because you honestly believe that the premise itself is a good thing. You know that the scriptures start out with nonsensical claims from the outset of the modern bibles. And you admit that in the above and stand back from trying to rationalize or think about it logically. But you still seem to think there's something good underlying it all nonetheless, regardless of the ill logic. And you also seem to think that the alternative (no necessity for an absolute god) leaves only meaningless-ness. 

 

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.

[Joshpantera]

Genesis 1 Names of God Bible (NOG)

The Creation

1 In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth.

² The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Ruach Elohim was hovering over the water.

³ Then Elohim said, “Let there be light!” So there was light. ⁴ Elohimsaw the light was good. So Elohim separated the light from the darkness. ⁵ Elohim named the light day, and the darkness he named night. There was evening, then morning—the first day.

⁶ 

Then Elohim said, “Let there be a horizon in the middle of the water in order to separate the water.” ⁷ So Elohim made the horizon and separated the water above and below the horizon. And so it was. ⁸ Elohim named what was above the horizon sky. There was evening, then morning—a second day.

⁹ 

Then Elohim said, “Let the water under the sky come together in one area, and let the dry land appear.” And so it was. ¹⁰ Elohim named the dry land earth. The water which came together he named sea. Elohimsaw that it was good. ¹¹ Then Elohim said, “Let the earth produce vegetation: plants bearing seeds, each according to its own type, and fruit trees bearing fruit with seeds, each according to its own type.” And so it was. ¹² The earth produced vegetation: plants bearing seeds, each according to its own type, and trees bearing fruit with seeds, each according to its own type. Elohim saw that they were good. ¹³ There was evening, then morning—a third day.

¹⁴ 

Then Elohim said, “Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day from the night. They will be signs and will mark religious festivals, days, and years. ¹⁵ They will be lights in the sky to shine on the earth.” And so it was. ¹⁶ Elohim made the two bright lights: the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night. He also made the stars. ¹⁷ Elohim put them in the sky to give light to the earth, ¹⁸ to dominate the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. Elohim saw that it was good. ¹⁹ There was evening, then morning—a fourth day.

²⁰

 Then Elohim said, “Let the water swarm with swimming creatures, and let birds fly through the sky over the earth.” ²¹ So Elohim created the large sea creatures, every type of creature that swims around in the water and every type of flying bird. Elohim saw that they were good. ²² Elohim blessed them and said, “Be fertile, increase in number, fill the sea, and let there be many birds on the earth.” ²³ There was evening, then morning—a fifth day.

²⁴ 

Then Elohim said, “Let the earth produce every type of living creature: every type of domestic animal, crawling animal, and wild animal.” And so it was. ²⁵ Elohim made every type of wild animal, every type of domestic animal, and every type of creature that crawls on the ground. Elohim saw that they were good.

²⁶ Then Elohim said, “Let us make humans in our image, in our likeness. Let them rule the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the domestic animals all over the earth, and all the animals that crawl on the earth.”

²⁷ So Elohim created humans in his image.
    In the image of Elohim he created them.
        He created them male and female.

²⁸ Elohim blessed them and said, “Be fertile, increase in number, fill the earth, and be its master. Rule the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that crawl on the earth.”

²⁹ Elohim said, “I have given you every plant with seeds on the face of the earth and every tree that has fruit with seeds. This will be your food. ³⁰ I have given all green plants as food to every land animal, every bird in the sky, and every animal that crawls on the earth—every living, breathing animal.” And so it was.

³¹ And Elohim saw everything that he had made and that it was very good. There was evening, then morning—the sixth day.

[Joshpantera]

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

1 In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth.

² The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Ruach Elohim was hovering over the water.

³ Then Elohim said, “Let there be light!” So there was light. ⁴ Elohimsaw the light was good. So Elohim separated the light from the darkness. ⁵ Elohim named the light day, and the darkness he named night. There was evening, then morning—the first day.

⁶ 

Then Elohim said, “Let there be a horizon in the middle of the water in order to separate the water.” ⁷ So Elohim made the horizon and separated the water above and below the horizon. And so it was. ⁸ Elohim named what was above the horizon sky. There was evening, then morning—a second day.

⁹ 

Then Elohim said, “Let the water under the sky come together in one area, and let the dry land appear.” And so it was. ¹⁰ Elohim named the dry land earth. The water which came together he named sea. Elohimsaw that it was good. ¹¹ Then Elohim said, “Let the earth produce vegetation: plants bearing seeds, each according to its own type, and fruit trees bearing fruit with seeds, each according to its own type.” And so it was. ¹² The earth produced vegetation: plants bearing seeds, each according to its own type, and trees bearing fruit with seeds, each according to its own type. Elohim saw that they were good. ¹³ There was evening, then morning—a third day.

¹⁴ 

Then Elohim said, “Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day from the night. They will be signs and will mark religious festivals, days, and years. ¹⁵ They will be lights in the sky to shine on the earth.” And so it was. ¹⁶ Elohim made the two bright lights: the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night. He also made the stars. ¹⁷ Elohim put them in the sky to give light to the earth, ¹⁸ to dominate the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. Elohim saw that it was good. ¹⁹ There was evening, then morning—a fourth day.

 

The first three days of this creation story basically outline 3 environments of existence in which for something to exist within.

 

Day 1 - space

Day 2 - firmament / sky

Day 3 - dry land

 

The last three days insert inhabitants to exist in each environment, in the same order. 

 

Day 4 - sun, moon and stars

Day 5 - fish and birds

Day 6 - land creatures and man

 

See the correspondence below: 

 

Day 1 > Day 4

Day 2 > Day 5

Day 3 > Day 6

 

The "days" are obviously not literal days by any stretch of the imagination. This isn't literal at all, actually. There's contradictions all over the place when people try and make it literal. You have 3 days before the sun, evenings and morning with no way for them to literally occur. Grass growing on dry land one day before the sun, etc. etc. It's obvious to me, and it should be to anyone else following along at this point I would imagine, that none of this is literally true and quite possibly wasn't meant to be taken literally true in the first place. 

 

I encourage you and everyone reading to read through this PhD level biblical scholarship citation about the "light" of the first day here: http://stevendimattei.com/genesis-13-5-day-light/

 

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

 

This does not describe the objective world at all.

 

We have two different things going here. You think apriori that a god must exist or else all is meaningless, and since you make that assumption you seem to think that you must then and therefore believe everything written is literally true regardless of it's ill logic and contradiction. The creation account doesn't seem to be true at all, in any literal sense. It's clearly ordered on purpose to simply set up three environments and then fill those with inhabitants in a way consistent with creation mythology, not live news coverage of the dawn of creation. At a point in history after exposure to Babylonian and Sumerian creation myths. Which reflect many of the same concepts from the Babylonian / Sumerian creation myths. This is well known in this day and age. But not so well known when christianity was getting started, BTW. 

 

I won't go further yet until you response to the above analysis. 

 

Thanks. 

 

 

 

 

[LuthAMF]

" I don't mind bantering with you two."

Banter?

Banter: the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks.

 

Is that what this is?

[LuthAMF]

2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

" I don't mind bantering with you two."

Banter?

Banter: the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks.

 

Is that what THIS is?

You wrote, "I may say something that leads to Luth suddenly seeing the light and getting it, like we all did at some point in our own pasts."

 

You already have. You've said plenty that makes me see what you all "got".

The same rationale that has been trodden underfoot over and over again by sound historical argument. Like every heresy out there, it rears it's head from time to time only to have to be put down again. Nothing new. How far back you wanna go? It's all documented and wide open for all to see. I hope to utilize, to the best of my ability, that which has stood the test of time and withstood every single attack and objection. 

 

If your objections are so formidable, how is it Christianity still stands? Are you better than the greats of history who have tried and ultimately failed?

And don't give me this garbage that evolution has yet to "weed out" the virus of religion.

[LuthAMF]

On 5/30/2019 at 11:20 PM, Joshpantera said:

It's obvious to me, and it should be to anyone else following along at this point I would imagine, that none of this is literally true and quite possibly wasn't meant to be taken literally true in the first place. 

Yes. Of course everyone should agree. Of course it's "obvious". All is only as you see and "understand" from one perspective (yours) and no other. From a purely Naturalistic Materialistic worldview, of COURSE! Silly us.

 

Care for some back n forth "banter"? I mean, what is NOW is what has always been. AS IT IS NOW is as it has always been. Right? 

[Joshpantera]

On 5/31/2019 at 2:54 PM, LuthAMF said:

You wrote, "I may say something that leads to Luth suddenly seeing the light and getting it, like we all did at some point in our own pasts."

 

You already have. You've said plenty that makes me see what you all "got".

The same rationale that has been trodden underfoot over and over again by sound historical argument. Like every heresy out there, it rears it's head from time to time only to have to be put down again. Nothing new. How far back you wanna go? It's all documented and wide open for all to see. I hope to utilize, to the best of my ability, that which has stood the test of time and withstood every single attack and objection. 

 

By what means has this stood the test of time? 

 

I understand that when the church had more power than it does now it would simply kill and imprison dissent. I have encountered many christians who refuse to admit that they have no evidence to support any of this and can't prove anything, therefore leading to horrible attempts to try and find a way out of these holes. You, however, made a move to forego all of the bluff games of claiming to have substantial evidence, when none of you actually have that sort of evidence. Instead of wasting 40 + pages going around and around in circles, you admitted pretty up front to not having a way of proving that the bible starts out true and factual according to the physical universe and world we exist in and can observe.  

 

1) So this test of time you speak of consists in part of bullying question and dissent via political and religious power in the past. 

2) And as the political and religious power subsided, stubborn denial of being wrong became the go to tactic. 

3) Coming this far into the information age, internet, etc., etc., pulling back and not trying to prove what can't proven is coming into sight. 

 

Of the three, you've chosen a more cautious approach showing that you at least understand (even if only in part at this point) that you are not supporting a powerful argument capable of laying waste to contrary opinion. Not like the old days when such bluffs were much easier to wage.

 

Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, and even ethnic paganism's as well as atheism and agnosticism have all stood the test of time and managed not to dwindle into complete failure and closure. The 'test of time' direction, I will have to add, is a logical fallacy in and of itself as far as that goes.  

 

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. I've provided citation for readers to compare and contrast orthodox oriented christian claims about Jewish scripture with. I've done so for the sake of trying to tease out the truth of what we're reading while reading the bible. Contrary to what many of us were raised believing as christians, solid scholarship has found that ancient Judaism was actually very polytheistic and in this creation account in Genesis the "gods" are creating the universe and forming the unformed earth, then making man in "their" own "image," according to "their own likeness." The image and likeness of these old polytheistic gods which is something like the Egyptian, Babylonian and other near eastern pantheons. Not the image and likeness of a father, son, and holy spirit as a plural "us" / Elohim as we were incorrectly taught as children and / or adult converts to christianity. 

 

If the bible starts out with a claim, this is the claim that it starts out making in it's own language, according to the contemporary period of the writer. You probably do believe that a god must exist or else life is meaningless, as you suggested. But you probably DO NOT believe that a pantheon of gods created the world in similar ways to all other world mythology. You do believe a glossed over apologetic christian attempt at interpreting Jewish scripture, but you likely do not believe this ancient Jewish scripture in the context that it was actually written. And neither do I for that matter. Again, I've cited some brief scholarly citation and some youtube videos that open up this research into how wrong popular christians claims have been throughout history, while trying to interpret some one else's ethnic scripture, which amounts to someone else's mythological tradition.

 

Again, I've not shown anything that proves that a god or gods do not or can not exist. We have two issues going on here that will be treated separately and accordingly. I can't scour the whole of potentially infinite space with a camera showing no gods existing anywhere in that infinitude. And therefore it's not a claim that I would even attempt to make. Because, like you, I understand the limitations involved with making certain claims.

 

By showing where the bible is demonstrably false from the outset, starting out, I've only shown that it's false in terms of self contradiction, errant in comparison to our best observations (both direct and indirect), and basically an extremely outdated view that just doesn't make any sense to try and claim is literally true. Regardless of what anyone believes concerning the existence of god(s).

 

There's always the option that (1) the bible is demonstrably false but (2) gods do exist, (3) meaning that the bible doesn't actually tell us anything factually and objectively true as we begin reading, even if it turns out that gods do exist.

 

The contradictions and false claims don't stop in Genesis, either, so this analysis carries through the Jewish scriptures as we go along and extends into the Jewish heretical texts later named, "The New Testament." Which is a first generation heresy of the Jewish scriptures. There are more generations of heresy of the Jewish scriptures which follow behind christianity, as I've lightly mentioned. Islam, Mormonism, etc. I will be keeping to this focus as we proceed. When you refer to anyone or anything as a "heresy," it must be noted that you yourself are a "heretic" to the Jewish scriptures (by default, as a christian). And what your "heresy" accusations towards other amount to is nothing more than "the kettle calling the pot black," as far as that goes. A first generation heretic pointing off at second or third generation heretics somewhat naive to the fact that you yourself are heretical towards Jewish scripture. 

 

I see that you're posting again as I'm typing. I'll leave it here and see what you're writing now. 

 

 

[LuthAMF]

I have another "issue" to address also. If we are looking at exegetical work (btw, a point repeatedly made by Christforums) we do not look to paraphrases of the bible which is what the NOG bible is. Textual Criticism does not produce paraphrases. Why not use The Message or The Amplified? Then the bible really can say what you want.

[LuthAMF]

This is important because in textual criticism the goal is to determine as close as possible what the author actually wrote. A paraphrase will not provide this.

So you use whatever you will but I will not be following suit. I trust this will not be problematic.

[Joshpantera]

9 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

I have another "issue" to address also. If we are looking at exegetical work (btw, a point repeatedly made by Christforums) we do not look to paraphrases of the bible which is what the NOG bible is. Textual Criticism does not produce paraphrases. Why not use The Message or The Amplified? Then the bible really can say what you want.

 

My only reason for using the NOG translation is because of it's attention to which names are being used for god in the Hebrew scriptures. I have no other reason. So I'm open to hearing what you have to say and hearing out your arguments based on The Message or The Amplified. Do you think they change the context any of what I've covered so far?

 

3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

This is important because in textual criticism the goal is to determine as close as possible what the author actually wrote. A paraphrase will not provide this.

So you use whatever you will but I will not be following suit. I trust this will not be problematic.

 

Yes, I think curious readers deserve to hear your counter arguments on this point. If the paraphrasing of the NOG bible is changing what the original writer actually wrote in any way, we ought to sort out what those changes are and how they affect the direction of my argument so far. I really do want you to have every possible way of countering the arguments I'm presenting. Because my concern here is with establishing truth to the best of our ability. As I assume you are concerned with too. We just happen to disagree at the moment concerning what is true and what is false. 

[LuthAMF]

On 5/30/2019 at 11:20 PM, Joshpantera said:

I encourage you and everyone reading to read through this PhD level biblical scholarship citation about the "light" of the first day here: http://stevendimattei.com/genesis-13-5-day-light/

 

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

So now we're in a battle of sources.

"PhD level...scholarship." Well, obviously there can be only one side to any PhD level scholarship; "that which promotes my view. Don't offer any other."

While we're all encouraged to "read through" this PhD level scholarship,  I'm willing to bet money that this http://www.sent2all.com/Archer-Introduction to Bible Difficulties.pdf will be lightly skimmed over for disagreeable terms and then abandoned.

 

Or maybe consider this from a PhD!!!!! 

 

[Joshpantera]

Yes, a battle of sources is necessary in this debate. Theologian PhD's, as I'll outline, have very strong biases along side of PhD's who are not bound to religious creeds and dogma. That represents a pretty serious handicap in conducting academic research if you ask me. For instance, for those clicking on the cited pdf file, will see immediately upon reading that the apologist recognizes up front that if the bible is errant in Genesis, for instance, then it domino effects through the entire judeo christian bible. From the outset the apologist is then and therefore ball and chained to reaching for whatever it takes in order NOT to allow that to happen. Pretty strong bias rather than an open and objective mind. And not very conducive to truth seeking in my opinion. I prefer that interested readers go into the pdf and read through some of the apologetic's offered on Genesis, since that's our immediate concern. 

 

I'll pull some quotes from the pdf myself and compare and contrast between your PhD against my PhD, and offer my own thoughts as well. In the meanwhile, hopefully people look through both claims about the bible and see which seem more likely in their own opinions. 

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

Yes, a battle of sources is necessary in this debate. Theologian PhD's, as I'll outline, have very strong biases along side of PhD's who are not bound to religious creeds and dogma. That represents a pretty serious handicap in conducting academic research if you ask me. For instance, for those clicking on the cited pdf file, will see immediately upon reading that the apologist recognizes up front that if the bible is errant in Genesis, for instance, then it domino effects through the entire judeo christian bible. From the outset the apologist is then and therefore ball and chained to reaching for whatever it takes in order NOT to allow that to happen. Pretty strong bias rather than an open and objective mind. And not very conducive to truth seeking in my opinion. I prefer that interested readers go into the pdf and read through some of the apologetic's offered on Genesis, since that's our immediate concern. 

 

I'll pull some quotes from the pdf myself and compare and contrast between your PhD against my PhD, and and off my own thoughts as well. In the meanwhile, hopefully people look through both claims about the bible and see which seem more likely in their own opinions. 

"Theologian PhD's, as I'll outline, have very strong biases along side of PhD's who are not bound to religious creeds and dogma. That represents a pretty serious handicap in conducting academic research if you ask me"

But no "strong biases" on the part of non-theistic PhD'S right. Give me a break. Just how stupid do you think our historical Masters were?

But that is not my point. You think Christians have never considered objections and how they're formed.

"...will see immediately upon reading that the apologist recognizes up front that if the bible is errant in Genesis, for instance, then it domino effects through the entire judeo christian bible."

That's exactly right. There is a foundational issue recognized and maintained that allows him (us) to confidently make that statement in the face of objection. What might that be?

[LuthAMF]

 

4 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Yes, a battle of sources is necessary in this debate. 

Of course we both have "sources". I didnt intend to say we don't. The bible itself  is a source. What this cannot turn into is "scholars say..."

 

4 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

That represents a pretty serious handicap in conducting academic research if you ask me.

So "academic research" can only be conducted by those with a very strong atheistic bias? The discipline of Textual Criticism must not be approached Theologically? The atheist is better equipped at handling such things so we must defer?

 

The reason I offer Archer is the claim by the atheist and ExC  that the bible cannot be trusted because there are "contradictions". You cite the alleged "contradictions" and then say "See?" Now, since this is ExC I would expect to see demonstrated some familiarity with how these have been resolved. It's kinda built in, this polemic, don't you think? It's what Christians must do. Now, of course, each and every one of you have already worked through every issue which is why you're now ExC. 

[Joshpantera]

On 6/2/2019 at 9:51 AM, LuthAMF said:

"Theologian PhD's, as I'll outline, have very strong biases along side of PhD's who are not bound to religious creeds and dogma. That represents a pretty serious handicap in conducting academic research if you ask me"

But no "strong biases" on the part of non-theistic PhD'S right. Give me a break. Just how stupid do you think our historical Masters were?

But that is not my point. You think Christians have never considered objections and how they're formed.

"...will see immediately upon reading that the apologist recognizes up front that if the bible is errant in Genesis, for instance, then it domino effects through the entire judeo christian bible."

That's exactly right. There is a foundational issue recognized and maintained that allows him (us) to confidently make that statement in the face of objection. What might that be?

 

I'll just put it out there that I didn't say no strong biases exist against among secular PhD's. They certainly do. I'm aware of many of them. But they are different biases than those that exist between believer theologian PhD's and secular ones. The theologian is stuck with absolute claims, and the biases that exist by those making absolute oriented claims. This is very relevant to seeking truth. They have the choice between towing the party line or being cast out as "heretics," as you've already hinted at. Some religious PhD's have erred on the side of truth, to their own demise among believers and branded "heretic's" for simply keeping it intellectually honest.

 

I need to ask you again where we're at right now? Because you opted out of evidence and said that it's not the path for a christian theologian. Basically admitting that Genesis will not be reconciled with the objective universe and world we experience and observe. I took that as an admission of faith and faith alone in the bible. And backing out of trying to prove anything. Then the pdf citation was posted not long after. So I'd like to ask if you're going to change your mind now and take up "evidence" based arguments to reconcile Genesis 1 with science and reality or not? 

 

Anywho, I'll dive in here taking your apologetic source to task myself without a PhD or any fancy credentials to speak of. Just a Joe average thinking human being capable of detecting logical fallacies and errors in reasoning. And because I have gained some experience a back ground arguing with christian apologists about key issues over the last 28 years or so. After a while it all turns into a lot of the same old, same old. But I want you to know how I would personally respond to these apologetic's that you currently view as, "standing the test of time." Have they? Are you sure about that? Or have they not long since been refuted and carry on only in the sense of christians living in denial of long since refuted claims? 

 

Quote

To be sure, if we were to understand Genesis 1 in a completely literal fashion--which some suppose to be the only proper principle of interpretation if the Bible is truly inerrant and completely trustworthy--then there would be no possibility of reconciliation between modern scientific theory and the Genesis account. But a true and proper belief in the inerrancy of Scripture involves neither a literal nor a figurative rule of interpretation. What it does require is a belief in whatever the biblical author (human and divine) actually meant by the words he used.

 

And the author of Genesis 1 was neither using a literal nor figurative style of writing? What is he saying here?

 

Well, I cited an investigation into what the original author meant based on the most logical approach of removing modern bias from trying to interpret what the ancient writer was saying. So you then offer an apologist who speaks the language of modern theological bias as a response? And to boot, you cited an "Old Earth Creationist." These are the variety of apologists who try and reconcile modern science with ancient scripture. Here's the gist of how many OECist's try and handle the contradictions between light on the first "day," and the sun, moon, and stars created on the fourth "day." To choose from the pdf what is most relevant to where we're at in this debate. 

 

Quote

Genesis 1:2-5 thus sets forth the first stage of creation: the formation of light. This must have meant primarily the light of the sun and the other heavenly bodies. Sunlight is a necessary precondition to the development of plant life and animal life, generally speaking (though there are some subterranean forms of life that manage to do without it).

 

Yes, sunlight is a necessary precondition to the development of plant and animal life. Is that a paraphrase of the bible? "This must have meant primarily the light of the sun and other heavenly bodies?" Because there's no such claim that the sun and heavenly bodies were created or made in Genesis 1:2-5 according to scripture. The apologist is trying to avoid a major contradiction by inserting things into the ancient Jewish scriptures that don't exist there. Because he knows that it's nonsensical the way that it is written, so according to his modern theological logic (not the logic of the ancient writer) the bible must mean something other than what it says. 

 

Quote

Genesis 1:14-19 reveals that in the fourth creative stage God parted the cloud cover enough for direct sunlight to fall on the earth and for accurate observation of the movements of the sun, moon, and stars to take place. Verse 16 should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day; rather it informs us that the sun, moon, and stars created on Day One as the source of light had been placed in their appointed places by God with a view to their eventually functioning as indicators of time ("signs, seasons, days, years") to terrestrial observers. The Hebrew verb wayya`as in v.16 should better be rendered "Now [God] had made the two great luminaries, etc.," rather than as simple past tense, "[God] made." (Hebrew has no special form for the pluperfect tense but uses the perfect tense, or the conversive imperfect as here, to express either the English past or the English pluperfect, depending on the context.)

 

This is what I mean about digging holes that get deeper and deeper while trying to apologize for contradictions in the ancient texts.

 

He's butchering the ancient texts in order to try and conform to his modern theological views about what the ancient texts 'ought to say.' Like I showed you earlier, the most obvious situation here is that the ancient writer set up three environments and then immediately, by way of correspondence, set up three sets of inhabitants to inhabit each of the previous uninhabited environments. 

 

Day 1 - Heavens and Earth (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. I had not noticed the correspondence oriented dynamic of the creation account in Genesis previous to hearing it from the rabbi. Nor does your christian apologetic source seem to notice or understand the correspondence oriented dynamic of the creation account, BTW. 

 

What he's claiming, against the knowledge of Jews who understand their own scriptures in ways that the apologist does not (he being a "heretic" to the same Jews), the environment and inhabits were both created on the first day. If that were how this creation account was being presented by the ancient Jewish writer, then were the fish and birds also created all on day 2, in the same exact manner and correspondence? And land animals and man created on day 3, but all simply "appointed" on days 4, 5, and 6 in like fashion? Being oblivious to the correspondence issue existing in the ancient texts, the OECist apologist butchers the day 1 and day 4 correspondence in order to appease his modern sensibilities about what this ancient text 'ought to say.'  And book, "Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate," is exactly about pointing out this sort of flawed modern reasoning. 

 

That being the case, with the text obviously never saying that the sun, moon and stars were created on day 1, it's obvious that the ancient text has them made (asah) on the 4th day of the creation. Back then they believed that light existed independent of the sun and moon. They believed that the sun and moon were both light emitting objects that circled around a round in the upper firmament, of a flat disk shaped geocentric earth. So that leads to a big question for this highly credentialed, theological oriented PhD. What does this mean to his OEC theory Genesis? In an apologetic appeal where he claims that Moses wrote Genesis 1 in direct revelation from god, refuses and denies the documentary hypothesis of modern biblical scholarship, and tries to marry ancient Jewish creation myth with modern scientific knowledge? What a tangle web the apologist is trying to weave. 

 

It would mean that instead of 3 days going by between the creation of the sun, moon and stars - we're looking at thousands, millions, or billions of years taking place between day 1 and day 3. Billions of years going by BEFORE the sun, moon, and stars are clearly made on the 4th day of this creation account. Billions of years going by with no sunlight for the grass and vegetation, birds and fish. And the cloud cover apology is just horrible. Does the apologist think that for millions or billions of years the sun was hidden behind cloud cover and unseen from a terrestrial observation point between the first and fourth "phases" of creation, while plant and animal life flourished on the earth with this cloud cover blocking all the sunlight? Why doesn't that evidence show up in the geological and historical records of the earth's past? 

 

And hole gets deeper and deeper as the apologist tries to remove the contradictions in scripture by twisting and manipulating ancient scripture to conform to his modern views.

 

And from what I've experienced, the harder the apologist tries to reconcile Genesis 1 with modern science and understanding (while at the same time denying modern biblical scholarship), the more his apology becomes something like a Chinese finger trap. Again, this is the very type of thing that my PhD source wrote his book in order to take issue with. 

 

Still interested in taking the faith and faith along position you started out with? 

 

Or are you interested in pursuing an "evidence" based line of arguing that Genesis 1 starts out demonstrably true? 

 

 

 

[LuthAMF]

Thinking. Reading. Watching. Thinking. Watching. Reading. Thinking.

[Joshpantera]

On 6/4/2019 at 9:48 AM, LuthAMF said:

Thinking. Reading. Watching. Thinking. Watching. Reading. Thinking.

 

That's what I was hoping you'd do. That's what I'm hoping all interested readers will do. 

 

I just want to say that the ex christian community here understands the bible and christian apologists in ways that you may not have understood previous to exposure with us. I mean for this debate to make clear why we don't believe that the bible is absolute truth. And why we don't take apologetic claims at face value. It's because we've seen farther into this predicament than people who are still unaware and / or oblivious to what's really going on.

 

I had to deal with seventh day adventist apologists first. Making poor attempts at justifying eccentric founder Ellen G. White and her own paraphrasing of the bible. You can't tell those people that White was wrong. You see it. I see it. But a believer SDA doesn't see it or refuses to see it. White plagiarized contemporary medical and religious books of her time and claimed that she had the "spirit of prophecy." Believers credit her with having advanced knowledge that could only have come from god. And yet none of the claims are true. You know how apologist's respond to this? One apology is that since there weren't set in stone laws at the time against the plagiarism, she didn't plagiarize. Apologetic's is one of the issues that opened my eyes to the dishonesty and deceptive tactics (all in the name of good and absolute truth) of my childhood church body. 

 

I didn't stop there. I continued looking through protestant christianity to see if anyone else had anything better to offer that the SDA's. And what I found was more of the same. Dishonest and deceptive tactics that are all very transparent when closely analyzed for truth value. Right down the line. I found the catholic church no better in terms of apologetic's. And it took me down to historical research that led to the foggy, extremely uncertain territory of early christianity and christian origins. It led to analyzing, for instance, the claims of the gospel writers like the book of Matthew. And looking at those claims that I once (like you I would assume) took at face value and never really honed in on. We can look at the rest of the bible as we move forward later. I just want to point out that I'm quite aware of how the contradictions and errors play out between Jewish scripture, and then the christian era. And I think it's important that you and interested readers hang in there for the whole thing - Genesis to Revelation. 

[LuthAMF]

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"?

 

Before I proceed, I want to make clear another issue you raised. You said,

"I understand that when the church had more power than it does now it would simply kill and imprison dissent. I have encountered many christians who refuse to admit that they have no evidence to support any of this and can't prove anything, therefore leading to horrible attempts to try and find a way out of these holes. You, however, made a move to forego all of the bluff games of claiming to have substantial evidence, when none of you actually have that sort of evidence. Instead of wasting 40 + pages going around and around in circles, you admitted pretty up front to not having a way of proving that the bible starts out true and factual according to the physical universe and world we exist in and can observe."

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. 

 

But even then, you say "Our concern here is truth. And whether this image of the early universe and earth (literally taken from scripture) is more true than what has been observed. I think it's worthy of note, that the image of the earth and universe taken from Jewish scripture isn't observed at all while observing the earth and universe. HP take note please."

 

Surely you recall stating to William,

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

 

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. To suggest that it's a supernatural being - let's face it - is one of many speculations. That may not be something that either of you are willing to agree with, but I'm putting it out there. That's a very anthropomorphic way of trying to answer a hard question. We're beings, so this ultimate reality and uncaused, cause, is visualized as similar to ourselves only greater. A supreme being in comparison. 

 

Another speculation coming from theoretical science is that space is not finite and confined only our universe. But instead ranges out beyond without end. Like a god minus the anthropomorphic visualizations. Not a being, just the totality of existence itself ranging out forever and ever. Where a finite universe like our own, for instance, could be a bubble expanding in size so to speak. Surrounding it, or rather "transcendent" of the universe, up to an infinite amount of bubbles readily coming and going all the time. Space ranging throughout. The question of what came before, what are we expanding out into, and similar questions being summed up in this infinite and eternal, non-anthropomorphized conceptualization of reality. 

 

The greater reality (just like god) would have no beginning or end to speak of. It would be the infinite and eternal. The higher power. All of that. But it's existence itself as the totality, not literally a being like us but greater. 

 

Two different ways of trying to speculate about reality and existence. One from the bronze age and one contemporary. Both lead to infinite and eternal conclusions. But the contemporary doesn't bother trying to present it in a personified, or anthromorphized type of way. Both being speculation and not necessarily hard fact. But certainly one very dated in comparison to the other. 

 

Are either of you willing to agree that the three of us (and anyone else for that matter) can only offer speculation?"

 

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.

 

 

However!!!... that has not been the focus of my research. I recognized immediately your influence, though you never identified it. You're not the only one who has "been around the block" a few times. It seems you're informed by and accept the Framework Hypothesis. (FH)

You cite: The first three days of this creation story basically outline 3 environments of existence in which for something to exist within.

 

Day 1 - space

Day 2 - firmament / sky

Day 3 - dry land

 

The last three days insert inhabitants to exist in each environment, in the same order. 

 

Day 4 - sun, moon and stars

Day 5 - fish and birds

Day 6 - land creatures and man

 

See the correspondence below: 

 

Day 1 > Day 4

Day 2 > Day 5

Day 3 > Day 6

 

The "days" are obviously not literal days by any stretch of the imagination. This isn't literal at all, actually. There's contradictions all over the place when people try and make it literal. You have 3 days before the sun, evenings and morning with no way for them to literally occur. Grass growing on dry land one day before the sun, etc. etc. It's obvious to me, and it should be to anyone else following along at this point I would imagine, that none of this is literally true and quite possibly wasn't meant to be taken literally true in the first place. 

Then later,

"This is what I mean about digging holes that get deeper and deeper while trying to apologize for contradictions in the ancient texts. He's butchering the ancient texts in order to try and conform to his modern theological views about what the ancient texts 'ought to say.' Like I showed you earlier, the most obvious situation here is that the ancient writer set up three environments and then immediately, by way of correspondence, set up three sets of inhabitants to inhabit each of the previous uninhabited environments."

 

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?

"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? 

(he being a "heretic" to the same Jews), the environment and inhabits were both created on the first day.

 

I do not make much use of material from this site myself and I'm certain you all abhor with a passion anything derived from them, but here is an analysis of FH from AIG:

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/whats-wrong-with-the-framework-hypothesis/

 

If that is too much for you to stomach, Keil and Delitzsch handled it as well:

 

THE CREATION OF T H E WORLD.

CHAP. I . l - I I . 3.

The account of the creation, its commencement, progress, and completion, bears the marks, both in form and substance, of a historical document in which it is intended that we should

accept as actual truth, not only the assertion that God created the heavens, and the earth, and all that lives and moves in the world, but also the description of the creation itself in all its

several stages. I f we look merely at the form of this document, its place at the beginning of the book of Genesis is sufficient to warrant the expectation that it will give us history, and not

fiction, or human speculation. As the development of the human family has been from the first a historical fact, and as man really occupies that place in the world which this record

assigns him, the creation of man, as well as that of the earth on which, and the heaven for which, he is to live, must also be a work of God, i.e. a fact of objective truth and reality. 

The grand simplicity of the account is in perfect harmony with the fact. " The whole narrative is sober, definite, clear, and concrete. The historical events described contain a rich treasury

of speculative thoughts and poetical glory; but they themselves are free from the influence of human invention and human philosophizing" (Delitzsch). This is also true of the arrangement

of the whole. The work of creation does not fall, as Herder and others maintain, into two triads of days, with the work of the second answering to that of the first. For although

the creation of the hght on the first day seems to correspond to that of the light-bearing stars on the fourth, 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. 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 also can cite extensive work by Matthew Poole (whom some here claim familiarity). At any rate, your points are specifically addressed.