General and Special Revelation

It does not. I think you know that. Nor does the Bible contain empirical data about geology.

We have established that you can use the adjective empirical and the adverb empirically in very general ways. In the context of this discussion, the question is whether Scripture presents empirical data that can correct science. I have been talking about the empirical data that is used in the scientific method as evidence and stating that the Bible does not present this kind of data, so it cannot “correct” science. Science as a method of systematically presenting empirical data did not even exist when the Bible was written.

3 Likes

Which, if any, of Maggie’s observations were not objective empirical ones?

But she isn’t. Didn’t you read your own #3 from the definitions you’ve already listed here? Dictionaries list different definitions for words precisely because words can mean different things and take on different connotations over time and in different contexts.

Nobody can go and verify for themselves by any observation whatsoever the resurrection of Christ. We depend on testimony for that. We aren’t obliged to make our word usages honor all possible definitions simultaneously - there are occasions to know that one particular definition is more relevant than the others. And the one Christy is using is what would be favored in modern science today.

5 Likes

I am not at all interested in discussing Maggie’s story here. It is not at all relevant in my mind to the discussion of general revelation in science and special revelation in the Bible. I don’t know why you bring it up every other conversation.

1 Like

Nobody is disputing this and it was actually a given in the OP.

We posted at the same time, and had I seen yours first, I may not have posted mine. I am interested in in truth, and as I just said, truth can be inferred from objective empirical evidence without it being scientific truth, and all truth is not scientific truth. Maggie’s testimony is an excellent case in point.

It is my understanding that empirical observations are limited to the observable natural world. You cannot empirically observe the divine or the supernatural or the internal workings of the human mind or soul.

1 Like

And what I just said is admittedly redundant, because you again posted while I was composing my last reply. Not seeing new posts immediately while in the text entry mode may be a factor because I use an iPad and the keyboard takes up half the screen. A PC might still have the thread and new posts displayed above the text entry box?

Can mankind’s linguistic knowledge prove without any doubt that there was or was not a flood during Noah’s time about 4000 years ago?

Of course.  

What? No, because what people mean by what they say and the truth value of what they say are two different things. Your linguistic knowledge that allows you to understand the English statement “It is raining” has no bearing on the truth value of the statement and does nothing whatsoever to prove without a doubt that it is raining in a given location. You have to be able to compare the statement to reality. We can compare the biblical account to reality we learn of through geology.

2 Likes

[quote=“Christy, post:72, topic:43599, full:true”]

What? No, because what people mean by what they say and the truth value of what they say are two different things. Your linguistic knowledge that allows you to understand the English statement “It is raining” has no bearing on the truth value of the statement and does nothing whatsoever to prove without a doubt that it is raining in a given location. You have to be able to compare the statement to reality. We can compare the biblical account to reality we learn of through geology.
[/quote]
So, through the reality of mankind’s senses which they use to observe, test, ect the things they can touch, see,taste, smell and hear, mankind has concluded without any doubt that there was no flood during Noah’s time about 4000 years ago. Is that what you are saying?

The hypothesis “there was a global flood 4000 years ago” has been falsified by multiple lines of empirical evidence. That is what I am saying.

1 Like

Lets remove that word “global” from your statement and just stick with a flood in the area where Noah was, that was deep enough to cover the highest mountains.
Do you still say that mankind’s knowledge says there was no flood during Noah’s time?

I think there is evidence of catastrophic local floods in the region. I am not knowledgeable about any evidence of the “covered the highest mountain” part. It very well could be hyperbole.

Isa 2:17-18

17 The arrogance of man will be brought low

and the pride of men humbled;

the Lord alone will be exalted in that day,

18 and the idols will totally disappear.

God said, Isa 54:9 "To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth.” If Noah and the flood were hyperbole or myth than why would God repeat the fact that He had sworn He would never do it again? Remember it is God speaking here and confirming what He said and did in Genesis. The fact that God SWORE AN OATH should be enough to confirm what the facts and truth are.

Now hear what Jesus says about Noah. Luke 17:26 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.”

Now read what Jesus said about those who do not believe His words. John 12:48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. 49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. 50 I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say." So Jesus is only saying what God says, which agrees with what God said in Isa 54:9, which agrees with what God said and did in Genesis.

The writer of Hebrews knows without a doubt that Noah was a real person who encountered a real flood. Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family . By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.” So Noah became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. An allegory does not gain righteousness by his faith. Noah is also mingled with many other actual people that are commended for their faith. So the writer agrees with Jesus, who agrees with the sworn promise of God.

Peter knew Noah was a real person. 2 Peter 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others… And now Peter who received the truth from the Holy Spirit agrees with these other witnesses, that Noah and the flood were historical and literal.

In the mouth of two or three witnesses let everything be established. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit through the apostles testify to the historical fact and outcome of Noah and the flood.

Why would anyone fight against all these divine witnesses about Noah and the flood? Mankind through its pride and arrogance continue to exalt itself above the knowledge, revealed and Spoken Word of God, against the Almighty Himself.

Like the Pharisees who made the Word of God of no affect because of their traditions and man-made teachings, people who would go against all these witnesses about Noah and the flood make the Word of God of no affect. Mankind trusts in its own knowledge above the knowledge of God.

Please don’t bring up allegories, stories or parables, for it will only confirm that there is no understanding or trust in God’s testimony and sworn oath.

Man-kind has made his knowledge an idol and exalts it above the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.

All truth is God’s truth, and any knowledge of any of it by man is ‘mankind’s knowledge’. Truth does not conflict with itself. Yes, many scientists are philosophical naturalists and practice ‘scientism’, exalting their partial knowledge above God, but that does not change truth.

I’m aware of what the Bible says. I’ve read it many times, and studied it informally and formally for three decades. This is one of those times where you quoting a bunch of verses to someone and thinking it is some kind of compelling argument is misguided. It is really just a way of refusing to engage the actual questions at hand.

3 Likes

And this is EXAMPLE EXTRAORDINAIRE of the value and confidence that is placed in what God thinks and has spoken compared to what man-kind declares.

IT’S NOT “QUOTING VERSES”.
IT IS REPEATING AND PROCLAIMING THE VERY WORD OF GOD.

It is not proper to call man’s limited and ever changing knowledge of creation the TRUTH.

John 14:6-"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well.

John 17:17-Sanctify them by the truth ; your word is truth.

John 8:31"If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth , and the truth will set you free."

Jesus who is the Word of God is TRUTH.

God’s Word is the TRUTH.

By receiving, trusting and obeying Jesus and the Fathers word, we will know the TRUTH and it will set us free. Free from our sinful arrogance and pride. For man-kind to think that their constantly fluctuating understanding of the little bit of information they are able to gather about God’s creation is TRUTH, is ignorance and arrogance. Man takes his knowledge and creates an idol and places it alongside the True God, then uses it to mold the True God into man’s own image.

Then say, “Behold mankind, here is your god”.