Interpretation & Meaning in Genesis + Sabbath

Faith & Science Conversation
74

Most of the dams on the Colorado River are for irrigation, hydroelectric power or drinking water. Only 5 are used for flood control.

How is being earthquake prone a reason for building a dam. Or are you saying that somehow earthquakes could explain how the river was created? Were you there to see that? :wink: Do you have an example where this was seen somewhere else?

Flooding is off the table due to the fact that flooding doesn’t explain what you see.

A meandering river implies a slow process that takes a lot of time. To what major release of water are you referring?

75

I am not sure what you are trying to ask. Your point is: “According to the dating of each and every event in the geological record, such flooding did not form the deep canyons. Any flooding only used the channel that was there millions of years prior. So any flooding is not the answer you are looking for.”

So you are basically wanting me to believe in miracles and assume flooding was not used period? Then all the evidence of Floods happened. Now we are back to the innocent little river, now that it does not flood any more? Because without flooding, the river would have to form a little here. Then it would have to re-elivate itself to find another section to form. Enough times to remove multiple miles across. Once that layer was done, it would go back over the same way it had just came from. The proof for that is that about every ten feet down one side of the Canyon would have millions of years differences in ages. The oldest being 10 ft. on one side. Then the next youngest would be down to 20 ft. on the opposite side. The next youngest would cross back over to the other side down to 30 ft. It would keep crossing back and forth as the river etched out the ground between either side of the Canyon.

Saying that it just happened because there was enough time does not overcome the logic of it happening without the use of Flooding. You can have flooding that leaves naturally forming curves in their original state. You can also have rivers that completely change course during a major Flood. What goes against logic is a river with no flooding whatsoever decide on its own to move back and forth between two specific Canyon wall miles apart etching out a canyon thousands of feet deep. If you say there could have been slight flooding here and there, you cannot rule out any major floods either. A flood even small is still a flood. If there is evidence of floods, and science can prove crest of up to 700 ft. Did these floods magically do nothing to change the way the Canyon looks today? That is the second leap in logic. The geological evidence proves there were large seas covering the majority of North America. Yet you say none of these had any effect on the Grand Canyon, because it was already there millions of years prior. 3rd point of not adding up logically.

I agree that the Grand Canyon has an appearance of millions of years as evidenced in the geological record. I just accept a more natural and logical way of how it formed. I think it would also be ok to say that God’s handi work makes for a great 100 my old river.

76

Sorry but I don’t think I understand what it is you are trying to say.

The youngest rocks at the Grand Canyon date to 270 mya. Most of these layers were deposited before the river existed and were deposited while that area was under a large inland sea. So it is seas first and then the river formed, slowly. The course of the river has actually changed over time and there are traces of where the river used to run.

1 Like
77

How can there be traces where there is physically empty space?

You did not specify where these youngest rocks are found. Are you saying that the Grand Canyon has been in it’s current form for 270 my? When I hear youngest, it is the most recent event. My youngest brother was born last and closest to current time. If you mean the youngest as being young 270mya, it is pointless. All things are young at the beginning of their existence. If you mean oldest, then forget me trying to figure out what you mean. Otherwise you are saying in this empty space we call the Grand Canyon we can without observation, see exactly how things happened over time where empty space now is.

Ie. It just happened because it can. The date of some rocks date to 270mya. Not all of them? Technically only the ones found near the top would indicate the age when the river was there before a Canyon formed. Not to be mean. But if we dug down thousands of ft. Into the earth, and uncovered a rock dating 270mya then we can assume 270mya worth of history as been laid down on top of this one rock, or it took 270mya for this rock to travel that distance.

When it comes to the Grand Canyon you seem to be saying that the Grand Canyon took 270my to form the walls and then perhaps half that to carve out how it currently looks. Because if the river itself was under a lake and there was no Canyon, as we see it today, are you saying that the ground actually moved up while the river moved down? If a 270mya rock is found at the bottom near the current river, it could have come from anywhere. Saying that it took 270mya for the river to find this 270mya rock does not make sense. It is like trying to dig down yourself to a certain level in the earth and find the same 270mya rock. The point of dating is to not point out certain rocks. It is to date as many items as possible in as many areas as possible and then give as best of a picture as to be had taking into consideration all the natural things that could happen. My point was if things did not happen as predicted, and there was a phenomenon that changed anything at any time, that picture is just fake, even if it looks real.

I get the point there were seas in the area. However the rock could also have been there 270mya before the seas themselves.

78

There are places a river has carved out a path that no longer carry any water because the path of the river has changed.

Youngest rocks are always on the top. The rock layers below the top layer date to much later periods.

That is the youngest layer. Other layers are much older. This is a nice graphic of the rock layers and their ages here:

79

Thanks for the link. I think that would prove my point though. Age is already there in the rock formation. The river had nothing to do with the age of the Canyon.

Now the part that 270mya the river existed at the top before any depth prior to a Canyon. The first assumption would be did none of the Canyon exist even before a sea was formed. There could have still been a river prior to the sea, and even a Canyon unless you can prove the sea itself happened more than 270mya. Is there proof that the sea put down a billion years worth of material?

My theory. There was already a Canyon in place however the size does not matter. After the Flood came the sea or even multiple seas for that matter. The sea/s helped form the Canyon even more. There does not have to be any specific timetable for when or even how the sea or seas came and went. Since this is not dogma nor doctrine, then figuring out an exact time frame is not right or wrong. We know that flooding and the formation of seas do not need long periods of time. I know that using dating methods and all the new satalite imaging of all types may give us evidence of a tighter time frame. But if we agree there were seas, I think that we would also have to acknowledge flooding as factoring into how the Canyon was formed and not just a river without any flooding at all.

80

Isn’t the problem with re-interpretations of the Bible that as children we are indoctrinated to believe it is the word of God? Isn’t that a misconception passed on to children which they later have to deal with struggling with faith?

81

Floods were real and recurring events in the lives of early and late stone-age humans.

82

The problem with Christians that in order to be religious they are expected to believe in a Christian concept of God and the bible to be the Word of God.

83

The problem with that is that not all people who believe WERE indoctrinated as children or in fact indoctrinated by anyone at any age. I stand as an example of this, and was raised by extreme liberals highly critical of the Christian establish, so much so that I tend to astonish atheists by being even better able to criticize some of the nonsense even better than they can. And when I did consider Christian beliefs, I made my own decisions on each and every one of them on my own for my own reasons. To be sure, it can be considered a minor miracle that I am as orthodox as I am (in the sense that I am within the whole worldwide spectrum of Christianity, though not within any particularly sector of it). One result is that the way I explain things tends to put those who have been indoctrinated a little on edge or confused, because it is not the way they are used to hearing it, even when it is essentially the same. Though there are some important differences in fundamental philosophical areas often because I am and always have been a scientist first, not only by training but even being an ingrained part of my perceptual process from childhood.

Yes!

I do not find that to be a problem. What is more of a problem is anti-intellectual (and anti-science) strains in Christianity that insists on twisting the Bible to make it incompatible with the findings of science or rational coherence. It is like they feel they have to pay for their salvation with a sacrifice of their intellectual integrity (and in some cases even a sacrifice of their moral integrity). But this is actually a huge distortion of Christianity because the whole idea of paying for salvation is an anathema and contrary to the central teachings of the religion.

1 Like
84

Well that is remarkable. For in science don’t we follow observations, reason, and logic, but don’t apply that to the theory of God.

85

If we view God as a theory, science would be the approach. If we reason there is a God, philosophy would be the approach. If we view God as divine and a figure of worship, then religion would be the approach. For all other experiences involving God, God is just God.

86

God is NOT a valid scientific hypothesis, let alone theory (which is entirely the WRONG word to use here). A valid scientific hypothesis must be testable or falsifiable for otherwise the methodology of science would not be applicable. This is one of my few criticisms of “The God Delusion”, which is one of the very few books by Dawkins which is worthless, most being quite excellent.

Everyone “follows” observations, reason, and logic. That doesn’t come even close to the epistemological superiority of science and sounds like a preposterous excuse for calling ones own assertions by the name of science. Science is founded on two fundamental principles:

  1. Honest inquiry which is embodied in the scientific method where you TEST an hypothesis rather than trying to prove it like every lawyer, politician, preacher, and used car salesman does (and yes they use observations, reason and logic too).
  2. Objective evidence which is embodied in written procedures which anyone can follow to get the same result no matter what they believe. (Religion generally asks you to believe or have faith first)
1 Like
87

The Bible doesn’t “say” anything. We think we interpret the Bible. Me, I think it is koan.
See google.

88

No. That goes too far. It is much like the other extreme, being that the Bible interprets itself. Both are absurd. It is much like other extreme positions like reality is all in our mind versus reality is purely objective. The absurdity of such extremes are self-defeating and meaningless. You might as well say that any human communication doesn’t say anything because it is always interpreted – in which case your statement doesn’t say anything either.

To be sure there is no way of taking interpretation out of the equation even when it is in same language and culture. After all, we have to recognize that human languages are a very blunt tool, with dictionaries giving many definitions to most words and a lot of them some circular. So people do not take away the same things from a lecture, sermon, book, movie, etc. We give meaning to the words by making connections to our own experiences. And yet there there is a consensus on a lot of things, the meaning of words and the meaning of particular passages. Consider the fact that we use this same blunt tool of language to communicate a lot of the things of science, though to be sure the precision of mathematics helps a great deal. And the meaning of science can be very concrete in our technological applications. Though a lot of the precision in science is allowed because of the subject matter and other things in life are not so amenable to this.

So… to sum things up, …balance… find the more balance view which is more reasonable than the extremes.

89

Hello Mitch,

Here are Your quotes:

@mitchellmckain
God is NOT a valid scientific hypothesis, let alone theory (which is entirely the WRONG word to use here). A valid scientific hypothesis must be testable or falsifiable for otherwise the methodology of science would not be applicable. This is one of my few criticisms of “The God Delusion”, which is one of the very few books by Dawkins which is worthless, most being quite excellent.

Everyone “follows” observations, reason, and logic. That doesn’t come even close to the epistemological superiority of science and sounds like a preposterous excuse for calling ones own assertions by the name of science. Science is founded on two fundamental principles:

Honest inquiry which is embodied in the scientific method where you TEST an hypothesis rather than trying to prove it like every lawyer, politician, preacher, and used car salesman does (and yes they use observations, reason and logic too).

Objective evidence which is embodied in written procedures which anyone can follow to get the same result no matter what they believe.

God is concretely known and has no need to be hypothesized or theorized.

Thanks for the two requirements you listed along with the word “honest” you included. Does that include how knowledge that’s already revealed and known is handled? What do we seek with scientific effort? Will it glorify God?

@mitchellmckain
(Religion generally asks you to believe or have faith first)

What is faith but trust? We buy from the merchant that we trust but doesn’t the trust come first? God out of His sovereignty has His sovereign right to command us to trust Him that’s true despite the multitudes of false claims, beliefs and philosophies around us.

We are made aware of God not as one concocted by assertions or the like, but by knowledge passed to us by trusted authority. We gain knowledge from the word of mouth, experience, and from various ways of inquiry that includes scientific inquiry.

Acceptance is based on trust (faith). Are any of us islands? What can we do without personal relationships? People need people and as children need their parents, so do people need God. We learn and know of God the person the way I learn and know of you as a person–by communication and interaction by which you prove yourself by your replies and God personally proves Himself as He responds to us.

As we know that rules without relationship leads to rebellion, so is religion minus a meaningful, personal, and knowledgeable relationship with God ineffective and that all that’s done in life is likewise compromised. At this point, inform me of ways someone may trick me into believing that you are a figment of imagination so that I would avoid him. Neither do we want to be tricked into thinking of God that way.

Both science and religion are served with observations, reason, and logic. But what is reason and logic based on? Are there any laws involved? Science is governed by natural laws and you and I are governed by natural and moral laws. Who originated these unchangeable laws? Only persons do things for purposes. Is it possible to change the commandments not to lie or steal?

The good tree is known by its good fruit that we are daily exposed to despite the adverse effects of the fall. The Source of the good we know of is knowable. Is it not written that the fear (reverential respect)of that person is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10)?

Earl

90

Has religion glorified God? Not that most people can see. What people mostly see is lip service. So I would answer YES, science has and does glorify God. By reading the book of God’s creation with more faith than most of the religious, science has VASTLY improved human life and dragged it up out of suffering and despair and YES that has glorified God better than anything we see in religion.

Don’t get me wrong. What I said was not meant as a critique of religion but only an explanation of the difference from science. Science is founded upon objective observation but life requires subjective participation. Science is wonderful about finding new and unexpected things about the world around us, BUT it is no replacement for life itself where we have to make choices to which science can give us no answers. So there is no suggestion here that we can do without faith. Even science requires faith so it was not my intention to suggest otherwise.

1 Like
91

In that case one can never have come to accept this view of God through Reasoning or Science. What remains is uncritical faith.

92

It is my contention that Humans by acquiring Sentience/Sapience, constituted the Original Sin. Genesis refers to this as ‘eating from the Tree of Knowledge’. This resulted in Humans being evicted from the Garden of Eden.(Being integrated in Nature as are our closest relatives [Simians] still to this day). The Simians do not live in Sin as they lack the Knowledge (Sentience) to radically transform their environment. Through this Knowledge Humans have developed agriculture and husbandry; in essence destroying God’s work for one’s own benefit. We are now living with the consequences of our ‘sinful’ existence: ecological degradation and intraspecies strife (Cain and Abel, Tower of Babel).

93

You do realize that attempting to gain knowledge from the source of knowledge as being a sin is a contradiction? It would be a sin if one ate of the fruit of ignorance. But then your scenario of someone who wanted to advance in knowledge would not be tempted to gain ignorance, what is the point, they are already ignorant. Gaining knowledge would not lead to destruction. It would be to avoid destructive “behavior”. I think we need to agree that knowledge and advancment will never be synonymous with destruction and violence. Knowledge and technology are only tools, not behaviors. Would you refer to your arms and legs as being destructive? If so you should probably remove them. Otherwise controlling one’s thoughts would be a more resourceful way to address behavioral issues. Even Jesus pointed out that letting one’s own body parts offend the one they are part of should be removed. Do you think Jesus really wanted us to walk around handicap, or are we smart enough to know the difference between what a tool is and what behavior is?