I agree, Michael, that that witnesses of the Bible are reliable, and feel God has maintained that truth and reliability according to his purpose through the millennia, through oral transmission, translation,linguistic and cultural change, though actually very little is what we think of as eye witness accounts in the Old Testament.
1 Like
You call it garbage but I call it scripture. Let’s see what Jesus had to say about it:
John 3:19-20 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
Matthew 24:9-10 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another.
Matthew 10:22 You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.
Probably some are but perhaps what better Christians aim to do is instill in their children a trust in a voice from within. I’m coming to think that the point of citing scripture is to invoke from a common lexicon that which has moved their heart in the Bible which best seems to apply in the current circumstance.
Done poorly, authoritarianism and infantilization can and probably does sometimes result. But many people here impress me as being genuinely motivated by that higher goal where the Bible isn’t presented as a decision tree of oughts but rather a way to talk about matters of the heart. When in doubt I think it is probably better to assume positive intent, not that that is always easy to do in practice of course.
1 Like
Sound defensive to me. But anyway, I didn’t get a response on who you think the eyewitnesses are. My question has to do with the initial point I made about what the Bible (and specifically the NT since you mentioned miracles in the NT) is, who actually wrote it, when it was written, etc. Knowing what scholars have determined about these things is very helpful in understanding the texts of which you make reference.
But back to your original point about the issue between evolution and the Bible. That is precisely the modern day juggernaut for many Christians. How do I reconcile a literal reading of the Bible with evolution (modern evolutionary theory). I suggest it cannot be reconciled, but the fault is not in the text, but rather our understanding of what the text(s) actually are. Modern day Biblical scholarship in association with modern day science (and no, evolution is not even a point of debate anymore in any context besides religious institutions or religious motivations) helps resolve the dilemma.
1 Like
It certainly does not surprise me that you cannot tell the difference between scripture and the way you use scripture to prop up an attitude of superiority over those who believe differently than you do. But since I embrace scripture and condemn such an attitude there is no such equivalence. The passages you quote do not say that those who reject the Bible and believe differently must do so because of a desire to sin.
John 3:19-20 just because you equate “Light” with your personal religion and holy books as if God were the patent and property of your religious organization, doesn’t mean this is what Jesus meant and I certainly do not read it in that way. The truth is that most atheists and others who reject the Bible are not rejecting “the Light,” goodness, justice, and love at all, let alone out of fear or some desire to do evil. They do it precisely because they do love goodness, justice, and love and what they see in the Bible looks rather opposite to them.
Matthew 24:9-10 And NOBODY does that better than religious people, including other Christians and Muslims particularly. This is not to say that atheists cannot be just as vicious and intolerant. They certainly have been. And while their death toll (under the flag of communism), on the order of 100 million, tells us that their lack of respect for human life can be at least as bad if not worse, only a much smaller portion of these deaths were about any hatred of religion, let alone the Bible and Christianity. And they hardly represent all of atheism.
Matthew 10:22 The majority of atheists do not hate all Christians or all religious people. The most vocal atheists might give that impression but it is not true. The majority of atheists are simply not interested and have found other things to do with their time and life.
And then there are Christians like myself who also pass on the morality based on reasoning which they have from their own parents, especially when they have seen the damage that authoritarian morality can do as I have.
Indeed! I have often said that 90% of religion is just language.
1 Like
Hi, I thought it was obvious when I said the eyewitnesses are those in the bible. Perhaps it was my fault for assuming you understood what I meant. So let’s be clear about what an eyewitness is. In simple terms it is a person who saw something happen. It is a person who was present at an event and can therefore describe what happened. Being a witness isnt restricted to what the person saw -the event could also be heard or felt etc. If you have ever given evidence in court you will know that you are allowed to give evidence of what you experienced with one or more of your five senses – see, hear, taste smell, feel. There are many people mentioned in the bible who witnessed something. I dont know the exact number but I think it’s fair to say that there are many. One example is Peter who saw Jesus walking on water. Whether this is believed or not doesnt alter the fact that it is an eyewitness account. I hope that’s cleared that up. You mention a literal reading of the bible. I read the bible in the way that I believe it was intended to be read. I read historical accounts as events that happened, I read psalms as poetry, I read parables as wisdom literature, and so on. For example, the creation story is written as a historical account. Whether it is true or not doesnt alter the type of narrative. Some people have provided witness statements to the police that were later found to be untrue - the events they described never happened. This doesn’t alter that fact that the statements were historical accounts - they didnt change to poetry or parable or whatever. Finally, I dont accept your claim that evolution is not a point of debate anymore except in a religious context. I’m sure if you do some research you will discover that there are people from are all sorts of backgrounds who are debating evolution.
The point is that the synoptic gospels were written many decades after the events surrounding Jesus life. A lot of people have the misconception that a guy named Mark, for example, wrote the book of Mark and that it is an accurate description of his encounter with Jesus. According to scholarly work I have read based upon the publicly available historical record, that is not how this gospel, for example, came into existence. And because of that we have erroneous ideas of what the Bible actually is. And because of the literal interpretation manufactured by modern day evangelicalism, we end up using the Bible as a sort of “how to” manual for life including how we view science. It just doesn’t work.
That is not to discount the value, worth or admiration for these works. But many of us in the evangelical world have been sold a bill of goods and when we find out the truth it is disheartening. You have to go through deconstruction before you can begin reconstruction.
1 Like
No biblical scholar I have read agrees with that statement.
As a biologist I can tell you any debate in scientific circles today about evolution (outside of religious motivation) is not about whether evolution is true. You will not find that debate in any accredited college or university anywhere. If you know of one, stay away - they are not teaching science.
2 Likes
Could you give some specific examples here? Certainly there can be discussion and debate about some of the particular details but not evolution itself. That’s as good as a true fact.
There is no debate whatsoever within biology whether common descent is true.
2 Likes
So, unless I have misunderstood you, you are saying that ALL biologists are in agreement on this issue.Is that what you are saying?
Technically you can have someone with a degree in biology who disagrees with common descent, but the reasons are not going to be based upon evidence we get from nature. The real reasons are just simply they have some theological bias despite what they might claim in looking for scientific reasons to reject it.
Depends what you mean by evolution. I am talking about the idea that all life descended from a common ancestor which itself came from lifeless chemicals. With regard to something being a true fact, there are no certainties in science.
No. I’m saying that within biology as a professional sphere of activity, there is complete agreement. That sphere includes the technical scientific literature, formal talks at scientific conferences, lab meetings, seminars, grant applications, and talking over lunch or at the bar during a conference. There are without a doubt credentialed biologists who reject common descent, but they would be viewed by most biologists (if the latter are even aware of their existence) as utterly deluded crazy people.
This is to distinguish common descent from something like the Big Bang or dark matter, which are the working models in their field and are accepted by the majority of researchers, but which one can easily doubt or question without coming across as a nut case.
3 Likes
What you have said is simply your opinion. It is not possible for you to know the motivation of all biologists.
It isn’t about motivation. It’s about evidence. The only reason one would object to the overwhelming evidence on many different levels of science all confirming the basic premise would necessarily be bias. The only bias I have found (including within myself at one time) strong enough to overcome and resist the evidence is religious. It clouds the thinking because it presupposes an outcome.
And that, by the way, is the opposite of science.
2 Likes
You’re conflating two separate fields of biology - evolution and abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a scientific unknown (and as a Christian, if they find a method of creating life from non-life, I’ll just say, “Cool! Maybe that’s how God did it!”). Common descent is solidly supported by scientific evidence and is not a controversy within science. Whether God miraculously started life or used a natural process to do so matters not to evolution, hence why abiogenesis is a separate field of study.
3 Likes
This is not evolution. You’re talking about the Origin of Life, which is a different problem. Evolution does not explain how life began. Evolution presupposes an existing life form and explains how new species can emerge from that previous life.
2 Likes
you are saying that ALL biologists are in agreement on this issue.Is that what you are saying?
To say there is no debate does not mean every last single science graduate in the world is in perfect harmony, it means that SUBSTANTIALLY all biologists are in agreement. For anyone in scientific academia, the idea that scientists are re-examining the mainstream narrative of life on earth is far far removed from the reality of one’s experience and livelihood. So far as large research universities are concerned, from my observation this mostly just as true for Christians found in the science department [personal experience only; of course I cannot prove that].
In my debates with atheists, agnostics they usually make the same point - origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. But at the same time they are adamant that life came about by some sort of natural process that involved no creator, no God. Somehow life appeared from non-life and then evolution proceeded from there. But in order for evolution to get out of the starting blocks, there has to be some means by which a self-replicating cell (not simple by any means) can come into existence. And following on from that, where did all the information come from to produce people like you and me? I used to believe that natural selection acting on chance random mutations could do the job. I looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion it doesnt work. Natural selection can only act on what already exists. It is a fine-tuning process but not a creative one. I dont just see the origin of life as a problem, I see the whole picture from non-life to people as a problem.