The Bible Vs Scientism

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@MikeBoll

Gen 1 says God created Adam from “the dust of the earth” - and the non-biologist Israelites were able to believe it - even if they didn’t understand that mankind really is comprised of the elements of the earth. God also distinguished the flesh body from “the breath of life” - letting us know that “life” is completely different than the elemental body in which something lives, right? After all, if you put a frog in a blender, all the same physical stuff is there - but life is gone. Oh… and it won’t spring up again via abiogenesis either.

Why? Because God can only do things in the way that you dictate, right? God cannot do what you prohibit and must do what you demand – slave to your made up theology. That way you can whip your god-tool out to condemn those who dare to disagree with you and to bestow salvation and eternal life to those you have declared entitled to it. Such are the fruits of your Biblicism. A convenient idolatry to imagine power and authority over the world by which you can lord it over others.

@MikeBoll

scientific evidence that proves

Scientific evidence is not about proof. It is about what is reasonable to believe. It is not reasonable to believe in your solid firmament table shaped earth rewritten by your Biblicism into to fit an incoherent fantasy of a global flood and a necromancer popping creatures into existence like an episode of Betwitched (with all humor subtracted).

It is reasonable to believe the results of written procedures which give the same result no matter what you want or believe, and which honestly tests its hypotheses rather than scrambling for any evidence to support your rhetoric and ignoring everything that disagrees.

@MikeBoll

But to paraphrase Jesus… Don’t think I came here to bring peace. No, but a sword… a division between those who are honest enough to say, “The Bible is just plain wrong on this subject” and those who pretend that the Bible can somehow be ALIGNED with the stories of Scientism.

Of course… only when you demand total slavery of the mind to your Biblicism can it then be used to transform good people into genocidal fanatics.

@MikeBoll

I hope to encourage those in the former group that the Bible ISN’T wrong, and there’s nothing within the realm of science that actually suggests it is. And to encourage the latter group to give this “alignment” idea their very best shot, and see if their arguments stand up to scrutiny.

I will encourage the already millions of children of fundies realizing that science isn’t wrong and there’s nothing in the Bible and worldwide Christianity to require such a thing. So that you will not be able to make babies and brainwash them fast enough to maintain this power seeking cult.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@T_aquaticus

@MikeBoll

No, I don’t believe that. I know what metaphorical language is, and that it is used often in the scriptures. Is there any valid reason to take anything in Gen 1 as metaphorical? If so, point it out to me.

The mountains of evidence demonstrating the history of the universe would seem to be a very valid reason.

Let me rephrase the question… Is there any valid SCRIPTURAL reason to take anything in Gen 1 as metaphorical? If so, point it out to me.

[beaglelady]

@MikeBoll

Let me rephrase the question… Is there any valid SCRIPTURAL reason to take anything in Gen 1 as metaphorical? If so, point it out to me.

Genesis 2 

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@mitchellmckain

No, I do not believe that God spoke in a human language long before that language existed. No, I do not believe God used tongue and vocal cords long before such things were used for communication. No, I do not believe that God accomplishes things by giving orders like a human despot. No, I do not believe God created the universe by adding things like a painter adding features to a empty canvas. No, I do not believe God created human beings like a child making mud pies or by blowing life into inanimate matter like a boy blowing up a pool toy with air. There is no such thing which can be added to inanimate matter to make it alive.

Then you do not believe the creation as God Himself described it. Okay. I find your, “God was talking to dummies and so had to LIE to them and tell them things that didn’t actually happen” crap insulting to me, you, the “dummies”, and to God.

Btw, who do you suppose God said, “Let us make man in our image” to? Was He not actually speaking then?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@MikeBoll

@rsewell

Mike, just so we are clear, do you accept that the earth is a sphere orbiting in a heliocentric solar system?

No. I accept what our Creator told us about our world… solid firmament and all.

Good man. Now we know where we stand. What should we do with witches Mike?

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@Klax

Good man. Now we know where we stand. What should we do with witches Mike?

I suppose you should prove that they are in fact a witch before doing anything else. I’m here on trial. Make your case.

[bness2 (Bryan Ness)]

@MikeBoll

@rsewell

Mike, just so we are clear, do you accept that the earth is a sphere orbiting in a heliocentric solar system?

No. I accept what our Creator told us about our world… solid firmament and all.

Well, I guess that means I truly have been wasting my time trying to discuss any of this with you. Enjoy your “ancient” view of the world, and may you not fall off the edge.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@MikeBoll

@Klax

Good man. Now we know where we stand. What should we do with witches Mike?

I suppose you should prove that they are in fact a witch before doing anything else. I’m here on trial. Make your case.

No, no, no, no, no. You tell me what we should do with them.

And what should I do if I wanted to breed strong, streaked, speckled and spotted sheep?

[beaglelady]

If the firmament is solid, how do spacecraft leave earth? And how do meteorites get in?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

That’s so Hollywood!

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@Terry_Sampson

And if you can’t tell me without playing fast and loose with Mark 10:6, I have to ask: “What’s your point in citing Mark 10:6? You wouldn’t be suggesting that Jesus was justifying a “6 24-hour day” interpretation of Genesis 1, would you?” Because if you are, stand back because I’ll stamp the dust off my sandals before leaving this thread.

Yes, Jesus was addressing a question about divorce. His answer was to point to the very creation of man (“the beginning of creation” in his words) because of what was said at that time. Maybe Matthew’s account will help…

Matthew 19:3-5… Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? (Gen 2:24) So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

In answering about divorce, Jesus pointed out that from the beginning of creation, God created mankind both male and female so that they would pair up, cling to each other, procreate, and live happily ever after as one flesh instead of the two they used to be.

So yes, in his answer about divorce, Jesus indeed confirmed that the creation of mankind was recent, and not 13 billion years AFTER “the beginning of creation”.

You are now free to do whatever you please with your dusty sandals.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@bness2

@MikeBoll

@rsewell

Mike, just so we are clear, do you accept that the earth is a sphere orbiting in a heliocentric solar system?

No. I accept what our Creator told us about our world… solid firmament and all.

Well, I guess that means I truly have been wasting my time trying to discuss any of this with you. Enjoy your “ancient” view of the world, and may you not fall off the edge.

Too late. . . .

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@jammycakes

This can’t be stressed strongly enough. When YECs quote verses such as Mark 10:6 to try and argue for a young earth, they are taking those verses egregiously out of context.

And I just used the parallel account in Matthew to show your error. I mean, Jesus even quoted Genesis in his answer about divorce, right? So now what?

@jammycakes

But then again, you need to remember the two fundamental rules of YEC exegesis:

1. Any verse of Scripture that makes any allusion to any part of Genesis, no matter how tenuous or what the context, is, by definition, an insistence on a young earth, a single planet-wide Flood as the source of the fossil record, dinosaurs on the Ark, non-evolution, and Adam and Eve having been the only two humans in existence at the beginning.

Show me one of these “tenuous” verses that I’ve used… and explain my misunderstanding of that verse. Thanks.

@jammycakes

2. Any verse of Scripture that calls into question the ultimate necessity of a young earth, a single planet-wide Flood as the source of the fossil record, dinosaurs on the Ark, non-evolution, and Adam and Eve having been the only two humans in existence at the beginning, is, by definition, taken out of context.

I’d also love to see one of these verses so we could discuss it. Thanks.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@Terry_Sampson

Ya know? I think your #1 and #2 just about sums up Young Earth Creationism .

Great. Then the two requests I just made to Jammy go to you as well. Thanks.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@Gerald

I feel elated that this person realizes that God’s Word should be the ultimate authority. Even if it is referring to something that the Bible is not specifically written.
Since God has told us that “ALL SCRIPTURE” is His, and from Him, we have good reason to consider that if God gives us information, that it will be the truth.
And since the Creation week, is not only mentioned in the book of Genesis, but also in other books of the Old Testament and also the New Testamen, with Christ especially speaking as though the Creation story was historically accurate, we have reason to reject any one, even scientists, that contradict what God says.

And this is especially true, since there are other sources that also support the recent creation.

Wow! Thank you. That was well said and basically what I’ve been saying all along.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@MikeBoll

Then you do not believe the creation as God Himself described it.

Incorrect. I believe what God Himself actually says in the earth and sky and I do not believe what sinful people have described in their Biblicism cult twisting the God’s communication to people with limited understanding into making God a liar. Relativity and quantum physics did not have be described to people two millennia ago in order to be true any more than CPR had be described to people two millennia ago in save people suffering from cardiac arrest.

@MikeBoll

Okay. I find your, “God was talking to dummies and so had to LIE to them and tell them things that didn’t actually happen” crap insulting to me, you, the “dummies”, and to God.

Ok. I find your “kindergarten teachers and story tellers are just liars” crap quite insulting to a very large number of people. But it is your effort to make God a liar in everything He says to us in the earth and sky which is far more offensive to God Himself.

@MikeBoll

Btw, who do you suppose God said, “Let us make man in our image” to? Was He not actually speaking then?

He was not speaking English or with tongue and vocal cords, and He was not speaking to Moses. Perhaps He was either speaking to the angels or He was speaking among the different persons of God. Regardless it was according to His own measure of time and certainly had nothing to do with the time it takes the sun to move back to the same place in the sky… which defines 24 hour periods.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@Bill_II

NO. The small interval of time is the three days. This is a prediction of what will happen to Israel if they fail to repent. Try actually reading the text.

I asked you this… “And for God’s sake, why are they DEAD so that God will have to make them alive again after these intervals? What was this third small interval of time on which they not only started living again, but were RAISED UP to life?”

What is your answer?

@Bill_II

Well you have moved the goal posts. The YEC rule is “a ordinal with yom always refers to a 24 hour day.”

I certainly didn’t say any such thing. How could I, knowing that it rained for 40 days and nights?

@Bill_II

The context is certainly clear that this is Hosea speaking to the Israelites so the initial meaning has to “refer to something in Hosea’s time on earth”. And if you want to argue what the words mean it is that initial meaning you must address.

Psalm 110:1… The LORD said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

We all know the prophetic meaning of this statement. What is the initial meaning that “has to” refer to something in David’s time on earth?

@Bill_II

I notice you failed to mention the everlasting seventh day of creation, which is certainly not a 24 hour day.

I’m not aware of any such thing in scripture as an “everlasting seventh day of creation”. Where can I read about that?

And you know what I noticed? You failed to answer a single one of the three easy Yes or No questions I asked. How about you do that, and then we’ll talk more about Deut 5:14? Thanks.

[beaglelady]

@MikeBoll

And you know what I noticed? You failed to answer a single one of the three easy Yes or No questions I asked.

And do you know what I noticed? You don’t answer my questions. How about responding?

[Bill_II]

@MikeBoll

What is your answer?

Try reading the actual text and not a commentary.

6:1-3 Let us return to Yahweh.
For he has torn us apart, yet he will heal us;
he has attacked us, yet he will bandage us.
He will bring us to life after two days,
on the third day resurrect us,
that we may live in his presence and know him.

This is not literal. When has God torn us apart? When has He attacked us? When was the nation of Israel (who this was written for) dead?

@MikeBoll

I make your enemies a footstool

So we have to worry about being made into a piece of furniture?

@MikeBoll

I’m not aware of any such thing in scripture as an “everlasting seventh day of creation”.

It’s really a thing, but I don’t have time to dig up the references now.

@MikeBoll

You failed to answer a single one of the three easy Yes or No questions

The questions require more than a simple yes or no. Kind of like the question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

Edit to add:

Hebrews continues to develop the argument begun in 3:1, based on the conviction that its readers are “sharers in a heavenly calling.” The author has now established, first, that although both Moses and Jesus were faithful to God, Jesus as Son is the real “pioneer/founder” of salvation (3:1–6), and second, that the people in the wilderness did not enter into God’s rest because of their faithlessness (3:7–19). Now, the author argues that the “rest” of which God spoke in Ps 95:11 (Heb 3:11) was not the promised land of Canaan but a share in God’s own way of existing. God said, after all, “they shall not enter into my rest,” rather than “they shall not enter into their rest.”

The author begins in 4:1 with the same hortatory tone as he had used in 3:12–13, but shifts quickly to an exposition of the thesis that a rest still remains for those who are, unlike the wilderness generation, faithful (4:2–3). The heart of this exposition is the resolution of the apparent contradiction between two texts of Scripture (Gen 2:2 and Ps 95:11) in Heb 4:4–5, by appeal, in good midrashic fashion, to a third text, Ps 95:7. The author then constructs a tight enthymeme (a syllogism with the middle term implicit) in 4:8–9, and a conclusion in 4:10 that makes clear that the “rest” meant by Scripture is indeed a share in God’s own; theirs is, in truth, a “heavenly calling.” A final exhortation to “hurry” in entering God’s rest (4:11) concludes with a rhetorically polished and powerful—yet also ambiguous—encomium of the word of God (4:12–13).

Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, ed. C. Clifton Black, M. Eugene Boring, and John T. Carroll, 1st ed., The New Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012), 122–123.

The Continuation of the Seventh Day

Moses wrote of the first six creation days, “There was evening, and there was morning—the th day.” This wording provides a pattern, a framework (to borrow a word), for the events of each of the first six creation days. Each had a starting time and an ending time. However, no such wording is attached to the seventh day, neither in Genesis nor anywhere else in the Bible. Given the parallel structure marking the creation days, this distinct change in the pattern for narrating the seventh day strongly suggests that this day had (or has) not yet ended.
Further information about the seventh day is given in Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4. in these passages, we learn that God’s day of rest continues. The Hebrews writer describes it thus:

For somewhere [God] has spoken about the seventh day in these words “And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.” . . . It still remains that some will enter that rest. . . . There remains, then, a Sabbath rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest. (4:4-11)

According to this passage, the seventh day of the creation week carries on through the centuries from Adam and Eve, through Israel’s development as a nation, through the time of Christ’s earthly ministry, through the early days of the apostolic Church, and on into future years. In Psalm 95:7-11, King David also refers to God’s seventh day of rest as ongoing.

From these passages, we gather that the seventh day of Genesis 1–2 represents a minimum of several thousand years and a maximum that is open-ended (but finite). Given the parallelism of the Genesis creation account, it seems reasonable to conclude that the first six days may also have been long time periods.

Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer, “The Day-Age View” in David G. Hagopian (ed.), The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001), pp. 145f.

Answers to your 3 questions.
No.
No.
Yes. See above.

[beaglelady]

Well, Mr. Boll, we vill see if you are up to answering questions.