When you look up at the sky.........

Post Reply
User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#76

Post by GregD » Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:57 pm

This one is for Bill:
14And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
My reading of this is that the sun, moon, and stars are INSIDE the vault of the sky. Where is "the water above" which the vault separates from "the water below"?



User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#77

Post by BillyBob66 » Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:55 pm

GregD wrote:This one is for Bill:
14And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
My reading of this is that the sun, moon, and stars are INSIDE the vault of the sky. Where is "the water above" which the vault separates from "the water below"?
Greg, you've got me there brother. Though I have read that passage a million times, this aspect of it has never been apparent to me until this reading of it just now. Good catch.

This certainly appears that the sun and the stars are inside this vault(rather than just their light shining in),which of course will not work with the vault being only our atmosphere, rather than our entire solar system or even galaxy. It all hangs on the word that is being translated in. And it would not quite make sense that a layer separating us from anything- waters or something else- out there would also have inside it the sun, or even the moon. Although, the vast amount of waters which have been found are 12 billion light years away, so I suppose these waters could still be outside the layer, but that does not seem like a great answer. The vault separates waters from waters, so it does not seem to make sense that the sun and moon would be inside this vault, as opposed to just their light. So I have no answer for you on this one so far and I will have to concede it to you, even if waters are still separated from waters by this vault or layer.

Without having researched any of this(the later passages you asked about), I can only say at this time that many times over the years I have had a similar difficulty with many passages that either did not seem to make sense to me or seemed to be contradictory, and I just had to go by faith on those passages. Then, years later, the explanation appeared, so that in the end there were very few passages that I could not explain. ( I will now add verse 14-17 to that list).

Now you might be wondering why a few passages like these you provided, and the few others I already struggled with, don't cause me to view the Bible as you do, as a myth. It is simply because, in addition to the faith I had before I began studying the Bible so intently, there have been hundreds of verses that to me can not be explained by other than the existence of God. Whether it is all of the other prophets along with Moses, or all of the correct health laws Moses gave which I have often posted on, the totality of the evidence God provides is overwhelming. Add to that the way that the problematic passages have often been explained out over the years, and I am not shaken by a few that I can not explain. I figure it is just something I can not understand right now. So it remains a preponderance of the evidence, which came after faith. IOW, if I had zero biblical or creation related evidence, I suppose I would still believe, just as I did before felt I had a lot of evidence. But as I await to see how history unfolds, I still have what I consider massive amounts of evidence. And not just the Bible, but when talking about a creator God, simply observing the universe. For example, as I have said previously, there are no monkeys or dogs or cats participating in this discussion, even though we all supposedly evolved side by side from the same dead rock over billions of years. Only man appears to line up with "25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.".

Or as Paul said in Romans 1, just by observing the obviously designed creation, man kind has no excuse for unbelief. Even before the prophets and Israel.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#78

Post by sarge » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:02 pm

Anyone who reads the Bible for scientific, geological, astronomical, or even historical purposes, and reads them as such, doesn't get the point of the whole book.

Sometimes, willfully so.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#79

Post by BillyBob66 » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:44 pm

GregD wrote:John, Bill,

There is a section of that page titled, Fallacious reasoning of the Skeptics. Do you agree with all 9 of those points?

Regarding item 1:
They assumed their conclusion. They assumed that the Bible is not a supernatural revelation from God and then manipulated the biblical text to arrive at that conclusion. They were implicitly Deistic or atheistic in their thinking.
In your opinion is it acceptable to assume the Bible MIGHT NOT be a supernatural revelation?


Regarding item 6:
Their subjective bias led them to illegitimately assume that any biblical statement was unreliable until proven reliable (though they would not do this with any other ancient or modern text) and when they found any disagreement between the Bible and ancient pagan literature, the latter was automatically given preference and trusted as a historical witness. The former violates the well-accepted concept known as Aristotle's dictum, which advises that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the document itself, rather than the critic. In other words, the Bible (or any other book) should be considered innocent until proven guilty, or reliable until its unreliability is compellingly demonstrated.
In your opinion is it acceptable to assume any Biblical statement that has not yet been proven reliable MIGHT NOT be reliable?

Edit: BTW, the scientific method rejects the last two statements of this item. Nothing is considered reliable until there is compelling evidence of reliability.
Greg, John answered you, I'm not sure I can do any better.
"In your opinion is it acceptable to assume the Bible MIGHT NOT be a supernatural revelation? ". Might not be? I guess it might be OK. Surely most non-believer starting research on the subject would assume this. Before I began studying it years ago, but after I was a believer, I most likely assumed the Bible was true. But I imagine a biased assumption on either side can lead to some bad research. Still, the facts should win in the end.

"In your opinion is it acceptable to assume any Biblical statement that has not yet been proven reliable MIGHT NOT be reliable?". Same answer as above, with the "might" being the most important.

But here is a part that struck me as most interesting:
" The skeptics erroneously assumed, without any other ancient Hebrew literature to compare with the biblical text, that they could, with scientific reliability, establish the date of the composition of each book of the Bible.14
To date, no manuscript evidence of the J-document, E-document, P-document, D-document, or any of the other supposed fragments have ever been discovered. And there are no ancient Jewish commentaries that mention any of these imaginary documents or their alleged unnamed authors. All the manuscript evidence we have is for the first five books of the Bible just as we have them today. This is confirmed by the singular Jewish testimony (until the last few centuries) that these books are the writings of Moses.".

That right there, and I find it so typical. It is to me typical of evolutionary thinking. Here come these scholars mostly in the last 200 years, though Spinoza was 800 years ago, that they could figure out, just by looking at the scripture, who wrote it and when, without taking the Bible's own word for it, and rejecting over 3000 years of Jewish belief on that before they came along. Without archaeologists finding a single document from 600BC saying " Hey guys, here is my finished work about a guy named Moses and what I have decided that God told him", they just somehow figure out, based on what word is used and what style, that not only did Moses not write it, but those poor stupid Jews have had it wrong for 3000+ years. And because they say it, suddenly most all academics, even some Christians, know that Moses did not write Gen through Deuteronomy. They just somehow know these things. With evolution, they somehow know ( not just suppose, but know) these things that no one has ever observed, with these Bible critics they know that things people claim they did observe were all just made up. With little to know hard evidence, but plenty of assumptions.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#80

Post by BillyBob66 » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:53 pm

sarge wrote:Anyone who reads the Bible for scientific, geological, astronomical, or even historical purposes, and reads them as such, doesn't get the point of the whole book.

Sometimes, willfully so.
I think you are correct, especially with the last sentence. But that does not mean that the Bible does not contain a fair amount of accurate examples of all of the above. And on the history part of it is often the only written history we have of certain time periods, and archaeology has so often confirmed it.

But, you are correct, that is not the purpose of the book, or certainly not the main purpose. However, God does say, repetedly, that He has told us these things(mostly the prophets) so that when we see they are correct, or come true, that we might know that He is the Lord, since there can be no other explanation for these things coming to pass.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#81

Post by johnspenn » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:58 am

sarge wrote:Anyone who reads the Bible for scientific, geological, astronomical, or even historical purposes, and reads them as such, doesn't get the point of the whole book.
This is true. However my conviction is that A: The writing of the Bible is supernaturally inspired by the creator of the unverse, thus B: where it addresses science, geology, astrology, and/or history, it is correct.
sarge wrote:Sometimes, willfully so.
There are cases of "willful ignorance" (2 Peter 3:5, Romans 1:19-22, etc) but in some cases they just can not understand (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Thankfully we aren't called on to make the distinction between them.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#82

Post by GregD » Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:43 am

johnspenn wrote: This is true. However my conviction is that A: The writing of the Bible is supernaturally inspired by the creator of the unverse, thus B: where it addresses science, geology, astrology, and/or history, it is correct.
I understand that.

I assert that SCIENCE is incapable of coming to those positions. Do you agree, or should I elaborate?

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#83

Post by GregD » Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:02 am

BillyBob66 wrote: "In your opinion is it acceptable to assume the Bible MIGHT NOT be a supernatural revelation? ". Might not be? I guess it might be OK. Surely most non-believer starting research on the subject would assume this. Before I began studying it years ago, but after I was a believer, I most likely assumed the Bible was true. But I imagine a biased assumption on either side can lead to some bad research. Still, the facts should win in the end.
Not necessarily. The scientific method constrains where the facts can lead; more "complicated" explanations are rejected in favor of less "complicated" explanations.
BillyBob66 wrote: "In your opinion is it acceptable to assume any Biblical statement that has not yet been proven reliable MIGHT NOT be reliable?". Same answer as above, with the "might" being the most important.

But here is a part that struck me as most interesting:
" The skeptics erroneously assumed, without any other ancient Hebrew literature to compare with the biblical text, that they could, with scientific reliability, establish the date of the composition of each book of the Bible.14
To date, no manuscript evidence of the J-document, E-document, P-document, D-document, or any of the other supposed fragments have ever been discovered. And there are no ancient Jewish commentaries that mention any of these imaginary documents or their alleged unnamed authors. All the manuscript evidence we have is for the first five books of the Bible just as we have them today. This is confirmed by the singular Jewish testimony (until the last few centuries) that these books are the writings of Moses.".

That right there, and I find it so typical. It is to me typical of evolutionary thinking. Here come these scholars mostly in the last 200 years, though Spinoza was 800 years ago, that they could figure out, just by looking at the scripture, who wrote it and when, without taking the Bible's own word for it, and rejecting over 3000 years of Jewish belief on that before they came along. Without archaeologists finding a single document from 600BC saying " Hey guys, here is my finished work about a guy named Moses and what I have decided that God told him", they just somehow figure out, based on what word is used and what style, that not only did Moses not write it, but those poor stupid Jews have had it wrong for 3000+ years. And because they say it, suddenly most all academics, even some Christians, know that Moses did not write Gen through Deuteronomy. They just somehow know these things. With evolution, they somehow know ( not just suppose, but know) these things that no one has ever observed, with these Bible critics they know that things people claim they did observe were all just made up. With little to know hard evidence, but plenty of assumptions.
An important qualifier is "scientific reliability". What Hodge/Mortensen object to, what Bill objects to, is very standard SCIENTIFIC analysis. This scientific method is biased against, arguably it explicitly excludes, explanations that invoke divine intervention at any point. There may be imperfections in how "the skeptics" / evolutionary thinkers implement the scientific method, but as far as I can tell they seem to be making a reasonable attempt. The objections of Hodge/Mortensen and Bill are fundamentally objections to the scientific method, and skepticism that scientific analysis is reliable.

Aside: Apparently scientific analysis indicates that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare. Well, not all of it. I heard on the radio recently that an analysis of writing styles indicates that some portions of some plays were authored by other contemporary playwrights. Scientific - yes. Absolutely positively complete confidence in the result - no, science rarely works that way (that is why I use the word "indicates").

User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#84

Post by johnspenn » Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:20 am

GregD wrote:
johnspenn wrote: This is true. However my conviction is that A: The writing of the Bible is supernaturally inspired by the creator of the unverse, thus B: where it addresses science, geology, astrology, and/or history, it is correct.
I understand that.

I assert that SCIENCE is incapable of coming to those positions. Do you agree, or should I elaborate?
I agree. SCIENCE is an enterprise undertaken by men in an attempt to understand the physical world. SCIENCE is incapable of coming to any position.

The practice of science is very limited in scope.

Also don't forget, what you refer to as SCIENCE is not an entity unto itself, as you seem to imply by your reference to and dare I say reverence of it. It is simply a tool used by SCIENTISTS, who are men, like you and me with like qualities, passions and fallabilities.

Is science useful as a way of gathering information and knowing things about our physical world? When properly applied, yes of course.

Is SCIENCE (as you like to refer to it) the only way we can know anything with certainty? No, not by a long shot.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#85

Post by sarge » Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:36 am

I assert that SCIENCE is incapable of coming to those positions. Do you agree, or should I elaborate?
At various points in History, Science told us tomatoes were poisonous, the world was flat, malaria was caused by swamp air, and removing blood from the bloodstream sould improve the health of sick people.

I find that the evidence shows that Science is every bit as fallible as the Bible is.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#86

Post by GregD » Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:02 am

johnspenn wrote: I agree. SCIENCE is an enterprise undertaken by men in an attempt to understand the physical world. SCIENCE is incapable of coming to any position.

The practice of science is very limited in scope.

Also don't forget, what you refer to as SCIENCE is not an entity unto itself, as you seem to imply by your reference to and dare I say reverence of it. It is simply a tool used by SCIENTISTS, who are men, like you and me with like qualities, passions and fallabilities.

Is science useful as a way of gathering information and knowing things about our physical world? When properly applied, yes of course.
Up to this point we seem to be in agreement.

johnspenn wrote: Is SCIENCE (as you like to refer to it) the only way we can know anything with certainty? No, not by a long shot.
It is my understanding that you dispute that that Moses did not write the Torah, that Earth is over 4 billion years old, and that man is a product of evolution. But what exactly do you dispute? Do you dispute that these are the results of scientific analyses? If so, why? Do you contend that the science was performed incorrectly, or that the science is inconclusive? Or is it simply that, in your assessment, science has failed to come to the correct results which you happen to know by other means?

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#87

Post by GregD » Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:05 am

sarge wrote:
I assert that SCIENCE is incapable of coming to those positions. Do you agree, or should I elaborate?
At various points in History, Science told us tomatoes were poisonous, the world was flat, malaria was caused by swamp air, and removing blood from the bloodstream sould improve the health of sick people.

I find that the evidence shows that Science is every bit as fallible as the Bible is.
Indeed science is fallible. But it does have a correction mechanism and in fact has long since replaced those hypotheses with others that work far better.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#88

Post by sarge » Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:15 am

GregD wrote:
sarge wrote:
At various points in History, Science told us tomatoes were poisonous, the world was flat, malaria was caused by swamp air, and removing blood from the bloodstream sould improve the health of sick people.

I find that the evidence shows that Science is every bit as fallible as the Bible is.
Indeed science is fallible. But it does have a correction mechanism and in fact has long since replaced those hypotheses with others that work far better.
Well, then.

Lets use the science books for the understanding of science, keeping out minds open that things may change as we come to know more about science.

And then read the Bible for an understanding of God, keeping our minds open that things may change as we come to know more about God.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#89

Post by GregD » Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:17 am

Bill's contention in this and other threads is that one should believe the Bible because it has clear evidence of divine inspiration. My response has been that his evidence thus far fails to stand up to conventional scientific evaluation. Does anyone contend that Bill's evidence DOES stand up to conventional SCIENTIFIC evaluation?

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#90

Post by GregD » Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:19 am

sarge wrote:
GregD wrote:
sarge wrote:
At various points in History, Science told us tomatoes were poisonous, the world was flat, malaria was caused by swamp air, and removing blood from the bloodstream sould improve the health of sick people.

I find that the evidence shows that Science is every bit as fallible as the Bible is.
Indeed science is fallible. But it does have a correction mechanism and in fact has long since replaced those hypotheses with others that work far better.
Well, then.

Lets use the science books for the understanding of science, keeping out minds open that things may change as we come to know more about science.

And then read the Bible for an understanding of God, keeping our minds open that things may change as we come to know more about God.
John and Bill don't agree with that. Neither, I imagine, would followers of non-Christian faiths.

Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest