Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Prodigal Son wrote:isn't there a story in the bible where God supposedly made the earth stand still so some war could take place or something? is there any scientific proof for this?

I think you are refering to one of Joshua's wars.
The Earth spins at over 1000 mph. Can you imagine the damage momentum could cause if the entire planet immediately came to a screetching hault? Everything on the entire planet would be destroyed; mankind included. There is no scientific proof of this happening.

This was a supernatural event. And only one day - it could have well been a localised event as well. God can do the impossible after all.

There is no proof for such an event kenny. You either believe it is what happened as the Bible says or you don't.

I agree!

K

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Prodigal Son wrote:isn't there a story in the bible where God supposedly made the earth stand still so some war could take place or something? is there any scientific proof for this?

I think you are refering to one of Joshua's wars.
The Earth spins at over 1000 mph. Can you imagine the damage momentum could cause if the entire planet immediately came to a screetching hault? Everything on the entire planet would be destroyed; mankind included. There is no scientific proof of this happening.

Maybe there was some sort of celestial event that caused it to remain daylight on the Earth when it should have been night instead of the Earth stopping it's rotation, maybe a supernova etc...

Not just daylight, the Sun did not set.

K

Maybe it was poetic language, or maybe that was the only way the knew how to describe it, or maybe the description was limited by their basic language, maybe our translation is poor. So many maybe's..................

It's definitely not a translation problem, and I think we should be really careful about appealing to poetic language or general ignorance. If that's allowed here, then why not at the crossing of the red sea? Why not at the burning bush? Why not at the resurrection of Jesus?

The language is pretty straightforward. Beyond the report of the miracle itself, it is not terribly embellished. It's not even all that stylized. It's just an assertion: Joshua asked the sun to stay up in the sky, and it did for about a day. I, for one, don't have any reason to think that God couldn't have done exactly that if He so chose to.

Jac3510 wrote:It's definitely not a translation problem, and I think we should be really careful about appealing to poetic language or general ignorance. If that's allowed here, then why not at the crossing of the red sea? Why not at the burning bush? Why not at the resurrection of Jesus?

The language is pretty straightforward. Beyond the report of the miracle itself, it is not terribly embellished. It's not even all that stylized. It's just an assertion: Joshua asked the sun to stay up in the sky, and it did for about a day. I, for one, don't have any reason to think that God couldn't have done exactly that if He so chose to.

I also believe that God can do anything he wants, even suspend the laws of this universe, but I can also admit that I also just don't know, especially when dealing with an ancient language and culture I will readily admit I don't have all the facts at hand and I don't think even the most educated person can say definitively what exactly happened or what exactly the author meant, educated guesses at best.

And that's all well and good. But your point about educated guesses is the important one. Absolutely ALL the education we have demands the translation we're talking about here (that the sun and moon didn't move for almost a full day). So this isn't a linguistic question. And there's no literary evidence that this was intended to be metaphorical or anything like that. In other words, when we make an educated guess, we make our best guess, and our best guess is by nature that guess that follows all the evidence. So as it stands, absolutely all the evidence suggests a straightforward understanding of the passage. We have every reason to guess that the author understood and wanted his audience to understand that the sun stopped in its trek across the sky, and that for about a day.

Now, if someone is going to say, "Well, that's certainly possible, but I don't know that for sure, it's only a guess," then my response is, "Well, what evidence do you have that we are misunderstanding the author here?" If you have no evidence, then it's not an educated guess to say that maybe the sun didn't really stop. It's just a random guess with absolutely no education behind it.

The only really important thing is the hermeneutical principle: if we are going to say that the text doesn't mean what it clearly says, then on what basis do we decide that it doesn't really mean what it says? There has to be a principle here, because if there isn't, then it boils down to, "Well, I'll question the actual reading here because I'm uncomfortable with it but not there." But personal comfort should obviously have no bearing on how we interpret a text.

In short, if we're going to say that there is an educated guess that the text means something other than the sun didn't move across the sky, then we need to provide evidence within the text itself (and/or within its cultural background, which would count as being within the text itself) for such an interpretation. That is, we would need a warrant for such an interpretation (which is always true, and that's the hermeneutical principle I am employing even now: we ALWAYS need a warrant for our preferred interpretation of ANY text).

Jac3510 wrote:
In short, if we're going to say that there is an educated guess that the text means something other than the sun didn't move across the sky, then we need to provide evidence within the text itself (and/or within its cultural background, which would count as being within the text itself) for such an interpretation. That is, we would need a warrant for such an interpretation (which is always true, and that's the hermeneutical principle I am employing even now: we ALWAYS need a warrant for our preferred interpretation of ANY text).

So if I wrote down today exactly the same as what the author wrote but what I really mean't was something else and thousands of years later someone finds my writing and because I left no evidence in the text of it being something else they would have to assume it happened literally as written or that was the intended meaning of the author?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:
In short, if we're going to say that there is an educated guess that the text means something other than the sun didn't move across the sky, then we need to provide evidence within the text itself (and/or within its cultural background, which would count as being within the text itself) for such an interpretation. That is, we would need a warrant for such an interpretation (which is always true, and that's the hermeneutical principle I am employing even now: we ALWAYS need a warrant for our preferred interpretation of ANY text).

So if I wrote down today exactly the same as what the author wrote but what I really mean't was something else and thousands of years later someone finds my writing and because I left no evidence in the text of it being something else they would have to assume it happened literally as written or that was the intended meaning of the author?

Yes, actually.

Consider the alternative. If we can just assume that words don't mean what they mean because maybe after all there is something we don't know that might change the meaning then how can you know what anything means?

You tell me Jesus died on a cross. How do I know? The text says so? So what? Maybe the text means something else and we just don't know it. You say that God created the world (who cares the model). How do I know? The text says so? So what? Maybe the text means something else and we just don't know it. You say that murder is a sin. How do I know? The text says so? So what? Maybe the text means something else and we just don't know it. And so on.

Again, the issue here is hermeneutical. You can't come up with a system where you decide that sometimes the words means what they say and other times they don't, and you certainly can't do so based on "well it MIGHT mean something else and we just don't know" kind of reasoning.

You were exactly correct earlier when you talked about educated guesses. Absolutely everything we know--absolutely all of our education--tells us that the text means what the text says. If you are going to suggest it doesn't, or for that matter if you are going to suggest that maybe it doesn't, then I'm going to ask you what's your warrant for going against ALL the evidence?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:So if I wrote down today exactly the same as what the author wrote but what I really mean't was something else and thousands of years later someone finds my writing and because I left no evidence in the text of it being something else they would have to assume it happened literally as written or that was the intended meaning of the author?

I'm left wondering how someone like you makes any sense out of the Bible at all. If you can't believe what it plainly says, how can you be sure of anything it says?

FL

Jac3510 wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:
In short, if we're going to say that there is an educated guess that the text means something other than the sun didn't move across the sky, then we need to provide evidence within the text itself (and/or within its cultural background, which would count as being within the text itself) for such an interpretation. That is, we would need a warrant for such an interpretation (which is always true, and that's the hermeneutical principle I am employing even now: we ALWAYS need a warrant for our preferred interpretation of ANY text).

So if I wrote down today exactly the same as what the author wrote but what I really mean't was something else and thousands of years later someone finds my writing and because I left no evidence in the text of it being something else they would have to assume it happened literally as written or that was the intended meaning of the author?

Yes, actually.

Consider the alternative. If we can just assume that words don't mean what they mean because maybe after all there is something we don't know that might change the meaning then how can you know what anything means?

You tell me Jesus died on a cross. How do I know? The text says so? So what? Maybe the text means something else and we just don't know it. You say that God created the world (who cares the model). How do I know? The text says so? So what? Maybe the text means something else and we just don't know it. You say that murder is a sin. How do I know? The text says so? So what? Maybe the text means something else and we just don't know it. And so on.

Again, the issue here is hermeneutical. You can't come up with a system where you decide that sometimes the words means what they say and other times they don't, and you certainly can't do so based on "well it MIGHT mean something else and we just don't know" kind of reasoning.

You were exactly correct earlier when you talked about educated guesses. Absolutely everything we know--absolutely all of our education--tells us that the text means what the text says. If you are going to suggest it doesn't, or for that matter if you are going to suggest that maybe it doesn't, then I'm going to ask you what's your warrant for going against ALL the evidence?

This is why we have faith, because we cannot know everything little detail.

I have faith that Jesus died for me and there is some supporting evidence to make it evidence based faith, but even without the evidence I would still have faith.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:So if I wrote down today exactly the same as what the author wrote but what I really mean't was something else and thousands of years later someone finds my writing and because I left no evidence in the text of it being something else they would have to assume it happened literally as written or that was the intended meaning of the author?

I'm left wondering how someone like you makes any sense out of the Bible at all. If you can't believe what it plainly says, how can you be sure of anything it says?

FL

Because I have faith in God and that's all that counts. The Bible isn't an idol for me.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:If you can't believe what it plainly says

So when Jesus plainly said you must forgive your brother 70x7 times, do you think he meant 490 times and that's it?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:If you can't believe what it plainly says

So when Jesus plainly said you must forgive your brother 70x7 times, do you think he meant 490 times and that's it?

You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between the figurative and the literal in the Bible. ''Seventy times seven'' is a figure of speech meaning ''keep on doing it.'' Keep on forgiving just as God keeps on forgiving us.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Because I have faith in God and that's all that counts. The Bible isn't an idol for me.

Faith in God? If the Bible is filled with imagined accounts of Creation, was written by simple men who didn't understand what they were witnessing and its historical record is questionnable, how can the Bible be the basis for your faith?

Frankly - from where I sit - if I were you, I'd chuck my Bible into a bonfire.

FL

Your starting to sound like a broken record FL, just a pity what you keep repeating is all BS.

The way you speak to other Christians on here I think is disgusting, I don't think cultural differences are an excuse, maybe you should burn your Bible because you clearly don't follow what it says, I suspect you treat it like the Koran and have it untouched on display somewhere for all your visitors to see so they know how much of a great Christian you are.

Seems to me your a hypocrite, you pick and choose what you want to take literally or not but when others do it suddenly you throw around insults and demean others just because they interpret the text differently, you're just as bad as the Pharisees, Sadducees and legalists of Jesus' time.

Go cast your stones at someone else, maybe you should take some pot shots at Jesus.

Could you both resolve this privately via pms?

It is clear that the bible is a collection of works of many authors and not ALL of it was written to be taken as literal and concrete writing.
There are examples of typical ancient propaganda, examples of poetic language as well as historical facts and so forth.
To say that ALL the bible is to be taken as literal and concrete is just plain wrong since, quite obviously, not all was written to be take as such.
There is figurative language, literal language ( based on the literal genre of the book in question) and literal and concrete language.
So, the question is:
WHO decides what is what and which is which?

Augustine for example, did NOT view the Genesis account as a literal and concrete account of the creation of the universe.
Some did and do.

I don't think anyone here would say that Augustine didn't value the bible or that he didn't know anything about it.

The Saudacees didn't believe in the resurrection and they used passages in Ecclesiastics as examples of death being final and the dead knowing nothing.

They didn't view those passages as "poetic verses" of a writer that was in turmoil about death ( as many scholars do).

Were they right? were they wrong? according to whom?

My point is this:

What is to be taken as literal and concrete in the bible has been debated since the first moment that someone read it and realized ( to them) that may not mean what we think it means...

That is never gonna change.

Are we to put our faith in SOMETHING or SOMEONE?

IMO, I put my faith in Christ and while I see the bible as a finger pointing the way to Christ, it is also JUST that to me- a pointer to Christ, no more, no less.

Your mileage my vary and I respect that, I ask only the same respect for you.