Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote: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.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

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.

meh. I don't have much interest in blind faith. It's a straw man to say we have to know "every little detail." You are the one who talked about making educated guesses. To fall back now and just say that you just know something by faith, well Mormons could just as well say the same thing. Or Muslims. Or Hindus. Or whoever you like.

You and I just have a different philosophical outlook is all. You can't prove anything and you don't know anything so you appeal to faith. Sorry, that's not good enough for me. *shrug*

Jac3510 wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

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.

meh. I don't have much interest in blind faith. It's a straw man to say we have to know "every little detail." You are the one who talked about making educated guesses. To fall back now and just say that you just know something by faith, well Mormons could just as well say the same thing. Or Muslims. Or Hindus. Or whoever you like.

You and I just have a different philosophical outlook is all. You can't prove anything and you don't know anything so you appeal to faith. Sorry, that's not good enough for me. *shrug*

I never said I had blind faith, I said I had faith with supporting evidence but even without evidence I would still follow Jesus. My point is for all your bluster you really know nothing more than the next person, just educated guesses and that's it, mind you it's educated about things that really are not that important either.

You seem awful sure that we, and I in particular, can't really be sure.

But we've had the postmodernism discussion before.

Jac3510 wrote:You seem awful sure that we, and I in particular, can't really be sure.

But we've had the postmodernism discussion before.

Just like we have had the legalism discussion before.

Such a postmodern thing to say. The difference in you and me is that I'm interested in truth. Feel free to insist that interest in truth is legalistic. For I'll agree in this: truth, but nature, is exclusive. It excludes all that is not of it, beginning with self-refuting claims along the lines that we can be sure that we can't be sure.

What truth, your truth? definitely not God's truth. Your searching in the wrong place.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:What truth, your truth?

There's no such thing as "my" truth. You may as well say "your" logic or "your philosophy" or "your morals" or "your religion." That makes about as much sense as "your science" or "your chemistry" or "your EKG scans." There is only truth, and ALL truth is God's truth.

Your searching in the wrong place.

I'm searching in Scripture. I hardly think that's the wrong place, but perhaps you disagree.

Jac3510 wrote: There's no such thing as "my" truth. You may as well say "your" logic or "your philosophy" or "your morals" or "your religion." That makes about as much sense as "your science" or "your chemistry" or "your EKG scans." There is only truth, and ALL truth is God's truth.

Yes there is, your truth is not really truth it's just what you think is truth, real truth is what God knows as truth, which I don't pretend to know 100% like you do.

I'm searching in Scripture. I hardly think that's the wrong place, but perhaps you disagree.

No I don't disagree that scripture is the right place, but scripture just doesn't say what the authors intent was or the authors understanding of what he was being told by God tec..., you can take your best educated guess but that is not TRUTH that is just your truth which is fallible. I liked this quote from the Bill Nye Ken Ham debate "you wern't there" - Ken Ham (may not be correct wording but you get the picture).

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Yes there is, your truth is not really truth it's just what you think is truth, real truth is what God knows as truth

Then it's not "my" truth. It's what I understand to be true. If you think I am wrong, then you need to say why. To just assert I'm wrong because it might be possible is silly. I've given you reasons for why I think what I do on this particular issue.

I don't pretend to know 100% like you do.

Don't be childish.

No I don't disagree that scripture is the right place, but scripture just doesn't say what the authors intent was or the authors understanding of what he was being told by God tec..., you can take your best educated guess but that is not TRUTH that is just your truth which is fallible. I liked this quote from the Bill Nye Ken Ham debate "you wern't there" - Ken Ham (may not be correct wording but you get the picture).

Of course Scripture say what the author's intent was. That is what Scripture is. The author's intent, put down on paper.

Once again, there is no ambiguity in the language of Joshua 10. Absolutely ZERO. There's no question about what the words mean. They say what they say. The only question is whether or not you believe it. So to argue that well they may not mean what they say for some completely unknown and unknowable reason is to say that we can't know what ANY part of Scripture says. When Matthew says that Jesus rose from the dead, what does he mean? If we allow ourselves to say, "Well, we weren't there, so we don't really know what he meant, because, after all, he could mean something that we don't know about . . ." then we can't say that the text means what it says after all. So how would we know that Jesus rose from the dead? We wouldn't. We would have absolutely ZERO evidence. You can't even appeal to the historical records of, say, Pliny the Younger, because how do we know what HE meant when he wrote (if your conditions apply)? We wouldn't.

You say you have sufficient evidence. What I am saying is that you are being inconsistent. You have NO evidence. And that means, if you believe, all you have is blind faith. And that's not good enough for me. And, frankly, it's not good enough for you,either. I wonder what it is about this passage in Josh 10 that makes you reticent to accept what the text says. You believe that God brought a dead man back to life. You believe (I assume) that Jesus fed thousands of people with a boy's sack lunch and then had left overs. You believe Moses parted the Red Sea (or perhaps you believe he parted the sea of reeds, either way). So why are you uncomfortable saying what the text says here?

Jac3510 wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Yes there is, your truth is not really truth it's just what you think is truth, real truth is what God knows as truth

Then it's not "my" truth. It's what I understand to be true. If you think I am wrong, then you need to say why. To just assert I'm wrong because it might be possible is silly. I've given you reasons for why I think what I do on this particular issue.

I don't pretend to know 100% like you do.

Don't be childish.

No I don't disagree that scripture is the right place, but scripture just doesn't say what the authors intent was or the authors understanding of what he was being told by God tec..., you can take your best educated guess but that is not TRUTH that is just your truth which is fallible. I liked this quote from the Bill Nye Ken Ham debate "you wern't there" - Ken Ham (may not be correct wording but you get the picture).

Of course Scripture say what the author's intent was. That is what Scripture is. The author's intent, put down on paper.

Once again, there is no ambiguity in the language of Joshua 10. Absolutely ZERO. There's no question about what the words mean. They say what they say. The only question is whether or not you believe it. So to argue that well they may not mean what they say for some completely unknown and unknowable reason is to say that we can't know what ANY part of Scripture says. When Matthew says that Jesus rose from the dead, what does he mean? If we allow ourselves to say, "Well, we weren't there, so we don't really know what he meant, because, after all, he could mean something that we don't know about . . ." then we can't say that the text means what it says after all. So how would we know that Jesus rose from the dead? We wouldn't. We would have absolutely ZERO evidence. You can't even appeal to the historical records of, say, Pliny the Younger, because how do we know what HE meant when he wrote (if your conditions apply)? We wouldn't.

You say you have sufficient evidence. What I am saying is that you are being inconsistent. You have NO evidence. And that means, if you believe, all you have is blind faith. And that's not good enough for me. And, frankly, it's not good enough for you,either. I wonder what it is about this passage in Josh 10 that makes you reticent to accept what the text says. You believe that God brought a dead man back to life. You believe (I assume) that Jesus fed thousands of people with a boy's sack lunch and then had left overs. You believe Moses parted the Red Sea (or perhaps you believe he parted the sea of reeds, either way). So why are you uncomfortable saying what the text says here?

Frankly I don't give reasons why because I just don't think it is important enough to argue about, the only time I take issue is when you guys attack others personally, which I won't stand for.

Other than that this is a dead topic for me, I really couldn't care less.

Edit. What I mean to say is, what exactly is written is not what is important, what it means is far more important, that's what I care about.

How can you tell what it means other than by what it says?

Jac3510 wrote:How can you tell what it means other than by what it says?

Your not understanding, the meaning is derived from what is written (kinda goes without saying really) it's just that your focusing on what was written and not the actual meaning of it.


Seriously who gives a rats how God stopped the sun or if it is literal or poetic etc.., it's just not important, why God did it is far more interesting.

I don't know if this has any bearing on this discussion = but it might help. From WLC

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/have-chr ... -this-fact

While what WLC is saying is correct there is the point of two people using the same methods of interpretation but reaching totally different conclusions, this obviously happens or else we would all have the same creation perspective etc.... Now it is logical that only one interpretation is the correct one but who's, both sides can argue with supporting evidence until they are blue in the face but this doesn't bring us any closer to truth as both sides have equally compelling arguments. I just think it doesn't really matter if something is literal or non literal, it has no bearing on the underlying truth being taught, if anything it is just a distraction, just like the legalists of the day they were more concerned with what was written rather than why it was written and the underlying truth behind it.