Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Only if you're willing, in context, to make the added point that this further proves that YECs don't believe yom means a twenty-four hour days since obviously Joshua's long "day" would have been LONGER thatn 24 hours!!! So see, long days are part of the meaning of yom.

See, you yecs can be reasonable!

Don't flatter us. Give a monkey a typewriter and enough time and he'll give you Romeo and Juliet. Give a YEC enough posts and he'll say something that his intellectual and theological betters can regard as reasonable.

bbyrd,

No. There is no such symbolism at all.

then that is what is true for you, and i am not inclined to change your mind there, ok. But God expresses the divine plan in the heavens, and smarter guys than me have concluded otherwise than your conclusions. i could give you a link to a Scriptural Astrologist, who is frankly still a bit fundie for my taste, still accepts Rapture, etc...but i do think he is very knowledgeable on this part of the elephant...

http://www.biblenews1.com/astrology/astrology.html

he's kind of hard to comprehend at first, ok, refuses to use the heathen names for any of the planets (or even ref them) so that is kind of a pain, but maybe it will serve to get you started. Yes, there is symbolism, and no, you do not have to believe that if you don't wanna.

bbyrd009 wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Only if you're willing, in context, to make the added point that this further proves that YECs don't believe yom means a twenty-four hour days since obviously Joshua's long "day" would have been LONGER thatn 24 hours!!! So see, long days are part of the meaning of yom.

See, you yecs can be reasonable!

Don't flatter us. Give a monkey a typewriter and enough time and he'll give you Romeo and Juliet. Give a YEC enough posts and he'll say something that his intellectual and theological betters can regard as reasonable.

bbyrd,

No. There is no such symbolism at all.

then that is what is true for you, and i am not inclined to change your mind there, ok. But God expresses the divine plan in the heavens, and smarter guys than me have concluded otherwise than your conclusions. i could give you a link to a Scriptural Astrologist, who is frankly still a bit fundie for my taste, still accepts Rapture, etc...but i do think he is very knowledgeable on this part of the elephant...

http://www.biblenews1.com/astrology/astrology.html

he's kind of hard to comprehend at first, ok, refuses to use the heathen names for any of the planets (or even ref them) so that is kind of a pain, but maybe it will serve to get you started. Yes, there is symbolism, and no, you do not have to believe that if you don't wanna.

See Jac? It's midnight somewhere!

PaulSacramento wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

At bare minimum, retract this. I have a LOT of theological training and I don't see any reading other than "such literalisms."

did any of your training touch upon the symbolism of the sun as Christ, and the moon as the Church?

Where in the NT does it state that Christ is The Sun or The Church ( which is the Body of Christ), the moon?

i think these are inferred from their place in the solar system, the sun is obvious, the moon is "no light of its own, all reflected light from the sun," etc.

these are all derived from "God sets the heavens in order," paraphrased. Understand that this is not some different belief system or anything, just recognizing that God puts signs in the heavens, the heavens declare the glory of God, etc.

bbyrd009 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

At bare minimum, retract this. I have a LOT of theological training and I don't see any reading other than "such literalisms."

did any of your training touch upon the symbolism of the sun as Christ, and the moon as the Church?

Where in the NT does it state that Christ is The Sun or The Church ( which is the Body of Christ), the moon?

i think these are inferred from their place in the solar system, the sun is obvious, the moon is "no light of its own, all reflected light from the sun," etc.

these are all derived from "God sets the heavens in order," paraphrased. Understand that this is not some different belief system or anything, just recognizing that God puts signs in the heavens, the heavens declare the glory of God, etc.

Do you pull this stuff out of Uranus?

Gizmo awaken
There Jac, FIFY!

Can we please refocus a bit.

Is there not an enormous problem with picking and choosing certain passages and trying to extract various specific parts and declaring them simply not true AT ALL???!!! And when we look at key passages, like the Creation accounts, Adam and Eve's creations and their falling into sin, the portions where Jesus confirms the OT and its purpose, where the Apostles re-enforce these things, the human lineages of Christ - can you claim they are untrue without ending up with tremendous theological problems, and without calling into doubt many key foundational theological understandings? Like a need for a Saviour, etc? Is it credible to think that neither any prophet, apostle or Jesus ever mentioned such an asserted problem with the truth or integrity of Scripture? Does their collective testimony not totally reject such a view as heresy???!!!

Philip wrote:Can we please refocus a bit.

Is there not an enormous problem with picking and choosing certain passages and trying to extract various specific parts and declaring them simply not true AT ALL???!!! And when we look at key passages, like the Creation accounts, Adam and Eve's creations and their falling into sin, the portions where Jesus confirms the OT and its purpose, where the Apostles re-enforce these things, the human lineages of Christ - can you claim they are untrue without ending up with tremendous theological problems, and without calling into doubt many key foundational theological understandings? Like a need for a Saviour, etc? Is it credible to think that neither any prophet, apostle or Jesus ever mentioned such an asserted problem with the truth or integrity of Scripture? Does their collective testimony not totally reject such a view as heresy???!!!

Who is calling any of that "not true at all"?

Even neo, who doesn't hold to a literal view of Genesis, certainly believes they are true, or could be true, in some non-literal way.

Rick, let's take the matter of Jesus' confirmations of the OT as being Scripture, and that He came to fulfill the OT - how can those things be true, but not literally so? Now, I'm not asking whether Jesus was saying the Scriptures themselves were all LITERALLY true (as they can be true in various ways) - I'm asking how His CONFIRMATIONS that the OT is ALL God-given can be TRUE, without His assertions about this matter not being FACTUALLY true? Did He say this or not? Is it true or not? Because if it is not, then we have lots of creative writing and the ramblings of men indiscernibly mixed in with God's word. So which is it? Are such statements of Jesus literally true (meaning they are FACTUALLY so), or not?

FYI: Neo, I will respond to your long post as I have time - rather busy this week. And I appreciate you taking the time to put your thoughts down.

Jac3510 wrote:Gizmo awaken
There Jac, FIFY!

Not even close. Mine was incredibly relevant, both lyrically and stylistically, to the point being made. In the most poetic fashion at that.

Philip wrote:Can we please refocus a bit.

Is there not an enormous problem with picking and choosing certain passages and trying to extract various specific parts and declaring them simply not true AT ALL???!!! And when we look at key passages, like the Creation accounts, Adam and Eve's creations and their falling into sin, the portions where Jesus confirms the OT and its purpose, where the Apostles re-enforce these things, the human lineages of Christ - can you claim they are untrue without ending up with tremendous theological problems, and without calling into doubt many key foundational theological understandings? Like a need for a Saviour, etc? Is it credible to think that neither any prophet, apostle or Jesus ever mentioned such an asserted problem with the truth or integrity of Scripture? Does their collective testimony not totally reject such a view as heresy???!!!

Rather than accuse, you could ask.

edit:

And for the record, I'm neither playing devil's advocate nor am secretly arguing on behalf of neo's position. But neo has earned my respect, at least, for his uncompromising commitment to trying to get at the truth as best as he understands it. He doesn't strike me as someone with a theological axe to grind or someone more interesting in proving their own position, evidence be damned, than he is in having a rational conversation. So while I have my own very deep concerns about some of his conclusions, I think rather than assume he's a neophyte (sorry, bad pun intended) who hasn't started to work though those very basic and fundamental ideas that he deserves a level of respect such that you should just ask about such things and how they fit in with the conclusions he's drawn on the matters about which you have so clearly stated your disagreements.

Totally unrelated, every once in awhile I impress myself with my ability to write a long, convoluted, and opaque sentence.

It isn't an either/or situation ( either ALL is literal or none is).
The Bible is a collection of various TYPES of writings, we all know and agree on that.
These writings must be taken in the context of their literary genres and their intended audience.
EX:
Genesis ( and Exodus) is an ANE historical account of the origins of the Israelite people and nation.
It is written in the typical style and vein of the ANE of that time ( since it is to those people it was originally passed on to).
It is NOT:
A science book.
A history book written in modern methods with modern aims.

We need to stop treating it as such.

Philip wrote:Rick, let's take the matter of Jesus' confirmations of the OT as being Scripture, and that He came to fulfill the OT - how can those things be true, but not literally so? Now, I'm not asking whether Jesus was saying the Scriptures themselves were all LITERALLY true (as they can be true in various ways) - I'm asking how His CONFIRMATIONS that the OT is ALL God-given can be TRUE, without His assertions about this matter not being FACTUALLY true? Did He say this or not? Is it true or not? Because if it is not, then we have lots of creative writing and the ramblings of men indiscernibly mixed in with God's word. So which is it? Are such statements of Jesus literally true (meaning they are FACTUALLY so), or not?

i think the problem here is imagining that there is such a thing as objective or "factual" truth, when truth is better characterized as a moving target, perhaps; and evidenced by the "fact" that you cannot name any absolute truth, none whatsoever. Try, and see what happens. The Bible Itself will disagree with you, imo.

bbyrd009 wrote:

Philip wrote:Rick, let's take the matter of Jesus' confirmations of the OT as being Scripture, and that He came to fulfill the OT - how can those things be true, but not literally so? Now, I'm not asking whether Jesus was saying the Scriptures themselves were all LITERALLY true (as they can be true in various ways) - I'm asking how His CONFIRMATIONS that the OT is ALL God-given can be TRUE, without His assertions about this matter not being FACTUALLY true? Did He say this or not? Is it true or not? Because if it is not, then we have lots of creative writing and the ramblings of men indiscernibly mixed in with God's word. So which is it? Are such statements of Jesus literally true (meaning they are FACTUALLY so), or not?

i think the problem here is imagining that there is such a thing as objective or "factual" truth, when truth is better characterized as a moving target, perhaps; and evidenced by the "fact" that you cannot name any absolute truth, none whatsoever. Try, and see what happens. The Bible Itself will disagree with you, imo.

You do realize that if there is no objective truth and all truth is subjective ( which must be the case if there is no objective truth) then what you said is, at best, truth for you and at worse, no truth at all.

PaulSacramento wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Philip wrote:Rick, let's take the matter of Jesus' confirmations of the OT as being Scripture, and that He came to fulfill the OT - how can those things be true, but not literally so? Now, I'm not asking whether Jesus was saying the Scriptures themselves were all LITERALLY true (as they can be true in various ways) - I'm asking how His CONFIRMATIONS that the OT is ALL God-given can be TRUE, without His assertions about this matter not being FACTUALLY true? Did He say this or not? Is it true or not? Because if it is not, then we have lots of creative writing and the ramblings of men indiscernibly mixed in with God's word. So which is it? Are such statements of Jesus literally true (meaning they are FACTUALLY so), or not?

i think the problem here is imagining that there is such a thing as objective or "factual" truth, when truth is better characterized as a moving target, perhaps; and evidenced by the "fact" that you cannot name any absolute truth, none whatsoever. Try, and see what happens. The Bible Itself will disagree with you, imo.

You do realize that if there is no objective truth and all truth is subjective ( which must be the case if there is no objective truth) then what you said is, at best, truth for you and at worse, no truth at all.

then i invite you to state an objective truth, and you should have no problems doing that!