Why are we here?

[DogmaHunter]

You do not even know what is a bird. The definition you gave does not work on dinosaurs.

Birds are a specific type of dinosaur. Obviously a definition of "bird" is only going to define that specific subset of dinosaurs - not all dinosaurs.

You asked to define BIRDS, you didn't ask to define DINOSAURS.

A definition of what a thumb is, won't work for the middle finger either eventhough both are fingers.

 

[Speedwell]

Scientifically, Gen 1 is literally correct. This is very critical.

No, it's not literally correct. And that is only critical if was intended by its author(s) to be literally correct.

If one compromised there, one may compromise at any other verse in the whole Bible.

That is a silly argument. I don't even believe you are convinced by it yourself, so why should anyone else be? There is no "compromise." There is only what intelligent and well-informed Bible scholarship tells us, and it doesn't necessarily tell us the same thing about all the verses in the Bible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, it's not literally correct. And that is only critical if was intended by its author(s) to be literally correct. That is a silly argument. I don't even believe you are convinced by it yourself, so why should anyone else be? There is no "compromise." There is only what intelligent and well-informed Bible scholarship tells us, and it doesn't necessarily tell us the same thing about all the verses in the Bible.

Looks like juvenissun is here to derail threads...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I came here because I am interested in the psychology of religious belief - Christian because that's my background - and the arguments used to support & defend it. I also wanted to help ensure that the science used was reasonably accurate - it seems foolish to waste time on straw-man arguments (although some people just want to feel they've 'won' their corner, and that's how they can do it).

I've stayed here for a while because it's still interesting, and it's good practice for patience, tolerance, logic, critical thinking, etc., it's good to have your preconceptions challenged, and I've learned a lot through checking & investigating claims and trying to ensure my posts are factually reliable.

 

[juvenissun]

No, it's not literally correct. And that is only critical if was intended by its author(s) to be literally correct. That is a silly argument. I don't even believe you are convinced by it yourself, so why should anyone else be? There is no "compromise." There is only what intelligent and well-informed Bible scholarship tells us, and it doesn't necessarily tell us the same thing about all the verses in the Bible.

You give me a Bible verse, any verse, I will show you how to compromise on its true meaning. It is a very easy thing to do.

 

[bhsmte]

You give me a Bible verse, any verse, I will show you how to compromise on its true meaning. It is a very easy thing to do.

Since christians cant even agree on the true meaning of bible verses, who has final say, you?

 

[juvenissun]

Since christians cant even agree on the true meaning of bible verses, who has final say, you?

Sigh, you still do not understand. I will tell you one more time, but I don't expect any improvement would happen.

EVERY Christians is right on Bible truth even they have different interpretation.

Different interpretation is not the same as compromise. I hope you might be able to get this one. Can you tell the difference between the two?

 

[Speedwell]

Sigh, you still do not understand. I will tell you one more time, but I don't expect any improvement would happen.

EVERY Christians is right on Bible truth even they have different interpretation.

Different interpretation is not the same as compromise. I hope you might be able to get this one. Can you tell the difference between the two?

No, that's a new one on me. So interesting, in fact, that I don't care if we derail this thread. Please explain it.

 

[juvenissun]

No, that's a new one on me. So interesting, in fact, that I don't care if we derail this thread. Please explain it.

Christianity does NOT make robots, but makes individual human. So, if you are a Christian, you are definitely different from me in the understanding of Christianity even we read the same Bible verse. Just like I have ten students in one class. I do NOT expect all of them have the same understanding to one topic. We are born different (think why), the Christian faith does not mold us into a single character, but trains everyone of us into different faithful beings. We may even have very different understanding to the unique God.

To have many Christian denominations is not a problem, but is a strength.

 

[Speedwell]

Christianity does NOT make robots, but makes individual human. So, if you are a Christian, you are definitely different from me in the understanding of Christianity even we read the same Bible verse. Just like I have ten students in one class. I do NOT expect all of them have the same understanding to one topic. We are born different (think why), the Christian faith does not mold us into a single character, but trains everyone of us into different faithful beings. We may even have very different understanding to the unique God.

To have many Christian denominations is not a problem, but is a strength.

I agree. But what did you mean, then, about compromising verses in the Bible?

 

[juvenissun]

I agree. But what did you mean, then, about compromising verses in the Bible?

Take an example: Genesis 1 apparently says birds are created before land animals.

Different "interpretations" may suggest different ways to make it reasonable.

One way to "compromise" is to suggest that the Day sequence does not represent the true time sequence.

 

[Speedwell]

Take an example: Genesis 1 apparently says birds are created before land animals.

Different "interpretations" may suggest different ways to make it reasonable.

Why does it have to be reasonable?

One way to "compromise" is to suggest that the Day sequence does not represent the true time sequence.

I don't think it has anything to do with the true time sequence.

If you want to talk about birds, then the verse says God told the waters to bring them forth, but it doesn't say when they did it.

But I see no need to reconcile the two accounts.

 

[juvenissun]

Why does it have to be reasonable?

I don't think it has anything to do with the true time sequence.

If you want to talk about birds, then the verse says God told the waters to bring them forth, but it doesn't say when they did it.

But I see no need to reconcile the two accounts.

The Genesis 1 uses timing mark called DAY for events of creation. It naturally makes a time sequence. And the revealed sequence is unbelievably true in science. (Why didn't God create everything all at once? How did "primitive" people know that human is the last, but not the first, creature created?)

Why should this be "reasonable"? Because the purpose of the Bible is to make us understand the Christian God. In contrast, there are some places in the Bible God explicitly points out something we will NOT understand. the Bible is a fundamental religion textbook. That is why the content should be as reasonable as possible.

Religion = God + logic.

 

[Speedwell]

The Genesis 1 uses timing mark called DAY for events of creation. It naturally makes a time sequence.

Of course. Many stories use "day" as a time marker.

And the revealed sequence is unbelievably true in science.

Not in any science I know about. But I don't think it needs to be, so that's OK.

(Why didn't God create everything all at once? How did "primitive" people know that human is the last, but not the first, creature created?)

Huh? What primitive people? Spare me "the Bible tells things that people couldn't have known then" argument. It's nonsense.

Why should this be "reasonable"? Because the purpose of the Bible is to make us understand the Christian God. In contrast, there are some places in the Bible God explicitly points out something we will NOT understand. the Bible is a fundamental religion textbook. That is why the content should be as reasonable as possible.

Well, one thing is clear: you're definitely a Protestant.

Religion = God + logic.

LOL! Is that one of the doctrines we're not supposed to "compromise?"

 

[juvenissun]

Huh? What primitive people? Spare me "the Bible tells things that people couldn't have known then" argument. It's nonsense.

Why is this a nonsense? I think it is a more-than-perfect argument. There are hundreds this type of descriptions in the Bible and they are actually where my faith started to build up. These descriptions are scientifically undeniable.

One of my favorite description: ... the pillars of the earth ..., very very true. I am very very sorry that you are not able to see it. (if you can not see it now, how could anyone thousands years ago see what they wrote?)

 

[bhsmte]

Sigh, you still do not understand. I will tell you one more time, but I don't expect any improvement would happen.

EVERY Christians is right on Bible truth even they have different interpretation.

Different interpretation is not the same as compromise. I hope you might be able to get this one. Can you tell the difference between the two?

LOL

 

[Speedwell]

Why is this a nonsense? I think it is a more-than-perfect argument. There are hundreds this type of descriptions in the Bible and they are actually where my faith started to build up. These descriptions are scientifically undeniable.

To you, maybe. To me they're just silly--and unnecessary. But then, I'm a Traditional Christian rather than a Protestant. I don't believe that Christ is my savior because I believed the Bible first and it says so in the Bible. I don't need to justify my faith by maintaining that the Bible is scientifically prescient.

 

[46AND2]

Why is this a nonsense? I think it is a more-than-perfect argument. There are hundreds this type of descriptions in the Bible and they are actually where my faith started to build up. These descriptions are scientifically undeniable.

One of my favorite description: ... the pillars of the earth ..., very very true. I am very very sorry that you are not able to see it. (if you can not see it now, how could anyone thousands years ago see what they wrote?)

You don't get to claim that ancient people had special knowledge about humans being last, when they got so many other things out of order.

 

[pitabread]

Why is this a nonsense? I think it is a more-than-perfect argument. There are hundreds this type of descriptions in the Bible and they are actually where my faith started to build up. These descriptions are scientifically undeniable.

In my experience, attempts to claim the Bible is scientifically prescient is usually just based on post-hoc reasoning. You can find similar claims about the Quran, Nostradamus prophecies, etc.

The actual text in such cases is usually generic enough that it can fit various post-hoc interpretations. Throw in things like survivorship bias, confirmation bias, and so on, and it becomes even less impressive.

Now if the Bible had passages that mirrored the level of detail you'd find it a modern science textbook, that would be something worth talking about. But unfortunately it doesn't.

 

[juvenissun]

To you, maybe. To me they're just silly--and unnecessary. But then, I'm a Traditional Christian rather than a Protestant. I don't believe that Christ is my savior because I believed the Bible first and it says so in the Bible. I don't need to justify my faith by maintaining that the Bible is scientifically prescient.

If you do not trust what the Bible says, then your religion has no scripture.