Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

Plato? I don't know about that. I'm a Nominalist, myself. From my point of view one of the worst mistakes early Christian theologians made was to get mixed up with Greek philosophy. But if I wanted to blame a particular Christian for literal inerrancy, it would be John Darby.

Didn't he refer to atoms as "billiard balls"?

 

[Kylie]

Of course, That is a routine part of such scholarship

And do we have such sources when it comes to the Gospels?

Absolutely.

And do we have such sources when it comes to the Gospels?

 

[Kylie]

And do what with them?

For example, do the following extra-Biblical sources convince you that King David lived?

1. the Tel Dan stele
2. the Mesha stele

According to AI Overview:

• The Tel Dan stele is considered the first historical evidence of King David
• However, some say that the archaeological evidence for King David's existence is limited and controversial
• Some scholars have dismissed the historic reliability of the Biblical text surrounding King David

So I ask you again, what would it matter?

For every "corroboration," academia can find a disputation.

Big ... academic ... deal.

So much for your "sensible thing to do."

Then I'd be happy to accept that King David was a real person.

But the fact that he exists doesn't mean that stories that mention him are true.

The movie "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter" isn't true just because Abe was a real person.

 

[roman2819]

So in other words, it's just us motivating ourselves by thinking positive.

Don't need a God for that.

The point is to explain the mistake that many people made by interpreting the Bible literally when it comes to reading God's Word.

I didn't add a paragraph to say that while prayer verses are words of encouragement, there is a real God that help us -- because your posts show vehement determination not to believe in God.

But I am an atheist. I have zero faith in God.

Are you a real atheist or just a wannabe atheist? If you really don't believe in the existence of Jesus or His God the creator, then why spend time to argue over someone that doesn't exist (in your view)? I have seen real atheists in various countries in Asia, example: the Japanese people. They don't believe that God exist and when asked, their response is 'i don't know' 'Not interested' and 'don't care'. They won't even waste another minute to talk about it. These are the real atheists. By contrast, you are here arguing high and low, like not able to get God out of your head and trying hard not to believe He exists.

Just saying what I observe, not asking you to leave.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you see that same level of disagreement among other scholars?

For example, is there this level of disagreement among the scientists who study quantum mechanics?

There is theoretical disagreement in nearly all fields as far as I can tell, and the "level" of disagreement has to be fully vetted out.

Even then, citing a "level" of disagreement doesn't infer any necessary conclusions about the full significance or truth value of some core, essential idea since consensus is NOT really the supreme litmus test.

As for Quantum Mechanics, we can do a quick google search for "disagreements among quantum scientists" and see what comes up..........

Have you ever read Lee Smolin's book, The Trouble With Physics? It's a good one to read right after Leonard Susskind's book, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design.

 

[BCP1928]

And do we have such sources when it comes to the Gospels?

And do we have such sources when it comes to the Gospels?

Some. There are other writings which represent themselves as Gospels and other near-contemporaneous texts all of which have to be studied and evaluated as well. Unfortunately, some of these are lost and only known of from the writings of critical contemporaries or from fragments of text.

 

[QvQ]

Then I'd be happy to accept that King David was a real person.

But the fact that he exists doesn't mean that stories that mention him are true.

The movie "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter" isn't true just because Abe was a real person.

By the same token, all the "stories" about all ancient personages would be entertaining fiction
Your argument is that "Even though Plato wrote about Socrates, it doesn't make Socrates true." Or Plato for that matter
Socrates could be fiction.
All Historical Record arre probably Ancients Hollywood, fictional and fable
You Must apply the same standard to all Historical Records.
You are propounding "Anti Sola Scriptura...IF It is in the Bible, it is Not True" because nothing in the Bible is true.
That is atheist screed but it is not good historical research

 

[BCP1928]

By the same token, all the "stories" about all ancient personages would be entertaining fiction
Your argument is that "Even though Plato wrote about Socrates, it doesn't make Socrates true." Or Plato for that matter
Socrates could be fiction.
All Historical Record arre probably Ancients Hollywood, fictional and fable
You Must apply the same standard to all Historical Records.
You are propounding "Anti Sola Scriptura...IF It is in the Bible, it is Not True" because nothing in the Bible is true.
That is atheist screed but it is not good historical research

That may be the "atheist screed" but it is not the kind of historical research we are talking about here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

By the same token, all the "stories" about all ancient personages would be entertaining fiction

Some of them likely are fiction or exaggerated.

Your argument is that "Even though Plato wrote about Socrates, it doesn't make Socrates true." Or Plato for that matter
Socrates could be fiction.

Could be. Would that matter? Does it change any of the writings of Socrates and the use of them today if Socrates was real. Simplicio is not a real person in Gallileo's Dialog.

All Historical Record arre probably Ancients Hollywood, fictional and fable
You Must apply the same standard to all Historical Records.

No historical document is 100% "true" or "false". Historians actually work with documents individually and take into account

You are propounding "Anti Sola Scriptura...IF It is in the Bible, it is Not True" because nothing in the Bible is true.

No she isn't. Like any ancient document its nature must be evaluated. The existing texts we have are not contemporary with the described in their production (copying) or authorship. Those texts show signs of editing and redaction and exist only within the context of sacred literature. While preservative in nature, making a text part of a religious canon also provides incentives to modify it to suit current theological trends. All of this needs to be evaluated, not assumed correct or incorrect.

That is atheist screed but it is not good historical research

Everything is false is just as bad as everything is true.

 

[AveChristusRex]

It's not a matter of corroboration of any particular position with regard to the texts. Indeed, if the Bible is truly the word of God it deserves the best scholarship we can bring to bear on it, from all fields--history, archaeology, natural science, literary analysis and so on.

We did not need any further scholarship [by means of philology] on the Bible after the Vulgate.

Plato? I don't know about that. I'm a Nominalist, myself. From my point of view one of the worst mistakes early Christian theologians made was to get mixed up with Greek philosophy.

I am of the opinion that Plato was one of the "virtuous" non-believers Dante references in Inferno; there would be no Thomas Aquinas without Plato (though I'm sure he would have been able to make up for it regardless). We are two very different people, as I think Greek philosophy was one of the greatest decisions of the Fathers.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We did not need any further scholarship [by means of philology] on the Bible after the Vulgate.

I am of the opinion that Plato was one of the "virtuous" non-believers Dante references in Inferno; there would be no Thomas Aquinas without Plato (though I'm sure he would have been able to make up for it regardless). We are two very different people, as I think Greek philosophy was one of the greatest decisions of the Fathers.

That's sort of where I divide out from other more firmly Traditional Christians, in that I am of the opinion that Copernicus set improvements in our understanding of the world into motion (pardon any apparent pun), which we have been busy building on, and theorizing on, from the 16th century onward unto the present day.

We definitely need continued scholarship on all things well after the Vulgate. But, if some here want to stay with the Greeks, I suppose that's alright since there's worse ancient, philosophically inclined positions one could stick with instead.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Are you a real atheist or just a wannabe atheist? If you really don't believe in the existence of Jesus or His God the creator, then why spend time to argue over someone that doesn't exist (in your view)?

Atheism is difficult to even pinpoint, as the definition of "existence" is objective. As an example, St. Maximus: "If I must say whether or not God exists, I am closer to His truth when saying that He does not exist, since God is something entirely different from that which I recognize as existence."

I made this image as a testament to this:

 

[AveChristusRex]

That's sort of where I divide out from other more firmly Traditional Christians, in that I am of the opinion that Copernicus set improvements in understanding the world in motion (pardon any apparent pun) that we have been busy building on, and theorizing on, from the 16th century onward unto the present day.

We definitely need continued scholarship on all things well after the Vulgate.

Well, I very much disagree with heliocentrism, so I cannot say these things done by Copernicus were "improvements", rather an apparent error that became science by nominal measure. The Vulgate was infallible in faith and morals, and an argument could be made (see Is the Vulgate a 'Divinely Inspired' Translation? Is the Douay-Rheims its Faithful English Counterpart?) that it is perfect in all apparent ways; as such, I meant in my post [in the brackets] that philologically there was no need for scholarship after the Vulgate, however science would continue so long as it did not contradict the Vulgate or its message

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, I very much disagree with heliocentrism, so I cannot say these things done by Copernicus were "improvements", rather an apparent error that became science by nominal measure. The Vulgate was infallible in faith and morals, and an argument could be made (see Is the Vulgate a 'Divinely Inspired' Translation? Is the Douay-Rheims its Faithful English Counterpart?) that it is perfect in all apparent ways; as such, I meant in my post [in the brackets] that philologically there was no need for scholarship after the Vulgate, however science would continue so long as it did not contradict the Vulgate or its message

.... well, like I said: Copernicus designates for me the "tradition" that I am in. Would you rather I start with Martin Luther? I wouldn't.

 

[AveChristusRex]

.... well, like I said: Copernicus designates for me the "tradition" that I am in. Would you rather I start with Martin Luther? I wouldn't.

Would heliocentrism be considered a "tradition"? Or are you speaking on Copernicus's work as a whole?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Would heliocentrism be considered a "tradition"? Or are you speaking on Copernicus's work as a whole?

You're misunderstanding me, and some of that is my fault. What I mean by the "Copernican Tradition" for faith doesn't stop with or rest upon Copernicus himself. No, it's not specifically his thought that I alight upon for theology or science.

His work only marks the beginning of the epistemological divide that began with him and eventuated in the Modern Scientific Revolution, moving generation by generation through various Christians and even via some secular thinkers to the point we are today.

That's what I mean. .... but yeah. The universe is a very big and complex place that the Lord has us spinning around in ....

 

[AveChristusRex]

You're misunderstanding me, and some of that is my fault. What I mean by the "Copernican Tradition" for faith doesn't stop with or rest upon Copernicus himself. No, it's not specifically his thought that I alight upon for theology or science.

His work only marks the beginning of the epistemological divide that began with him and eventuated in the Modern Scientific Revolution, moving generation by generation through various Christians and even via some secular thinkers to the point we are today.

That's what I mean. .... but yeah. The universe is a very big and complex place that the Lord has us spinning around in ....

So the "Copernican Tradition" would be similar to enlightenment theology/epistemology?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So the "Copernican Tradition" would be similar to enlightenment theology/epistemology?

Something like that, just more modern. Think 20th century analytic philosophy and science by which to critically study the literary, cultural and historical structures of the biblical narratives.

And if none of that is your thing, that's ok with me. I'll just attest with the rest of the Trinitarian Christian Church everywhere, "Jesus Lives! Amen!"

 

[AveChristusRex]

Something like that, just more modern. Think 20th century analytic philosophy and science by which to critically study the literary, cultural and historical structures of the biblical narratives.

And if none of that is your thing, that's ok with me. I'll just attest with the rest of the Trinitarian Christian Church everywhere, "Jesus Lives! Amen!"

I personally stick with books that I have to dust off before reading, and even when I open them, I have to fetch the cleric to read it to me in English (/j)

 

[BCP1928]

We did not need any further scholarship [by means of philology] on the Bible after the Vulgate.

I am of the opinion that Plato was one of the "virtuous" non-believers Dante references in Inferno; there would be no Thomas Aquinas without Plato (though I'm sure he would have been able to make up for it regardless). We are two very different people, as I think Greek philosophy was one of the greatest decisions of the Fathers.

I always had the impression that Aquinas depended not on Aristotle.