Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

For those deep thinkers out there.
User avatar
Joshoowah
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Posts: 4955
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Nairobi, Kenya; formerly Wilmore, KY; Formerly Athens, AL
Contact:

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by Joshoowah » Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:32 am

tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:13 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:57 am
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:51 am
Just an observation.

If our beef is that the Bible isn't a science book. And we lean heavier on our scientific understanding than on simple belief of a faith handed down, in such a way that we've been forced to conclude that the Genesis account cannot be interpreted literally, then what is preventing any other miraculous account in the Scriptures from the same treatment? The virgin birth? Healing the blind and the lame? Turning water into wine? And above all others, the resurrection and ascension of Christ?

I'm not saying we should use the Bible as a science book, nor am I even saying that the Genesis account can't be read poetically. But at what point do we draw the line? Sure, we can walk a wire that says evolution is compatible with Genesis 1 because we don't have to fully embrace the creation account as literal, but what keeps you from saying the same thing about the virgin birth or Christ rising from the dead?
Tradition.
And yet Tradition teaches a literal Adam...
Actually... tradition teaches both literal and allegorical, or at the very least there are early church fathers that attest to either one or the other , both solidly within orthodoxy. The lines have already been drawn for much of the biblical narrative, but I will say the genre of Genesis 1 is much, much different than the virgin birth of Matthew and Luke, to such a degree that one is deemed historical, without a doubt by church history and the other has confounded the best of our theologians.
"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose?" Philippians 1:21-22

ImageImage

User avatar
Joshoowah
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Posts: 4955
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Nairobi, Kenya; formerly Wilmore, KY; Formerly Athens, AL
Contact:

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by Joshoowah » Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:35 am

Del wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:28 pm
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:51 am
Just an observation.

If our beef is that the Bible isn't a science book. And we lean heavier on our scientific understanding than on simple belief of a faith handed down, in such a way that we've been forced to conclude that the Genesis account cannot be interpreted literally, then what is preventing any other miraculous account in the Scriptures from the same treatment? The virgin birth? Healing the blind and the lame? Turning water into wine? And above all others, the resurrection and ascension of Christ?

I'm not saying we should use the Bible as a science book, nor am I even saying that the Genesis account can't be read poetically. But at what point do we draw the line? Sure, we can walk a wire that says evolution is compatible with Genesis 1 because we don't have to fully embrace the creation account as literal, but what keeps you from saying the same thing about the virgin birth or Christ rising from the dead?
Genesis 1
Creation (and the scientific study thereof) and Genesis 1 are both "scriptures" that reveal the Creator to us. Material creation is still a miracle. Science cannot answer the fundamental question of why there is something, instead of nothing.

So even if Genesis 1 is not a scientific account of how God created, it is still fundamental for us to see Genesis 1 as an explanation of why God created.

Genesis 1 reveals three fundamental things to us:

1) That God created the universe on purpose, as an act of love.
2) That God created Man as a unique item of creation "in God's own image," the only Rational Animal capable of giving loving obedience back to God.
3) That God respects His Holy Day just as He commands us to: with Holy Rest.

The Gospels
If we had incontrovertible scientific evidence that the Gospel miracles didn't happen, then we could perhaps treat them as parables.

But the simple fact is that the Gospel accounts aren't presented to us as inspired poetic myths, in conflict with any historical or scientific evidence. The Gospels writers insist that these are eyewitness accounts of actual events that occurred.

All of those miracles and fulfillments of prophecies are reported so that we can believe the most important miracle: that Jesus really does change the bread and wine into His Body and Blood during Christian worship. We receive the Unblemished Lamb of God as our savior in the New Passover.

Conclusion
So.... Christians can discuss whether taking Genesis 1 literally is perhaps foolish and missing the main point of Genesis 1.

But Christians must accept the Gospel accounts as eyewitnesses to history, or else we are being utter fools as Christians. We would miss the whole point of salvation history if we don't trust the witnesses.
Oh, gosh. I'm agreeing with Del. The why is much more important than the how, especially considering the whole ex nihilo concept does not exactly fit with Genesis 1. There was much present prior to day 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on. The assumption is those were, indeed, created by God, which I no doubt believe, but it's not what the text says. Other portions of Scripture attest to ex nihilo, which is why it's part of church theology and history, but Genesis 1 is communicating something different.
"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose?" Philippians 1:21-22

ImageImage

User avatar
durangopipe
Under-secretary to the Minister of Pipe Breaking
Under-secretary to the Minister of Pipe Breaking
Posts: 7510
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:58 pm
Location: Southwest Colorado

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by durangopipe » Sat Nov 09, 2019 10:55 am

I am enjoying the seriousness, wisdom and civility of this thread very, very much.
. . . be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you. Ephesians 4:32 (NKJV)

The most improper job of any man, even saints, is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.. J.R.R. Tolkien

2017 Morley - Outstanding BRATASS of the Year

User avatar
ChildOfGod
The Artist Formerly Known as ShellBriar
The Artist Formerly Known as ShellBriar
Posts: 7416
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:00 pm
Location: In Christ by Faith

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by ChildOfGod » Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:10 am

Del wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:31 am
ChildOfGod wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:58 am
I've held a sort of different line on this that I haven't expressed here. I DO NOT hold this as truth and DO NOT believe anyone else should hold this belief - it's just something I've concocted that may make sense to some... Does an author always start with the creation of the universe, tell every detail about what happened since up until the time of the birth of the main character? No. An author starts the story at the time that matters and we all make assumptions about things, history, the physical universe, etc., that happened before page 1. Like any author, perhaps God created the Universe with a past? That is he created it having had dinosaurs and meteor impacts and extinctions, etc.? Is that heretical?
I don't mind authors of fiction who presume a fictional past.

I am troubled by the thought of a God of Truth who creates a real universe with a fictional past.
I certainly wasn’t suggesting God created a fictional past. How can that which is measurable be fictional?

User avatar
smokadoro
Tribe Member
Tribe Member
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:33 pm

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by smokadoro » Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:35 am

Joshoowah wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:35 am
Oh, gosh. I'm agreeing with Del. The why is much more important than the how, especially considering the whole ex nihilo concept does not exactly fit with Genesis 1. There was much present prior to day 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on. The assumption is those were, indeed, created by God, which I no doubt believe, but it's not what the text says. Other portions of Scripture attest to ex nihilo, which is why it's part of church theology and history, but Genesis 1 is communicating something different.
In the old earth perspective, creation ex nihilo occurred in Genesis 1:1 (an enormous bang). It does, in fact, exactly fit. And so do the rest of the yoms of creation in Genesis 1-2 fit. Verse 2 sets the perspective for the rest of the narrative as from the surface of the newly-formed Earth. I as an old earth creationist agree that the why is of primary importance, but I have no need to downplay the how.
Do not say "I agree," "I disagree" or "I suspend judgment" until you can say "I understand." ~Mortimer Adler

User avatar
smokadoro
Tribe Member
Tribe Member
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:33 pm

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by smokadoro » Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:44 am

ChildOfGod wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:10 am
Del wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:31 am
ChildOfGod wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:58 am
I've held a sort of different line on this that I haven't expressed here. I DO NOT hold this as truth and DO NOT believe anyone else should hold this belief - it's just something I've concocted that may make sense to some... Does an author always start with the creation of the universe, tell every detail about what happened since up until the time of the birth of the main character? No. An author starts the story at the time that matters and we all make assumptions about things, history, the physical universe, etc., that happened before page 1. Like any author, perhaps God created the Universe with a past? That is he created it having had dinosaurs and meteor impacts and extinctions, etc.? Is that heretical?
I don't mind authors of fiction who presume a fictional past.

I am troubled by the thought of a God of Truth who creates a real universe with a fictional past.
I certainly wasn’t suggesting God created a fictional past. How can that which is measurable be fictional?
So if God created the universe with a big bang ("In the beginning, God created the heavens..."), let a few billion years of change occur, eventually assembling the Earth and then resumed the narrative ("...and the Earth."), would that be compatible with the point you were origionally trying to make? That omission of the history between "the heavens" and "the Earth" does not prove its absence?

I would be glad to represent that point for you, as that is exactly how I believe it went down. :pipe:
Do not say "I agree," "I disagree" or "I suspend judgment" until you can say "I understand." ~Mortimer Adler

User avatar
Jester
Brother of Tuttle
Brother of Tuttle
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Pleasant Hill, MO

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by Jester » Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:48 am

I believe we live in a young universe and God created everything in six 24 hour days and rested on the seventh.
Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

"O Christmas Tree is going to be a dirge in his home this year I fear."

"We are in a battle, therefore, between a world made out of social constructs and the world made out of created essences." -Doug Wilson

User avatar
Joshoowah
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Posts: 4955
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Nairobi, Kenya; formerly Wilmore, KY; Formerly Athens, AL
Contact:

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by Joshoowah » Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:07 am

smokadoro wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:35 am
Joshoowah wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:35 am
Oh, gosh. I'm agreeing with Del. The why is much more important than the how, especially considering the whole ex nihilo concept does not exactly fit with Genesis 1. There was much present prior to day 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on. The assumption is those were, indeed, created by God, which I no doubt believe, but it's not what the text says. Other portions of Scripture attest to ex nihilo, which is why it's part of church theology and history, but Genesis 1 is communicating something different.
In the old earth perspective, creation ex nihilo occurred in Genesis 1:1 (an enormous bang). It does, in fact, exactly fit. And so do the rest of the yoms of creation in Genesis 1-2 fit. Verse 2 sets the perspective for the rest of the narrative as from the surface of the newly-formed Earth. I as an old earth creationist agree that the why is of primary importance, but I have no need to downplay the how.
Except to the ancients writing and reading Gen. 1-2 material origins was not as important as function and purpose.

There is room in Christian tradition for old earth perspectives, just as there is room for those who claim new earth. Genesis 1 is not as concerned with our modern science perspectives. Sure, they can fit, but it's not all that necessary from a contextual perspective.
"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose?" Philippians 1:21-22

ImageImage

User avatar
Del
Mr. Hot Legs
Mr. Hot Legs
Posts: 39850
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by Del » Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:25 am

Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:48 am
I believe we live in a young universe and God created everything in six 24 hour days and rested on the seventh.
Why?

What do you do with all of the scientific observation?
REMEMBER THE KAVANAUGH!

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
Jester
Brother of Tuttle
Brother of Tuttle
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Pleasant Hill, MO

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by Jester » Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:46 am

Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:25 am
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:48 am
I believe we live in a young universe and God created everything in six 24 hour days and rested on the seventh.
Why?

What do you do with all of the scientific observation?
I find that both sides are equally compelling. I used to be an old earth creationist. There are great and scientific explanations for young earth. Most people scoff at them and only listen to the criticism. Why listen when it is settled?

What do I do with the scientific observation? I don't close my eyes to the other legitimate scientists who have made observations that say this is not settled science. I also understand that both sides try and match their observations to their worldview.
Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

"O Christmas Tree is going to be a dirge in his home this year I fear."

"We are in a battle, therefore, between a world made out of social constructs and the world made out of created essences." -Doug Wilson

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19987
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by hugodrax » Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:49 am

Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:46 am
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:25 am
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:48 am
I believe we live in a young universe and God created everything in six 24 hour days and rested on the seventh.
Why?

What do you do with all of the scientific observation?
I find that both sides are equally compelling. I used to be an old earth creationist. There are great and scientific explanations for young earth. Most people scoff at them and only listen to the criticism. Why listen when it is settled?

What do I do with the scientific observation? I don't close my eyes to the other legitimate scientists who have made observations that say this is not settled science. I also understand that both sides try and match their observations to their worldview.
Yes, when I think of open-minded fellows who could possibly be convinced they're wrong, the Tuttle boys spring to mind. :lol:
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
Del
Mr. Hot Legs
Mr. Hot Legs
Posts: 39850
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by Del » Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:27 am

Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:46 am
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:25 am
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:48 am
I believe we live in a young universe and God created everything in six 24 hour days and rested on the seventh.
Why?

What do you do with all of the scientific observation?
I find that both sides are equally compelling. I used to be an old earth creationist. There are great and scientific explanations for young earth. Most people scoff at them and only listen to the criticism. Why listen when it is settled?

What do I do with the scientific observation? I don't close my eyes to the other legitimate scientists who have made observations that say this is not settled science. I also understand that both sides try and match their observations to their worldview.
I was hoping that you would say that you want to hold and defend the fundamentalist dogma of literal interpretation of the Bible.

(I was hoping you would show me how fundamentalists phrase this, because I only speak Catholic.)
REMEMBER THE KAVANAUGH!

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
tuttle
Tomnoddy Attercop
Tomnoddy Attercop
Posts: 14490
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by tuttle » Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:17 am

Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:25 am
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:48 am
I believe we live in a young universe and God created everything in six 24 hour days and rested on the seventh.
Why?

What do you do with all of the scientific observation?
Same thing everyone does with scientific observation; interpret it within their paradigm.

There is no one around anymore to relate their observation of creation, so every theory must start with some un-observable assumption. A person can hold to a young earth and still find that it jives with observable science within their paradigm (just as a person can hold to an old earth, or a no-Creator, theory and interpret the observations within their paradigm). Believe it or not, a young earth theory is not an irrational belief. No more irrational that believing Christ spoke water into wine.

Also, one answer to why (though hardly the only or best reason, just something that occurred to me) is that scientific theories based on observations have changed over time (and there's no guarantee they'll not change next week; those that don't change don't rock the boat). So there is some real value in the stability of accepting a belief as handed down.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
Del
Mr. Hot Legs
Mr. Hot Legs
Posts: 39850
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by Del » Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:39 am

tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:17 am
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:25 am
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:48 am
I believe we live in a young universe and God created everything in six 24 hour days and rested on the seventh.
Why?

What do you do with all of the scientific observation?
Same thing everyone does with scientific observation; interpret it within their paradigm.

There is no one around anymore to relate their observation of creation, so every theory must start with some un-observable assumption. A person can hold to a young earth and still find that it jives with observable science within their paradigm (just as a person can hold to an old earth, or a no-Creator, theory and interpret the observations within their paradigm). Believe it or not, a young earth theory is not an irrational belief. No more irrational that believing Christ spoke water into wine.

Also, one answer to why (though hardly the only or best reason, just something that occurred to me) is that scientific theories based on observations have changed over time (and there's no guarantee they'll not change next week; those that don't change don't rock the boat). So there is some real value in the stability of accepting a belief as handed down.
Actually, we can see the original creation. Sort of.

The intense burst of high-energy radiation at the Big Bang is still with us. Those photons don't go away. They were stretched with the expansion of the universe, and exist now as a constant hiss of radio waves that are present everywhere in the universe and have no apparent point of origin.

Funny fact: This hiss was discovered when the Big Bang was still a new and controversial theory, which even Einstein was reluctant to accept. Many physicists thought that Monsignor LeMaitre was infusing his Jesuit faith into science. Meanwhile, brand new big dish antennae were scanning the skies to see what they could see, and there was this constant hiss of radio waves just everywhere, and they didn't know why. At first, they thought it was bird poop on the receivers.

They did not "interpret the data within their paradigm." They were forced to embrace a whole new paradigm in order to comprehend the experimental data!
REMEMBER THE KAVANAUGH!

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
Jester
Brother of Tuttle
Brother of Tuttle
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Pleasant Hill, MO

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by Jester » Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:49 am

Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:39 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:17 am
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:25 am
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:48 am
I believe we live in a young universe and God created everything in six 24 hour days and rested on the seventh.
Why?

What do you do with all of the scientific observation?
Same thing everyone does with scientific observation; interpret it within their paradigm.

There is no one around anymore to relate their observation of creation, so every theory must start with some un-observable assumption. A person can hold to a young earth and still find that it jives with observable science within their paradigm (just as a person can hold to an old earth, or a no-Creator, theory and interpret the observations within their paradigm). Believe it or not, a young earth theory is not an irrational belief. No more irrational that believing Christ spoke water into wine.

Also, one answer to why (though hardly the only or best reason, just something that occurred to me) is that scientific theories based on observations have changed over time (and there's no guarantee they'll not change next week; those that don't change don't rock the boat). So there is some real value in the stability of accepting a belief as handed down.
Actually, we can see the original creation. Sort of.

The intense burst of high-energy radiation at the Big Bang is still with us. Those photons don't go away. They were stretched with the expansion of the universe, and exist now as a constant hiss of radio waves that are present everywhere in the universe and have no apparent point of origin.

Funny fact: This hiss was discovered when the Big Bang was still a new and controversial theory, which even Einstein was reluctant to accept. Many physicists thought that Monsignor LeMaitre was infusing his Jesuit faith into science. Meanwhile, brand new big dish antennae were scanning the skies to see what they could see, and there was this constant hiss of radio waves just everywhere, and they didn't know why. At first, they thought it was bird poop on the receivers.

They did not "interpret the data within their paradigm." They were forced to embrace a whole new paradigm in order to comprehend the experimental data!
Well why the hell didn't you start with the hissing part. I'm now fully convinced.
Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

"O Christmas Tree is going to be a dirge in his home this year I fear."

"We are in a battle, therefore, between a world made out of social constructs and the world made out of created essences." -Doug Wilson

User avatar
Del
Mr. Hot Legs
Mr. Hot Legs
Posts: 39850
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by Del » Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:48 am

Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:49 am
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:39 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:17 am
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:25 am
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:48 am
I believe we live in a young universe and God created everything in six 24 hour days and rested on the seventh.
Why?

What do you do with all of the scientific observation?
Same thing everyone does with scientific observation; interpret it within their paradigm.

There is no one around anymore to relate their observation of creation, so every theory must start with some un-observable assumption. A person can hold to a young earth and still find that it jives with observable science within their paradigm (just as a person can hold to an old earth, or a no-Creator, theory and interpret the observations within their paradigm). Believe it or not, a young earth theory is not an irrational belief. No more irrational that believing Christ spoke water into wine.

Also, one answer to why (though hardly the only or best reason, just something that occurred to me) is that scientific theories based on observations have changed over time (and there's no guarantee they'll not change next week; those that don't change don't rock the boat). So there is some real value in the stability of accepting a belief as handed down.
Actually, we can see the original creation. Sort of.

The intense burst of high-energy radiation at the Big Bang is still with us. Those photons don't go away. They were stretched with the expansion of the universe, and exist now as a constant hiss of radio waves that are present everywhere in the universe and have no apparent point of origin.

Funny fact: This hiss was discovered when the Big Bang was still a new and controversial theory, which even Einstein was reluctant to accept. Many physicists thought that Monsignor LeMaitre was infusing his Jesuit faith into science. Meanwhile, brand new big dish antennae were scanning the skies to see what they could see, and there was this constant hiss of radio waves just everywhere, and they didn't know why. At first, they thought it was bird poop on the receivers.

They did not "interpret the data within their paradigm." They were forced to embrace a whole new paradigm in order to comprehend the experimental data!
Well why the hell didn't you start with the hissing part. I'm now fully convinced.
You were supposed to learn that in grade school. Go ask for your money back.

The cosmic background radiation discovery was 1964.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mi ... background
REMEMBER THE KAVANAUGH!

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19987
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by hugodrax » Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:57 am

Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:48 am
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:49 am
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:39 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:17 am
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:25 am
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:48 am
I believe we live in a young universe and God created everything in six 24 hour days and rested on the seventh.
Why?

What do you do with all of the scientific observation?
Same thing everyone does with scientific observation; interpret it within their paradigm.

There is no one around anymore to relate their observation of creation, so every theory must start with some un-observable assumption. A person can hold to a young earth and still find that it jives with observable science within their paradigm (just as a person can hold to an old earth, or a no-Creator, theory and interpret the observations within their paradigm). Believe it or not, a young earth theory is not an irrational belief. No more irrational that believing Christ spoke water into wine.

Also, one answer to why (though hardly the only or best reason, just something that occurred to me) is that scientific theories based on observations have changed over time (and there's no guarantee they'll not change next week; those that don't change don't rock the boat). So there is some real value in the stability of accepting a belief as handed down.
Actually, we can see the original creation. Sort of.

The intense burst of high-energy radiation at the Big Bang is still with us. Those photons don't go away. They were stretched with the expansion of the universe, and exist now as a constant hiss of radio waves that are present everywhere in the universe and have no apparent point of origin.

Funny fact: This hiss was discovered when the Big Bang was still a new and controversial theory, which even Einstein was reluctant to accept. Many physicists thought that Monsignor LeMaitre was infusing his Jesuit faith into science. Meanwhile, brand new big dish antennae were scanning the skies to see what they could see, and there was this constant hiss of radio waves just everywhere, and they didn't know why. At first, they thought it was bird poop on the receivers.

They did not "interpret the data within their paradigm." They were forced to embrace a whole new paradigm in order to comprehend the experimental data!
Well why the hell didn't you start with the hissing part. I'm now fully convinced.
You were supposed to learn that in grade school. Go ask for your money back.

The cosmic background radiation discovery was 1964.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mi ... background
Ah, the failure of the public schools. Not your fault, young man.
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
FredS
Patriarch of All Shirkdom
Patriarch of All Shirkdom
Posts: 22919
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: NOCO (Northern Colorado)

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by FredS » Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:42 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:57 am
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:48 am
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:49 am
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:39 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:17 am
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:25 am
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:48 am
I believe we live in a young universe and God created everything in six 24 hour days and rested on the seventh.
Why?

What do you do with all of the scientific observation?
Same thing everyone does with scientific observation; interpret it within their paradigm.

There is no one around anymore to relate their observation of creation, so every theory must start with some un-observable assumption. A person can hold to a young earth and still find that it jives with observable science within their paradigm (just as a person can hold to an old earth, or a no-Creator, theory and interpret the observations within their paradigm). Believe it or not, a young earth theory is not an irrational belief. No more irrational that believing Christ spoke water into wine.

Also, one answer to why (though hardly the only or best reason, just something that occurred to me) is that scientific theories based on observations have changed over time (and there's no guarantee they'll not change next week; those that don't change don't rock the boat). So there is some real value in the stability of accepting a belief as handed down.
Actually, we can see the original creation. Sort of.

The intense burst of high-energy radiation at the Big Bang is still with us. Those photons don't go away. They were stretched with the expansion of the universe, and exist now as a constant hiss of radio waves that are present everywhere in the universe and have no apparent point of origin.

Funny fact: This hiss was discovered when the Big Bang was still a new and controversial theory, which even Einstein was reluctant to accept. Many physicists thought that Monsignor LeMaitre was infusing his Jesuit faith into science. Meanwhile, brand new big dish antennae were scanning the skies to see what they could see, and there was this constant hiss of radio waves just everywhere, and they didn't know why. At first, they thought it was bird poop on the receivers.

They did not "interpret the data within their paradigm." They were forced to embrace a whole new paradigm in order to comprehend the experimental data!
Well why the hell didn't you start with the hissing part. I'm now fully convinced.
You were supposed to learn that in grade school. Go ask for your money back.

The cosmic background radiation discovery was 1964.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mi ... background
Ah, the failure of the public schools. Not your fault, young man.
Coffee. On. Keyboard.
"If we ever get to heaven boys, it aint because we aint done nothin' wrong" - Kris Kristofferson

"One of the things I love about CPS is the frank and enthusiastic dysfunction here. God help me, I do love it so." – OldWorldSwine

"I'd like to put a hook in that puppet and swing it through a bunch of salmon!" - durangopipe

User avatar
arank87
Elder
Elder
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:04 pm
Location: Rural Southern Minnesota

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by arank87 » Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:49 pm

coco wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:38 pm
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:47 am
...As a result, the reality of poetic truths [such as found in Genesis 1] are lost on the Fundamentalists. Meanwhile they build Creationist Museums. They labor to dismiss hard realities, like the Big Bang and the fossil record. It seems that their God is a lying demon, one who plants false fossils in the ground to "test our faith."
You could strengthen your arguments in the future by avoiding:
- Straw man arguments
- Ad hominems
Well take away all the fun toys and what are we left with...
“A true Lutheran relies on God’s Word and would not worry about it even if the whole world mocked and despised him for it. He does not consider the world an authority in religious matters. He rests his faith on higher authority.” C.F.W. Walther

User avatar
arank87
Elder
Elder
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:04 pm
Location: Rural Southern Minnesota

Re: Biblical inerrancy with respect to the creation narratives

Post by arank87 » Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:55 pm

Del wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:45 pm
coco wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:26 pm
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:00 pm
coco wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:46 pm
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:47 am
The Fundamentalists are doing to biblical faith what the political Leftists are doing to culture and life: They are changing the definitions of words.

For example, gender used to mean "biologically male or female."

Likewise, inerrancy used to mean that the Sacred Scriptures are "truly inspired by God and faithfully handed down to us." We understood that Sacred Scripture is a collection of many genres -- books of history, mythology, poetry, wisdom, prophecy, and inspired songs.
While a Fundamentalist/inerrantist might want to add to this definition (like adding, perhaps, "free from error"), I can't imagine a Fundamentalist/inerrantist disagreeing with this definition. Can you provide an example of a Fundamentalist/inerrantist who does not agree with this definition? This should be an easy task, presuming that Fundamentalists/inerrantists distort language as often as Leftists.
I don't know any of these guys' names. So perhaps I am criticizing a secular straw man image of a Fundamentalist, rather than the real thing.

All I know is that the Bible is inerrant... And that life, the universe, and everything were NOT created in a literal six days.

So the meaning of inerrant must be larger than the creationist's interpretation of it.
I have very little contact with Fundamentalists. I have much more with inerrantists in general. I don't identify myself in the former camp, though I would in the latter. In other words, I would say that Genesis 1-2 are free from error, etc. I do not pretend to have every answer for every question about this subject.

I know that there are problems if one wants to consider Genesis 1-2 as poetic in nature, including:
- There are zero examples of Hebrew poetic conventions in these chapters.
- These chapters contain numerous uses of the Hebrew vav consecutive, which signals the historical genre.

I also admit that there is a possibility that God might have treated time as a dependent variable rather than an independent one during the act of creation, such that time itself had a rate of change. He is certainly big enough to do so.
I'm using "poetic" in its broadest sense. Not just meter and rhyme and other poetic devices.

Consider Lord of the Rings. It is certainly written in the form of a historic novel, and the author even presses this by claiming that it is a translation from a "Red Book of Westmarch," a supposedly authentic copy of testimony and writings from historical Hobbits.

It's still the language of poetry, and should be enjoyed as such. The truths are much deeper than if it were a mere historical account.

Likewise, the writers and readers of Genesis 1 did not believe that they were recording scientific history. That "firm teaching" was invented in the early 20th century by a sect of American Christians with the radical dogma that inerrancy must mean literally.
===================================================

I firmly believe in the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. [I got into a long feud about with a liberal Catholic feminist who got herself hired as our parish's chief catechist. I ended up getting her fired, sad to say. But she believed that a lot of the New Testament wasn't really accurate. "Do you believe that Jesus really said that?" I couldn't teach that to our kids.]

But we have run up against the fundamental dispute between Protestants and Apostolic Christians.
- Protestants insist that the Bible is sufficient, and a Church can be built up Scripture alone.
- Apostolic Christians see that the Bible was never intended to explain itself. It was written to be used within a Sacred Tradition --first within Judaism, and in the fullness of time, within the Church that Jesus established.

This fundamental divide must necessarily shade the way that the believer understands "inerrancy."
The Bible isn’t “sufficient alone” it is IS alone.There is no other Word of God. There is no further explanation. God did not give us other written testimony of Himself. Anything not in the Bible is conjecture at best.
“A true Lutheran relies on God’s Word and would not worry about it even if the whole world mocked and despised him for it. He does not consider the world an authority in religious matters. He rests his faith on higher authority.” C.F.W. Walther

Post Reply