The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #1

Post by Diogenes »

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #611

Post by JoeyKnothead »

dad1 wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 3:53 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 3:42 am
dad1 wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 12:57 am ...
You have every opportunity to prove you know rather than make claims you know.
...
Well don't that just rip up the mater patch.

Lying for Jesus must be a lucrative gig for some.
No science deals with anything spiritual, The flood was caused and orchestrated by a spirit,
That science can't help you support your claims is not my problem, and indicates you're just here to preach in the Science and Religion subforoom.

But go ahead now and show us all how we can confirm you speak truth regarding...

1. The flood
2. It was orchestrated by a spirit
dad1 wrote: 3. the universe was created by a spirit,
I went ahead and numbered that'n to help you keep up with which claim it is you're on as you present your support.
dad1 wrote: 4a. The windows of
4b. heaven
4c. Were opened
4d. by a spirit,

5a. The door of the ark
5b. was closed by a spirit.
And, ya know, tack on them other challenges I've repeatedly pressed you on.
dad1 wrote: So if you have any science that deals with any of this, you could have posted it
I caution the observer against thinking you're this dumb.

Instead, I propose you just don't understand that when making claims in debate, the onus is on the claimant to show they speak truth. The challenger is welcome to offer counters, but is not beholden.
dad1 wrote: Instead we see false accusations and the usual utter lack of substance or science.
It is absolutely astounding that you'd declare your own claims can't be supported by science, here in the Science and Religion section, then moan about a lack of it - both in the same post.

Religion. Not even once.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #612

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to dad1 in post #607]
By what dating? The records are from after the flood. That was likely about 4500 years or so ago. Your dates cannot work that far back, they drift off into pure pure belief based assumptions.
Dendrochronology (tree ring dating ... before, during and after 4500 years ago including petrified samples), archeological dating from continuous sequences of written records, astronomical observations (written), radiometric dating, relative dating combined with absolute dating, the geologic column (stratigraphy), seriation, fluorine dating, thermoluminescence, fission-track dating, archaeomagnetic dating, etc. You know ... the science you continuously claim has never been presented when it fact is has been presented over and over again in this thread. You just ignore it and continue to whine that it doesn't exist.
We also notice that spirits were a part of those ancient records/history! Sumer, Egypt, etc. So if you want to try and use those records, dates aside you now are offering spirits as evidence!
Strawman ... I never made any reference to spirits or what ancient people might believe. These same ancient people came up with stories like Jack and the Beanstalk.
The bible is a carefully passed down sacred text that was preserved by scribes using extreme measures to pass it down perfectly. The people in the bible were not made up. Elisha, Moses, Abraham. Heck we know where Abraham's tomb is. Belief in spirits is a matter of record in many civilizations. Jesus appeared to over 500 people after He rose from the dead. It is a different matter to claim that records are not true and having some evidence, and just waving it all away using a fairy tale as an excuse.
More of the same ... offering up the bible as support against science arguments. You're in the wrong section for that.
Your dates are wrong. No record is pre flood.
4500 years ago is nothing in the scheme of things. See above ... there are many absolute and relative dating methods that work far longer than that, so we can say what did or did not happen from long before that time, through it, and to the present day. No global flood happened 4500 years ago ... there's simply no evidence for it or any way for it to have happened short of some god magic that you're claiming, which isn't science.
The rest of the bible is true and God is known to be very much alive and well by hundreds of millions of people.
Irrelevant ... just more preaching.
My arguments need no support because my argument is that science doesn't know. That is obvious.
Ignoring all the science presented then claiming none of it has been presented doesn't lead to the conclusion above. Science does know a lot about how Earth developed once it formed, and it can debunk many of the bible stories like Noah's flood. Deny it all you like, but simply shouting "science doesn't know", when it clearly does, is a waste of time.
Tell us about how you know there was no portals in the sky bring water? No fountains of the deep that opened? No ark? No Noah? How about why nature on earth had to have been the same? Etc etc.
Because, without god magic, these things are impossible, and god magic is your only argument so far. 4500 years ago is the very recent past in the big picture. There is a continuous record of human civilizations from before the Neolithic (long before the supposed Noah's flood), and if any global flood had happened to kill all but 8 humans the evidence for it would be overwhelming. But instead there is virtually none. It didn't happen. Humans don't, and have never, lived to 900+ years because it is physiologically impossible (at least today, and certainly less likely in the past). You can't take these stories literally, and I don't think they were meant to be (Noah's flood is just a regurgitation of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and there are other catastrophic flood stories from antiquity). YEC is in the same category as flat earth ... thoroughly disproved by science.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #613

Post by Diogenes »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 4:15 am
dad1 wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 3:53 amThe flood was caused and orchestrated by a spirit....
dad1 wrote: So if you have any science that deals with any of this, you could have posted it
I caution the observer against thinking you're this dumb.
....
Too late ;)

His arguments only prove the the truth of the title of this thread and the folly of religious (magical) thinking. Every post further discredits the type of religiosity that takes obvious myths literally.
The flood was caused and orchestrated by a spirit....

This a prime example of using magic (and magical thinking) to attempt to explain alleged physical events.

Cartoons like Casper the Friendly Ghost make more sense when the spirit that can move thru walls, cannot pick up a physical object since his 'spiritual hand' cannot grasp a hammer for the same reason the 'spirit' can pass thru walls. Spirits (even if they existed) could not interact with physical objects like water, so they could not affect a flood.
Image
Each of his posts adds another nail to the coffin of these religious beliefs.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

dad1
Under Suspension
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 3:40 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #614

Post by dad1 »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 4:15 am That science can't help you support your claims is not my problem, and indicates you're just here to preach in the Science and Religion subforoom.
The claims that science cannot support are it's own origin stories. Also your denials of Genesis. There is no science support for any claim, for example that there were no portals in the sky that were opened and closed. So do not pretend that it is Genesis that has no science to support it. There is evidence all around that we can interpret as support for the flood, and cities and characters recorded in Genesis. Three of the great religions on earth all accept that Abraham (who was a contemporary with Noah in his young years, tradition says) lived. We even know where he is buried and his wife.
But go ahead now and show us all how we can confirm you speak truth regarding...

1. The flood
I look at the KT layer as a possible flood layer. Sediment worldwide that has traces of stuff in it that come from space and the inner earth! I look at Yucatan as a possible remnant of a fountain of the deep that erupted (violent ejecta and impact from down to up). I also look at the complete lack of evidence in science for rejecting any of the key elements of the flood year. I also look at the separation of continents that happened fast, and allowed man and animals to get where they are...etc. The main truth on a science forum that I speak is that science doesn't know.
2. It was orchestrated by a spirit
Millions have met the Spirit it was done by. Prophesies in the bible confirm beyond doubt that God had to have written them. Billions of human test tubes have tested Him and say that it was a success! Much of the bible is known history, so the parts that are not known about the future or past can be trusted.

[quote1]
3.
I went ahead and numbered that'n to help you keep up with which claim it is you're on as you present your support.[/quote]
If you ignore all evidence of God then one has only belief as to where the universe came from. Science has only belief on the issue of universe origin.
dad1 wrote: 4a. The windows of
4b. heaven
4c. Were opened
4d. by a spirit,
Hey, ever seen a man able to do that!? Science has no clue whether they were opened of not, or even what they might be. So you are in no position to confirm or deny.
5a. The door of the ark
5b. was closed by a spirit.
That is what is recorded. Science did not exist yet, so you tell us what authority you have in a science forum to deny the record? You see, if you had cameras back then on trees, and paparazzi monitoring the ark day and night, you might be able to speak with some knowledge. As it is no possible evidence aside from the record exits either way. That means it is undeniable.
I caution the observer against thinking you're this dumb.
Again, no science is offered, only the predictable allusion and pretense that you have some science hidden somewhere that you 'could' post if you wanted. Sorry, that act expired long ago.
Instead, I propose you just don't understand that when making claims in debate, the onus is on the claimant to show they speak truth.

When posters claim the windows of heaven were no there the onus is on them to show they speak the truth. Pretending that unless modern physical only science has hard evidence for something, then it never existed is not a sane proposition. That is about like saying 'unless my religion OKs something, it is not real..la la la la la'
It is absolutely astounding that you'd declare your own claims can't be supported by science, here in the Science and Religion section, then moan about a lack of it - both in the same post.
The OP claims that Genesis is a falsehood that causes ill effects, basically. Did you miss that? Posters have denied Genesis here six ways from Sunday offering no science at all as support. It was also pointed out that the bible is supported in many ways in historical accuracy, and history that was prophesy but that is now all a done deal. It was also pointed out that God was tested in untold millions of lived repeatedly, and passed. I will also point out that the claims of creation and Genesis, windows of heaven, etc are bible claims, not claims of posters here. When the claims were written down there was no science. There is no science that refutes it. Science cannot even address the key elements of creation and the flood, and spirits. Don't blame me that science cannot support any denial of things like the windows of heaven having opened, or confirm them.

dad1
Under Suspension
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 3:40 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #615

Post by dad1 »

DrNoGods wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:51 am Dendrochronology (tree ring dating ... before, during and after 4500 years ago including petrified samples),
It is recorded in the past that trees used to grow in days, not years. Any rings from that time would not represent seasons of the year as they now do. If there were, for example, 437 rings on a tree that had grown in three months, that would not be 437 years!
archeological dating from continuous sequences of written records, astronomical observations (written)
Circular. It is still dated using radioactive dating. Name any example and see.
, radiometric dating,
That is only good as long as the present nature existed. (it is unknown how long that was)
relative dating combined with absolute dating
As above.
the geologic column (stratigraphy)
That just tells us what layers are older, not how much older.
seriation, fluorine dating, thermoluminescence, fission-track dating, archaeomagnetic dating
When magnetic field changes happened we do not know. For example when the continents were rapidly moving apart that was probably at the same time nature was changing. Therefore we expect to see differences as we look at places from where the continents started, and all along the route! Rapid changes of course. As for seriation, I think it may be circular. If I had ten artifacts for example that were not suited to radioactive dating, maybe I could assign a date for the oldest artifact because it was near some other article that was suited for radioactive (or tree ring) dating! Hilarious. etc. Basically science molests various evidence and splatters belief all over it zealously.
You just ignore it and continue to whine that it doesn't exist.
Belief splattering on evidence is not any real science. As I just exposed.
Strawman ... I never made any reference to spirits or what ancient people might believe.
If you enter their record into evidence it comes with spirits! You can't get away from it. If you divest 50% of what may be in the record and call that garbage, then why would we accept the bits you want to have remain??
These same ancient people came up with stories like Jack and the Beanstalk.
The Big Bang beats Jack hands down.
More of the same ... offering up the bible as support against science arguments.
False. I was pointing out that there IS no science either way. I then went on to demonstrate that there is other support for the bible at least, unlike origin stories science offers, or fairy tales like your beanstalk.
4500 years ago is nothing in the scheme of things.
What scheme of things? You mean the imaginary dating scheme so called science uses?
See above ... there are many absolute and relative dating methods that work far longer than that
None at all. as explained. Unless you, for example prove that our present nature existed then, you cannot use tree ring dating for that time. Etc. Yoou cannot prove nature was the same, so, like dominoes, your faith pieces all come tumbling down. (reminds me of another Jack, the one with Jill)
No global flood happened 4500 years ago
In so called science time, I think ( my current guess) that the flood happened around 70 million years ago! The thing is in real time that was more like about 4500 actual years ago. That is how absurdly wrong your belief based dating scheme is. (and it gets worse fast as we go back further!)
... there's simply no evidence for it


That is true of your dates. Not Genesis, as mentioned we have proof of various cities and people etc being real.
The rest of the bible is true and God is known to be very much alive and well by hundreds of millions of people.
Ignoring all the science
I expose so called science, rather than ignore it. Do not confuse not believing your religion with ignoring it.
Science does know a lot about how Earth developed once it formed,
Not true. It imposes beliefs and makes a mental construct and model. It knows nothing of creation.

and it can debunk many of the bible stories like Noah's flood.
No it cannot. Someone coming to the battlefield and unsheathing a noodle instead of a sword would have more chance of defeating a well armed platoon than so called science debunking Genesis.
Deny it all you like, but simply shouting "science doesn't know", when it clearly does, is a waste of time.
Show us it does and we can look at that. So far you have merely demonstrated that you thought science was a bunch of beliefs.
Because, without god magic, these things are impossible
And..so?? Without God magic believers will not rise from the dead. You need to realize science is not able to question God magic or test it, or observe it, or deny it!
There is a continuous record of human civilizations from before the Neolithic (long before the supposed Noah's flood)
False it is all post flood your dates are religious folly.
, and if any global flood had happened to kill all but 8 humans the evidence for it would be overwhelming.
Such as?
Humans don't, and have never, lived to 900+ years because it is physiologically impossible (at least today, and certainly less likely in the past).

Excellent, you are learning to defeat your own arguments. I see you mentioned 'today'!

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #616

Post by Diogenes »

dad1 wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:08 pmThe OP claims that Genesis is a falsehood that causes ill effects....

This claim is false. No where in the OP is the book of Genesis declared a "falsehood." Perhaps your understanding of English is to blame, or else you deliberately mislead. The OP clearly states several times that it is a literal interpretation of Genesis that is problematic. Most Biblical scholars understand many of the stories in Genesis were never meant to be taken literally. This is like thinking Hansel and Gretel really happened, or thinking Dr. NoGods' example of Jack and the Beanstalk talks about an actual event in history.

The point of the OP is one which you are proving with each post, that insisting that everything in Genesis literally happened causes one to perform such ridiculous mental gymnastics, that poor logic and acceptance of fiction as fact disarms the believer, rendering him disabled in the realm of logic and debate.

... the discoveries of modern science, as well as an explosion of new knowledge about the ancient world of the Bible, have decisively challenged whether this interpretation is the best reading of the text. This includes the work of many Christian scholars and scientists who were (and continue to be) guided by a belief that all truth is God’s truth, that Scripture is inspired, and that the testimony of God’s creation should not be ignored. The scientific and historical evidence is now clear: there has never been a global flood that covered the entire earth, nor do all modern animals and humans descend from the passengers of a single vessel.

https://biologos.org/common-questions/h ... od-account

Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood
In order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many believers are willing to do.

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/flood357903

Most importantly Biblical literalism or 'letterism' is rejected by serious Christian scholars, some of whom point out that insisting on such poor analysis turns people away from Christianity.
Steve Falkenberg, professor of religious psychology at Eastern Kentucky University, observed:[25]

I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and setting on pillars and cannot move (1 Chr 16:30, Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). Additionally, it says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26).

Conrad Hyers, professor of comparative religion at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minnesota, criticizes biblical literalism as a mentality that:[26]

does not manifest itself only in conservative churches, private-school enclaves, television programs of the evangelical right, and a considerable amount of Christian bookstore material; one often finds a literalist understanding of Bible and faith being assumed by those who have no religious inclinations, or who are avowedly antireligious in sentiment. Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies of creation is easily obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism.

Robert Cargill responded to viewers' questions on a History Channel series explaining why academic scholarship rejects forms of biblical literalism:[27]

If I may be so bold, the reason you don't see many credible scholars advocating for the 'inerrancy' of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors. Many of them are discrepancies regarding the numbers of things in the Books of Samuel and Kings and the retelling of these in the Books of Chronicles. All credible Bible scholars acknowledge that there are problems with the Biblical text as it has been received over the centuries. ... The question is not whether or not there are discrepancies and, yes, errors in the Bible, but whether or not these errors fundamentally undermine the credibility of the text. Even the most conservative, believing, faithful Biblical scholars acknowledge these problems with the text. This is why we don't find any scholars that subscribe to 'Biblical inerrancy' (to my knowledge) on the show.

Christian Smith wrote in his 2012 book, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture:[28]

The real problem is the particular biblicist theory about the Bible; it not only makes young believers vulnerable to being disabused of their naive acceptance of that theory but it also often has the additional consequence of putting their faith commitments at risk. Biblicism often paints smart, committed youth into a corner that is for real reasons impossible to occupy for many of those who actually confront its problems. When some of those youth give up on biblicism and simply walk across the wet paint, it is flawed biblicism that is partly responsible for those losses of faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #617

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to dad1 in post #615]
In so called science time, I think ( my current guess) that the flood happened around 70 million years ago! The thing is in real time that was more like about 4500 actual years ago. That is how absurdly wrong your belief based dating scheme is.
What is absurd is the above statement. Time is time ... there is no difference between actual time and what you call science time. If some god created a global flood by magic 70 millions years ago to kill all the evil humans he'd made then his timing was terrible since there were no humans on Earth 70 million years ago to kill! And again, there are multiple ways to date things, and some have nothing to do with radiometric dating. This is especially true for times as recent as 4500 years ago (eg. the continuous written record we have since then, to name the most obvious).

The rest of your comments all rely on your silly and completely unsubstantiated idea that somehow nature, time, etc. were different in the past, or unknown to science, allowing you to make up any ridiculous scenarios you like and present them as if they should be taken seriously. If you have to go to that extent to try and support the bible stories, it is a good hint that they are not to be taken literally. The more outlandish the story, the more outlandish the defense has to be. You've indeed proven the OP premise (with nearly every post).
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

dad1
Under Suspension
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 3:40 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #618

Post by dad1 »

Diogenes wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 3:39 pm This claim is false. No where in the OP is the book of Genesis declared a "falsehood."
If Genesis then is true, how does it cause some weird evil effect to those who believe it? Obviously it is disparaging creation and Scripture, and holding up science as the great truth.
The OP clearly states several times that it is a literal interpretation of Genesis that is problematic.

The belief in what is said called by any other name is still belief in what God recorded. Claiming that is dangerous and wrong is what this thread is about.
Most Biblical scholars understand many of the stories in Genesis were never meant to be taken literally.


Not true. They may believe that such an unbelieving approach is a good thing. It is unbelief called by another name. If a man is taken to Egypt (his tomb is here today) and becomes a leader in government, that does not mean that God 'really' meant that there was no such man, and no brothers, and no Egypt etc.
This is like thinking Hansel and Gretel really happened,[/quote No more than thinking Jesus is Hansel and never really lived and died and rose again. He did and had witnesses. Waving it away and ignoring it is disbelief. Not an alternate possibility.
or thinking Dr. NoGods' example of Jack and the Beanstalk talks about an actual event in history.
Anyone can raise up a strawman argument. 'I just made up a fable about a woman eating the world for lunch..that is the same as believing that Paul really lived...yada yada' Nope. Jack is more believable than the universe sailing out of a pepper sized speck o soup though! After all, plants are recorded as actually growing fast in bible history. At least it is possible there was some grain of truth if the story was very old. The alternate creation fantasies of so called science have no possibility of being right. Hey, I can find some guy with a garden named Jack. I could not find and you could not produce any little hot soup that creates universes!
The point of the OP is one which you are proving with each post, that insisting that everything in Genesis literally happened causes one to perform such ridiculous mental gymnastics, that poor logic and acceptance of fiction as fact disarms the believer, rendering him disabled in the realm of logic and debate.
The mental gymnastics have been the desperate attempts to try and disprove Genesis.
the discoveries of modern science, as well as an explosion of new knowledge about the ancient world of the Bible, have decisively challenged whether this interpretation is the best reading of the text
False. They have provided some with an excuse not to believe the truth.
This includes the work of many Christian scholars and scientists who were (and continue to be) guided by a belief that all truth is God’s truth, that Scripture is inspired, and that the testimony of God’s creation should not be ignored. The scientific and historical evidence is now clear: there has never been a global flood that covered the entire earth, nor do all modern animals and humans descend from the passengers of a single vessel.
https://biologos.org/common-questions/h ... od-account
All of them borrowed the beliefs of science and held those higher than God's word.

Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood
No thanks. You have no way to know. God does.
In order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics
Hey God does that before morning coffee!
, exit the realm of science,
Not hard to do either, just peek out of the box, or step out of their little puddle!

and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many believers are willing to do.
ALL must do. Getting saved is entering the realm of the miraculous. Raising from the dead is also. Eternal life is far beyond the realm of the physical also. Etc. If some want to rip out pages of a record that Jesus verified was right and from Him, that is their problem.
Most importantly Biblical literalism or 'letterism' is rejected by serious Christian scholars, some of whom point out that insisting on such poor analysis turns people away from Christianity.
So what? Jesus was rejected by scholars! Moses too. Everyone who was anyone was. Scholar is just another word for the wisdom of man. Ever consider that 'serious christian scholars' are rejected by actual believers!? Their opinion is of no more value than the belief set of so called science.
I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and setting on pillars and cannot move (1 Chr 16:30, Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). Additionally, it says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26).
The bible says nothing of the sort. His understanding is just small, to be generous. Look at a random example from the verses cited.

Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.


Did the guy not notice Jesus is not reigning earth now?? That is prophesy. If he did not even catch the heart of the verse, how would he ever get the context? Basically, Once He is ruling on earth, that will be forever, and no one could ever move that reality and rule. This world is not established now, it is in a state of flux and turmoil, just as scripture tells us it is and will be. So what we have here by a 'scholar' is an abject and utter lack of comprehension of what he reads. I kid you not.
does not manifest itself only in conservative churches, private-school enclaves, television programs of the evangelical right, and a considerable amount of Christian bookstore material; one often finds a literalist understanding of Bible and faith being assumed by those who have no religious inclinations, or who are avowedly antireligious in sentiment. Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies of creation is easily obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism.
I suppose he thought that sounded intelligent? If some non believers happen to accept the truth of what God said, so what?? The poor guy does little more than make a boring, hollow and weak attempt to insult belief in Scripture.
If I may be so bold, the reason you don't see many credible scholars advocating for the 'inerrancy' of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors. Many of them are discrepancies regarding the numbers of things in the Books of Samuel and Kings and the retelling of these in the Books of Chronicles. All credible Bible scholars acknowledge that there are problems with the Biblical text as it has been received over the centuries. ... The question is not whether or not there are discrepancies and, yes, errors in the Bible, but whether or not these errors fundamentally undermine the credibility of the text. Even the most conservative, believing, faithful Biblical scholars acknowledge these problems with the text. This is why we don't find any scholars that subscribe to 'Biblical inerrancy' (to my knowledge) on the show.
The bible is full of contradictions? Don't think so. I have heard some people discuss those so called wrong numbers. Pity the poor couch potatoes that take this guy seriously when all we have is aspersions being cast. Most so called problems are with the minds of those that think they see them.
The real problem is the particular biblicist theory about the Bible; it not only makes young believers vulnerable to being disabused of their naive acceptance of that theory but it also often has the additional consequence of putting their faith commitments at risk. Biblicism often paints smart, committed youth into a corner that is for real reasons impossible to occupy for many of those who actually confront its problems. When some of those youth give up on biblicism and simply walk across the wet paint, it is flawed biblicism that is partly responsible for those losses of faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism
[/size][/quote]In other words, once kids get indoctrinated and drenched in the belief system and faith models of so called science, many embrace that, rather than what they were taught at home. Later, many come to their senses and realize evolution was a crock all along..etc.

dad1
Under Suspension
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 3:40 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #619

Post by dad1 »

DrNoGods wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 4:57 pm
What is absurd is the above statement. Time is time ... there is no difference between actual time and what you call science time.
In your mind, perhaps. In reality, the time imagined by science is belief based rather than real time that existed in reality. If someone imagines that a flood that happened say, 4500 years ago was a flood that happened 70 million years ago that does not change the time it actually occurred.
If some god created a global flood by magic 70 millions years ago to kill all the evil humans he'd made then his timing was terrible since there were no humans on Earth 70 million years ago to kill!

Except that you have no way to know humans did live around the time of the KT layer. As already mentioned earlier in this thread, it is very likely that most animals and mankind returned to dust or decayed, too fast to leave fossilized remains or bones! Your belief based misconceptions about man not being here are all sitting on faith alone. Man was here from the getgo!
And again, there are multiple ways to date things, and some have nothing to do with radiometric dating.
All are faith based.
This is especially true for times as recent as 4500 years ago (eg. the continuous written record we have since then, to name the most obvious).
Wrong. Name any record that is 4500 years and show the basis foor the dating!! hint: I have been down that road before, Long story short, using Egypt for example, the dating comes down to a king list...need I say more?

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #620

Post by brunumb »

dad1 wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:43 pm For example when the continents were rapidly moving apart that was probably at the same time nature was changing. Therefore we expect to see differences as we look at places from where the continents started, and all along the route! Rapid changes of course.
Anyone with a smattering of understanding would know that rapidly moving continents is a physical impossibility. The energy involved would be astronomical and utterly destroy every trace of life on the planet. Beside that, there is no mechanism by which such a thing could occur. It is pure fantasy invented to prop up the failed scenario of the biblical flood story.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Post Reply