Where's the water?

[RANDOR]

Todays modern scientist....................is still a mere man created by God and has been on the planet....what,,,,,,,, maybe 50 years?
But hey.............................when do we know when the scientists have gotten it right? and if they do...will we believe them.......
Soooooooooooooooooooo............I'll just step out sayin......................it all sounds good to me Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, since we are just talkin about water.

 

[Madad21]

I think the water on this thread has pretty much dried up!!

[sharedmedia=gallery:images:481]

 

[Forsakenone]

Did I misrepresent anything from that talk?

I am not going to accuse you of misrepresenting Tyson's speech since it is really is a matter of perception. However, Mr. Tyson's derogatory comments regarding God and Genesis are well documented.

In the context of the talk you posted, I agree with what he said. Specifically, his point is that even though it seems to be a common instinct, scientists can't just throw up their hands and declare things "the providence of the Gods" when they can't figure stuff out. As he demonstrated throughout his lecture, history shows that eventually someone will come along after you and figure it out, removing it from "the providence of the Gods".

Oh, so is he saying scientist must have faith?, since faith is the substance of things hoped for, which in this case the hope being that there is an answer to stuff they can't figure out, with the answer being the evidence of yet unseen, or undiscovered.

The only thing I have seen from Mr. Tyson belief in the Bible is the plagiarism of scriptures such as the quote I previous provided, "We are not simply in the universe. The universe is in us.” when compared to John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?

The rest of what you quoted aren't from the talk you posted.

While I didn't say that they where, and honestly didn't intend to imply that they where derived from the video either if it was perceived that way, yet they are other quotes he has made in addition to those things which he said during his speech.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

As I said, when you have an actual specific flood scenario, present it. Absent one, there's no scientific reason to consider it.

And as I said, don't hypocritically demand of others anything that you cannot provide yourself. Simple, isn't it?

 

[Forsakenone]

"when you think you are knowlegeable enough to prove to me what conditions existed 6,000 years ago then let me know".

Neither you nor I know what happened at that time, so all YOU can say is "I don't know" - the very thing you accuse me of saying!

Forensic evidence does allow the past to be revisited with a reasonable degree of accuracy
using establish scientific principles.

Such as the case of the scriptures of the flood itself, a principle does not have to necessary
be scientific, but can be evidentiary based upon known and observed information contained
within the document itself making the claim.

While the text regarding of the flood is considered to have been written by Moses, including the
account of the exodus and the 10 commandments, which many consider the scriptures themselves as
evidence of Moses writing them in addition they cite the passage of John 5:46-47 wherein
it is written that the man called Jesus said the following;
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Yet despite all the facts that might support Moses writing the first five books containing
the text of the flood and the 10 commandments, the principle that the ability to read and
write the written spoken word is acquired knowledge which would have required that
Moses had been taught that ability.

Therefore, as written in Acts 7:22 "And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,
and was mighty in words and in deeds." However, there is no records or evidence to support
that Moses learned how to read and write the spoken word from the Egyptians.

The historical evidence of the Egyptian civilization contains cryptic symbols, know as hieroglyphics,
in what many historians concluded was part of the evolution of written communication. However,
hieroglyphics would require one the have already known what the message was in order to have
understood what the symbolic drawings meant.

With the Egyptians being the most advanced civilization during that period, their lacking of knowledge
regarding the written spoken word indicates that it is very improbable that any of the jurisdictions under
Pharaoh's throne would have had the knowledge or ability of the written spoken word either without it being
known by the King.

Now according to the atheist advent of a more advanced Samaritan civilization which predates the
Egyptians and Moses, including the artifacts were discovered in the late 20th century<<< to refute the
superior Egyptian civilization of the time and to explain away the reason Moses could have obtained or
would have known how to read and write the written spoken word when it was unknown to the Egyptians.

But out of curiosity's sake, I would ask how many believe that Moses wrote the 10 commandments and the
first 5 books of the OT in light of John 5:46-47, yet it seems that those that believe seem to go deaf and dumb
when asked to stand up for the sake of the Gospel.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Forensic evidence does allow the past to be revisited with a reasonable degree of accuracy
using establish scientific principles.

OK, what I would like to know is who it is that determines the degree of accuracy. what is "reasonable"? Forensic science doesn't determine accuracy, and neither does consensus. Only undeniable facts have the power to determine accuracy. So what facts are you talking about?

Such as the case of the scriptures of the flood itself, a principle does not have to necessary be scientific, but can be evidentiary based upon known and observed information contained within the document itself making the claim.

While the text regarding of the flood is considered to have been written by Moses, including the account of the exodus and the 10 commandments, which many consider the scriptures themselves as evidence of Moses writing them in addition they cite the passage of John 5:46-47 wherein it is written that the man called Jesus said the following;
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Yet despite all the facts that might support Moses writing the first five books containing the text of the flood and the 10 commandments, the principle that the ability to read and
write the written spoken word is acquired knowledge which would have required that

Moses had been taught that ability.Therefore, as written in Acts 7:22 "And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds." However, there is no records or evidence to support that Moses learned how to read and write the spoken word from the Egyptians.
The historical evidence of the Egyptian civilization contains cryptic symbols, know as hieroglyphics, in what many historians concluded was part of the evolution of written communication. However, hieroglyphics would require one the have already known what the message was in order to have
understood what the symbolic drawings meant.

With the Egyptians being the most advanced civilization during that period, their lacking of knowledge regarding the written spoken word indicates that it is very improbable that any of the jurisdictions under Pharaoh's throne would have had the knowledge or ability of the written spoken word either without it being
known by the King.

Now according to the atheist advent of a more advanced Samaritan civilization which predates the Egyptians and Moses, including the artifacts were discovered in the late 20th century<<< to refute the superior Egyptian civilization of the time and to explain away the reason Moses could have obtained or would have known how to read and write the written spoken word when it was unknown to the Egyptians.

I'm sorry... what on earth are you trying to say here?

But out of curiosity's sake, I would ask how many believe that Moses wrote the 10 commandments and the first 5 books of the OT in light of John 5:46-47, yet it seems that those that believe seem to go deaf and dumb when asked to stand up for the sake of the Gospel.

Again, I'm not really sure what your point is. Who is going deaf and dumb?

In any case, as far as I'm concerned, it isn't really necessary from a Christian perspective to know who taught Moses to read and write or to believe that every single word in the first 5 OT books were written by Moses. John 5:46-47 indicates that at least most of it probably was, but even if certain parts of it were not, it doesn't really matter. What matters is whether they were inspired and are truthful accounts.

 

[Forsakenone]

OK, what I would like to know is who it is that determines the degree of accuracy. what is "reasonable"? Forensic science doesn't determine accuracy, and neither does consensus. Only undeniable facts have the power to determine accuracy. So what facts are you talking about?

Undeniable facts? Facts are subjective. Real principles are formed by precepts that are based upon immutable truths that we established from the foundation of the world, and are true today and will always hold true. A person can not just simply make up principles, nor can one understand a principle without the proper foundation as written in Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

In any case, as far as I'm concerned, it isn't really necessary from a Christian perspective to know who taught Moses to read and write or to believe that every single word in the first 5 OT books were written by Moses. John 5:46-47 indicates that at least most of it probably was, but even if certain parts of it were not, it doesn't really matter. What matters is whether they were inspired and are truthful accounts.

It written "But if ye believe not his [Moses] writings, how shall ye believe my words? Well if you presume Moses learned how to read and write the spoken word from the Egyptians then obvious how can you believe what Pharaoh said.

So if the Moses didn't learn how to read and write the written spoken word from the Egyptians, then how did write the 10 commandments and the First Five Books of the OT? Did you learn to read and write on your own, or did someone teach you?

Truthful implies being true, maybe this was just one of the cases where one has to believe that all things are possible with God right?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Undeniable facts? Facts are subjective. Real principles are formed by precepts that are based upon immutable truths that we established from the foundation of the world, and are true today and will always hold true. A person can not just simply make up principles, nor can one understand a principle without the proper foundation as written in Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Well call it what you want, but the mere fact that you call something a "real principle" doesn't make it so. And where exactly does Isaiah say that what he was talking about is the "proper foundation"? That passage is a prophecy about tongues, which is why verse 10 "sav lasav sav lasav / kav lakav kav lakav" is basically gibberish. Disagree if you like, but there is nothing in that worn out verse, or in the context that claims that it refers to "real principles".

But having said that, what does it have to do with this discussion?

It written "But if ye believe not his [Moses] writings, how shall ye believe my words? Well if you presume Moses learned how to read and write the spoken word from the Egyptians then obvious how can you believe what Pharaoh said.

So if the Moses didn't learn how to read and write the written spoken word from the Egyptians, then how did write the 10 commandments and the First Five Books of the OT? Did you learn to read and write on your own, or did someone teach you?

You've still got me utterly confused... What on earth are you talking about? What does it matter who taught Moses to read and write? What does it matter who taught me to read and write? What matters is whether or not Moses assembled the words he learned to read and write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Truthful implies being true, maybe this was just one of the cases where one has to believe that all things are possible with God right?

Uh... sure... and?

 

[Wormwood]

And keep in mind, I both participate and know many others who are involved in the peer review process. If Dr. Fuz sends us a manuscript that has valid scientific arguments that are supported by the data, no one is going to be like "Yeah, but he's a creationist, so we can't publish this". And if you look at his background, he's been published before. But oddly enough, when it comes to his creationist claims, suddenly he decides to take those out on the road and present them to church groups. Funny that.

Do you have a problem with the way he uses his scientific analysis to encourage believers to trust the narratives of the Bible? Naturalists want nothing to do with someone publishing an article about how science shows that life could not have spontaneously originated because it is seen as invoking faith. As you pointed out, there are many creationists doing science. Clearly that means they line up with some sort of creationism view (since they are creationists)...whether old earth or new earth. As a Christian who loves science, I would think you would see such pursuits as healthy...rather than malign those who disagree with you.

I see the geologists you referenced as not unlike many theologians I encounter. Simply because someone has an educated opinion, doesn't meant they are right or that they speak for all educated people in that given field. You continually make assumptions and polarize people in your arguments. Either someone is a rational Christian scientist who clearly understands the stories of the Bible to be filled with fables, or they are an ignorant, agenda-driven fundamentalist who distorts information to make it fit into their preconceived worldview. As a "scientist" you are very biased and not very objective in your arguments.

The point here is, science cannot accommodate supernatural explanations for phenomena. As soon as you open that door, every believer in every supernatural thing will suddenly say "my God made it that way".

No one is asking them to. We are discussing origins and historical events that we cannot observe. No one is suggesting that modern-day science take on the perspective of assuming everything is magical or miraculous. We are talking about believing a Biblical narrative or not. My point is, science cannot accommodate or explain phenomena that pertain to the past which may have happened thousands, millions, or billions of years ago. They can observe things now and make assertions about what might have been based on what they see. However, there are a host of assumptions in such hypotheses. Christians have assumptions as do evolutionists. Why is it that you only want to point out when Christian assumptions have been wrong and not the other way around? Why are you so antagonistic towards those who create hypotheses to give rational explanations for life and the condition of the earth based on a perspective that honors God's Word as true? So what if some are wrong? You seem eager to defend the faithless and have no intention of encouraging our building up those who are of the faith...especially when they disagree with you on a very debatable and inconsequential matter.

What did you expect...a footnote saying "This story borrowed and modified from a Babylonian story"?

No, I would expect fables and myths would be found in the fiction section of the library, not in the inspired Word of God. If you are claiming that the Bible belongs in the fiction section of the library, then you are simply not a Christian in the historical sense of the term and you need to come to grips with that. We can disagree on interpretations of how literally we want to see various stories or the points we derive from them, but when you simply fail to believe stories of the Bible as having any correlation to historical events in any way, shape or form, then you have ceased to be a person of faith in God's revelation. This is not just my personal opinion, but has been the view of the Church throughout Church history.

Sorry, but there's absolutely no indication in the text itself of that. All it says is that Satan took Jesus to the top of a mountain where all the kingdoms of the earth could be seen.

What are you talking about? There is no indication that Jesus was interacting with a spiritual being? There is no indication that he was teleported to a mountain and to the pinnacle of the temple? There is no indication that earth, as the author wrote it, might have been referring to the Roman Empire? I'm saying the entire encounter is filled with spiritual and supernatural elements so there I see no requirement to view the "viewing of all the empires of the world" from a mountain to be understood as a purely natural event.

So what is your position? Did the temptation not happen at all? Is the entire story fabricated?

And here we see how you are using your knowledge of the world to inform your reading of scripture. If you believed in a flat earth, you'd have no trouble reading this exactly as it is written. But because you know the earth is round and such mountaintop viewing is impossible, you impose a supernatural explanation even though none is given.

Again, you are confusing science as that which offers information about the present, observable universe with theories of that which took place many moons ago. It was a Christian that discounted the geocentricism, not a secularist. Jesus did not defend the idea of a flat earth. He did defend the flood of Noah as being a literal and universal judgment that took place historically...as well as Adam & Eve, Jonah, etc. If you want to disagree with Jesus, be my guest. I choose to accept what he taught.

There's that black/white thinking again. Is the only other option in your mind really "the entire story was fabricated"?

Maybe you can explain the technicalities in your mind of how a story can be "borrowed" from a myth an not be "fabricated." Are you suggesting the Gilgamesh Epic is true? If not, how can a fable about Babylonian gods fighting each other being "borrowed" by Israelites anything but making a story up about creation based on something that is clearly untrue? You will need to explain.

You're missing the point. You've been complaining about how I allow my understanding of the world around me to play a role in my choices on how I read scripture. Yet as we see above, you do too.

No, I ask the question, "What would the early readers have understood about this text." I simply see no way that they would see this encounter with its spiritual beings, teleportations, etc. as that which was to be understood in purely natural terms. Historical terms? Yes. Natural terms? No.

The translators who wrote down the scriptures in new languages certainly made many, many, many choices (as you know, many idioms and sayings don't translate literally from one language to another). The editors of various Bibles made choices about what books and even what passages to include in their particular versions. And all of us make choices about what we think the meaning behind every passage is. Literalism is a choice just like any other. So let's not pretend like there's one way, and one way only to go about this (and it just happens to be your way) and everything prior to you and I has been a clean, obvious, choice-free process.

This is a loaded statement and I cannot address it all. I would agree that there are purposes to the literature and intentions behind it that we should be aware of. This is why we need, to the best of our ability, to try to discern the author's intent and how the early audience would have understood the passages. Yes, literalism is a choice, and many times it is not the right choice. I have never pretended like there is one way. However, what I am saying is that we allow the text to speak rather than allowing quotes from geologists to speak for the text. We try to understand what the author meant. Is this a symbolic vision? Is this a historical event? Is this a parable? Is this wisdom literature? Is this a song or poem?

Clearly the authors were not Western 21st century folk. Even if they were, their narratives only tell some details and tell those details for a purpose. But, again, you need to understand the difference between a particular telling of an event or saying the event did not happed at all. For instance, if I am retelling the plays of the latest Superbowl, the language I use, the plays I pick to talk about and my like of one team over another will certainly all impact my account of the event. Maybe I use symbolic language in the account or use the narrative details to highlight a specific point. So it is one thing to try to understand what I am trying to communicate in my narrative of the Superbowl (maybe my focus is on how great Seattle's defense is, or maybe its about poor ref calls, or maybe I am reflecting on coaching scenarios or a particular player in the game). Its one thing to try to understand what my intent is (which is likely not just to give a scientific, play-by-play detailed account of every aspect of the game), and another to say that I borrowed my entire narrative from an article about a soccer game written in England a hundred years prior and I just changed the sport, players and some other details to make a point. You are comparing apples and oranges here. It is one thing to be hermeneutically sound and another to question the validity or purpose of a text due to information not found in the texts themselves. One stance is to understand the text based on its message and authority, the other is to be an authoritarian over the text and to impose ideas about the authors motives or actions that are not found in the text itself.

As it stands, it seems your hermeneutic is based on you and your science professors standing as authoritarians over the Bible rather than allowing the Bible to be the authority and allowing your scientific study to perhaps shape some of the inconsequential details of what is being taught in its narratives.

 

[Tex]

I must admit, I am very disgruntled toward the "church" and have been for quite some time, not the true body of Christ (which is the real church), but instead toward the play church.

You know the type...they tell you how evolution is how the world we know came about, they explain to you how nothing is really sin, and they explain away everything that God did and tell you how it was "metaphorical" and it didn't really happen. Those same people get on those of us who are "biblical literalists" about this biblical literalism "disease" we apparently have.

I get up this morning and read this:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/14/5808888/scientists-discover-massive-ocean-of-water-400-miles-underground

You know how that whole "flood thing" didn't really happen? Turns out maybe...just maybe it did.

Do you want the power of God back in this world? We could start by telling the world just exactly what God has done and quit making excuses as to how He didn't really do what He claims and how it was just a good story we can take a lesson from.

If God can't do a small thing like flood the entire planet...how could He do such a miraculous thing like saving a soul?

Can we, as the church, please stop explaining away God?!

SL

The flood did happen, at least in the middle east. It also seems that there have been floods in all parts of the world at some point or another, regardless of how farfetched the location. Did all the world get flooded at exactly the same time? It doesn't really matter. God is the master of all creation regardless.

Now I'll address all the offtopic stuff you put in the OP. Evolution doesn't contradict the bible, not all of the bible is a history book, and sin truly is "nothing", so long as you mean that sin is a deprivation within the action. You seem to be a guy who is really into "miracles". If you mean by "miracle" that it is a great event that brings glory to the Lord, then I totally agree with you. If you think of miracles as a circumvention of the natural laws that our Lord placed in the universe in the beginning, I call that "magic" and say you are wrong.

 

[Wormwood]

Tex,

I would have to strongly disagree that sin is "nothing." There is simply no indication in the Bible that sin is merely the deprivation of good. Sin and evil are personified in the Bible even to the point that they are seen as powers, kingdoms and spiritual forces. Jesus did not die for "nothing" or simply to identify with us as such philosophical notions tend to imply, but rather "he who knew no sin became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God." God does not throw "nothing" into the lake of fire. Such concepts I find to be far more philosophical than biblical.

Moreover, do you believe the resurrection to be "magical" and therefore never happened?

 

[Tex]

Wormwood,

You're correct that what I'm proclaiming is more philosophical than biblical. The bible certainly does not teach this. I could pull random verses that kinda sorta lead someone that direction, but really, the bible isn't here to teach us metaphysics. So, if I'm going to talk about metaphysics, I'm necessarily going to have to be extra biblical. Whats important is that I do not contradict the bible. I don't believe this does.

I have two real reasons for why sin must be a deprivation. First, if sin is "something", it was created. Created by God. So God made sin, and now we have a questionably evil God. Satan does not have creation powers, so sin comes from God. This predicament makes a world of trouble. God is no longer perfect, he knows sin, righteousness is arbitrary, etc.

Reason number two is based on the understanding of what sin does. At the fall, sin separated us from God. We are no longer in the perfect way God made us, but instead we "fall short of the glory of God". So, sin would be a kind of shortage. And God gave Egypt a famine, which is a "shortage" of food. So I don't have problems with "nothing" being personified. It seems like that's just the way human language works sometimes.

Finally, ressurection. Jesus ascended bodily from the grave on the third day. Yes, it was a miracle. Jesus was, in accordance with our later inheritance, "made new". Resurrection is essentially a new creation. When God created the universe, he was not circumventing any part of his own design. He was creating. Resurrection, of the Firstfruit and of us later, gets the pass because it is recreation. But that is a very good objection.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

I wonder....

Is it a natural law that a man have a father?

Or does the Virgin birth and incarnation also "get a pass?"

How many things "get a pass?"

Thanks.

Tex......
Does turning water into wine "get a pass?"

Does calming a raging storm "get a pass?"

Are all healings "recreations" and as such "get a pass?"

 

[RANDOR]

Sure could use some Holy Water.....

 

[Tex]

Ok, so what you're saying is that God creates the world... and then decides it has mistakes? So he goes, "woops! looks like the world needs more wine!"? That god is a moron. My God understood when wine needed to be from the beginning and planned for it. It wasn't magic. There is a totally logical reason why water turned into wine that day. Along with everything else.

 

[aspen]

So, how do you explain the presence of evil, Tex? If this world is perfectly made, how could people made perfectly, act in a broken way?

 

[Tex]

@aspen

Free will. And free will is part of the perfection. If we didn't have free will, we could never truly love God. We didn't blindly choose, we were given two options: trust in the Lord or be independent. And each and every one of us would have done the exact same thing that Adam and Eve did in that garden. That, too, is part of our perfection. Certianly our choice was the worst we could ever make, but the free will, the lack of complete knowledge, the ability to govern an entire planet, etc., all helped us to be the sinners we are. if we didn't care about rulership, we wouldn't have gone for the fruit. But we were created to rule. We were created with sponge-like minds that wanted to know. We were created with all sorts of beautiful attributes and abilities. All of them contributed to our fall as well.

 

[aspen]

@aspen

Free will. And free will is part of the perfection. If we didn't have free will, we could never truly love God. We didn't blindly choose, we were given two options: trust in the Lord or be independent. And each and every one of us would have done the exact same thing that Adam and Eve did in that garden. That, too, is part of our perfection. Certianly our choice was the worst we could ever make, but the free will, the lack of complete knowledge, the ability to govern an entire planet, etc., all helped us to be the sinners we are. if we didn't care about rulership, we wouldn't have gone for the fruit. But we were created to rule. We were created with sponge-like minds that wanted to know. We were created with all sorts of beautiful attributes and abilities. All of them contributed to our fall as well.

Sorry to disappoint you, but that is not Christianity. What you are describing is Dualism. Setting Freewill up as necessary for perfection, makes Good dependent on Evil to be known. It is a heresy. We can know the ultimate Good, which is God without knowing anything about evil. Adam and Eve had Freewill before they sinned in the Garden. Genesis says that Adam walked with God - they had an intimate relationship. Adam exercised his Freewill to name all the animals.

Evil is not a force it is a lesser or broken form of Good.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

@aspen

Free will. And free will is part of the perfection. If we didn't have free will, we could never truly love God. We didn't blindly choose, we were given two options: trust in the Lord or be independent. And each and every one of us would have done the exact same thing that Adam and Eve did in that garden. That, too, is part of our perfection. Certianly our choice was the worst we could ever make, but the free will, the lack of complete knowledge, the ability to govern an entire planet, etc., all helped us to be the sinners we are. if we didn't care about rulership, we wouldn't have gone for the fruit. But we were created to rule. We were created with sponge-like minds that wanted to know. We were created with all sorts of beautiful attributes and abilities. All of them contributed to our fall as well.

Whether or not we would do the same thing as Adam has nothing to do with it. If Adam used his free will to sin, then it was Adam who "created" sin, not God.

 

[brakelite]

Sin is transgression against the law. Read the first 3 chapters of Romans. The law tells us to shut-up. No righteousness of our own. No standing before God. No grounds for boasting or pride. We are lost, guilty, and without Christ, condemned. But man wasn't the first. the devil was a murderer from the beginning. He was also covetous, and a liar. He lied to Eve to deceive her. Thus the law existed also before man. Man was not first to sin. Nor did God create it. What trash talk that is. To say that the law-Maker was also the law-breaker. Where do people come up with such nonsense?