|
Post by themantheycallcris on Jul 10, 2008 3:01:21 GMT -5
mongoose, i'm not sure i understand your view on the accuracy of Scripture. do you agree with the following statement?... "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." a simple yes or no answer please, and additionally giving reason would be good as well. assuming you do believe it's true, consider this: the greek word there for "interpretation" is "Epilusis"- 1- a loosening, unloosing. 2- interpretation the root word is "Epiluo", meaning... 1- to unloose, untie 2- to clear (a controversy), decide, settle 3- to explain (what is obscure and hard to understand) according to the language here (2 Peter 1:20-21) all words used were dictated by God Himself (every last letter written). Jesus emphasised this principle (although his point was something else) when he said in Matthew 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." There was no stroke of the pen that God Himself did not dictate. I would also like to question you on your statements about the picture the prophets painted of God. I do not see anything in the bible supporting the following statement you made (please provide examples from Scripture)... God's not all that logical. There's not even that much consistency in what he does or demands, though I have found some common threads. But what God does is neither fair, logical, equal, nor even equitable, assuming that the Bible is accurate throughout its length. We believe that God doesn't change. But then why do we have him seeming a being who's mind can be changed by a logical argument in parts of Genesis, and the almighty ruler of the Universe who's had every moment of Eternity planned from the beginning in the New Testament? Did God change and get more powerful and decisive and in control, or did the understanding of God's might in the minds of the authors change? Why does the God of one book seem so different in nature and motivation than the God of another book, if He's dictating the books to the authors, and making sure they transcribe it accurately?
|
|
|
Post by strangewind on Jul 10, 2008 9:24:50 GMT -5
I would also make a critique of "peer review" as someone with some experience in the process.
Peer review, though important, isn't perfect. It isn't even close. Talk to any academic. Any one. If they've gone through the process of peer review for a journal, you know the incredible amounts of politics involved.
This isn't to say that peer review isn't a useful process, but it should in no way be as authoritative as we treat it.
Peer review isn't much different than fiction submissions, in a lot of ways. There have been numerous studies and polls of peer reviewers to determine bias, and the obvious truth is that they do. Humans are irrevocably biased on all sorts of subjects, and it isn't something that is left at the door of peer review.
Were the modern academic practices in place when Galileo, Charles Darwin, Newton, Einstein and Curie made their arguments, they all would have been silenced through the denial of tenure and lack of funding (or academic standing, in some cases.)
It doesn't take much for me to speculate what minds have been lost to scientific advancement because of academia's strict adherence to the status quo and government funding.
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jul 10, 2008 18:20:23 GMT -5
I'll just reply here to themantheycallcris, and I may modify this post in a moment if it's appropriate for me to reply to the following post.
In answer to your initial question about whether or not I agree with the scripture quote concerning prophecy, Yes I agree with it. No, I don't agree with your interpretation of it. *grins*
I see that it states that no prophecy is a matter of one's own interpretation, and I accept that with reservations because it's in the Bible, and I assume that everything in the Bible is true in one way or another. But we know from experience and tradition that everything we perceive is a matter of our own interpretation. Just a few pages from there Paul states that the spirit of prophecy is subject to the prophet. Also, we see a number of places in Scripture wherein a prophet speaks falsely, whether with knowledge that they spoke falsely or by accident. And then when God tells us to say something we'll often expound on it or embellish it to some extent. By the time you add in translation errors, and our own pre-conceived notions through which we interpret everything we read, we can no longer depend on any one interpretation of any one passage for the development of our doctrine. Rather, we have to look at and accept the whole counsel of the whole Word of God, whatever that might be on any given issue.
Now it's clear to me that you're pretty set on the whole idea that the Bible was dictated letter for letter by God, and, I'll presume, you believe one or more of our modern translations rendered the ancient manuscripts correctly. I won't try to persuade you otherwise, and I hope your faith is strong as you stand on that foundation. It's simply one I can not accept, given the difficulties inherent in it. For me, trying to reconcile everything would be a major pain, and would be so complicated as to cast doubt upon the veracity of the final answers.
Because it's fine with me for Christians to believe that every word of the Bible has been dictated by God, as long as they don't question my faith for disagreeing with them, I won't take a great deal of time trying to site every example of problems in Scripture. Here's what's off the top of my head, based on my own reading from the last few weeks (not off some critic's website, and not what my friends have complained about. This is what I have problems with) Please bear in mind that although I have intellectual and emotional problems with these things, I still accept that they are more or less true in some capacity or other:
-Either God created plants and aminals on days 5 and 6, and then created man in the garden, OR he created Man, and then planted the garden for them. The logical reconciliation of these passages is way too complicated for me, but to simply say that one or both of them are poetic and metaphorical solves the problem right there.
-Either Noah took two of each kind of animal into the Ark, or he differentiated between the clean and un-clean animals. But God hadn't specified yet what animals were clean and unclean, so what's up with that?
-God differentiated between Cain and Able's sacrifice, although we have no written instructions to them concerning what they should have brought. There was clearly some idea of right and wrong, but it's not written in there. We're missing important information. Maybe God didn't want us to worry about it, or maybe we're supposed to find our answers elsewhere in Scripture.
-Abram argues with God about the fate of Soddom and Gomorrah, and God thinks about it and relents.
-Lot and family argue with the Angels about where they should go, and the angels relent
-Jacob WRESTLES with the Lord, and they come to a standstill! Is he like Hercules all of a sudden, or something? I mean, I don't doubt that it's true, it happened, or something happened, but did Jacob really prevail against God incarnate in a wrestling match?? If so, God must have been having a very bad day.
-Was it Jacob's spotted and striped poles that caused the herd to bear striped and spotted young, or was it a miracle of God?
-Why did God harden Pharoh's heart?
-Why did God choose one wandering tribe of herdsmen over all the other people's of the Earth, to be His chosen people? How is that fair or equal or even equitable treatment? Do we think God makes those distinctions today? I don't. So what's the difference? The blood of Christ? How does that work, exactly, where only Israelites could make sacrifices and inherit the promise prior to Christ's death, but after it, all peoples could sacrifice themselves and inherit the promise?
-Why Jacob and not Esau? Why Joseph and not one of his brothers? If Joseph was all that, why was it the line of Judah that ended up taking over and producing King David and ultimately Jesus?
-God told the Israelites to utterly destroy their enemies from before them in the promised land, right? So why doesn't he say anything of the sort later on in the Bible? Did he just realize they wouldn't obey, and give up on the whole project of ethnic/religious/cultural genocide? Did he change his mind about the merits of the project? 'Cause I'm pretty sure the God I worship isn't into genocide anymore, no matter who the perpetrators, the victims, or what the cause.
-What was the whole point of the flood? Were people that much worse before the flood, than after it? Or did God just change his mind about destroying the Earth whenever it became sinful?
-God was about to kill Moses, as he returned to Egypt, but his wife saw what was about to happen, and circumcised all the guys, so God relented. Either she was mighty quick with that flint, or God was mighty slow in his killing.
-The levites massacred their own people below Mt. Sinai, and then they took a census and there were something like 600,000 left. huh? 1/12th of the population killed 1/2, if I read that right. That's incredible enough, especially considering how hard it is to kill your own kin, but if they were going to go that far, why not keep going until the job was done? What stopped them?
-Did Judas break his neck, or hang himself? Did his bowels spill out, or not? Did he throw the money back at the priests, and run out and kill himself in a field, or did he kill himself in the field he bought with the money the priests gave him?
Again, none of these things are serious problems for me because I accept that they are not literally accurate in every word, but that even contradictory things can be true in spirit. It's called paradox, or mystery, and I and the Eastern Orthodox church and many others are perfectly cool with it. They do make me uncomfortable and keep me thinking and praying, however.
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jul 10, 2008 18:33:32 GMT -5
My confidence in any given belief will not stand or fall on the basis of my confidence in peer review, but I do suspect that a study that has been peer reviewed is more likely to accurately reflect reality than one that has not been peer reviewed, all else being equal. How else do you make sure a person used a representative sample, or whatever?
|
|
|
Post by themantheycallcris on Jul 10, 2008 19:21:30 GMT -5
well mr. mongoose, i wasn't expecting such a long reply (though i should have guessed from the length of your average replies). i appreciate the attitude in which you recieved my questions, your reply seems to be a gentle and honestly questioning one. the list you gave was quite the list, and it's obvious that at the very least these things deserve a separate topic of their own (or even one for each). i have some immediate answers that come to mind, but considering what's at stake here i think it would be best if we all spent some time on each point you've mentioned. if these are the reasons you cannot accept a literal interpretation of the verses in 2 Peter (and i'm assuming there's more that you did not mention) then nobody deserves to have such a dilema simply sidestepped or rushed through... and i can't imagine from what i've seen of you on this board that you're one to avoid such conversations anyway so i'll let you decide where you want to go from here on this one. but i won't be able to smash through every point you mentioned. it'll take some time, and i hope your game for that. i think if the community here can commit to an edifying and long discussion on this then we can all benefit from it. the only thing i'd like to mention here, is one more Scripture that i think is key to a godly approach to all of this. Proverbs 3:5-8~ "Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and turn away from evil. It will be healing to your body And refreshment to your bones." if we can all truly set this foundation for our understanding the truth of/in Scripture, then i'm confident that our discussion will bear some fruit.
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jul 10, 2008 22:54:11 GMT -5
I'm cool either way. Honestly, I don't see the dilema, but if someone else does, they might be edified by the discussion. For me, it's not a problem to be unable to take Scripture literally. I see no need or reason to do so, even considering verses that some people take to mean that it should be taken in such a way.
And I'm not alone. there are quite a few people who try to take Scripture at face value, which is a somewhat looser, if you will, interpretation than the word for word. And there are many who believe, as I do, that scripture was inspired phrase for phrase, or idea for idea. Even the possibility of the authors not getting it quite right does not bother me too much. It just requires me to compare questionable passages to the whole message, which I believe is a good idea anyway.
So, as far as I'm concerned, go ahead and show how those passages can be taken literally, word for word, and logically reconciled with everything else in the Bible and in extra-Biblical evidence. If your explanations are simple enough and convincing enough, I may buy them. If they're overly complicated, I probably will not. But there are those who believe that if something is not logical when taken literally, word for word, then it must not be true. A thorough treatment of those and other passages might help people who believe in that way.
|
|
|
Post by strangewind on Jul 16, 2008 9:44:35 GMT -5
I don't argue that peer review is not useful, it absolutely is. But there was much great scientific discovery done before the advent of peer review. The key to good science is it repeatability, not its popular acceptance. This is why we continue to accept Newton's Laws - not because they've been peer reviewed, but because they are testable. Peer review is not the final authority on the matter, and as long as those reviewing or being reviewed recognize that, then the integrity of the peer review process remains true. However, in academic circles, the question that is never aired publicly (because of the obvious dangers to one's career) is "Who Watches the Watchmen?" Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet opined that "...we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. " www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.htmlAndrew Skolnick has a wonderful treatise on how easy it is too hoodwink peer review: www.aaskolnick.com/naswmav.htmMy favorite quote is this: Drummond Rennie, MD, deputy editor (West) of JAMA has written: "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print." Peer review determines where rather than whether a paper should be published, Rennie says. However, from time to time, "shoddy science" ends up in the most prestigious of journals. Furthermore, I argue (and know from experience) that perfectly good science can not pass the standard of peer review because of a variety of problems not related to the actual science. Therefore, we must be very careful when we talk about peer review. Because something has not passed peer review does not mean, necessarily, that it exhibited bad science. Because something has passed peer review in no way means that its findings are accurate, merely accepted as valid by a group. I don't mean to say that peer review is a beauty contest for nerds, but I also have enough experience with it to have a gimlet eye trained upon the process. Peer review doesn't settle the game - it only marks the playing field.
|
|
|
Post by scintor on Jul 16, 2008 21:15:49 GMT -5
Wow! I've missed out on a lot.
First: Mongose, your description of how something becomes scientific law is completely innacurate and untrue.
1. No scientific law has been declared and accepted in over 100 years!
2. The peer review system was not in place until well after all the scientific laws were in place.
3. To be a law, something must be PROVED! The definition of a scientific law is something that has been proven.
4. Neither evidence, demonstration or acceptance can ever prove ANYTHING!
5. To prove something requires a formal logical proof, which can only be done with Formal Logic (a discipline of philosophy.)
6. Formal Logic stopped being studied by scientists over a century ago (and it was studied by all of them before that, but was dropped about the time that Darwinism became popular.)
7. Until scientists start studying Formal Logic once again as a basic of education, there will NEVER be any more scientific laws.
You will not find out this from asking scientists or consulting science textbooks, because it has been deliberately edited out because it makes scientists look bad. You have to go back to the original works of of the scientists that made these laws and look at the extreme pains that they took to create and defend the proofs that established their ideas as laws to see the actual history.
Hundreds and hundreds of Creationist based studies and papers have been submitted by both established scientists and aspiring graduate students to "respectable" peer reviewed journals. (Remember, when asked, 45% of all scientists reported themselves as creationists.) NONE of them were published! They will only be published by creationist based journals which are not carried by major university libraries or counted by the scientific establishment as "peer reviewed journals. This is not bias, this is blacklisting. Your statement that scientific consesus could be gradually reached by submitting papers shows that you have not been part of this process. When the game is rigged, your chances of winning are zero.
Don't put your faith in science or in scientists. If you do, not only are you guilty of idolitry, but they will betray you every time
Scincerely,
Scintor@aol.com
|
|
|
Post by scintor on Jul 16, 2008 23:15:43 GMT -5
Inspiration is a very difficult topic indeed. Early christian scholars of the Catholic tradition declared both the Old and New Testament directly inspired (written) by God Himself and therefore infallable. (This is the same group that later declared the Pope infallable and that their traditions were as important as the Bible and therfore infallable as well.)
The writers of both the New and Old Testament had a different view. The Jewish traditions had a much more restricted view of what scripture was. They only considered only the first five books of the Old Testament and the books of Prophecy to be scripture. The books of history and poetry were considered important, but not at the level of scipture.
I only say that to point out what the New Testament writers were refering to when they made their statements about inspiration that everyone quotes. It changes the debate a bit.
I find conclusions based on later commentary useful, but not authoritative. (Sorry Mongoose, but no Apostles creed for me.) Studying the Bible and not other people's opinion about it solves a lot of the debate in my experience.
And Devides, the fact that Noah knew what clean animals were and that they took seven pairs is good evidence that people were not only omnivors during the pre-flood but that the extra animals were provisions for the journey.
Scintor@aol.com
Scincerely Scintor
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Jul 17, 2008 13:15:00 GMT -5
Interesting point.... Makes me wonder about the post-Flood "permission" statment. Argh. Nothing like having to re-re-think a stance....
Unless, of course, that was an editorial "insert" for post-Flood world pre-planning. They would need more clean animals to populate the Earth if they were going to be eating them, right?
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Jul 17, 2008 13:53:42 GMT -5
See, that's what I always assumed. That and God knew they'd need extras for the sacrifice after.
Gen 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.
|
|
|
Post by rwley on Jul 17, 2008 14:21:52 GMT -5
Gee, I only asked if there were carnivores in Eden? Whoodathunk it would go this way? I'm just trying to picture a lion pigging out on the lettuce and tomatoes sans the side of beef.
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jul 17, 2008 14:49:20 GMT -5
You'd have to change his entire digestive system, including his teeth, jaws, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Jul 17, 2008 17:18:31 GMT -5
No, you wouldn't. As I mentioned before, there are (rare) documented cases of vegetarian lions and carnivorous horses. Dogs and cats eat grass all the time. The Rhesus monkey, I believe, has some of the sharpest teeth in the world, and eats only fruit. The panda uses its razor teeth for bamboo. There are are any number supposedly carnivorous traits that can be deceptive.
One thing I will concede: the cycle of predation would appear to be the hardest thing for a hardcore creationist to explain (carnivorous plants, etc., that are clearly designed to do one thing only). But while the scripture is far from detailed, the fact that thorns sprang up after the Creation (specifically at the Fall) demonstrates that a major change occurred in the dynamics of the Earth.
|
|
|
Post by scintor on Jul 18, 2008 20:30:31 GMT -5
To add to what Devides has said, scientists have found the boundry between carnivor/omnivor/herbivor to be much more fuzzy than expected. Almost all carnivors eat some vegitation on occasion (not just when they are feeling sick.) Many if not most female herbivor mamals eat their afterbirth and a number of them eat meat or carrion during pregnancy. Also many herbivors seem to eat a lot of insects deliberately while they are eating plants.
Scincerely,
Scintor@aol.com
|
|