ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_SteelHead]

Why should it? Because it is being propped up as the innerant word of divinity and as the standard to which I should live my life. To a degree that it asks me to be willing to sacrifice my life in the service of a creator defined therein. Am I just supposed to take it on face value and say "ok"? Because it says so?

Is it not reasonable to say that as a thinking creature I can not apply my intelligence, my rationale to the claims contained there in to evaluate the inerrancy against the physical world around me and determine if they are consistent. I have seen many a pronouncement of when science and scripture disagree I will choose scripture........ My life is of considerable worth to me. I am unwilling to blindly devote it to the subservence of the incomprehensible.

You have been presented with scads of evidence that contradict the Bible and yet you pass it off as not in the Bible so moot. Turn this around...... Present one confirmable piece of evidence that the Bible is inerrant. Provide one valid piece of evidence for a global flood.

The whole concept of the global flood contradicts the idea of a loving, loyal god. Where did grace and forgiveness go for those millions who allegedly drowned? If the god of the Old Testament is the same god of the New Testament he is schizophrenic.

[_Hoops]

wtf - that's not even close to what i'm saying. I can't say it any better. At this point in the argument, you've provided "scads of evidence" that refute what the Bible doesn't necessarily say. Why should I defend what ISN"T in the Bible?

[_SteelHead]

Hoops according to you the Bible states ( a third hand accounting of an event by a guy who wasn't born till a couple of hundred of years later, and by the way the details that are omitted are because they are not relevant) there was a global flood, some guy built a boat and some animals survived. Support this assertion without referring to the Bible.

[_SteelHead]

Again to the why.

Let's say that I am Zoroastrian and believe in the deluge account of Gilgamesh or alternatively Atra-Hasis instead of the biblical account of Noah. Are all 3 stories correct? Were there three boats with guys and animals floating around at the behest a veritable pantheon of gods and dieties?

This becomes important because the final disposition of my eternal soul is at stake. So convince me that the YEC christian view is more viable than my current worship of Ahura Mazda.

[_Hoops]

Let's say that I am Zoroastrian and believe in the deluge account of Gilgamesh or alternatively Atra-Hasis instead of the biblical account of Noah. Are all 3 stories correct? Were there three boats with guys and animals floating around at the behest a veritable pantheon of gods and dieties?

This becomes important because the final disposition of my eternal soul is at stake. So convince me that the YEC christian view is more viable than my current worship of Ahura Mazda.

Why would one have to believe in one to the exclusion of the others? Can't all three reference the same historical event?

And, no, believing in any of the three has absolutely no impact on your eternal destination. One's eternal destination is dependent on one's sins being forgiven, not on believing that Noah's flood happened. However, let's remember Jesus referenced Noah's flood quite often. That has significance.

[_Themis]

I referenced an article stating how/when sea water and fresh water may not mix. My response was specifically to Jersey Girl's question implying that the two always have to mix. I simply said that is not always the case and here is an example why. You (or someone) wrote something along the lines of in a gobal flood they would have to mix. I responded with how one would know that since we have no way of testing this phenomenon. Therefor, we are left with situations where sea/fresh water may not mix.

What example would that be. I did say that some conditions may cause mixing to mix at different rates, but mixing will occur even if slowly. It does not even begin to address all the problems of why fresh water or salt water organisms could not survive such an event.

Of course it's unlikely. That's the point.

It is so unlikely to flirt with impossibility. The only reason I don't say impossible is due to not knowing all.

I've given ground on your point. I used the word poorly. What do you want?

I suppose it was your response of being a one time event that confuses me, since it had nothing to do with supernatural discussion we were having.

That's not my claim. Ask them. My claim is simple: for one to criticize the Biblical account, one should know what it reads, and what it does NOT read.

You need to do a lot more then just say someone is wrong, and my criticism are about a certain groups interpretation that it was a global event, not about other interpretations that exist. You seem to claim being a literalist, and look as though you defend a global flood, but yet you do avoid saying what you believe. by the way most define Bible literalism as someone who believes the Bible to be taken literally when it says the earth was created in 6 days(24 hour days) less then 10,000 years ago and that all life and all the earth meant the entire globe. If that is not your belief then you are not that literal.

That's fine. However, =your claiming that for one to be a biblical literalist one must therefor be ignorant of science. That's certainly difficult for an actual, practicing scientist. Not impossible, but the chances are good that a scientist will know... well.... science. And in her particular field as well.

I think it unlikely that the vast majority that do know the evidences would remain a biblical literalist. Certainly bias can cause some to remain a literalist.

Yes, the old "intepretation" gambit. I can't do anything about that.

I can't change the fact that one has to interpret the text as to what they think is being communicated. Very technical language may make interpretation easier, but with an ancient texts with little information of who wrote much of it, particularly Genesis, and all the translations and no original documents make many interpretations possible.

Not by God.

Probably not by a lot of people, but whether on the ark or not, this does not help a global belief. In fact not on the ark makes it even worse.

How much do want the Bible to explain to you?

Again the discussion is about certain literal interpretations of the Bible, and why it does not work.

I am not a biblical scholar either. However, I have attempted to show where those who are criticizing the Biblical record have the record wrong.

Not very well from what I have seen. :)

That's my opinion based on the evidence so far.

Yes, simply becuase have challenged your knowledge about the subject, including the Bible. I guess just challenging or questioning someone makes them a "pretentios, arrogant know-it-alls". Best to stick with the issue and not peresonal attacks, and saying one is ignorant of the some subjects is not an attack.

That's fine. But doesn't apply to me. I'm not proposing anything.

Sure it does. Just becuase you are dodging questions about what you think does not mean you don't have a position, and based on what you have posted on many threads it is obvious you do have a position.

I am saying, however, that there is a lot lot more in the Biblical record that has to be fleshed out. I don't think this violates my literalist view and I'm not convinced that the Biblical record must violate established science so far. In short, and I think you would agree with half of this, science has a lot more to explore just as the Bible does.

No one denies that science has more to discover and that some things will change, although much has not and is on very solid ground. Much of this information is what tells us that a global event did not happen. Whether the biblical record violates established science depends on your interpretation. Do you thinks Noah's flood covered the entire globe?

That's fine. But first establish what is clearly wrong and determine that they actuall believe that.

It's a little hard when many have asked you questions and only got dodges.

[_huckelberry]

The resurrection of Jesus doesn't count, because it can not be demonstrated to have happened.

Exactly. If the resurrection had actually happened, Jesus should have stuck around for the last 2000 years. There would still be skeptics who would try to explain away his existence. But the believers would at least have something, one piece of evidence at least, to support their claims. As it is, they have big bag of nothing. What is it, exactly, that Jesus had to do in heaven that he couldn't stick around on earth to provide some basis for belief in his wacky claims?

Jesus had just been crucified by the general inhabitants of this planet and you ask why he did not stick around? Why would he?
Do you actually imagine he cares about prooving his resurection? He made it clear he cared about how people treated each other instead.

[_huckelberry]

Well if you can not base faith on miracles nor rationale, what can you base it on? What is left?

I do not know how the word rationale worked its way into this negation.

What is left? The opportunity to live each day in the light of the kingdom of God and the friendship of Jesus, thankful to the God who gave us life.

[Guest]

Well if you can not base faith on miracles nor rationale, what can you base it on? What is left?

I do not know how the word rationale worked its way into this negation.

What is left? The opportunity to live each day in the light of the kingdom of God and the friendship of Jesus, thankful to the God who gave us life.

Pretty sure that SteelHead was not asking "What is left in life?", as you apparenty assumed, but rather, "What is left on which to base one's faith (unfounded belief)?"

The answer to the first version of the question is that once one sheds the shackles of unfounded belief and is free of a worldview of superstition and religious nonsense, there is much in life indeed to look forward too. Better yet, one is free to experience and enjoy it.

The change is especially rewarding for former Mormons. No longer is their life run, regulated (and often ruined) by the unfounded and irrational beliefs and pronouncements (please see the OP) of a secretive and isolated corporate management gerontocracy who also happen to be the leaders of a religious enterprise with a business model that would be illegal if said enterprise didn't call itself a Church.


SteelHead may well have a different response, but somehow I think it would be very similar to the one I have just provided.

[_SteelHead]

Let's say that I am Zoroastrian and believe in the deluge account of Gilgamesh or alternatively Atra-Hasis instead of the biblical account of Noah. Are all 3 stories correct? Were there three boats with guys and animals floating around at the behest a veritable pantheon of gods and dieties?

This becomes important because the final disposition of my eternal soul is at stake. So convince me that the YEC christian view is more viable than my current worship of Ahura Mazda.

Why would one have to believe in one to the exclusion of the others? Can't all three reference the same historical event?

And, no, believing in any of the three has absolutely no impact on your eternal destination. One's eternal destination is dependent on one's sins being forgiven, not on believing that Noah's flood happened. However, let's remember Jesus referenced Noah's flood quite often. That has significance.

Isn't worshiping other gods besides for Yahweh-Elohim a sin? If I worship Ahura Mazda, and believe that Utnapishtim and the other gods sent the flood because the noisy humans kept them from sleeping, and that Ea warned Gilgamesh of the impending doom, you see no conflict with that belief? Despite the fact the different stories may speak of the same event, they can not all be true. In one Yahweh is the source of the flood, in the other a number of deities are involved.