Bible: Facts or Truths? (Split)

[Bleed S & G]

And the lads sayeth, "But Yogi....I did not stealeth thous pic-i-nic basket"

 

[lvbuckeye]

wowowowowowow

*passes out*

that's some deep stuff.

 

[GoBucks89]

My my....I go away for a few days and the conversation explodes. Oh well, I'll not belabor the points made because it should be pretty clear by now which side I'm on. I'll only respond to the one post that was responding directly to me, and leave it at that.

I think you've forgotten that for thousands of years nearly every living soul believed that the universe, the earth and mankind were created directly by God.

No, I hadn't forgotten about that. Not sure what the relevance is, but whatever.

There had been some evolutionary ideas proposed throughout this time, such as common descent and transmutation, but it wasn't until Darwin published On The Origin of Species that there was detailed support of the Theory of Evolution.

Or at least enough to convince a lot of people and confound a lot of theologians who were too busy trying to fill their church buildings to read their Bibles and take them seriously. As I have stated previously, whether or not the evidence supports your theory is a matter of opinion. You can state it like it is a fact, but that does not make it so.

The only reason why evolution was first proposed, and is so accepted today around the world, is because a theory was needed to explain what is observed in the fields of geology, biology, paleontology, archeology, etc.

You mean a theory that is totally naturalistic, and assumes no creator. Continue.

It's not that evil evolutionists were set on discrediting the Bible

A straw man, since I never said that was their goal. Continue.

(Darwin actually studied to be a Clergyman) but that the observed evidence does not support the creation story in Genesis.

Again, this is an opinion, albeit a popular one. But let's not forget that ad populum is a fallacy.

If you were really told in school to just accept evolution and were not shown the supporting evidence behind it, then your school(s) did a great disservice (and I hope one of them wasn't OSU).

I am certain that they all presented the usual list of evidences, although I really can't remember because it's been a while. But again, whether or not the evidences truly support the conclusion is a matter of opinion.

I had some great Paleoanthropology professors at OSU that would bring in casts of early hominid fossils so we could see first hand the similarities and differences between modern humans and apes.

That's an interesting red herring that is sadly all too common. Logically speaking, if similarities argue for relation, then differences would argue for non-relation (by modus tollens).

And I don't mean this as an insult, but what exactly has been your educational exposure to evolution related topics? What undergraduate or graduate courses have you taken in biology, geology, anthropology/paleontology and other related fields?

My friend, we have been down this road previously. You might recall that, when questioned on this same point by you in the past, I simply invited you to fill in the gaps where you think my education is lacking. You attempted to do so, and I responded by saying that I didn't think the evidence was persuasive. Would you like to try again?

I'm having a hard time understanding why you claim there is no evidence of evolutionary processes and especially that fossils and genetic evidence make more sense when viewed from a Biblical perspective and would like to know exactly what evidence has been presented to you.

You mean you don't remember what you presented to me?

To the contrary the fossil and genetic evidence are what the Genesis story has the most difficulty explaining.

Nowhere does the Bible attempt to explain what modern readers see as internal "inconsistencies" or "contradictions". God's word stands as a statement with no defense offered. A person can choose to believe it or not believe it. It is a matter of faith.

What I have previously said to BKB and Max I will also say to you: you are free to believe whatever you like. I will not attempt to move you from your beliefs. It's a free country. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I can live with that.

One more thing....it occurs to me that I don't really understand the thread title. The phrase "facts or truth" seems like a false dichotomy. When I read the Bible I see both. I don't see the contradiction. If I say "I had cereal for breakfast" I am offering a statement that is both factual and true. Where's the distinction?

 

[MaxBuck]

....it occurs to me that I don't really understand the thread title. The phrase "facts or truth" seems like a false dichotomy. When I read the Bible I see both. I don't see the contradiction. If I say "I had cereal for breakfast" I am offering a statement that is both factual and true. Where's the distinction?

"Truth" is not equal to "facts." The definitions of these two words are completely different.

If you choose to believe the Bible is both "true" (with which I agree) and "factually accurate" (with which I disagree), you are free to do so, but you believe two different things. They both could be true, but need not be.

 

[GoBucks89]

"Truth" is not equal to "facts." The definitions of these two words are completely different.

Actually, it seems like the definition of "truth" depends on who you ask. I guess I would say it's the logical form of truth, as in "this statement is true". In other words, the statement accurately conveys that which it asserts. Hmmm....not sure how clear that was. Oh well...

If you choose to believe the Bible is both "true" (with which I agree) and "factually accurate" (with which I disagree), you are free to do so, but you believe two different things. They both could be true, but need not be.

Do you mean that the Bible is never factually accurate? Or is it accurate sometimes and not others? Did Jesus not die on a cross and then rise from the dead? Did he even live at all? How about Peter and Paul?

Also, could you tell me what you mean by "true" if you don't think it's factually accurate?

 

[lvbuckeye]

"Truth" is not equal to "facts." The definitions of these two words are completely different.

If you choose to believe the Bible is both "true" (with which I agree) and "factually accurate" (with which I disagree), you are free to do so, but you believe two different things. They both could be true, but need not be.

you can speak truth without speaking facts as an allegory, yes, but you cannot speak facts without speaking the truth.

but let's look at John chapter one and attempt to resolve this:
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Jhn 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Jhn 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John. Jhn 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe. Jhn 1:8 He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. Jhn 1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh. the Bible is the Word of God. are you telling me that God only speaks in riddles, and does not deal in facts?

 

[MaxBuck]

I'm not about to play any more semantic games with you guys. I've been abundantly clear in stating my views, I think.

Bye.

 

[AKAK]

Or at least enough to convince a lot of people and confound a lot of theologians who were too busy trying to fill their church buildings to read their Bibles and take them seriously.

Probably about to go off topic here... but... this comment struck me in an odd way...

On the evolution threads and all those nifty things... IIRC... a certain amount of time is spent attacking "motivations" of evolution proponents,etc...

89- though not his intention- sort of reminded me that this game isn't always about the battle for souls... or the search for scientific truth.

Actually a good example of how people marginalize scientific findings is the Global Warming argument that "of course the scientists want to sound the alarm, it gets them grants and funding and they'd be out of jobs if they didn't tell us the end of the world was coming."

Or... something to that effect...

And that's all fair enough, I guess...

Anyway... I kind of got this strange visual from the phraseology of

confound a lot of theologians who were too busy trying to fill their church buildings to read their Bibles and take them seriously

And... the visual was more a bunch of confounded theologians just trying to fill the buildings....

And... I realized that making an issue of the idea that "man evolved from monkeys" might be a pretty good mobilization/recruiting tool.

Indeed... one of my favorite objections to evolution is the the "randomness" of the process... and... by definition it becomes an atheistic philosophy rather than a study of nature.

Well.. shit... you wouldn't want to be part of that, would you?

I guess my point is... that if you take all the little pieces of the world that might raise ire in a good god fearing person... and... then provide alternatives for them... you kind of see that interpreting the bible literally... and being vehement about it is good for business... especially if you can point to the Satan worshiping darwinists as the antithesis of a righteous soul.

Now... I'm certainly not questioning the motivation of any individual on the board... but... I tend to guess that they've sold more than a couple books about Noah's Ark on answersingenesis.com and that this kind of conflict has filled many a church pew and filled many collection plate. And... I'm sure there is good money in researching/publishing ID theory too.... and... I'm sure those that fund that kind of thing are looking for a particular result.

At any rate... my point... more or less is that debunking evolution is a whole industry in itself... and... as much as some may view it as opposed to religion... "churches" certainly aren't being hurt by it.

 

[GoBucks89]

I'm not about to play any more semantic games with you guys. I've been abundantly clear in stating my views, I think.

Bye.

Well, I can't make you stay, but I don't know how I can engage you in a discussion if I don't understand what you are saying. Here again is your statement:

"Truth" is not equal to "facts." The definitions of these two words are completely different.

Factual truth appears to be a sub-set within the general category of truth. Would you agree?

If you choose to believe the Bible is both "true" (with which I agree) and "factually accurate" (with which I disagree), you are free to do so, but you believe two different things. They both could be true, but need not be.

Again, could you be more specific about the parts that are not "factually accurate"? Is it only the creation account that you think is inaccurate or is there more? I suspect that you would accept the gospel accounts as factually true, but I'd like to confirm that before proceeding on an assumption. It's not playing "semantic games" to want to dig more deeply into someone's beliefs.

 

[GoBucks89]

Probably about to go off topic here... but...

It's an interesting point but definitely OT. Maybe a new thread?

 

[BrutuStrength]

One more thing....it occurs to me that I don't really understand the thread title. The phrase "facts or truth" seems like a false dichotomy. When I read the Bible I see both. I don't see the contradiction. If I say "I had cereal for breakfast" I am offering a statement that is both factual and true. Where's the distinction?

I'm sorry about that... you can blame me for any confusion surrounding the title of this thread. I believe I read it from a post by someone and used it when I did the split.

What it (this thread) really was about was to give an opporunity to discuss what things are facts and what are truths. Facts being things that can be proven, and truths being the parts taken as the word of God which may not be proven to be true at this time. Perhaps you could liken the phrase "thruths" to that of "theories," in that many theories are often believed to be true, but are not able to be proven at this time. The difference between them is that theories are of a scientific starting point (ex. an apple fell on my head, so gravity must exist), whereas the truths have a "Word of God" starting point (ex. the Bible says everything was created in six days, so it must be that way).

It isn't to say that facts and truths are mutually exclusive as they might be factual in basis, just as theories and facts are not necessarily mutually exclusive either.

 

[Muck]

At any rate... my point... more or less is that debunking evolution is a whole industry in itself... and... as much as some may view it as opposed to religion... "churches" certainly aren't being hurt by it.

You'd think they would have learned from that whole criticism of the Pharasies thing. :p

 

[Jeffcat]

I'm sorry about that... you can blame me for any confusion surrounding the title of this thread. I believe I read it from a post by someone and used it when I did the split.

What it (this thread) really was about was to give an opporunity to discuss what things are facts and what are truths. Facts being things that can be proven, and truths being the parts taken as the word of God which may not be proven to be true at this time. Perhaps you could liken the phrase "thruths" to that of "theories," in that many theories are often believed to be true, but are not able to be proven at this time. The difference between them is that theories are of a scientific starting point (ex. an apple fell on my head, so gravity must exist), whereas the truths have a "Word of God" starting point (ex. the Bible says everything was created in six days, so it must be that way).

It isn't to say that facts and truths are mutually exclusive as they might be factual in basis, just as theories and facts are not necessarily mutually exclusive either.

well said

 

[GoBucks89]

I'm sorry about that... you can blame me for any confusion surrounding the title of this thread. I believe I read it from a post by someone and used it when I did the split.

What it (this thread) really was about was to give an opporunity to discuss what things are facts and what are truths. Facts being things that can be proven, and truths being the parts taken as the word of God which may not be proven to be true at this time.

In that case, the things you are calling "truths" may not be true at all. If something could possibly be false, I think it's inaccurate to refer to it as a "truth". Better to say that it is merely a supposition and leave it at that.

Perhaps you could liken the phrase "thruths" to that of "theories," in that many theories are often believed to be true, but are not able to be proven at this time. The difference between them is that theories are of a scientific starting point (ex. an apple fell on my head, so gravity must exist), whereas the truths have a "Word of God" starting point (ex. the Bible says everything was created in six days, so it must be that way).

If Genesis was given to Moses by God himself, then it represents a testimony by the creator Himself about his creation. As such, it is far superior to any theory or idea crafted by men.

It isn't to say that facts and truths are mutually exclusive as they might be factual in basis, just as theories and facts are not necessarily mutually exclusive either.

If, as I suggested earlier, facts represent a subset of the larger category called truths, then they are most certainly not mutually exclusive. All facts are true, by definition. But all truths are not necessarily facts, at least if I am assuming correctly about what MaxBuck meant by truths.

 

[Taosman]

An interesting read on a new tactic of "Creationists.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]'Teaching the controversy' over evolution could be disastrous[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Inside the First Amendment[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]By Charles Haynes[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Senior scholar, First Amendment Center[/FONT]


?Teach the controversy? is the latest battle-cry in the never-ending war over the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Is this a blow for academic freedom? Or a back-door maneuver to get religion into the science classroom?
Welcome to the latest chapter in a conflict that has gripped America since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859.
Last month the Cobb County, Ga., school board voted to encourage discussion of ?disputed views? in science ? including the study of the origin of species.
This month a state school board panel in Ohio recommended science standards that urge teachers to examine ?competing theories? to evolution.
At first hearing, opening science classrooms to a variety of viewpoints sounds straightforward and reasonable ? an argument for freedom to learn. But opponents (including most science educators) charge that these efforts are little more than a Trojan horse for religion. Evolutionary theory, they maintain, is so well established in science that allowing competing ?theories? in the classroom would be like teaching astrology as an alternative to astronomy.
Proponents of alternatives to the prevailing theory of evolution ? young-Earth creationists, old-earth creationists, ?intelligent design? advocates and others ? answer that they just want to open up the scientific debate, not promote religion. They?re convinced that if their views are given a hearing, much of evolutionary theory as currently presented in textbooks will be exposed as false and misleading.
Who?s right? Many Americans are quick to line up on one side or another ? but often without understanding the complexity of the debate or the scientific arguments at stake. That?s why so many school boards adopt resolutions pro or con, and then hope the brouhaha will die away.
But ?teach the controversy? school-board resolutions are meaningless ? even dangerous ? because most science teachers aren?t prepared to tackle this debate. As a result, we?re likely to get teachers dismissing the ?other side? (as if there were only two) ? or, worse, pushing a religious or ideological agenda.
If school boards are really serious about fostering ?critical thinking? and promoting ?tolerance and acceptance of a diversity of opinion? (as one Cobb County board member put it), then they must prepare teachers to teach about the debate in ways that are accurate, fair, informed ? and grounded in good science.
freedomforum.org: 'Teaching the controversy' over evolution could be disastrous