RE: [asa] Re: Slug

This is for Dave Siemans, Paul Seely, Michael Roberts, Iain Strachan,

Dave wrote:

> What do you want to verify? If I go to the text of Genesis 1,
> I find several references to /raquia^/, translated
> "firmament." In LXX the translation is /stereoma/, whose
> primary sense is, according to Westcott and Hort, "a solid
> body." There have been many attempts to make the Hebrew term
> refer to the atmosphere or to space, rather than to connect
> it to ancient views. But there is water above it, when it
> would have to be within it for the water to be in clouds. The
> sun, moon and stars were placed on it. If it were space they
> would be in it. Birds fly in front of it (literally in the
> face of), but I have never seen a bird fly under the
> atmosphere. When penguins and cormorants "fly" under water
> and so below the atmosphere, we call it swimming. So, if you
> want to verify the /ipsisimma verba/ you have to declare it
> false by modern standards.

Language always constrains how we express something. You know the arguments.
We would also have to declare false the setting of the sun (for it doesn't
sit on the earth), the north pole (there isn't one), quark color (for quarks
don't have color--it is some other property but not classical color), the
electronic brain (for it isnt a brain). Superstrings are not strings that
you can roll into a ball, neither are cosmic strings. Hip does not refer to
a part of the anatomy (at least in all instances). Bad is not always bad.

I personally think this is one of the weakest arguments. It demands that
historicity must conform to the most extreme use of language. Raqiya comes
from Raqa which means: beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out,
into plates), stamp, stretch. Brown-Driver-Briggs says this about Raqa--to
beat, stamp, beat out, spread out, stretch

Now, how many of you guys who are just dying to believe a false bible have
thought about that word very much? You gleefully use it as an example of
poor science, yet, the meaning--stretch out, spread out is certainly what
modern physics thinks is happening to the space out there where, by the way
(cause I am sure the false bible crowd won't have noticed), is where the
stars were placed--among this expandable stuff.

Interestingly, you guys take the meaning of it only when it is applied to
metal work and then assume that it means something solid always. Let's
quote a modern astronomy text

"We can think of the celestial spehre as being a hollow shell of extremely
large radius, centered on the observer. The clestial objects appear to be
set in the inner surface of this sphere, so we can speak of their positions
*on* the celstial sphere." George Abell, Exploration of the Universe,
(Dallas: Holt Rinehart and Winston,1969), p. 119

Gasp, they are WRONG WRONG WRONG.

My freshman college Astronomy text:
"The stars rise and set, circling westward daily and keeping precisely in
step as they go around. The patterns of stars, such as the Great Dipper,
look the same night after night and year after year. It is as though the
stars were set *on* the inner surface of a rotating hollow globe." Baker and
Frederick, An Introducton to Astronomy, (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1968)
p. 25-26

Well, my gosh, the moderns astronomers believe in a solid hollow sphere
surrounding the earth. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the
silliness of the raqiya argument. Stars also don't rise or set. They pretty
much stay where they are. Golly does this mean that they set upon the earth
or rise from the earth?

Here is another.

"The direction of an object is given by two angles that fix its position
*on* the celestial sphere. This is a spherical shell of arbitrarily large
radius on which cleestial objects appear projected." J. M. A. Danby,
Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics" (New York The MacMillan Co.1962), p. 7

If stars are projected, then this means this guy believes there is a
projector which projects the stars onto the celestial sphere. By your
logic, the use of the word projected must require a projector. I do thank
you for teaching me your exegetical procedure because I can now use it to
truly learn what the scientists are saying. (I wish there were emoticons so
I could laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh)

I just thought about centrifugal force.
        "The centrifugal force is balanced by the string, or by the hand
which is holding the other end of the string." Victor G. Szebehely,
Adventures in Celestial Mechanics, Austin: Univeristy of Texas press, 1989),
p. 1

Astronomers must now believe in fictional forces rather than inertia and
Newton's first law. Boy, this kind of approach is teaching me lots and
lots.

Frankly, I think the fact that you guys want the Bible to be factually
false, means you won't go looking for alternative explanations. The
intellectually easy thing to do is to say it is false and move on.

 It is impossible to justify
> Genesis 1 by days of proclamation because the description
> does not match our current knowledge. To put it bluntly,
> there is nothing in Glenn's interpretation that keeps the
> statements from being false by his requirements.

Absolutely correct, the statements could be false. But if they are, why
would one then perversely conclude that it teaches great theology?

 
> Paul have meticulously shown that the description of the
> "universe" in scripture is that of the ancients, who could
> not conceive of something billions of years old, a moving
> spherical earth, etc. Glenn seems to have no trouble with the
> latter in spite of the biblical teaching. Were he consistent,
> he would either be a flat-earther or abandon faith
> altogether. But he insists that only what he holds
> "consistently" (I can't stretch my mind that far) is correct.

I have come close many times to abandoning the faith. Paul Seely once pulled
me back from the brink. Like you, Phil Johnson once preferred that I leave
the faith. It is statements like this which is why sometimes I think you
guys would like me to leave and leave you alone.

>
> I sympathize with Glenn, for I too once was YEC. I had a
> similar mind set.

Sigh, another person who can't remember what I have said a hundred times and
so makes the same charge that I think like a yec. I wish you would try, ever
so slightly to actually understand what I am saying rather than force-fit me
into a box of your choosing. I think more like an atheist. It is
intellectually lazy to continue making this charge. See
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200602/0349.html from Feb of this year.
This constant forgetfulness on y'alls part explains sometimes why I get
frustrated--you don't even try to understand.

 But reading science forced me from that
> position, and a closer study of scripture demolished OEC and
> similar claims. At least I did not have the wrenching of
> changing from a belief that YEC was essential to my salvation. Dave

Yeah, but you don't care if anything is actually true.

&&

Paul Seely wrote:

> Glenn wrote,
> Other religions have 'hymns to creation" which are equally
> false, but for some reason [PHS: "for some reason"? Should
> meeting Jesus Christ and having your life transformed by his
> Spirit and word be written off as some mysterious reason?]

People have an amazing ability to fool themselves Even within Christian
theology it teaches that there are those who think they are beleivers but
aren't. As I said in an earlier post, to watch an islamic music group from
Malaysia makes one realize how similar their actions are to those of a
Christian music group. To see a man standing in deep meditation outside of a
Shinto temple in Japan makes one wonder how belief comes about. To see a
woman with great concern on her face burning a huge number of incense sticks
at a temple in Hangzhou, China (one of my very favorite pictures) tells one
that fervent prayer (and belief in the efficacy of prayer) is not the sole
province of the Christian. To see devotion to Tibetan buddhism and realize
that it is a devotion unlike that shown by modern Christians, makes one
wonder why they are so devoted and we aren't? Same with the islamacists who
are willing to die for their beliefs while the West is not interested in any
kind of self-sacrifice. So, this question shouldn't be of such a shock to
your system if you just look around.

we
> a priori rule their theology out. [PHS: It is not apriori; it
> is based on spiritual experience, historical probabilities,
> and other evidences found in any good evidentialist
> apologetics book]

Uh-oh. Historical probabilities?????? I thought there wasn't any history in
the accounts.

Good evidentialist apologetics book????? I thought we were not supposed to
deal with verification and evidence? I thought the whole point of
accommodation is what David said above--What do you want to verify? Now
you are backsliding here my friend. Falling into that deep abyss of
concordism because if your evidentialist apologetics book presents evidence
that doesn't concord to reality, then it is meaningless. If it does concord,
then by golly that is concordism.

 Heads we win; tails they lose. It is a
> wonderful self-delusional system. [PHS: To unbelief it is
> self-delusioinal]

Well, in previous posts you have told me how I shouldn't look for evidence,
but in this post you have done a 180 and sound like a concordist.

>
> GRM: The only way out is through verification. But that is
> what the 'scientists' on this list don't want--they don't
> want observational verification of statements in the Bible or
> any other sacred text for that matter.
>
> PHS: I don't think this is true, but regardless, I am quite
> open to see verification of statements in the Bible.

You re not for verification of statements in the Bible IF you play the game
as you do. If it concords, it is verification of the Bible if it doesn't,
it is accommodation. My friend, that is heads we win; tails you lose.

 Why
> don't you give me verification for Genesis 1:6-8, where God
> splits a primeval ocean and puts half of it above the solid
> sky?

My discussion of raqiya is above--see it. But I can do it all it takes is a
wee bit of thinking.

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let
it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and
divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were
above the firmament: and it was so."

OK the term raqiya has the connotation of stretching out. (I know, you guys
like one definition of the word to the exclusion of all others so that your
position can be supported). That stretching out divides water from
water--well it does in a very real sense. The space up there--the thing
that is inflating, the thing that is EXPANDING, separates the waters of this
earth from the waters on other planets and solar systems. The Bible even
says that he stars or Now, y'all are going to say that that is not what the
Hebrews understood the verse to mean. True enough, but this should show that
that verse is not so impossible as you guys in the false bible club want it
to be.

I would add, that the Bible actually has the stars be IN the expanding stuff
(firmament) not ON the solid surface.(at least that is how it is translated
in all the versions I checked:

And God said, "Let there be lights *in* the firmament of the heavens to
separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons
and for days and years,

The astronomers above were talking about stars being ON the celestial sphere
so I guess God is accommodating false science for those poor astronomers. I
emphasized the *on* in their quotes above. Seems like the Bible knows more
than those poor stupid astronomers who believe one can place a star on a
celestial sphere.

And the ocean is still there today according to Psalm
> 148:4. So, I will be waiting for verification from you. I
> hope I do not have to keep asking you for this verification.

Yep, those other waters are still on those other planets across that
expanding stuff. Hope you accept this verification--you can find it in many
modern astronomy articles (along with their quaint belief in the celestial
sphere). I doubt you will like this, but you can't claim I didn't answer
the question.

I have answered your question so you won't need to keep asking this. See,
unlike you guys, I will deal immediately with the tough questions. Good
systems of thought have immediate answers for tough questions and don't
require the over and over asking of the same question in order to pry out
the answer from an unwilling person.

>
> GRM: I find this odd. We say science is true because of the
> evidence, but theology is true in spite of the lack of evidence.
>
> PHS: I think there is evidence for the truth of Christian
> theology, but you want some kind of observational evidence.

Well, observational evidence is about all that there is that is not subject
to:
1. self deception
2. delusion
3. Morton's demon http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html
4. mental illness

> So are you saying Christianity is false, or do you have
> observational evidence that God exists, that he is
> omniscient, that he is omnipotent, etc? If so, what is it?
> Show it to us.

I don't have proof of God's existence, but I do have what I feel is
evidence. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/casino.htm
I would also add that the philosophical problem of existence (why something
rather than nothing exists) is also evidence of God. Why? Because nothing
(absolute nothingness--not the vacuum of the physicists) does not bring
forth something. Nothing, nothing, nothing->vacuum->particles in the big
bang. To posit our existence requires the attribution of a Godlike property
to nature--there is no way with creation to get around the problem of
existence without passing out godlike properties to various things.

> PHS: I don't recall any such question except by inference.
> This is the first I have heard this question plainly asked.
> It's an easy question: To the extent a religion disagrees
> with Jesus Christ it is false.

OK, then you are doing what I have called the great tautology--assuming you
are right and all others wrong

 If unbelief wants to call that
> apriori, I leave it to God. A Day of Judgement is coming. If
> a person really needs more, there are good evidentialist
> books available to answer it.

That is fine, and that is your perogative, but it is inconceivable to me
that someone who starts his epistemology by saying effectively that anything
that disagrees with me is wrong (for you agree with Christ) should not be
acting as if it is crazy for someone like me to want to avoid this kind of
epistemological self-levitation. Observational evidence is the only way I
can see out of that self-levitating religion. And here you go again talking
about evidences, but you and others have chided me for being 'yeclike' when
I ask for evidence. One can't have it both ways, Paul, either evidence is
useful, or it isn't. To talk out of both sides of the mouth means that
spittle will drool down both sides of the face.

But Paul, I will hand it to you, you are an incredibly honest individual who
at least doesn't deny what he is doing like many others are.

Name a single evidentialist book I couldn't rip apart quite easily.

> So, now you tell us, Given the defined guideline, can the
> star of Bethlehem story legitimately be called accommodation
> or not? What is your answer?

Since I don't buy your guidelines, I don't have to play by your rules. My
guideline is that if something is pure fiction but is passed off as really
having happened, then deception is going on and one had better be twice as
careful the next time that fella tells you something.

I am only asking you the same
> thing you asked Burgy. Could it be that maybe this is too
> complicated an issue to expect an instant answer? If not,
> what is the answer? And, if so, is it right to implicitly
> condemn those who do not give you an answer?

Well, if it is pure fiction then that starts to eat away at the
trustworthiness of other miracles listed in the N.T.
&&&
Michael Roberts said:

>I am sorry Glenn there can be little engagement with your ideas as you seem
to dismiss all others especially those you charge
> with metaphoricalism and accommodation.

I don't dismiss them, I do dismiss the illogic of that position.

And, for 6 months there has been little interaction because you refuse to
answer a question that almost all others can answer. But apparently you
have no way to get down off that high platform upon which you have climbed.
How can one have a discussion when one side refuses to talk? Are you ever
going to answer the slug question? All the others were honest enough to say,
yes, the sluggist could use accommodation, but not you. You keep avoiding
the question acting like it has no meaning. You used to be better than this,
but now, I see you hiding from tough questions. Maybe people don't ask you
tough questions and you aren't used to it. Frankly, you used to be a worthy
opponent, unfortunately no longer. Now you hide in a yec-like way.
&&&

Iain Strachan wrote:

>Glenn, I think you rather missed the point of my Wilfred Owen poem
illustration by dismissing it as "a poem", the implication
> being that you can get away with porkies in a poem, but if it's not a poem
then it's history and you must tell the truth.

Well of course you can get away with porkies in poems. That is the whole
reason people want Genesis 1-9 to be a poem. It is believed that there are
lots of scientific porkies in the Genesis account so by making it a poem
absolves the Divine from breaking His 9th commandment and saying that the
plants were created before the sun. If one can't get away with porkies in
poems, then the only other conclusion is that the Divine being who somehow
inspired the Bible didn't know what he was talking about and that conclusion
has certain implications people don't want to accept. Thus, Genesis 1-9 MUST
be a poem which can tell porkies.

Iain wrote:

>You seem to be fond of accusing everyone else on here of thinking like a
YEC. I think YOU are thinking like a YEC here.
>I've heard many a YEC say Genesis 1 is history because it's not a poem. I
say it is a poem, but not one in verse. Like a
>"prose poem", of which there are many modern examples, notably by Alexander
Solzhenitsyn.

Correction, acting like a YEC, there is a difference between that and
thinking like a YEC. YECs don't answer questions when the questions get too
hard. Thinking like a YEC is an entirely different thing. So, lets get the
accusation correct.

Secondly, I would note that you don't like anyone on your side having the
YEC like behavior tossed around. Ever think that I don't like constantly
being told by those on your side that I think like a YEC? And then that
becomes the basis for them dismissing what I say as if it has no logic to
it? On the other hand, I have had great difficulty getting people to
acknowledge the status of their epistemology. Paul finally did acknowledge
it and my hat is off to him, but he is exceptionally honest with himself.

I would suggest an experiment if you think I think like a YEC rather than an
atheists. Go try the concept that the Bible teaches false science but is
still true and worthy to be believed over on
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=60. Or try it with Farrell Till
(a rabid atheist with whom I once debated). I could sell tickets if it were
not going to be bloody as all get out (people hate blood). So, you can say
what you want about me supposedly thinking like a YEC, you will be wrong.
Were I to move on from my current beliefs, it wouldn't be back to YEC, it
would be in the other direction.

One of the best bosses I ever had was an atheist. I asked him one time if he
could believe the Bible if I told him that it was poetry rather than
history. He laughed out loud and said: "It still wouldn't be true".
Atheists also want something to be real, but it is easier to tar one with
the YEC brush.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 16 18:19:23 2006