No conflict between God and science

[leroy]

I presently talked about the clues that are very much in the Bible, please. Right, please?

Regards

Ok, so would you agree that Jesus was alive a few days after Easter? (after all the stuff related to the judgment to Jesus)

 

[leroy]

And that amounts to an outsider's squabble to me.

Sure other Christians would disagree and probably they have good reasons to think that I am wrong……. For example if we find a snake fossil that predates lizards (challenging the idea that snakes evolved from lizards) you would probably have to make a few changes in the current theory of evolution, but it is not like you would have to drop the whole theory .

The way I see it, the same is true if we find a mistake in the bible, sure we would have to make some changes in the religion and the doctrines, but it is not like we would have to drop all Christianity.

 

[paarsurrey]

Ok, so would you agree that Jesus was alive a few days after Easter? (after all the stuff related to the judgment to Jesus)

I understand that Jesus died a natural death many many years after the event of Crucifixion. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Sure other Christians would disagree and probably they have good reasons to think that I am wrong……. For example if we find a snake fossil that predates lizards (challenging the idea that snakes evolved from lizards) you would probably have to make a few changes in the current theory of evolution, but it is not like you would have to drop the whole theory .

The way I see it, the same is true if we find a mistake in the bible, sure we would have to make some changes in the religion and the doctrines, but it is not like we would have to drop all Christianity.

" to make some changes in the religion and the doctrines, but it is not like we would have to drop all Christianity."

It is one's good intention, I understand.
But then one will have to shun all that is believed and done which Jesus and Mary did not believe and do, I imagine. Right, please?
Is one ready to do that, please?

Regards

 

[leroy]

I understand that Jesus died a natural death many many years after the event of Crucifixion. Right, please?

Regards

Ok so we both agree that he was alive after the event… our only point of disagreement is if the died on the cross or not………………..the good news is that the majority of scholars are on my side … so why won’t you join the consensus and agree on that Jesus died?

 

[paarsurrey]

Ok so we both agree that he was alive after the event… our only point of disagreement is if the died on the cross or not………………..the good news is that the majority of scholars are on my side … so why won’t you join the consensus and agree on that Jesus died?

Jesus was alive after the event of Crucifixion, that is a sure proof that he did not die on the Cross, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Brian2]

what about prophecies that did not happen?
Genesis
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17

https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/2.html#17

One way to understand that is that the spirit of Adam died on the day He ate the fruit.
Another way to understand it is to see the wording as a judicial proclamation about the surety of Adam's death on the day he ate the fruit. This same sort of judicial proclamation can be seen in 1Kings 2:37 for example. That Shimei would die on that day was not meant and that Adam would die on that day was also not meant. That this was not meant can be seen in the fact that he did not die on that day.
1Kings 2:36 Then the king summoned Shimei and said to him, “Build a house for yourself in Jerusalem and live there, but do not go anywhere else. 37 On the day you go out and cross the Kidron Valley, know for sure that you will die; your blood will be on your own head.”38“The sentence is fair,” Shimei replied. “Your servant will do as my lord the king has spoken.”

God promises Abram and his descendants all of the land of Canaan. But both history and the bible (Acts 7:5 and Hebrews 11:13) show that God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 28:13-14

https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/28.html#13

Certainly God gave Canaan to the Jews even if the Jews did not completely get rid of all the Canaanites from the land and these were an ongoing hindrance for the Jews and a temptation for them to leave the LORD and serve the gods of the Canaanites. Yet Canaan, now Israel, was and is a Jewish nation which the Lord has given to them.

Joshua 11:22 No Anakim were left in the land of the Israelites; only in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod did any survive. 23So Joshua took the entire land, in keeping with all that the LORD had spoken to Moses. And Joshua gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to the allotments to their tribes. Then the land had rest from war.

God promises to make Isaac's descendents as numerous as "the stars of heaven", which, of course, never happened. The Jews have always been, and will always be, a small minority.

22:17-18, 26

https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/26.html#4

The expression "as numerous as the stars of heaven" is not meant to be exact. However as with Abraham, Isaac also had faith and their descendants include those of faith, the Christians.

Exodus

God promises to cast out many nations including the Canaanites and the Jebusites. But he was unable to keep his promise. 33:2

https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/33.html#2

That promise may have eventuated just as it seems to be saying, but when the Jews got to the promised land they surveyed the land and became scared to go in and take possession of it because they thought they could not do it. They did not trust the Lord and so after that they roamed for 40 years and had to fight for the land eventually, but the Lord did actually help them in what they did even if it was a different time and they had to fight for possession with the Lord's help.
It was meant to be a slowish takeover of Canaan so that the land would not go wild and be overrun with wild animals etc. Also the more that Israel rebelled against the will of God, and did not believe, the harder things got. Remnants of the nations were left by God also to test Israel, to see if they would be faithful.
I cannot see any of those nations there now however.
It was the unfaithfulness of the Jews in doing as God had said which resulted in remnants of the nations being left to cause trouble. The Jews did intermarry with them and follow their gods. This is the case in the other scriptures you supply from Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges.

2 Samuel

"Thy kingdom shall be established for ever."
God says that Davids's kingdom will last forever. It didn't of course. It was entirely destroyed about 400 years after Solomon's death, never to be rebuilt. 7:13, 16
I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations." But the Davidic line of Kings ended with Zedekiah; there were none during the Babylonian captivity, and there are none today. 89:3-4, 34-37

https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ps/89.html#3

This should be understood in conjunction with other prophecies about Judah being ruler and lawmaker till Shilou, the one to whom the sceptre belongs comes. This happened and even after the kings ceased to be, Judah was part of the lawmakers for Israel and ruling class in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin lasted till after the time of Jesus, the one to whom the crown of David belongs, the one who rules not as King and will so for ever.
Gen 49:10 The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,
until he to whom it belongs shall come
and the obedience of the nations shall be his.
https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ps/89.html#3

1. • ijjnyfytf8gbo

With the other prophecies you gave from Isaiah and Jeremiah you should go to some good commentaries to answer your objections and see how the skeptics have not been honest with what is written in the Bible.

 

[Brian2]

I think that's a self-serving false equivalency. So, when you ask in post #42,

Doesn't science agree that the early earth was dark and surrounded by thick cloud and covered in water and formless (flat, no mountains and valleys etc)?​

When I compare other passages in the Bible (eg Job 38:9) with Genesis I come up with the interpretation I have. I think I am not the only one. It also agrees with science. My interpretation has that for it, it agrees with other parts of the Bible and with science.
With this and other things about Genesis that agree with science, my interpretation seems better than most. I do think that my interpretation is not complete however and also that scientific knowledge is not complete. Maybe the Bible and science will come together completely over time.
There are actually others who hold a similar interpretation.
​

The fact is that Genesis 1 asserts that birds were created before land-based insects. That is not history, nor is it allegory or myth. It is simply wrong.

The problem of the birds has bothered me for a long time. It is the only life form which is out of order,,,,,,,,,,,almost. Genesis seems to be a description of what God did, but even though what God did was the beginnings of things, it speaks as if the work was complete. In all the Genesis description of life forms that God made it speaks as if everything was created fully by the end of the certain day, but the reality is that when God looked at what He had made and saw that it was good, He was looking at His work in embryo,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it was yet to evolve fully. The plants for example started in one way, as the fossil record shows, and that was all God did to create all the different sorts of plants that exist. But of course God looked on what He had done and said it was good. God created all the sorts of plants from that initial unevolved state.
When it comes to the birds I have thought of seeing them the same way. Whatever God did to create birds, He did on the same day that He created the sea creatures. The problem being that whatever He did had not evolved fully into all the birds that we have these days.
I hope you understand what I mean.
(then again earlier and earlier fossils of birds are being found, so just maybe birds that actually flew did exist then)

Of course you do. At issue is the degree to which your theology coerces that interpretation.

Try this thought experiment. Forget the concept of "Bible." Forget "scripture." Simply take two or three good translations of Genesis 1-3 and, informed by the best of science, the best of ANE anthropology, and the best of philology, come to an informed conclusion about what it says and why. Just be true to the best rendering of the text.

I agree that my interpretation is not obvious and it took a while for it to gel, but I am encouraged in that others also have come to similar conclusions.
I think Genesis description is by no means in any detail and just gives an outline.
Nevertheless thanks for your suggestion. I certainly do not push my interpretation in the church I attend, as it is not important relative to other things, but as I said it makes a lot more sense than many other interpretations and Genesis 2 even works in with it as suggesting the possibility of evolution as opposed to instantaneous creation.
Then again in my interpretation I cannot deny the possibility of instantaneous creation, just not of fully evolved life forms. Imo the genetic system had to have been set up by God to lead in a certain desired direction and not have evolve. I think this is scientifically possible, but not with the naturalistic science we have. I think much of what we call the mechanisms of evolution are just educated guesses in a naturalistic science and what is actually known (so to speak) is a lot less that the whole evolution story that science tells us.
All that said,,,,,,,,,,,I could be way out in my thinking about things.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree that my interpretation is not obvious and it took a while for it to gel, ...

No doubt.

 

[joelr]

Certainly God gave Canaan to the Jews even if the Jews did not completely get rid of all the Canaanites from the land and these were an ongoing hindrance for the Jews and a temptation for them to leave the LORD and serve the gods of the Canaanites. Yet Canaan, now Israel, was and is a Jewish nation which the Lord has given to them.

Joshua 11:22 No Anakim were left in the land of the Israelites; only in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod did any survive. 23So Joshua took the entire land, in keeping with all that the LORD had spoken to Moses. And Joshua gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to the allotments to their tribes. Then the land had rest from war.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4421.htm

Wow that's old school, a God who gives a nation to people?
The Israelites came from the Canaanites and even had their God Yahweh paired up with Ashera in early Israelite religion. There is no evidence of armed conflict. The Canaanites were taken over by other nations but the archaeological evidence shows Israel moving away from Canaan.

That promise may have eventuated just as it seems to be saying, but when the Jews got to the promised land they surveyed the land and became scared to go in and take possession of it because they thought they could not do it. They did not trust the Lord and so after that they roamed for 40 years and had to fight for the land eventually, but the Lord did actually help them in what they did even if it was a different time and they had to fight for possession with the Lord's help.
It was meant to be a slowish takeover of Canaan so that the land would not go wild and be overrun with wild animals etc. Also the more that Israel rebelled against the will of God, and did not believe, the harder things got. Remnants of the nations were left by God also to test Israel, to see if they would be faithful.
I cannot see any of those nations there now however.
It was the unfaithfulness of the Jews in doing as God had said which resulted in remnants of the nations being left to cause trouble. The Jews did intermarry with them and follow their gods. This is the case in the other scriptures you supply from Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges.

Exodus or a mass migration is not supported and scholarship considers it a myth with some elements of truth. Again, Israel moved out of Canaan and the region was invaded by Assyrians I think?

With the other prophecies you gave from Isaiah and Jeremiah you should go to some good commentaries to answer your objections and see how the skeptics have not been honest with what is written in the Bible.

They sound like apologetics. These are all excuses as to why this or that prophecy didn't pan out.
None of these prophecies are any more or less vague than Hindu or Islamic prophecies. They are all unimpressive.

 

[joelr]

So you agree that it is a historical fact that Jesus appeared alive after he was judged and condemned to crucifixion? (regardless if he actually died on the cross or not)

That isn't a historical fact at all. The gospels are anonymous, wildly fictitious and historical scholarship agrees that the others were sourced from Mark.
What the historicity field believes is "historicity" - Jesus was a man who was later fictionalized as a dying/rising savior demigod. Although some believe mythicism (it's all a myth) those who believe historicity just believe he was a teacher. The crucifixion is part of the gospel narrative which is not historical.


"There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[59] the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[8] Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted"

The main reason some scholars thought the crucifixion probably happened was because of the criterion of embarrassment - why would that be added to the story of a savior?
The scholars who favored this idea were mainly NT scholars rather than historians who are familiar with comparative religion and understand that the whole point of this movement was to have a savior who resurrects.

 

[paarsurrey]

That isn't a historical fact at all. The gospels are anonymous, wildly fictitious and historical scholarship agrees that the others were sourced from Mark.
What the historicity field believes is "historicity" - Jesus was a man who was later fictionalized as a dying/rising savior demigod. Although some believe mythicism (it's all a myth) those who believe historicity just believe he was a teacher. The crucifixion is part of the gospel narrative which is not historical.


"There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[59] the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[8] Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted"

The main reason some scholars thought the crucifixion probably happened was because of the criterion of embarrassment - why would that be added to the story of a savior?
The scholars who favored this idea were mainly NT scholars rather than historians who are familiar with comparative religion and understand that the whole point of this movement was to have a savior who resurrects.

" The scholars who favored this idea were mainly NT scholars rather than historians who are familiar with comparative religion and understand that the whole point of this movement was to have a savior who resurrects."

To appease the "Christians"?!

Regards

 

[joelr]

" The scholars who favored this idea were mainly NT scholars rather than historians who are familiar with comparative religion and understand that the whole point of this movement was to have a savior who resurrects."

To appease the "Christians"?!

Regards

Yes and themselves. a "NT scholar" generally means one who studies theology and possibly apologetics and are looking at the scripture as if it's actually true. Or is at least true to a high degree. But they are not using comparative religion studies to see if it looks the same as all other myths, or literary analysis in terms of how many mythic literary devices were used, were the stories copied from earlier narratives and things like that. So they want to have a reason to explain why something troubling in the gospels can be reconciled with it still being true.
Criterion of Embarrasment says the crucifixion must be true because why would they invent something that has him defeated so badly.

I have seen Richard Carrier explain to a NT scholar that the dying/rising story was popular during the time right before Christianity and they were like "no". Or they quibbled about weird details like "but was it on a cross like Jesus"? Even though the entire point is each culture takes the basic myth and combines it with their cultural norms. The Jewish version was heavy on sin forgiveness and the crucifixion method of death was a common practice in Rome.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes and themselves. a "NT scholar" generally means one who studies theology and possibly apologetics and are looking at the scripture as if it's actually true. Or is at least true to a high degree. But they are not using comparative religion studies to see if it looks the same as all other myths, or literary analysis in terms of how many mythic literary devices were used, were the stories copied from earlier narratives and things like that. So they want to have a reason to explain why something troubling in the gospels can be reconciled with it still being true.
Criterion of Embarrasment says the crucifixion must be true because why would they invent something that has him defeated so badly.

I have seen Richard Carrier explain to a NT scholar that the dying/rising story was popular during the time right before Christianity and they were like "no". Or they quibbled about weird details like "but was it on a cross like Jesus"? Even though the entire point is each culture takes the basic myth and combines it with their cultural norms. The Jewish version was heavy on sin forgiveness and the crucifixion method of death was a common practice in Rome.

" Criterion of Embarrassment says the crucifixion must be true because why would they invent something that has him defeated so badly."

A weird and unholy pretext to defend the NT.
Right, please?

Regards

 

[joelr]

" Criterion of Embarrassment says the crucifixion must be true because why would they invent something that has him defeated so badly."

A weird and unholy pretext to defend the NT.
Right, please?

Regards

Well it's just wrong. Jesus was a type of demigod that many other cultures already had in their religion in nearby nations. A son/daughter of a God who goes through a "passion" then is killed and resurrects. By defeating death members who are baptized into the cult also gain victory over death and get entry into the afterlife and such. Jesus was the Jewish version of this new myth that many cultures were adding to their religion. It's a Hellenistic concept that was combined with the Syrian, Egyptian, Thracian and several other religions.
But theologians do not study other Bronze age religions and will usually just deny that this is a real part of history. Or will try to point out ways they are not similar like - Jesus was crucified on the cross while Osirus was just hung in a cave for 3 days. PhD Carrier pointed out 35 similarities between all these demigods in his book and an apologist tried to debunk it by taking 4 points and showing how they were not exact to the Jesus story. But syncretism is supposed to create new versions on a basic concept. This is the Jewish version which will be different from the Roman version. But the basic idea is the same.