As mutations accumulate in populations of animals and people, they act as ticking time bombs primed to go off when the organisms can no longer function because of degraded genetic information. An accurate measurement of the rate of mutations would enable researchers to estimate how many "ticks" are left before the bomb explodes, and how many ticks have already taken place.
According to a study published in January 2010, humans accumulate mutations at a rate of 1 to 5 percent per generation.2 Another 2010 DNA base-by-base analysis yielded a smaller number, finding that 60 new, irrevocable mutations add up each generation.3 Either result shows that the human genome clock has been counting down fast. These data set reasonable limits to the total duration of mankind on earth. Those limits are incompatible with "millions of years," but they fit just right with the thousands of years history that the Bible provides. The human genome looks very young indeed.
Human DNA Is Unique
One common argument used to support the evolutionary concept that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ape-like ancestor was that the two species share so many of the same genes. In 2009, a counterargument held that these studies focused only on the genes and ignored the equally critical regulatory DNA sequences. Thus, the "we share the same genes as chimps" argument can only be supported by extremely biased studies.4
But in 2010, the first direct, sequence-for-sequence comparison of any of the corresponding chimp and human chromosomes was published. The new work was made possible by powerful new techniques that are able to quickly compare reams of data, unlike prior spot-check estimates of DNA sequence similarity.
The results showed that the human "Y" chromosome is totally different from the chimp's, containing large sections of coded information that were unique to man, and very large portions that had a unique layout and arrangement.5 In other words, humans and chimps look to be in no way related.
1. Lynch, M. 2010. Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (3): 961-968. 2. Thomas, B. New Genomes Project Data Indicate a Young Human Race. ICR News. Posted on icr.org November 9, 2010, accessed December 22, 2010. 3. Tomkins, J. 2009. Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research? Acts & Facts. 38 (6): 12. 4. Tomkins, J. and B. Thomas. 2010. New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims. Acts & Facts. 39 (4): 4-5. 5. Tomkins, J. and B. Thomas. 2010. New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims. Acts & Facts. 39 (4): 4-5.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*facepalm* Your very first sentence gets it wrong, Ron:
"As mutations accumulate in populations of animals and people, they act as ticking time bombs primed to go off when the organisms can no longer function because of degraded genetic information."
I'll elaborate: I'm familiar with the Lynch article in question, since I have a passing interest in genetics, and you misunderstand his point. Lynch is intending to assert that industrial societies have found ways to prolong the lives of people with neutral and/or harmful mutations, thus increasing the rate at which those mutations accumulate in the species. This is not an attempt to set an upper bound on the age of humanity; it is an observation that acting to suppress the effects of natural selection is accelerating our collective mutation rate. We don't drown babies with six fingers anymore, fearing that they're witches or fairies; we give medication to people with congenital heart defects. And these people go on to have children who have an increased chance to suffer the same maladies.
It is, in other words, a paper that is heavily steeped in exactly the sort of selection that you are trying to use it to refute.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I also want to address the "humans are less similar to chimps than we think" issue, because Tomkins is engaging in a bit of deception here.
Basically, the "we share 99% of our genetic code with chimpanzees" has been one of those factoids, like "we use 10% of our brains," that's just right enough to be said aloud by someone who knows better but contains enough caveats to be misleading if you're trying to build from it. We share 99% of our coding sequences -- the bits of our genetic code actually responsible for producing proteins to a certain spec -- with chimps, but less than 10% of the total actually codes. As recently as fifteen years ago, people thought the remainder of the DNA was "junk," perhaps a buffer zone for harmless mutations; it's only recently that we've discovered that some of those non-coding sequences perform other functions (many of which are still unknown, and almost certainly vary by species).
So, yes, taking all our genetic material into account, we're considerably less similar to chimps; I don't think a full chimpanzee sequencing has actually been performed, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that we're closer to 80-84% similar.
But.
We are still far, far closer to chimpanzees than to any other primate, and IIRC they're far closer to us than to any other. The same science that gives you the "mutation clock" you're somewhat haphazardly referencing in your post strongly implies that we and chimpanzees share a relatively recent common ancestor. I can't imagine that the argument "we and chimpanzees share so many genes; we're almost certainly related" is suddenly invalidated if, once we start including non-coding sequences, we and chimpanzees continue to share a remarkable number of genes, far more than we share with other species.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Your accuracy in reading is questionable, Tom. First of all, it was not MY first sentence, but the author's. The whole thing was excerpted from the published article.
Your interpretation of Lynch's real point may satisfy you, and maybe you faithfully reflect Lynch's attempt to explain away the logical implications of his findings. But the fact remains that mutations in the human genome are accumulating. Do you or Lynch dispute that?
Then if mutations in the human genome are accummulating, how long can the human species remain viable, able to reproduce itself?
It does not matter if Lynch's intention was to attempt to set an upper bound on the age of humanity. Whether he intended it or not, that is the logical implication. Can you or Lynch deny it--by any means other than merely asserting what you want to believe is the case?
The problem with the genetic comparisons of humans and chimpanzees is that what used to be claimed to be no more different than about 2%, is now ten or twenty times more. In the study referenced, only the "Y" chromosomes were studied. But the basic differences in structure and whole lengthy sequences are so great, that even saying they are 80% alike is grossly exaggerated.
By all means, let's see what the results are when all the chromosomes are sequenced in detail. It is obvious that you want humans and chimpanzees to be closely related genetically, so the theory of the two species evolving from some common ancestor would seem more likely. But what real evidence do you have?
There are lots of different species of ape-like/monkey-like primates on earth. But where are all the human-like similar species? Unless you want to venture onto the mine field of claiming that African blacks and European whites represent different species, or some such thing, there are some branches of your supposed evolutionary tree that are conspicuously missing.
[ January 12, 2011, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:So, yes, taking all our genetic material into account, we're considerably less similar to chimps; I don't think a full chimpanzee sequencing has actually been performed, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that we're closer to 80-84% similar.
The particular factoid I'd like to know is, whatever standard we're using to establish similarity to Chimpanzees, what does that standard say about Horses and Zebras? Back when I was doing a lot of arguing about this, I told my creationist friend (who believed in "microevolution", with horses to zebras as his example) that we were more similar to chimps than horses are to zebras. Does that end up staying true?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Raymond, I don't know about horses and zebras, but donkeys and horses are routinely crossed, and produce live offspring--mules. Usually mules are sterile, but on rare occasions there have been a few that were fertile.
Now, the real question is whether humans and chimpanzees can cross. Most evolutionists, I am guessing, would be inclined to believe it would be possible. Outside of urban legends, I have not heard of it ever happening.
Getting back to horses and donkeys, I have read estimates in the past that they were 5% different--which sounded like they were further apart than chimpanzees and humans. But what has been established in the past couple of years, is that both those early estimates were completely in error, totally unreliable, because they surveyed only a few selected portions of a chromosome, thus skipping over the actual structre and detailed sequencing. It is now known that the early estimates of genetic similarity of humans and chimpanzees was grossly in error, by at least an order of magnitude. The same may be true of the early estimates of the differenced between donkeys and horses. Since the comparisons were made of a few selected portions, the differences between donkeys and horses could be greater, OR LESSER. We have no way of knowing until the blanks are filled in by a complete sequencing of a chromosome, including taking cognizance of the structure.
So basically, the whole idea of genetic similarities between different species being close, within a few percentage points for any two species, is pretty much out the window. Those early estimates were based on defective methods. Perhaps it is not too extreme to say those methods were fraudulent.
[ January 12, 2011, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
"Most evolutionists, I am guessing, would be inclined to believe it would be possible"
What?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would be astonished if a complete sequencing has been done on zebras. A quick Google shows that horses have nearly twice the chromosome count of a zebra, and that the coded DNA is about 92% similar; by contrast, a zebra and a donkey show 98% similarity, and a horse and a donkey show about 93%. If we assume substantial uncoded sequences on par with the human/chimpanzee studies -- which may not be a safe assumption, but which given the difference in chromosome count is not, I believe, unlikely -- we're probably looking at 75-80% overall.
quote:Perhaps it is not too extreme to say those methods were fraudulent.
Well, no, it is too extreme. Remember, it's only recently that we had any idea that "junk" DNA did anything at all.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I swear, I'm going to make another Dr. Price thread if this keeps up.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Strider, I merely meant that is what they would probably want to believe, since donkeys and horses can cross with an estimated 5% difference, and chimpanzees and humans were previously (falsely) estimated to be 2% different. Surely you can see the implication there.
Tom, you say that horses have twice the chromosome count of zebras, but then claim the coded DNA is about 92% similar. So you are going to ignore half the chromosomes in the horse, and claim they do not consist of coded DNA? That is part of the problem--those estimates ignore the STRUCTURE.
I believe that no such estimates can be given any credence anymore. They need to be replaced by actual, complete sequencing of at least one chromosome, like the Y chromosome. Even better, of course, would be sequencing the entire genome. That is really the only comparison we could have confidence was accurate.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
steven--are you referring to the late George McReady Price (1870-1963)? He's been dead for 48 years.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
OK Tom, maybe I should not say the early estimates of the genetic similarity of humans and chimpanzees was fraudulent. But clearly the methods followed were seriously flawed.
And yet, don't forget, it was not merely the fact that some DNA sequences were skipped over because it was wrongly thought they were just "junk DNA." Part of the problem that has now been identified was ignoring differences in structure.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So you are going to ignore half the chromosomes in the horse, and claim they do not consist of coded DNA?
Well, I'm not going to claim it, but that's certainly the logical conclusion to draw from the couple of papers I found via Google. I wouldn't be surprised, though; a huge percentage of most DNA is non-coding.
And, yes, you are correct in concluding that this means estimates like "chimpanzees are X% different from gorillas" are, on the face of it, downright silly.
But.
Coded DNA is still pretty darn important, so it's not like we're suddenly left without any way of comparing species. It's almost certainly true that we'll have to rejigger some evolutionary trees here and there, as non-coding sequences are compared, but it's not likely that we're going to suddenly discover that, based on our non-coding genes, we're almost identical to frogs. Worrying too much about the exact numbers being bastardized by pop culture/media reporting is missing the forest for the trees; not being able to authoritatively say that we're only one percentage point removed from chimps is not something that's going to turn the scientific community upside down.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: steven--are you referring to the late George McReady Price (1870-1963)? He's been dead for 48 years.
No, Dr. Weston Andrew Price (1870-1948).
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
Ron,
I have a very straightforward question, and request that you provide a straightforward answer in the form of an integer between 0 and 6.
Between the article you link to and its 5 references how many would be acceptable references in a scholarly article in minimally respectable journal or a high school science report?
(I'm assuming the answer to both is the same - if you disagree please provide 2 integers instead of 1.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It does not matter if Lynch's intention was to attempt to set an upper bound on the age of humanity. Whether he intended it or not, that is the logical implication. Can you or Lynch deny it--by any means other than merely asserting what you want to believe is the case?
Well, for one thing, in order for this assertion to make much sense, it requires that one completely misunderstand natural selection. Firstly, it implicitly assumes that there was at some point in the distant past some perfect ur-human, one sans any "mutations" at all, and that all our various mutations and deviations since then have somehow been introduced.
This is, of course, a silly way to look at it.
In reality, what we choose to call the first "human" was a heavily mutated primate. And that primate continued to mutate, in both beneficial and neutral ways; the primates that mutated in harmful ways usually but not always died out. How long do you think Lynch's research would estimate that a non-industrial species of heavily mutated primate might exist before its genome simply became too "corrupted" to produce viable offspring?
(Answer: Lynch's research doesn't speak to that question at all.)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I swear, I'm going to make another Dr. Price thread if this keeps up.
That was a riot, it really was steven. Thank you, I needed a laugh.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Ron, I think the main issue is that someone convinced you that DNA is like a personal hard-drive, with all the information you need to be you is written on it. You view mutations as simply corruptions of those files--so as the files get more corrupted there is less chance of the data stored there being viable.
DNA does not work like that.
How it works is extremely complex (no--that is not an excuse to force belief) and beyond my skill to explain, but I will try. Mutation does not destroy information--it changes it. Some small percentage of that change will be useful. The rest dies off.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
If only the neanderthal's could have made it this far... In creatures that would have shred a path to becoming something like us, was probably killed by us. Though I think disease is what did the neanderthal's in.
Yep that seems right, not the most scientific chart, but I don't have a scanner for my psychology book so no luck there.. assuming you share the same father and mother and you're not an identical twin the both of you only share about 50% in genetic relationship, which would mean you're more related to a monkey than your sibling.........or something like that XD
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Different things are being measured by those percentages, Rawrain. Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I am a pro-mazegoer, but when it comes to words I am always lost X3
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: If only the neanderthal's could have made it this far... In creatures that would have shred a path to becoming something like us, was probably killed by us. Though I think disease is what did the neanderthal's in.
Yep that seems right, not the most scientific chart, but I don't have a scanner for my psychology book so no luck there.. assuming you share the same father and mother and you're not an identical twin the both of you only share about 50% in genetic relationship, which would mean you're more related to a monkey than your sibling.........or something like that XD
Those percentages are relative. When someone says you are 50% more like a sibling genetically, that is in comparison to the rest of the human race. When someone says we share 98% of DNA with chimpanzees, that is in comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom.
As for the Neanderthals, its been recently discovered that they interbred with modern man. And last month it was found that Neanderthals weren't the only ancient human we did this with.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Crap, now I can't believe in evolution anymore.
Anyone know of an alternative belief I can try out?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Aliens.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Spontaneous Complexity (Occam's Razor says its the most likely)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Did you know that if you take the rate of human population growth in the year 2000, assume it has been constant since the dawn of man, and extrapolate backwards in time in a linear fashion, you can show that the human population was at zero at some point around 1850? This demonstrates either (1) mankind is only 150 years old, or (2) you will reach false conclusions if you take something with a variable rate and extrapolate back in time with the assumption that it is a constant rate.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
just_me, your question is not really fair, since the article I linked to was a popular-style article written for everyone, not a formal submission to a peer-reviewed journal. It's like comparing Popular Science to Reviews of Geophysics. That is not to say that Popular Science is necessarily inaccurate. It is a matter of couching terms in a manner accessible to the target audience.
Let's not play games, here. The only question is truth or falsehood. If you think that what the article I linked to is not true in any of its points, then please explain why--as some others here have attempted to do. That makes it possible to engage in a reasoned discussion/debate.
I like your answer, Raymond!
Xavier--is evolution something to "believe in," as you said? That makes it sound like a religion, you know. Which may be the problem with some people. As for me, I believe in Truth. Science is only science if it is true. And whatever is true is science.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: just_me, your question is not really fair, since the article I linked to was a popular-style article written for everyone, not a formal submission to a peer-reviewed journal. It's like comparing Popular Science to Reviews of Geophysics. That is not to say that Popular Science is necessarily inaccurate. It is a matter of couching terms in a manner accessible to the target audience.
How about instead of assuming anything about why I asked or what I was going to say next you just answer the question? Sure, my question implied a certain train of thought but you have no way of knowing where I was going. Before I embark on trying to make a point and have you dodge and deflect it per your usual "debate" style I wanted to see if you could answer one simple question.
Apparently, you can't.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Did you know that if you take the rate of human population growth in the year 2000, assume it has been constant since the dawn of man, and extrapolate backwards in time in a linear fashion, you can show that the human population was at zero at some point around 1850? This demonstrates either (1) mankind is only 150 years old, or (2) you will reach false conclusions if you take something with a variable rate and extrapolate back in time with the assumption that it is a constant rate.
Nice. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Xavier--is evolution something to "believe in," as you said? That makes it sound like a religion, you know.
Well of course. When I am in trouble, I pray that Charles Darwin will send one of his finches to come and help me. I once found a 20 dollar bill in my pocket, I'm sure it was a monkey ancestor that put it there (knowing I'd want to go out to eat). When I am playing in a sporting event, I pray that evolution will give one of our players a mutation, so that we may win the game.
But that's all changed now.
quote:Spontaneous Complexity (Occam's Razor says its the most likely)
I like the sound of that. Where can I send my checks to?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
ME!
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Great! Just send me your bank account information along with your SSN and birthdate. I'll set up automatic deposits. I'm feeling generous, so will give this new religion TWICE my current tithing.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:When I am playing in a sporting event, I pray that evolution will give one of our players a mutation, so that we may win the game.
:hehe:
quote:I like the sound of that. Where can I send my checks to?
The IRS. They're all about Spontaneous Complexity.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Well of course. When I am in trouble, I pray that Charles Darwin will send one of his finches to come and help me. I once found a 20 dollar bill in my pocket, I'm sure it was a monkey ancestor that put it there (knowing I'd want to go out to eat). When I am playing in a sporting event, I pray that evolution will give one of our players a mutation, so that we may win the game.
Ha!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think it's amazing how evolution created the Earth so that it would be a perfect fit for human beings after eons of beneficial genetic mutations being selected for and passed on. I mean, how did evolution know the conditions that would be a good fit for organisms whose traits were selected based on how well they conferred reproductive fitness in the environment they were expressed in?
I dare anyone to say that this is not a miracle that proves the divinity of evolution.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: When I am playing in a sporting event, I pray that evolution will give one of our players a mutation, so that we may win the game.
Depending on your choice of words, one could say I am a mutant but I would do poorly in most sports I am afraid to say. Running with my clubfoot is... well it argues against intelligent design.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That (MrSquicky's post) would be funny if people didn't use that argument in all seriousness.
[ January 13, 2011, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Running with my clubfoot is... well it argues against intelligent design.
Dude, I'm a man and I have nipples. To me, that invalidates intelligent design. You don't need anything else.
With that, I could maybe get behind barely intelligent design at best.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
They are clearly vestigial organs from when we used to be women.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Oh the internet can show you what male nipples are for, you just dont want to know.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Great! Just send me your bank account information along with your SSN and birthdate. I'll set up automatic deposits. I'm feeling generous, so will give this new religion TWICE my current tithing.
And twice zero is zero?
Nice try.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They have their uses. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
AchillesHeel, you are aware, aren't you, that there has been a Fall, which resulted in nature becoming corrupted (including our own physical bodies)? God never intended for anyone to die, let alone have any genetic defects. When the universe has become sufficiently proof against sin, so it will never arise again, and all of us have made our final choice for or gainst God, He has promised to restore the perfect creation of Paradise. As the Apostle Paul said:
quote:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.--Romans 8:19-23; NIV
As for nipples, they merely demonstrate that men and women are both built upon the basic plan of mammals. By the way, MattP, according to the Bible, woman came from man, not vice versa. If God had started with a woman, He would have had to create an entire new chromosome, the Y chromosome, for the man. Men have an X and a Y chromosome, so a woman could be made from a man simply by taking two X chromosomes, one from each of two male cells.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As for nipples, they merely demonstrate that men and women are both built upon the basic plan of mammals. By the way, according to the Bible, woman came from man, not vice versa. If God had started with a woman, He would have had to create an entire new chromosome, the Y chromosome, for the man. Men have an X and a Y chromosome, so a woman could be made from a man simply by taking two X chromosomes, one from each of two male cells.
But that makes no sense. Male mammals having nipples makes no more sense than male humans having them. That just pushes the barely intelligent design back a little bit. "Men have to have nipples because they are based on God's stupid design for mammals." doesn't make the design any less stupid.
As for God being forced to work that way with men and women, I've expressed before Ron that I really can't get behind your God because he seems sort of powerless and, honestly, kind of a wuss.
I like my omnipotent entities to be a little more omnipotent and not so much like a whiny teenager. But, hey, if it works for you.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:As for me, I believe in Truth. Science is only science if it is true. And whatever is true is science.
I was under the impression that science is neither true nor false- it is simply a method for invalidating hypotheses. What I've been taught in college so far is that science, as a general rule, never proves anything--it simply narrows down the possible explanations by eliminating those that can't be shown via the scientific method. Personally, I tread on the side of logic--and it seems to me, the more we learn, the more we discover we have yet to learn.
Monday, my evolutionary psychology class and I will be taking a "field trip" up a couple floors in our building to handle plaster molds of both the Lucy and Ardi skeletons. I'm greatly looking forward to that.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Ron: God absolutely intended for us to die, it's the entire reason a savior was provided in the first place, to save us from both physical death brought on by our natural condition, and spiritual death, brought on by our sins.
It sounds to me Ron, like you are saying that because death did not exist before the fall, that evolution is then impossible. Is that correct?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Death most certainly existed before expulsion from Eden, it was called being turned into ash.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Death most certainly existed before expulsion from Eden, it was called being turned into ash.
I'm trying to find out if that is what Ron is saying. Personally I lean towards the belief that there was certainly death before Adam and Eve showed up.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
His argument seems to be that my foot and all other "imperfect" factors of the human condition including death were brought about by the dissobediance of Adam and Eve while it did not exist before.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If God had started with a woman, He would have had to create an entire new chromosome, the Y chromosome, for the man. Men have an X and a Y chromosome, so a woman could be made from a man simply by taking two X chromosomes, one from each of two male cells.
Well, now, this is interesting, because this is a reproducible experiment.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
That's a good point, JanitorBlade. If there were no death, there could be no evolution. Evolution requires death. Creation does not.
Also, the way I understood it, when God created man, the Son of God pledged Himself as Surety for man, something like a co-signer. God of course knew what would happen, who would fall into sin, etc. But foreknowledge does not take away free will, and make it happen. I believe God created Lucifer first, knowing he was the one who would get it all started, so God could get dealing with sin over with as soon as possible, so the whole universe would finally be secure--even though filled with beings who had free will so they could truly love--for all eternity.
Sean, it happens every time a man and a woman have a baby girl.
Tinros, I think you are confusing science with the scientific method. I see no reason to make any concessions to the atheistic version of philosophy of science. Many people do not realize that is what they are doing when they buy into a philosophy of science where basically you cannot know anything for sure, and there can be no authoritative outside Sources of knowledge. If the Creator of the universe gives you His own testimony, is it sensible or even sane to ignore it, and call that close-mindedness science? What is sensible and sane is to evaluate that testimony, the way we weigh evidence in courtrooms, by establishing the credibility of the witnesses, and by comparing the testimony of other witnesses. Especially by testing to see if prophetic predictions concerning the basic outline of history are correct, given in the archival source of knowledge about the Creator.
Mr. Squicky, I think you may be just a bit presumptuous in calling God barely intelligent, just because you think it would be better if God had not used basic forms and adapted them for His purpose, rather than create each individual discretely in every way in every case.
I have heard of a case where a man has actually been able to produce small amounts of milk, when his wife died and he let the baby suck at his nipple. So maybe the fact that men also have the mammary ducts and glands is potentially useful.
There also appear to be in the genome of most species a library of alternate characteristics that are switched off by genetic switches, but can become turned on when those characteristics are needed to allow the species to thrive in a new environment. These used to be dismissed as "junk DNA." I have said before that this should be testable--complete analysis of the genome of related species (like woves and collies) should reveal if the unique DNA that produces the variation was present in whichever was the progenitor. This would mean that God not only created each unique species, He also created in each species the capability for adaptation and variation. Thus when God created the wolf (assuming that was the progenitor), He also created the collie, the airdale, the cocker spaniel, the greyhound, and all the other hundreds of kinds of dogs. How much intelligence do you think that took? And if we determine that the genetic code for all these variations are indeed on the original progenitor genome, then that means that genetic characterists that were not expressed were created. This would be an impossibility for evolution theory to account for, because natural selection could not operate to produce characteristics that are not expressed to begin with.
[ January 13, 2011, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sean, it happens every time a man and a woman have a baby girl.
Uh, no, it is not the case, every time a man and a woman have a baby girl, that the baby girl has two X chromosomes that have both come from the male parent.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sean, one X chromosome comes from the man, and one X chromosome comes from the woman. True, that is not overtly the same thing as taking two X's from the man, but since the X chromosome is the same in a man and in a woman, it is the same thing in principle.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Mr. Squicky, I think you may be just a bit presumptuous in calling God barely intelligent, just because you think it would be better if God had not used basic forms and adapted them for His purpose, rather than create each individual discretely in every way in every case.
I have heard of a case where a man has actually been able to produce small amounts of milk, when his wife died and he let the baby suck at his nipple. So maybe the fact that men also have the mammary ducts and glands is potentially useful.
But, again, that makes no sense. God created Adam with nipples, and, like you said, Eve would never had died without the Fall.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sean, one X chromosome comes from the man, and one X chromosome comes from the woman. True, that is not overtly the same thing as taking two X's from the man, but since the X chromosome is the same in a man and in a woman, it is the same thing in principle.
But is it in practice? Do you know that a viable embryo could be produced with two X chromosomes from the father?
I brought it up, because I seem to recall reading (I think in 'Genome' by Matt Ridley, though I'm having a hard time tracking it down) that such an experiment has taken place, and a viable embryo could not be produced. If memory serves me correctly, an embryo with two X's from the mother was not able to form a spine correctly, and miscarried. An embryo with two X's from the father was not able to attach to the uteran wall.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I swear, I'm going to make another Dr. Price thread if this keeps up.
I lol'd
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If the Creator of the universe gives you His own testimony, is it sensible or even sane to ignore it, and call that close-mindedness science?
That's a pretty huge "if."
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Sean, it has been successfully done with mice. I remember studying it back in 2000 -- it's not new science. I believe I've written about it here, but it was a long time ago and I haven't been in science for years now.
Not just the x-chromosomes either, but the entire genome can come from two fathers or two mothers. There are, of course, complications. There isn't a 50/50 shot of getting one parent's genetic information. Some genes are "gendered", for want of a better term, and if you lack a "male" and a "female" copy, interesting things happen.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Interesting, Bob, thanks. I must be remembering something incorrectly.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:Not just the x-chromosomes either, but the entire genome can come from two fathers or two mothers
But Ron seems to be saying that Eve was created from two identical x-chromosomes taken from Adam (she couldn't have two daddies, because there was only one human with one x). So basically, she would have one chromosome duplicated.
How on earth could that work?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
This is some serious angels-on-pin-heads stuff here. Ron believes in an actually omnipotent God. He can do *anything* that he wants. He could make it work with 32 copies of X and a breakfast burrito if he wanted to.
In a world where God can do absolutely anything, there is nothing that can't be explained by simply saying "God wanted it that way" including the idea that the photons from stars that appear to be billions of years old was created en route at the same moment the stars themselves were created, around 10,000 or so years ago.
So questions like "how on earth could that work" are sort of beside the point unless you think God must follow some rules beyond his own will.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Yeah, I know. But Ron was specifying something reasonably coherent here and I was just thinking about how that could possibly go down in practice, if we all ignored the burrito philosophy.
But you're right. It's futile, really.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I can be sure of only two things in this thread:
1) Ron is wrong about evolutionary science & biology, and 2) Ron is very likely to be wrong about God & Scripture
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I can be sure of only two things in this thread:
1) Ron is wrong about evolutionary science & biology, and 2) Ron is very likely to be wrong about God & Scripture
I am sure of one thing.
1) Bob is right about those two things.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, to be fair, I don't know how you can say with much authority that someone is more likely than someone else to be wrong about God unless they're holding something internally inconsistent.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: This is some serious angels-on-pin-heads stuff here. Ron believes in an actually omnipotent God. He can do *anything* that he wants. He could make it work with 32 copies of X and a breakfast burrito if he wanted to.
Well yes, but Ron is also being inconsistent on this point, in saying that it couldn't have worked if the female had been created first, because where would the Y chromosome come from?
quote:If God had started with a woman, He would have had to create an entire new chromosome, the Y chromosome, for the man.
Now for an omnipotent god who 'creates' by saying "Let it be so", this strikes me as a bit oh teh noes, extra works, whatever shall we do. But if you take it as given that the god only wants to do the chromosome-specifying bit once, then there is in fact a problem with the two identical X chromosomes.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Of course, you are all entitled to your opinions. But I have backed up most of what I have said--from Scripture, to show I just didn't make it up myself; and verified by perfectly fulfilled prophecy concerning the entire outline of history, something true of no other writing or purported "holy scripture." This fulfilled prophecy is God's validating signature. He presents to us His "credentials" in the prophecies of the Bible, especially those in the book of Daniel.
As for how God actually made Eve, of course, I am just guessing. But I do assume that once God has ordained natural laws, He will work within them. The Bible says God took a rib out of Adam and made Eve from it. God could have taken an X chromosome from each of two of Adam's cells. Or He could have converted one of Adam's Y chromosomes into an X chromosome. The Bible does not say anything about how Eve was gestated. Presumably God made Eve into a fully developed adult, just as He did Adam, but starting with Adam's rib and genes.
As for how God was able to create a universe that was light, not darkness, to begin with--just as He created mature trees in Eden and not saplings--His methods are not revealed. But we do know that things had to be different at the very beginning of the universe, when the immense heat alone would have accelerated radioactive decay as much as a trillion fold (we have found this to be true in the lab with lutetium heated to the plasma state). This could reasonably imply that the speed of light in a vacuum limit was different at the very start.
What these things mean is not that natural law was suspended, but rather that there are corollaries to natural law--that under special circumstances, certain supposed "constants" will be different.
For example, Newtonian laws of motion work and seem accurate within certain limits. It is not until you approach the speed of light in a vacuum that Einsteinian physics takes over. This does not mean that the laws of physics are suspended; it means that we did not know all the laws of physics, including their extensions in special circumstances.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It is my hope, Ron, that you someday learn to look more critically at what you consider the "perfectly fulfilled prophecies concerning the entire outline of history."
You're someone who is, after all, cynical enough to wonder whether doctors might have left a breathing tube in just to shut somebody up for a while longer; I am astonished that you do not treat Biblical prophecy with even a tenth of that skepticism.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I know the thread has moved onto a different subject, but the anthropologist in me needed to get this out.
quote:There are lots of different species of ape-like/monkey-like primates on earth. But where are all the human-like similar species? Unless you want to venture onto the mine field of claiming that African blacks and European whites represent different species, or some such thing, there are some branches of your supposed evolutionary tree that are conspicuously missing.
Homo neanderthalensis extinct Homo floresiensis extinct Homo habilis extinct, but within our evolutionary line Homo erectus extinct, and currently thought to be the common anscestor of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis
While I don't know what caused the extinction of Homo florensis (mainly because as of my last course, its status in the genus Homo and the method of its extinction was still under debate.) we do know that Neanderthals went extinct due to: changing climate conditions to which they were not well adapted to, combined with competition with Homo sapiens for food and resources. In addition, there is some evidence, but by no means conclusive, that there were isolated incidents of human--neanderthal cross breeding. In other words, there are species within our own genus all of which are extinct. Our ability to study other species in our genus are frustrated by the climates where Homo erectus (the progenitor of humans and neanderthals) chose to live. In two climates, Africa and Europe, the climate was conducive to preserving their remains for a long time. In South and South-East Asia, on the other hand, we do not have a complete fossil record between Homo erectus and whatever species did or did not evolve from it there because organic remains do not last long in humid environments.
Other human-like species: where we define human like to mean homonid (sharing the homonid dental pattern and having opposable thumbs)
Australopithicus afarensis Ardipithecus ramidus Proconsul to name a few from memory.
As an added two cents: we do not have a full picture of human evolution because there is still more to be discovered. No evidence that has been discovered, has yet shown evolution to be false. At best, the evidence we have has only required us to revisit and revise evolution. We do not yet have compelling evidence to suggest that the theory is completely false.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Well, Ron believes in Truth and Science, which he proves by quoting bible verses. Which, of course, is neither.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
*Read thread title*: "What?!? ...Ohhhh..."
*Click anyway...*
*Glance, skim...*
A post by TomD! *read carefully, feel enlightened*
Thanks, Tom.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Epictetus, perhaps you missed my point about all the monkey-like and ape-like species living in the world today, where I asked where all the human-like species are. You could not name any living today. You could only list species presumed to be extinct, based on fossil remains. I notice you did not include "Piltdown Man." I wonder if Neanderthals were alive today, whether we would classify them as simply a variation on modern man, and not really a separate species. (I always thought Yogi Berra looked a little like a Neanderthal, but that was just a subjective impression.) I recall reading some speculation that Neanderthal may have actually merged with modern man by interbreeding. If they could interbreed, then probably most people would say that indicates they are essentially the same species.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, I have looked critically at the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible compared to history using objective methods of interpretation, and as I have said several times, the prophecies foretold future history more than two thousand years in advance, perfectly in every single detail. What more evidence does it take to impress you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have looked critically at the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible compared to history using objective methods of interpretation...
No, you haven't.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Ron, you asked -
quote:There are lots of different species of ape-like/monkey-like primates on earth. But where are all the human-like similar species? Unless you want to venture onto the mine field of claiming that African blacks and European whites represent different species, or some such thing, there are some branches of your supposed evolutionary tree that are conspicuously missing.
Now you say -
quote: Epictetus, perhaps you missed my point about all the monkey-like and ape-like species living in the world today, where I asked where all the human-like species are. You could not name any living today. You could only list species presumed to be extinct, based on fossil remains
Unless you are suggesting that all fossils are fakes created to trick us all (and I think you probably are), this doesn't make sense.
However, Epictetus answered your question extensively, and didn't miss a point which you didn't actually make. You asked where they are. Ep. told you - they're dead. It can't be helped if you don't happen to agree with that answer. Bones is bones.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Your original post did not specify "alive today". As a point of order, there are many species that exist today that while related to other species have no living members of their own genus: Sperm Whales are an example. Other genra such as Pan only have two extant species. Despite the fact that bonobos and chimps look like other monkeys, they are not classified in the same genus as gorillas, rhesus monkeys, or baboons.
You do not have to believe what I've written, I only wrote it to correct what I saw as a glaring error on your part. I've lurked long enough to know that trying to convince you otherwise is like pounding sand. Continue in your beliefs but do not expect me to take you seriously in matters of science. You have given me no reason to so far.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Epictetus, I said "There are lots of different species of ape-like/monkey-like primates on earth. But where are all the human-like similar species?" Do you see the key words, "are" and "on earth"? Not "were" and "under earth." Your refusal to acknowledge that my words did certainly imply "living on earth today" is just playing games. Why should I take seriously anything you have to say about science, when you so careless in your comprehension?
Tom: Yes I have. Show where I haven't. Cite any specific instance where a prophetic detail I quoted did not exactly correspond to history, or show where my methods of interpretation were not truly objective. I have listed them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Cite any specific instance where a prophetic detail I quoted did not exactly correspond to history, or show where my methods of interpretation were not truly objective.
Ron, you do not understand what the phrase "truly objective" means, and your pride prevents you from recognizing the flaws in your process even when they are pointed out to you. You have demonstrated this at great lengths over the years.
I would be willing to go over this once more with you, had I any belief whatsoever that you were actually interested in learning why your methods are insufficient. I do not believe this, however; rather, I think you are heavily invested in believing that you have somehow "proven" your faith to your satisfaction, and worry that undermining this certainty would actually cause you a fair amount of distress.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You could do it anyway under the assumption that he's not at significant risk of distressing himself?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
No, Tom, I have stated my methods of interpretation, and anyone can see they are objective. I ask you again, instead of making unsubstantiated claims, give me a specific example of a Bible prophetic detail I have set forth that does not correspond to history perfectly, and show wherein I have not been objective in my methods of interpretation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Anyone being 'anyone minus the greater majority of humanity, and the overwhelming majority of historians', of course. What strange distortions you must do with language, Ron.
Though, to be fair, Tom, I don't really credit that you're worried about causing Ron distress, not because I think that notion would be indifferent to you, but because I think you're quite aware you can't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:give me a specific example of a Bible prophetic detail I have set forth that does not correspond to history perfectly
Tell you what: I'll play your game if you can ask the right questions, the questions that you would need to ask if you were trying to be "truly objective." Give it a shot.
(Hint: that does not include "which of my handpicked, personally-interpreted predictions fails to match history as I am willing to understand it?")
----------
quote:I think you're quite aware you can't.
I dunno. I worry that Ron protesteth too much occasionally, if you get my drift. Someone who was completely and genuinely unflappable wouldn't need to be so demonstrative.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
How about rapture and/or revelation? They certainly haven't happened.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: How about rapture and/or revelation? They certainly haven't happened.
I think you are using the wrong word when you say "revelation". Most if not all religious people believe that revelations have happened.
As for the rapture, I don't think Ron has ever specified a date for this event so the fact that it hasn't happened YET, is not an example of the unreliability of his predictions.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I do not believe the so-called "Rapture" is a sound Bible teaching. It is a heresy dreamed up by subjectivists who took a very few selected passages out of context and interpreted them in a fanciful way.
Tom, et. al., you keep trying to wriggle out of it. But the burden of proof is on you. You have claimed that Bible prophecy does not correlate exactly in every detail to the history it speaks of, even though I have published in several forums (including Ornery) and linked to them in this forum, a representative example of how Bible prophecy does foretell the future of the world with exact accuracy in every detail of the prophecy, and I have published my three methods of interpretation, which surely any reasonable, fair-minded person would concede are objective, and not subjective. So I challenge you for a third time: GIVE ME A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE.
[ January 16, 2011, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
quote: When I am playing in a sporting event, I pray that evolution will give one of our players a mutation, so that we may win the game.
Depending on your choice of words, one could say I am a mutant but I would do poorly in most sports I am afraid to say. Running with my clubfoot is... well it argues against intelligent design.
AchilllesHeel, I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but its highly unlikely that your clubfoot is the result of a genetic abnormality so its a very poor example. There are much better examples like the poor design of the birth canal and a skeletal structure poorly designed for walking upright. The human body bears all the features expected in a design that has been repeatedly tweeked and modified to perform new functions and not one that was designed de-novo for a specific purpose.
The difficult is with this line of reasoning is that (presuming humans qualify as intelligent), intelligent beings engage in all kinds of design processes and intelligent beings design things will all manner of flaws (features ). By this very same reasoning, we could include that there are no intelligent designers working for microsoft .
This the very heart of why intelligent design (at least in its most popular forms) is not a scientific hypothesis. Its not predictive. It does not generate any falsifiable hypotheses.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But the burden of proof is on you. You have claimed that Bible prophecy does not correlate exactly in every detail to the history it speaks of, even though I have published in several forums (including Ornery) and linked to them in this forum, a representative example of how Bible prophecy does foretell the future of the world with exact accuracy in every detail of the prophecy, and I have published my three methods of interpretation, which surely any reasonable, fair-minded person would concede are objective, and not subjective.
Let me address some points.
1) You claim that the accuracy of the prophecies of the Bible constitutes proof that the Bible is true. This consists of three separate claims: that Biblical prophecy is accurate; that this accuracy could only be due to supernatural intervention/information; and that supernatural intervention on behalf of Biblical prophecy could only support the truth of the Bible.
These are three claims you are making. The burden of proof is on you for each of them.
Let's continue.
2) The "evidence" you've provided has been disputed everywhere I've seen you provide it. Disputations have included: a) that one or more prophecies were written following the event depicted; b) that the historical event chosen to match the prophecy was cherry-picked specifically because, after over a thousand years, it was the event that most closely matched the prophecy; c) that the predictions you are willing to consider prophecies are themselves cherry-picked, and that you have a tendency to consider unambiguous prophecies which went unfulfilled to be merely "metaphor;" d) that your interpretation of a given prophecy is often ridiculous, twisted beyond recognition to fit the historical event that best matches your narrative; e) and that many of the historical events you claim line up with a given prophecy often do not line up when you examine them more closely (like, for example, the number of "empires" since Daniel.) You often have a ready explanation for each of these criticisms, but I have yet to meet a single individual who has found those explanations satisfactory.
3) I do not accept the claim that you have never, in almost a decade of my acquaintance, spoken with a reasonable, fair-minded person anywhere I could see you. At yet, manifestly, in a decade, no one has found your arguments persuasive.
4) And let's be clear about that: we're talking about whether or not they're even persuasive. That's actually a far lower standard than "objective." Again, I'm not sure you know how to word one of your proofs of prophecy in a way that might be objective; I don't think you really understand what the word means. It's certainly true that there are a variety of fairly easy ways you could modify some of your claims to make them objectively true, but I've never seen you do it.
If you'd like to give it a shot, please do. I'm very curious to see whether you're capable of it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I do not believe the so-called "Rapture" is a sound Bible teaching. It is a heresy dreamed up by subjectivists who took a very few selected passages out of context and interpreted them in a fanciful way.
You know, I don't think I can actually argue against that.
edit: Oh wait, snap, I can, your argument is an ad hominem although my biblical scholar friend agrees with your conclusion.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, in regard to your point (1), I have provided the proof.
On your point (2), I have refuted those claims that Daniel (for example) was written later than it claims--based on sound scholarship, cited from authoritative sources concerning the vocabulary used in the original languages, etc.--which in fact prove the opposite, that Daniel was written in 600 B.C. not 200 B.C. I also made the point that the prophecies of Daniel go far beyond 200 B.C., and continue to be perfectly accurate far into the Christian age, and even to modern times in the history of Europe.
As for cherry-picking, I presented long sequences of Bible prophecy, not just one verse here and there. I am well able to go through the entire chapter seven of Daniel phrase-by-phrase and symbol by symbol, and it would be the same. But that would take a book-length manuscript, while the examples I did give were representative.
As for your point (3), you claim that no one in a decade has found my arguments persuasive. Well, these are the main arguments my church uses in its evangelistic campaigns for the general public, and a hundred thousand people join our church every year, in rhe USA alone. The number is over a million worldwide.
Maybe you mean just in this forum. Just because you and less than two dozen other diehards refuse to be persuaded by anything I say does not mean that my arguments are not persuasive. That is your choice, not any deficiency in my arguments.
As for you point (4), I have listed before my methods of interpretation. Would you please state where these methods are not objective, as opposed to subjective--the type of interpretation that the Apostle Peter forbids in 2 Peter 1:20?
In case you are unwilling to look them up, here they are again. Tell me how these are not honest, fair-minded, logically sound methods of determining what the text actually means. I reproduce here the original statements I made:
In the interpretation of Bible prophecy, we must ever keep in mind the strict admonition of 2 Peter 1:20, 21: "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (NKJV)
In order to avoid a private interpretation, we must do three reasonable things:
First, all prophetic symbols must be defined by Scripture alone. We can do this, because the prophets “spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” Thus prophecies written a thousand years apart in different languages, can still be relied upon to be consistent in the meaning of the symbols used. This is one of the strongest evidences for the divine inspiration of the Bible—that this works! One Divine Mind is in evidence over all. An example of the way prophetic symbols are defined in Scripture is seen in Revelation 17:15: “Then the angel said to me, "The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.” (NIV)
Second, the prophecies must be applied to history, during the time periods context indicates to us that they apply. This is seen in the prophecies of Daniel (see for example Daniel 8:20-26, where the angel names the empires in historical sequence that correspond to the symbols). Also in Revelation five, the context is the Judgment. This indicates to us when the prophecies of the seven seals must be applied by comparison to history.
Third, we must be careful in understanding whether something is literal narrative, or symbolic. One of the most simple methods of doing this is to ask ourselves if what is described CAN reasonably be literal. If most likely not, then we should expect it to be figurative and symbolic. Also we should note if an image or statement is specifically defined as symbolic or is used frequently as a prophetic symbol or metaphor in other places in the Bible. We should not have to guess about this. We can look it up.
All these methods exemplify the principles of sound scholarship, which you would apply to understanding any literary work, even Shakespeare (who was highly metaphorical).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:(1), I have provided the proof.
No.
quote:On your point (2), I have refuted those claims that Daniel (for example) was written later than it claims--based on sound scholarship, cited from authoritative sources concerning the vocabulary used in the original languages, etc.
Again, no. You and I disagree on what constitutes, for example, an "authoritative source" and/or "sound scholarship."
quote:As for cherry-picking, I presented long sequences of Bible prophecy...
Yeah, it's a lot like only looking at the coded DNA, really. Bear in mind that you have arrogated to yourself the right to declare which predictions constitute real prophecies, rather than metaphors, and then comb through thousands of years of history to find the best matches.
quote:As for your point (3), you claim that no one in a decade has found my arguments persuasive. Well, these are the main arguments my church uses in its evangelistic campaigns for the general public, and a hundred thousand people join our church every year, in rhe USA alone. The number is over a million worldwide.
Maybe you mean just in this forum.
I mean, as I said before, that I have never seen anyone convinced by your religious arguments. Not once. In ten years. On multiple forums. Do you really believe that the best explanation of this is that, over ten years, you have never spoken to a reasonable person where I could see it happen?
quote:As for you point (4), I have listed before my methods of interpretation. Would you please state where these methods are not objective, as opposed to subjective--the type of interpretation that the Apostle Peter forbids in 2 Peter 1:20?
Are you choosing to define "objective" as "according to the instructions of the Bible?" Because that's not what it means.
If you want to try again, I'm willing to let you. When you've satisfied me that you know what an objective fact is, I'll have the rest of this conversation with you.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
Ron,
You need to start with the premise that the bible is not automatically correct/right and then demonstrate that the prophecies it contains were true. Almost every time I have seen you present any "proof" of something it's started with the assumption that the bible and/or your religious beliefs were "facts".
If you're serious about your scholarship and being able to "prove" these things then PLEASE take the time to do so in a step-by-step manner using commonly acceptable definitions of "proof". I have seen Tom challenge you repeatedly but I have yet to see you actually try to do so. Instead you continue to ignore the guidelines of normal scholarship and then just claim it's a conspiracy against you.
It's exhausting, embarrassing to watch and frankly I think I'm not alone in getting sick of it. I'm sure you're going to just complain again that we're dog-piling on you, but the reality is that you bring it on yourself by your arrogance in always insisting you are right, even once you've been PROVEN wrong.
PLEASE, PLEASE show me and everyone else that we are wrong about you and try to act like a respectful, thoughtful person and walk step-by-step through your proof. I'm very interested in seeing it, but I'm not interested in wading through your claims that anyone who disagrees or criticizes your statements is "out to get you" because you've "clearly proven.." etc etc.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I must conclude you naysayers are all cowards. Three times I have challenged you to provide a specific example where a Bible prophecy I have mentioned did not correlate with exact accuracy to history, and you always duck this most reasonable of all challenges. You claim I am not objective--and again I have challenged you to show wherein the methods of interpretation I use are not objective.
I explained why the method of allowing the Bible to interpret all its own terms and symbols logically derives from the assumption that One Divine Mind inspired all of Scripture, and some of you inaccurately try to claim I am using circular reasoning or something. That same method I use is appropriate for use in interpreting any work of literature, including Shakespeare--where we know one mind produced it. The fact that I derive the principle from the assumption that One Divine Mind inspired all the Bible, should be a devasting proof in itself, once you see that prophecy interpreted this way does indeed match history perfectly. It proves the inspiration of the Bible. You keep ducking and squirming around this. What you need to do is quit playing games and face up to it. I repeat again, GIVE ME A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. You know you can't. That's why you keep inventing every other irrelant comeback you can think of.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: That same method I use is appropriate for use in interpreting any work of literature, including Shakespeare--where we know one mind produced it.
Um... no. We don't actually know that. In fact, whether Shakespeare's works were written by one person is one of the most contested points among Shakespearian scholars.
I happen to think that one person wrote it all. This makes sense to me and I can create arguments using carefully chosen extracts of certain works that support my claim. However, just because I am convinced, and might be able to convince you, doesn't actually mean that I am right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron, again, I will have this conversation when you can demonstrate to me that you know what an objective fact is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron, it's not that people can't. It's that you're playing a transparently crooked game, a sham of faith in God to be frank. You so frequently use words like 'objective, literal, logical'. These words stand on their own. You cannot rationally use them and then go about setting conditions as you then go right on ahead and do.
"I've got this objective, logical argument. It's unassailable. You can only challenge it in thus and so ways, however. Allow me to explain. If you challenge it in a way different from the method I've outlined, you lose and you're a coward." God doesn't need you to fight battles. Truth is true no matter what sort of rhetorical hoops you leap through. It's been awhile since I've heard something so silly from a human being as the notion that they have a lock on what is true but then suggest, in seriousness, that it cannot be challenged except under specific conditions.
That's the kind of thing that's encountered all the time among human beings, but in subtle unspoken ways. Yet you're quite above board about it. An honest hypocrisy, I suppose.
But even if I were to grant your first two conditions for your rigged game for the sake of argument, and I never would because, again, truth that cannot be assailed except under certain conditions is obviously not true, the third condition renders it critically suspect: the one that points out the need to understand the difference between the literal or the symbolic.
Now, please proceed to name-calling, or pretending this post never happened, or (one of my favorites) asserting that I'm an atheist agnostic detractor or something. I do so enjoy that. Or perhaps you can rope in a Second Amendment enemy? That was another line of inquiry from you that never went anywhere.
And yet you've the nerve to call others cowards, Ron. What an unpleasant judgment you'd face, by your own lights, for that kind of rank hypocrisy, over such an extended period of time. Fortunately your own lights are, even by those lights, so badly contradictory and mixed up that there's little chance of them being the real deal. Beams and motes, man. Apply some sound scholarship to that, if you dare. Which of course you won't.
Why not let this be like the time, quite recently, when you asked for professional medical opinions as to whether doctors would keep a government official intubated to gag her in defense of your bizarre opinion, and then when you got it just swept it under the rug with a casual, "Oh, what I really meant was..." Very manly, very strong. As strong as gun ownership, that is!
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I must conclude you naysayers are all cowards. Three times I have challenged you to provide a specific example where a Bible prophecy I have mentioned did not correlate with exact accuracy to history, and you always duck this most reasonable of all challenges. You claim I am not objective--and again I have challenged you to show wherein the methods of interpretation I use are not objective.
I explained why the method of allowing the Bible to interpret all its own terms and symbols logically derives from the assumption that One Divine Mind inspired all of Scripture, and some of you inaccurately try to claim I am using circular reasoning or something. That same method I use is appropriate for use in interpreting any work of literature, including Shakespeare--where we know one mind produced it. The fact that I derive the principle from the assumption that One Divine Mind inspired all the Bible, should be a devasting proof in itself, once you see that prophecy interpreted this way does indeed match history perfectly. It proves the inspiration of the Bible. You keep ducking and squirming around this. What you need to do is quit playing games and face up to it. I repeat again, GIVE ME A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. You know you can't. That's why you keep inventing every other irrelant comeback you can think of.
Ron: Calling everybody who disagrees with you cowards, is just as bad, if not more so, than people calling you irrational.
You are filling more than your allotment of unacceptable posts. Please knock it off.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I explained why the method of allowing the Bible to interpret all its own terms and symbols logically derives from the assumption that One Divine Mind inspired all of Scripture...
And why, again, should the rest of us make this assumption?
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote:Why should I take seriously anything you have to say about science, when you so careless in your comprehension?
I have already stated my reasons for answering the question the way I did: I maintain your statement was not specific. You asked where they were and I told you they were dead. If you really think about this, you could make the evidence I presented to you work for your argument, but that's none of my concern.
As to why you should take me seriously? I'm sure I have no clue. That's for you to decide and I certainly never demanded that you take me seriously; I only said my two cents. It is up to you what you do with it.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Just to throw it out there, because I do love creationism so much, if you prove that humanity was created a few thousand years ago does that really "prove" anything? It doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible is right, just that one part is right. Accurately detailing creation doesn't lend a book any moral or spiritual worth beyond that detail. It certainly doesn't fix any other theological problems, such as the fact that there are two accounts of creation in the Bible or the inconsistency of testaments. Instead you are fixated on contingency, rescuing the possibility of your belief from being inconsistent. Of course I am an evil Catholic and am a firm believer that Protestant theology is weak ; )
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I kind of wanted this to just be about, you know, biology. As opposed to turning once more into Ron envisioning himself a biblical prophet-scholar of 'objective facts' or whatever.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sean--because it WORKS. Taking definitions of symbols from Bible prophecies written a thousand years apart, even in different languages, produces a consistently sensible meaning. In fact, this demonstrates that the New Testament is equally as inspired as the Old Testament, because the same is evident from the prophetic symbols used in Revelation, Matthew 24, Thessalonians, etc.--compared to Daniel and Zechariah 1-6, etc.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Janitor Blade--I used the term "cowards" reluctantly. But I could not think of any other way to say it. They have ducked four times now my direct, compeletely reasonable demand that they provide a specific example of what they claim, that I have not shown that Bible prophecy is accurate in every detail in foretelling the outline of future history, when I have already given them examples. I have also listed twice my methods of interpretation, by which I avoid making a "private" interpretation. All they do is quibble about the latter, trying to head off on a tangent. The fact remains that they have not backed up their claims with any specific example. I think it is entirely fair for me to question their unwillingness to do this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm skeptical of your claim to reluctant name-calling in light of your frequent use of that kind of attack elsewhere, Ron.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Taking definitions of symbols from Bible prophecies written a thousand years apart, even in different languages, produces a consistently sensible meaning. In fact, this demonstrates that the New Testament is equally as inspired as the Old Testament...
*facepalm* Yeah, see, that's one of those examples of "proof" that doesn't count as proof.
"This rock represents solidity in both these works of literature! They must have had the same author!"
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Janitor Blade--I used the term "cowards" reluctantly. But I could not think of any other way to say it. They have ducked four times now my direct, compeletely reasonable demand that they provide a specific example of what they claim, that I have not shown that Bible prophecy is accurate in every detail in foretelling the outline of future history, when I have already given them examples. I have also listed twice my methods of interpretation, by which I avoid making a "private" interpretation. All they do is quibble about the latter, trying to head off on a tangent. The fact remains that they have not backed up their claims with any specific example. I think it is entirely fair for me to question their unwillingness to do this.
Spend a few more moments phrasing your words then Ron. It's a good practice everytime you write out a pejorative to instead say what they are doing that bothers you. Here's some ideas*.
"It bothers me that people are not answering my challenge directly."
"I wish people would stop dancing around the meat of my statement"
"I'm annoyed that my statement X has yet to be responded to, I felt it was quite an apt point."
"I'm not talking about anything else until somebody answers the central premise of my argument."
It's really not that hard Ron. Please try harder.
*Of how to correctly say your idea, which I do not agree with necessarily.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
JanitorBlade, I agree with most of the alternate wordings you suggest. Of course, I have used them. One alternate wording you suggested I would not agree with, where you said: "I'm not talking about anything else until somebody answers the central premise of my argument." That strikes me as somewhat impudent and controlling, as if I were saying "Play my way or I won't play." I have always resisted allowing people to put their words in my mouth, or dictate to me what I have to respond to in order for them to listen to me, respect me, whatever the treatened punishment may be. Besides, that would lock me into one mode of behavior--not talking about anything else. I will not allow myself to be manipulated that way. I have plenty to say about a lot of things.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be fair, I am saying that I won't have this discussion with you, Ron, until you demonstrate that you actually know what "objectivity" is and how to recognize it.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sean--because it WORKS. Taking definitions of symbols from Bible prophecies written a thousand years apart, even in different languages, produces a consistently sensible meaning. In fact, this demonstrates that the New Testament is equally as inspired as the Old Testament, because the same is evident from the prophetic symbols used in Revelation, Matthew 24, Thessalonians, etc.--compared to Daniel and Zechariah 1-6, etc.
This doesn't really answer my question. You're saying (if A then B)* is true. I'm asking why we should believe (A) is true to begin with. You went on to explain why (B) logically follows from (A).
*(A) = the assumption that One Divine Mind inspired all of Scripture. (B) = that the Bible can interpret all its own terms and symbols.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sean, allowing the Bible to interpret all its own symbols is essential for avoiding a private interpretation, where it becomes a competition to see who can come up with the most imaginative flight of fancy. What could be more objectively sound scholarship than to allow the Bible to tell you what its own terms and symbols mean? How can you not recognize this as a sound method of scholarship?
The miraculous thing is that when you find a definition for "waters" as a prophetic symbol, like the explicit one given in Revelation 17:15, and then "plug in" that same definition in Daniel 7:3 (where sea obviously is a synonym for waters), it makes perfect sense--and so also for everywhere else in the Bible the symbol is used. Mountains as a prophetic symbol always means kingdoms or empires. All throughout the Bible. "Smoke" as a prophetic symbol, or the related symbol "clouds" always means manifestation of supernatural power. It makes perfect sense everywhere in the Bible where these symbols are used. We even see it in the "pillar of cloud" by which the Lord led the children of Israel through the wilderness by day. The smoke or cloud is not always divine, though. Context informs us whether it is divine or Satanic. But the basic meaning is always consistent.
Once you have seen this, then you have to come to terms with the fact that the Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years by a multitude of different people, in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and koiné Greek). Since it is evident that in most cases the Bible writers who wrote down the symbolic imagery given to them in the visions they were shown did not always understand what they meant themselves, the only way to account for this consistency of meaning is to recognize that the visions given to the Bible prophets were genuine, and all came from One Mind, the Spirit of God who gave the prophets these visions.
In what way could this fail to be compellingly persuasive to you? What other explanation is there for these things?
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
It seems that the whole issue of private interpretation could have been addressed much more easily and efficiently by avoiding the use of symbols in the first place.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
So, it seems to me now that when I ask why should we accept (A)= true, you are saying "Because (B)".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: In what way could this fail to be compellingly persuasive to you?
I ... am, well, pretty much convinced you have no idea how it couldn't be!
But if you were capable of it, someday, like, you woke up and realized these little things, it would blow your mind and .. I don't know, cause a life crisis or something.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: So questions like "how on earth could that work" are sort of beside the point unless you think God must follow some rules beyond his own will.
Funny, this is what I believe. God has rules he has to follow. I for one believe that God used evolution to create life.
To me, the whole "Let there be" phrase wasn't a "snap His fingers and it just happened" thing, it more of a planning/delegation thing. God told his Lab Assistants to do something, and they took care of it.
I use those terms loosely, but you get the idea. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: So questions like "how on earth could that work" are sort of beside the point unless you think God must follow some rules beyond his own will.
Funny, this is what I believe. God has rules he has to follow. I for one believe that God used evolution to create life.
To me, the whole "Let there be" phrase wasn't a "snap His fingers and it just happened" thing, it more of a planning/delegation thing. God told his Lab Assistants to do something, and they took care of it.
I use those terms loosely, but you get the idea.
Eminently sensible, but it's not the traditional idea. The tradition, going back to the earliest Catholic metaphysicians and affirmed by the first Protestants, holds that God is all powerful and has no limits. Except perhaps the laws of logic.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Eminently sensible, but it's not the traditional idea. The tradition, going back to the earliest Catholic metaphysicians and affirmed by the first Protestants, holds that God is all powerful and has no limits. Except perhaps the laws of logic.
But, as far as I know, that tradition is not held by the LDS church. No idea if that's what Geraine's affiliation is, but with the demographics of this site its something to always try and keep in mind.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
The longer this discussion goes on the more it reminds me of that recent Denzel Washington/train movie, except that no one here is stopping the collision from happening.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
It's not a great thread.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
There should be more cookies. Although I have to eat them gluten-free these days. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: In what way could this fail to be compellingly persuasive to you? What other explanation is there for these things?
An easy alternate explanation to pick out is that these were all pre-established culturally as symbols for the things they are symbols for in the Bible. That, and centuries of editing made sure nothing contradicted the cohesive message. That, and the taught interpretation which enforces the notion of that consistency was developed alongside the actual text.
Do you think the widespread use of the heart symbol, everywhere meaning relatively similar things, is an example of divine intervention? Or the smiley face? We have about a bazillion iconic images and symbols in our culture that have no well defined source, but are not claimed as divine symbols. Rather, and most especially with elemental symbols, anthropologists have fairly convincing theories of why these symbols are universally understood in strikingly similar ways by so many cultures. Unsurprisingly, basic mythological concepts and symbols are as universal as basic hunter-gatherer tribal life experience is. Water in the valley brings life. Smoke from fire is powerful, as is the thundercloud. Shoooocker! I suppose you think that the greeks were also inspired by the One God, since they modeled their multiple gods on the same symbols, and the same meanings for those symbols. But the fact that writers will likely be agreeing on their symbolic significance for a thousand more years is not incredible, really. It's sort of mundanely self-evident.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I might accept the similarity of symbols as some sort of proof of a divine hand if all of the references in the Bible had been written without ever seeing any of the other references. But words written when the author had access to the earlier words, as well as years of teaching of those words and their interpretations? It would be surprising to me if they didn't match.
If a biblical scholar decided to write a new book today, it would doubtless contain the same symbols with the same meanings and yet that wouldn't necessarily mean divine authorship. It might just mean he paid attention in class.
So how about specific prophecies? Want to take a swing at Ezekiel 26?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So far, most of the prophecy claims I've seen go something like this:
Everything has come true in every particular! Surely it was divinely-inspired prophecy!
Except for these verses over here, but they're actually metaphorical and not meant to be taken literally. Or these verses, but you have to study the context to understand that. Or these verses, where predictions seem to name specific people but really they actually refer to the peoples that one person represents, or something. Or these verses, where specific predictions about specific cities being destroyed really did come true because those cities had a kind of a low point economically a thousand years later or so, even though they're fine now, but it still totally counts. Or the ones about practices or lineages or named cities lasting forever even though they ended later on, because they continue in heaven or somewhere we can't see. Or the one about the Nile drying up, or the numerous nations God promised to cast out which never quite happened, or the places where Matthew misquoted previous prophecies to make them come true, those don't count either.
But everything else was true in every particular!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I explained why the method of allowing the Bible to interpret all its own terms and symbols logically derives from the assumption that One Divine Mind inspired all of Scripture, and some of you inaccurately try to claim I am using circular reasoning or something.
Since your explanations boil down to "the Bible is true because the Bible proves it's true," then yes, I think "circular reasoning" covers that nicely.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
[crickets]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
No, Chris. You may think you are being logical, but you are not. You are just rationalizing, trying to squirm and dance around the real significance of the things I have pointed out.
Guess what. These issues are a matter of life and death for eternity. You need to take them more seriously, and be more honest and responsible in your analyses. I confidently stake my life on everything that I have said. The Truth does exist. The Truth is knowable. And I know Him personally. I have peace over these matters. You could, too--if you were not so determined to resist. God will prove Himself to anyone who is willing to give Him a fair opportunity.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: These issues are a matter of life and death for eternity.
Uh... no, they're not.
You might think they are, and some might agree, but assuming this position for everyone else is demonstrating both ignorance and arrogance (or is that ignorant arrogance or arrogant ignorance?).
Or intentional trolling... I'm still not sure which category you fit into.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
What a surprise! Disagreement with ron = eternal hellfire.
again.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, see, Ron, in order to demonstrate that someone is speaking illogically you must actually show in what way they have done so. Not say they've done so and then make whoopie about the afterlife. And, of course, I doubt very much whether you know anything about Chris's state of spiritual welfare, anymore than you know about my politics about which you so repeatedly, factually prove almost totally ignorant.
At this point, having been told so many times by so many people, that you don't know what they're thinking, having been asked directly to address claims you've made (not these Biblical prophecy claims, mind, that's a rigged game as you've admitted, though you won't admit you've admitted it), you're just chickening out. Again, as usual.
If the Bible is so provably true, it's true when anyone looks at it. Not just someone using the Bible to verify its authenticity. What an absurd, silly standard. You don't gauge an individual's integrity by asking him if he's being honest.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I confidently stake my life on everything that I have said. The Truth does exist. The Truth is knowable. And I know Him personally.
From related litanies, I've heard that fear is the mind-killer, and passion leads to anger, and lowering the tax rate leads to increased federal revenue.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
May the Laffer anoint us with his holy curve.
quote:What an absurd, silly standard. You don't gauge an individual's integrity by asking him if he's being honest.
You have to keep in mind that you are mentioning this to an individual who gagues his own correctness on a similarly flimsy standard. If I say it, ron says, it is not only true, but it should be evident; that, and lack of agreement shows weakness and even corruption of the mind and soul.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Eminently sensible, but it's not the traditional idea. The tradition, going back to the earliest Catholic metaphysicians and affirmed by the first Protestants, holds that God is all powerful and has no limits. Except perhaps the laws of logic.
But, as far as I know, that tradition is not held by the LDS church. No idea if that's what Geraine's affiliation is, but with the demographics of this site its something to always try and keep in mind.
I am LDS. The church does not really have an offical stance on evolution. Bruce R. McConkie didn't believe in evolution, but James E. Talmage did. James E. Talmage presented the idea that since plant and animal life had been on the earth far before man and that death DID exist prior to Adam. He even thought that there could have been a Pre-Adamic race.
The churches official stance is something along the lines of "We don't know how God did it, He just did. He'll tell us how he did it when we are ready to learn it."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I think what Xavier meant is that God is not omnipotent according to LDS theology. That's my understanding as well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
There needs to be a word for being able to do all that can be done, but not anything.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think the term you are looking for is "Chuck Norris".
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:There needs to be a word for being able to do all that can be done, but not anything.
When you say can be done, what do you mean? The reason logic has historically been seen as the only limit to God's power is because we can't imagine a being doing something logically impossible. It doesn't make sense. But we can always perfectly well understand what it would be for a being to do anything (at all) that is in accord with logic.
So if there's something logically possible that God can't do, the idea of a being more powerful than God makes total sense. Among other things, this makes it inappropriate to call God "perfect," since better beings are possible. The idea of an imperfect God being worthy of worship starts to look questionable as well.
"All that can be done, but not anything" -- that could just denote the most powerful being who happens to exist. It would apply to Superman in the DC universe for instance, even though Superman is obviously not God.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why should our imagination be a limit to God?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:There needs to be a word for being able to do all that can be done, but not anything.
When you say can be done, what do you mean? The reason logic has historically been seen as the only limit to God's power is because we can't imagine a being doing something logically impossible. It doesn't make sense. But we can always perfectly well understand what it would be for a being to do anything (at all) that is in accord with logic.
So if there's something logically possible that God can't do, the idea of a being more powerful than God makes total sense. Among other things, this makes it inappropriate to call God "perfect," since better beings are possible. The idea of an imperfect God being worthy of worship starts to look questionable as well.
"All that can be done, but not anything" -- that could just denote the most powerful being who happens to exist. It would apply to Superman in the DC universe for instance, even though Superman is obviously not God.
It's not as complicated as you might suppose. Lets take God's description of his relationship with morality.
"God is not a man that he should lie."
and,
"And though the heaven and the earth pass away, these words shall not pass away, but shall be fulfilled."
So according to God, that which he has said will happen, and he cannot lie or speak amiss. Therefore in a sense God cannot lie, and therefore cannot do all that can be done, for we (and this kinda blows my mind) can do what he cannot, lie. Unless of course those original statements are lies or mistakes in of themselves in which the whole point is moot.
Either way, for Mormons. God can do untold numbers of things that we cannot even imagine, and yet there are most definitely things he cannot do and still be God.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Good question, kmboots.
Destineer, the basic postulate for belief in God is that God IS existence. (The only alternative is that in the beginning, nothing became everything, all by itself.) God Himself determines what is. As the Psalmist declared, "By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth....For He spoke, and it was done. He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalms 33:6, 9.)
When Moses asked God what name to call Him by, God replied, "I AM WHO I AM." (Exodus 3:14; NKJV) Bible scholars generally agree that by this statement, God was declaring Himself to be "The Self-Existent One." When Jesus, the Son of God, was asked by unbelievers how He could have seen Abraham's day, Jesus replied, "Before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58)
Since God creates existence itself by His very word, there cannot be anything that He cannot do. What natural law could prohibit His action, when He ordains natural law in the first place?
God does have free will, just as He created us to have. God could choose to do evil. He could choose to go against His own perfectly righteous nature. But He has chosen not to, forever, which He revealed at Calvary as an assurance to all of us.
God could force everyone to worship Him and force everyone never to harm anyone--but that would violate the free will of His creatures, and He wants His universe to be governed by love, and love requires free will. God chooses to put up with great vexation and aggrievement, so that His creatures who have erred in their choices might have a chance to make better choices, and accept restoration to His favor before it is too late.
There is nothing that God could not do. But He chooses to do certain things in certain ways.
[ January 20, 2011, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There is nothing that God could not do. But He chooses to do certain things in certain ways.
The big problem with the claim that God is omnipotent, is that it renders all other beings impotent. If God has ALL power, then it naturally follows that no one else can have any power.
If man has the power to resist the will of God, then it's logically impossible for God to have the power to force people to do things. If you argue that God could have, for example, chosen to compell Kermit Gosnell not to murder babies, but chooses not to -- doesn't that mean God wanted Kermit Gosnell to murder babies.
Either we have real power to resist God's will, in which God isn't omnipotent, or everything we do IS God's will.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why should our imagination be a limit to God?
I'm not necessarily saying that it should be. What I was saying is, perhaps God should be at least as unlimited as our imagination. And on the Mormon picture, he isn't.
quote:God could force everyone to worship Him and never harm anyone--but that would violate the free will of His creatures, and He wants His universe to be governed by love, and love requires free will.
Fair enough, but there are lots of other ways that God could make the world a better place without curtailing our free will. For instance, he could have made humans invulnerable to injury, immune to disease, and not require food.
It would still be our free choice whether or not to love God, but the world would be a far better place than the one he chose to create. (Of course, in my imaginary world it would also be much easier to love God -- just as it's easier to love a parent who actually shows, with deeds as well as words, that they love you back.)
quote: If you argue that God could have, for example, chosen to compell Kermit Gosnell not to murder babies, but chooses not to -- doesn't that mean God wanted Kermit Gosnell to murder babies.
This is a big problem. I like your way out of it better than Ron's more orthodox way. But you must admit that the God who results doesn't deserve the label "perfect."
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The Rabbit, none of those things you suggest logically follow. You are just playing word games.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Destineer, God already created the angels. They are the super-beings you describe. One of them was the first to invent sin and turn toward evil.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
There is an even better way out of the problem of evil, by the way: Universalism. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Destineer, Universalism would make the universe and everyone in it evil.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Destineer, God already created the angels.
Well, perhaps it would've been better if he'd stopped there.
One Christian meme I very much agree with: our mortal life is, in a sense, pathetic and terribly limited. Creating us was like intentionally fathering badly crippled children.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: He wants His universe to be governed by love, and love requires free will.
You know, I don't think it does. We created dogs to fulfil a purpose. The vast majority of dogs love their owners devotedly, and in return are given manna (or dog food) by their beloved. The dogs don't get a say in this, they assume that their beloved is kind and will take care of them. Most of the time, if their owners chose not to feed them, or are cruel to them, the dog assumes it must have done something wrong. This don't affect love, just adds to it an element of fear.
None of this love has anything to do with freedom. Humans are not dogs, but compared to a God who can do anything, they might as well be.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I believe that the Bible implies that God deliberately created first the angel whom He knew would invent sin--Lucifer. He is called in the Bible, "Son of the Morning," which could imply he was the first intelligent creature. God created him first so that the problem of sin could be dealt with as soon as possible. God believes in being proactive.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Destineer, Universalism would make the universe and everyone in it evil.
Evil? Because sin would be unjustly rewarded, you mean?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:There is nothing that God could not do. But He chooses to do certain things in certain ways.
The big problem with the claim that God is omnipotent, is that it renders all other beings impotent. If God has ALL power, then it naturally follows that no one else can have any power.
If man has the power to resist the will of God, then it's logically impossible for God to have the power to force people to do things. If you argue that God could have, for example, chosen to compell Kermit Gosnell not to murder babies, but chooses not to -- doesn't that mean God wanted Kermit Gosnell to murder babies.
Either we have real power to resist God's will, in which God isn't omnipotent, or everything we do IS God's will.
Or that power is allowed to us. Also you are supposing that God is an entity that is separate from us. That's okay but it doesn't cover the possibility of, say, panentheism. If I am part of God and God of me, than I am not impotent if God is omnipotent.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: If I am part of God and God of me,
Just looking at this sentence grammatically, this has to be a misuse (or some funny non-literal use) of the word "part."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The Rabbit, none of those things you suggest logically follow. You are just playing word games.
Heh, no it doesn't. You said, "God has the power to do anything," but then go right on and say, "Man, exactly like God, has the power to choose."
You believe there is at least one thing God cannot do: forcibly violate the free will of a human being. It's pretty straightforward...but perhaps not when you start from a moral position of complete, utter certainty.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Bella, you know there is a love higher than the love of dogs. But even for that matter, animals do have some choice. They may not be free moral agents knowing good and evil the way we are, but they do have some choice.
When I call my cats, sometimes they come. When they hear me opening a can to put fresh food in their dishes, usually they will come. They choose to be very affectionate and like to be near where I am.
One of my cats had a broken fang. Sherlock would flinch whenever I touched it, so it must have hurt. It required dental surgery to fix it. Total cost was $700. But Sherlock was worth it to me. He was very resistant to being put in a pet carrier, and cried all the way to the vet, and all the way back home again the next day. But a few weeks later, when he was fully healed, he would climb up in my lap, place his front paws on my chest, and rub his mouth (the side that had been operated on) against my cheek. This was something he had never done before. He seemed to know that I was responsible for getting the problem he had fixed.
I am convinced that most animals are alot more like we are than we realize. They have minds, for one thing. They can love--sometimes more purely than we do. They can grieve, too. And nothing causes them more grief than the loss of the human they were bonded to. And they can make choices. They do it all the time.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Destineer, God already created the angels.
Well, perhaps it would've been better if he'd stopped there.
One Christian meme I very much agree with: our mortal life is, in a sense, pathetic and terribly limited. Creating us was like intentionally fathering badly crippled children.
You are assuming we are "done". Babies are pretty "crippled" if we think that they will stay that way.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:You are assuming we are "done". Babies are pretty "crippled" if we think that they will stay that way.
In that case, we'd better all "grow up" to transcend our limits -- not just a few of us who are saved at the expense of the others. Hence, Universalism.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
God did not create us crippled to begin with. The first man was perfect, and he was given a perfect wife. Their wrong choices messed things up for all of us. God has also promised to restore us to perfection in the end. "Then the lame shall leap like a deer, And the tongue of the dumb sing...." (Isaiah 35:6; NKJV)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And nothing causes them more grief than the loss of the human they were bonded to. And they can make choices. They do it all the time.
*sigh* Nothing? Sure of that, are you? How? I'm somewhat certain you'll write this off as one of your critics just questioning you and not as a question holy Ron actually needs to answer, but how do you know this? How do you know how 'pure' an animal's love or how painful its grief is? Or the measure of its mind, or the power of its bond?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
If God is inserting prophecy into the Bible - that is he has foreknowledge of events - then it can be argued he is violating the free will of some (theological fatalism) in that if at time t he knew that X would do something at time t+u, then it's hard to see how X had a choice in the matter.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, please knock off the "holy Ron" stuff.
I know these things by the examples I have seen and heard of. Also by the testimony of Ellen G. White, whom most of us Seventh-day Adventists believe passed all the Biblical tests for a genuine prophet. She said:
quote:The intelligence displayed by many dumb animals approaches so closely to human intelligence that it is a mystery. The animals see and hear and love and fear and suffer. They use their organs far more faithfully than many human beings use theirs. They manifest sympathy and tenderness toward their companions in suffering. Many animals show an affection for those who have charge of them, far superior to the affection shown by some of the human race. They form attachments for man which are not broken without great suffering to them." (Ministry of Healing, pp. 315, 316)
You might also find instructive the experience of Baalim and his donkey--to whom God temporarily gave the power of speech: Numbers 22:28-33. Notice that in this exchange, God was not speaking for the donkey. The donkey was speaking her own thoughts.
[ January 20, 2011, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: No, Chris. You may think you are being logical, but you are not. You are just rationalizing...
Yeah Chris, stop trying to be logical by thinking in a rational way. You need to feel logic through God's love, parables, and the acceptance of a man's authority who testifies of his own relationship with God.
Quit squirming and start accepting. Geesh...why don't you get it? My heart weeps for your soul.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sarcasm is such a profound argument.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
natural_mystic, actually you have stumbled across one of the main reasons why God couches most of the prophecies of the Bible in symbols. Since "spiritual things are spiritually discerned," those who reject spiritual things are not likely to understand the prophecies rightly. And so many people will come along with their own private interpretations, that in most cases, those prophesied about will not understand what destiny has really been foreseen.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Do you disagree with my content? Isn't that what you are saying? You have not demonstrated HOW Chris is not being logical. You are asking him to get closer to God so he can know the truth. Can you elaborate? I am open to self correction if I am misunderstanding you.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
lem, rationalizing is not the same thimg as being rational. Logic is not something you feel. I do not advocate acceptance of man's authority, but I do have the right to give my personal testimony.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: lem, rationalizing is not the same thimg as being rational. Logic is not something you feel. I do not advocate acceptance of man's authority, but I do have the right to give my personal testimony.
Only insofar as your testimony describes how you see God, not as a means to convert people or invite them to repent. So far, I think you are on the correct side of that line, but I just wanted to caution you on crossing it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The Rabbit, none of those things you suggest logically follow. You are just playing word games.
Ron, this is where many of your arguments die. You dismiss earnest arguments with statements about the character of those arguments rather than addressing the actual arguments. It may be apparent to you that what Rabbit has presented is a "word game" but it is by no means apparent to me. You did the same thing when I tried to get you to define how you measure information so we could test your claim about mutation not being capable of producing new information.
Please identify the actual non sequitur in Rabbit's argument.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: God did not create us crippled to begin with. The first man was perfect, and he was given a perfect wife. Their wrong choices messed things up for all of us. God has also promised to restore us to perfection in the end. "Then the lame shall leap like a deer, And the tongue of the dumb sing...." (Isaiah 35:6; NKJV)
Ron, when you refer to perfection, do you mean physically or spiritually. You could argue that if Adam and Eve were spiritually perfect they would not have eaten the fruit in the first place.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
quote:If God is inserting prophecy into the Bible - that is he has foreknowledge of events - then it can be argued he is violating the free will of some (theological fatalism) in that if at time t he knew that X would do something at time t+u, then it's hard to see how X had a choice in the matter.
An interesting problem to think about. The only choices we have control over are choices in the present. Our past choices are locked in stone (but still ours, because we and no one else made them), and our future choices are out of reach.
If someone has the ability to look into the future and see our future choices, though ... does that make those choices any less ours? Or does it simply turn those future choices into the equivalent of past choices — out of our reach to change, but still 100% determined by us?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
If they are out of reach, how are they determined 100% by us? This is why I love being an Atheist. Not because it's easier, but because I can sleep at night knowing that such questions are nonsense- they might as well never be asked.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: If they are out of reach, how are they determined 100% by us? This is why I love being an Atheist. Not because it's easier, but because I can sleep at night knowing that such questions are nonsense- they might as well never be asked.
Whereas I enjoy these questions because if there is a God as I suppose, then finding the answer should be possible. Finding answers that fit the data I've got is something I find stimulating. Failing to find the answer leads me to look in places I might not have considered looking at in the first place. I win either way.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Orincoro:
Being an atheist bars you even from considering such questions from a science-fictional point of view? How dull.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: lem, rationalizing is not the same thimg as being rational. Logic is not something you feel.
Since I freely admit I was being snide, I am awaiting a response to HOW Chris was a "rationalizing" per the accepted definition when you said "You may think you are being logical, but you are not. You are just rationalizing, trying to squirm and dance around the real significance of the things I have pointed out."
I am sincerely interested in your response because he seemed thoughtful and logical to me. I got no sense of him squirming. If my mind is also flawed I would like you to point it out by showing WHAT Chris did wrong or HOW his thinking or approach is not logical.
That will help me in my own self assessment.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Anyway, to explain my position:
Look at a choice you made in the past. It is definitely your choice. You remember making it. But because it's in the past, you can't RE-make it or UN-make it. It's completely fixed. But it's still your choice, because in the moments during which the choice was made, it was you and only you who was doing the choosing.
How is an observable future choice any different? It might seem unfair to have a future choice locked in stone, but if that observed choice is still based on a chain of influences and decisions during the intervening time that involved YOU, then the choice is still yours, even if you don't remember making it.
An observed future choice is kind of like a forgotten past choice. It's out of reach, and you can't recall the circumstances, but the choice was still made by you.
Maybe. Still thinking about it I'd love to hear a counterargument.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
You haven't made the choice yet, but nothing you do can change the choice. The choice is pre-determined by factors out of your control, otherwise it would not be possible to see the results of the choice until after the choice has happened. The specific choice you makes becomes a necessary component to the existence of the universe, and so there is no possibility that you make a different choice.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
quote:The specific choice you makes becomes a necessary component to the existence of the universe, and so there is no possibility that you make a different choice.
But the same is true of your past choices, and they're still yours. If the same factors that apply to your present choices (who you are, your desires, your perspective on the world, your interpretation of events) also determine the choice you observed in the future, then isn't that future choice also yours? Does the fact that you don't remember making it mean that the "you" of the future who DID determine the choice is not legitimately you?
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
quote:The choice is pre-determined by factors out of your control ...
Actually, I think THIS line is what I'm really questioning. How are the factors out of your control? The person who made the future choice IS you. Future you, but still you. You're the only one who controlled it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Interestingly enough -- to me, anyway -- I was playing with these arguments in my NaNoWriMo novel last year. A brutal dictator has taken over, and scientists, soldiers and just desperate people keep traveling back in time to kill his grandfather. Only my story is from the POV of the grandfather, who at this stage is a teenager in the 80s who has no idea why people keep showing up, shooting him ineffectively, and disappearing. Made for a lot of arguing.
quote:"But that would mean that history is fated and can't be changed, so time travel should be impossible anyway."
"Lot of people agree with you, son."
Mitch thought about that for a couple of miles as the scenery trundled by. All of time as a fixed thing, with all events already having happened somewhen. Everything preordained. It would have to be like that for prophecy to work, wouldn't it? Mitch's faded Baptist upbringing argued strongly in favor of it, as did other religions, most mythology and all fortune cookies. But that meant no free will, right? How can you be said to have chosen a course of action if you were always going to have made that choice? Or was your freely-chosen option part of the plan?
Like in the movie "The Goonies," he thought. The choice to send Chunk for help was a turning point, even if they didn't know it at the time, 'cause otherwise he wouldn't have met Sloth and they all woulda been killed or lost their houses or something. But they did, and the movie's already finished, with the ending and everything, so if I'm watching them make that choice in the middle, the consequences of their choice to send the fat kid already exist and I could see the ending if I could fast-forward. But as far as the characters know, they're making their own choices. Maybe time is just a matter of perspective from someone else's point of view, someone who could see the ending, like God or Doctor Who or somebody. Did it matter? Was thinking and acting like you had free will the same thing as actually having it?
That would mean that he, Mitch, was acting out a script someone had already written, and that anything he considered free will was already accounted for. Mitch wondered who was watching, and whether he'd get picked up for next season.
"I don't like it," he said finally.
Willie Jim, who had started to doze off from lack of sleep and incipient detox depression, jerked awake. "More waffles?" he muttered sleepily.
"I don't think everything is destined. I think we can change things," Mitch told him, unknowingly dismissing predestination, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and thousands of years of theological arguments in one fell swoop.
(End of self-indulgent post)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
How is an observable future choice any different? It might seem unfair to have a future choice locked in stone, but if that observed choice is still based on a chain of influences and decisions during the intervening time that involved YOU, then the choice is still yours, even if you don't remember making it.
Because knowing that a choice has been made in the locked future affects your choices now. If you know you'll die alone and unloved 20 years from now, maybe you won't bother trying to find love in the first place (which, in any reliable time travel story. is what caused you to die alone). It's not the unchangeable future that causes the problem; it's the knowledge of it.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Then if someone ELSE observes your future, and doesn't tell you anything about it, is there a problem at all? Or is your future still yours to determine?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ron, you have proclaimed, basically, that the amazing accuracy of Biblic prophecy proves that the Bible is accurate.
This despite the fact that many clear prophecies made in the Bible either have not come true or were flatly wrong, and many of the ones that have reportedly come true were vague enough that they could be answered with any of a number of events (easily seen by how different groups of believers have argued over which events the verses referred to).
And so many apologists have used such wishy-washy arguments such as the ones I detailed in my earlier post: some were not truly prophecies but metaphors, some were meant to be interpreted thusly, etc. Always a reason, no matter how tortured, as to why a given prophecy was not wrong because the apologists start from the premise that everything in the Bible is accurate. Amazingly enough, once all the inconveniently inaccurate prophecies are safely dismissed, leaving only the ones that came true in some interpreted fashion, the Bible seems incredibly accurate indeed.
If we're going to be logical, we cannot start from that premise. We cannot start from any premise. The Bible must be treated to the same rigorous testing as any other work purporting to predict the future.
What is different between you and me, I suspect, is that you have felt the immanence and reality of God, and I have not. That touch, I think, gives you the surety you're trying to get across, the certainty that of course the Bible is real, and the bewilderment that I can't see it too.
I frankly don't see any way for me to change your mind because it would mean turning your back on the certainty you've experienced, and from your point of view you have absolutely no reason to and every reason in the world not to.
But I have not had that experience, nor do I believe it exists in any objective manner. You are, to me, every bit as convincing as anyone in any other faith would be to you. How would you react to someone arguing the undeniable truth of the Qu'ran, which, except for these verses which have deeper meanings and these verses which are really just parables, perfectly fulfills prophecy concerning the entire outline of history?
To actually convince me, you would have to argue and prove your points on my terms, and that means skepticism and non-scriptural proof.
[ January 21, 2011, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'm sort of curious how we'd be able to tell the difference.
EDIT - between a predetermined universe and and a free-will universe, that is.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Geoffrey: In that scenario my free will is intact, in every way that matters to me. As in my Goonies analogy -- and how often does one get to say that -- the people making the decisions feel them to be real, whether someone watching knows how it ends or not. And that means those decisions matter.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm sort of curious how we'd be able to tell the difference.
With a working time machine, or some other way to see the future in a fixed way. Then once some aspect of that future has been seen and recorded, you experiment with trying to change it.
[ January 20, 2011, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The other method would be with a clearly defined prophecy that came true in an undeniable way. This prophecy would need to be specific so that only one event could fulfill it, made well in advance of that event or anything that could lead to the event (ideally made by someone with no prior knowledge of anything eventually involved in the event), and verifiable as to its age and legitimacy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Then if someone ELSE observes your future, and doesn't tell you anything about it, is there a problem at all?
Well, it depends. If you believe there is a difference between the illusion of free will and actual free will, yes, there's a problem (assuming that hypothetical someone else is theoretically able to do something that would change your future.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron, I see no reason to since you routinely refuse to address direct, plainly worded questions. Such as Rabbit's, to which you replied with scorn, because she hadn't embraces the proper religious perspective.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geoffrey Card: Orincoro:
Being an atheist bars you even from considering such questions from a science-fictional point of view? How dull.
No, I chose my words carefully. Being an athiest doesn´t *do* anything for me. However, I am happy to be quite sure that these fake dilemmas constitute a tautological nightmare designed to scare me into believing, even though that doesn´t help. And no, the question phrased in your way holds zero interest for me in an intellectual sense because it is total nonsense.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
No one is "designing" anything to scare you into anything. A subject came up that interested me and I wanted to talk about it. You dismissed it, saying, essentially, that because you were an atheist, you were too good, somehow, to be interested in the stuff I was interested in discussing.
Personally, I don't understand what you're trying to prove about yourself, but I don't think it's working. However haughty and dismissive you are about the subject at hand, saying you're certain that people are out to trick you when they're clearly not does not result in them being impressed by your insight.
[ January 21, 2011, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: Geoffrey Card ]
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Actually, I'm really not even sure how this thing I'm talking about is supposed to have any effect on anyone's belief. It's just a way to look at the question of the impact of foreknowledge on freedom. It doesn't argue one way or the other on the question of religion. Sure, the subject of foreknowledge comes up a lot in religious discussions, but the direction I'm going with it is kind of irrelevant, as far as I can tell.
Can you step me through the logical path you think I'm trying to lead you down?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Actually, I think THIS line is what I'm really questioning. How are the factors out of your control? The person who made the future choice IS you. Future you, but still you. You're the only one who controlled it. "
I didn't control it, though, if a necessary component of the universe is me making a certain choice at a certain time.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Before the choice was observed, it could potentially have been anything, and it wasn't necessary for a particular choice to be made at that particular time.
But at the moment it was observed, someone was making the choice — and I think we have to conclude that that person was you. You made the choice out of time order — normally, you would have made all the previous choices first — but the person making the choice (and all the intervening choices that led there) at the time of observation was you.
It seems a bit like your life is being fast-forwarded without your knowledge. Instead of making one choice at a time, one moment at a time, you make a whole series of choices in an instant as the future is suddenly set into stone. As long as you aren't made aware of the observation, it doesn't seem like there ought to be a difference between making each choice one at a time, and making them all at once and then acting them out. In both cases, the choices are still determined by who you are, so they're still yours.
It seems like in this model, if the observer interacts with you, his observation will probably be made invalid. But as long as the observer is insulated from you, his observation can simultaneously be accurate and not interfere with your freedom.
Someone viewing your future from the present and being insulated from you is indistinguishable from someone viewing your future from the future (by just being there). In both cases, all the intervening choices are yours, and they can't change them. It's only when you start talking about being informed about (or otherwise affected by) your own future that it gets paradoxical ...
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Before the choice was observed, it could potentially have been anything, and it wasn't necessary for a particular choice to be made at that particular time."
But "before," is meaningless in this context, because the choice is observed, in the time line of the actor, before he makes the choice. So, in the time line of the actor, his decision is made before he makes the decision. The outcome is fixed before he can make a choice, and so he HAS no choice. By the time, in his time line, he gets to the point where he will make the choice, the universe had already contained the information that he will make a certain choice.
I'm not saying that the choice didn't come from internal to the actor, I'm saying that there's no possibility he could make another choice, and therefore the word "choice," is misleading. There IS no choice. THere's only one possible outcome, which means there is no freedom to choose differently, and without that possibility, its not correct to say we have freedom to choose.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But as long as the observer is insulated from you, his observation can simultaneously be accurate and not interfere with your freedom.
Are we agreed, however, that no Christian depiction of God constitutes a scenario in which God -- the observer -- is sufficiently insulated for this to be universally true?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
You people keep confusing free will and non-determinism. There's nothing in the definition of those words that makes free will incompatible with determinism.
In fact I could argue that free will REQUIRES determinism. Like Spock said "if I let go of a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know that it has in fact fallen." He said that to explain why he trusted Kirk to act in an honorable manner. Do you think he was disparaging Kirk, by calling him predictably honorable? No, he was *honoring* Kirk. Spock could rely on Kirk to act altuistrically, bravely, honorably.
That humans decide their actions based on their natures and desires is BOTH what provides them with free will, AND what makes them deterministic and predictable.
That someone else (whether God, or a mindreader, or a timetraveller) can predict your actions is an attribute of *their* state of mind, not yours. Their knowledge about your actions is part of *their* being, not yours. If you have free will, whether someone else knows or doesn't know that you'll do, doesn't affect the existence of *your* free will. It might affect *theirs*.
Someone else's knowledge is part of *their* mind, not yours.
quote:If you believe there is a difference between the illusion of free will and actual free will, yes, there's a problem
I believe there's a difference, but I don't believe there's a problem.
There's a difference between the illusion and actual free will -- e.g. if you you were drugged or hypnotized into following someone else's desires and into rationalizing your actions away, you'd have the illusion of free will, but not actual free will.
That's a significant difference, but there's still not a problem with e.g. a time-traveller being able to know what you're going to do.
Determinism and free will are absolutely compatible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The difference, of course, is that in the God scenario we're also presuming that this observer has the ability to alter the circumstances leading up to your deterministic choice, thus artificially altering your set of available options.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Well certainly, if God tells you what your choice *would* have been, then to have free will you must be able to use that knowledge you were given to change your decision. If you want.
But God would also be capable to predict in which circumstances you will indeed so want, and in which cases you will not want.
Either way, free will isn't really affected. God either gives you information and you use your free will to incorporate the new information in your decision process as you will, or he doesn't give you information, and you use your free will to act in ignorance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Well certainly, if God tells you what your choice *would* have been, then to have free will you must be able to use that knowledge you were given to change your decision. If you want.
It's more insidious than that. God can arrange it so that the only choices open to you are the choices He wants you to pick; in fact, He can deprive of you meaningful choice by simply arranging the universe appropriately.
You're still choosing "freely," but you are choosing only what He wanted you to choose.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If a father puts a cookie jar on a table within the reach of his son, and he knows his son well enough to realize that his son will definitely take a cookie from the jar if he places the cookie jar there, isn't it still the son's choice to take the cookie? The father knows what the future choice will be, but its still the son's choice.
If you have perfect understanding of a person, then you can perfectly predict what he will freely choose to do, without taking away his freedom to choose. Why does the free will discussion need to be any more complicated than that?
The only tricky part is when you assign blame for the result of the choice. Is the son to blame for choosing to eat the cookie? Or is the father to blame for putting the cookie there knowing that the son would eat it? But this is only tricky if you assume blame must go to one or the other. If you don't assume that, then in cases like this, full blame goes to both.
There is nothing unique to God about this though. Its a common everyday thing for one person to "set up" another person to make a given choice. We may not have perfect knowledge of how the other person will respond like God could, but in many cases we are quite sure.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Ron, you have proclaimed, basically, that the amazing accuracy of Biblic prophecy proves that the Bible is accurate.
This despite the fact that many clear prophecies made in the Bible either have not come true or were flatly wrong....
I deny that this is true. Give me a specific example. Name for me one "clear prophecy" (as you said) of the Bible that has been flatly wrong. Make sure you interpret the prophecy in a manner that is not based merely on subjective imagination, but is based on sound scholarship--including allowing the Bible alone to define all its symbols and terms; allowing the context to indicate what time in history the prophecy is to be applied to; and being careful to avoid taking literally what is figurative, and avoid taking as figurative what is literal--using reasonable methods of literary analysis, including checking to see how the term or symbol is used elsewhere in Scripture.
Name any "clear prophecy" that you think has failed. Any single prophecy. Anything in Daniel, Zechariah, Joel, Malachi, Matthew, the epistles of Paul, Revelation, or anywhere else prophecy may be found. I think you have been misled about this by popular teachings of some denominations or modern writers that are not Biblically sound. Please allow me to demonstrate.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If a father puts a cookie jar on a table within the reach of his son, and he knows his son well enough to realize that his son will definitely take a cookie from the jar if he places the cookie jar there, isn't it still the son's choice to take the cookie? The father knows what the future choice will be, but its still the son's choice.
Except the father in this scenario did not create his son in the same way that it is suggested that God created Adam in Genesis. Nor is the father in the hypothetical omnipotent. He learned over time the things his son would or wouldn't do in certain scenarios. He did not know everything his son would do before his son was born, and have the ability to alter any or all of it at a whim.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Make sure you interpret the prophecy in a manner that is not based merely on subjective imagination, but is based on sound scholarship--including allowing the Bible alone to define all its symbols and terms...
Ron, you stated a few pages ago, and may have forgotten, that this follows logically from the assumption that all of scripture was inspired by the One Divine Mind. You have yet to explain why one should make this assumption to begin with. Personally, I don't see why Chris should have to answer your question within your parameters until you convince him to accept this beginning axiom.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Except the father in this scenario did not create his son in the same way that it is suggested that God created Adam in Genesis. Nor is the father in the hypothetical omnipotent. He learned over time the things his son would or wouldn't do in certain scenarios. He did not know everything his son would do before his son was born, and have the ability to alter any or all of it at a whim.
Do those things make a difference in the question of whether a choice can still be a choice if someone knows how you will choose beforehand?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Do those things make a difference in the question of whether a choice can still be a choice if someone knows how you will choose beforehand?
I should think so. Don't you? If I created you and knew everything you would ever do, but had the ability to make you so you did different things, then I have chosen to make you in this specific way. Thus making it my responsibility that you have behaved that way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Or, heck, even if I didn't make you, if I made everything else while knowing that you would do X because of your reactions to everything else I made, I'm still responsible for your doing X.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
quote:Except the father in this scenario did not create his son in the same way that it is suggested that God created Adam in Genesis. Nor is the father in the hypothetical omnipotent. He learned over time the things his son would or wouldn't do in certain scenarios. He did not know everything his son would do before his son was born, and have the ability to alter any or all of it at a whim.
I agree that this is a limit on free will. I don't personally believe in that model of the creation of mankind, but in that scenario, it is very difficult to take free will seriously. Instead, in this scenario, all your choices are either (1) predetermined by God, or (2) selected at random by God, which isn't a lot better.
Now, if this scenario turns out to be accurate, then whatever But for me, it would be difficult to accept this scenario while also accepting the idea that God punishes people for their choices, which He either predetermined or randomized.
Which may be why many sects that believe in this model ALSO stray away from the importance of personal choices, leaning instead towards ideas like "salvation by grace alone" and "salvation of the elect", which rely far less upon individual free will (but which I also find personally uncompelling).
As far as God's power to control the environment of a choice goes, I think when addressing that question, you have to not treat certain acts as having universal moral values. IE, killing someone in one scenario, with one motivation, is different from killing a different person under different circumstances. So as the environment changes, the value of the choice changes at the same time, so God doesn't "make someone good" or "make someone bad" by altering the contexts of their choices — both are graded on a curve.
But as far as the efficacy of free will goes in this scenario, I don't think it's hindered much. Sure, a given chooser will make different choices as the circumstances of the choice change. But HOW a particular chooser's decisions change with circumstances is what defines a free individual. IE, you can define an individual by the change in circumstances REQUIRED to get them to make a particular choice. The circumstances that would induce you to kill are different from the circumstances that would induce me to kill, and that difference is part of what makes us unique individuals with free will.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Name for me one "clear prophecy" (as you said) of the Bible that has been flatly wrong.
"Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works. 28 Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
Here Jesus seems to clearly proclaim his second coming will be during that generation.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
No, you see, Jesus meant "tasting death" in a literal fashion, like eating the dead. As long as at least one of the apostles failed to become a cannibal, the prophecy is still accurate! LOGIC.
(The followup implication here is that the apostles will all get to experience the rich flavor of delicious man-flesh once Jesus returns.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:Name for me one "clear prophecy" (as you said) of the Bible that has been flatly wrong.
"Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works. 28 Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
Here Jesus seems to clearly proclaim his second coming will be during that generation.
Maybe the response to this is to claim that you can't say for sure that there aren't immortals lurking about, Canticle for Leibowitz style, waiting for christ's return.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
As Spike once said:
'If every vampire who said he was at the crucifixion was actually there, it would've been like Woodstock.'
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
As far as prophecies and visions of the future, I don't really see it as God being a time traveller that knows exactly what choices we will make. Most visions are general. They usually don't focus on one person in general. There are very few prophecies that do. I don't think he somehow projected the exact future into the retinas of a prophet. He gave them an idea, or maybe a dream.
Then gain, maybe he simply brought a 3D projector and a Blue Ray player and played a copy of The Stand. Who knows.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Make sure you interpret the prophecy in a manner that is not based merely on subjective imagination, but is based on sound scholarship--including allowing the Bible alone to define all its symbols and terms; ...
The part you're continually missing is that using only one source is not sound scholarship. You cannot use the Bible as your only source for proving the accuracy of the Bible.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
For Bible prophecy you can Chris, because there is no competition. Nothing else claims to be inspired by the Creator, Who alone can know the future.
For Bible history, you can compare to the findings of archaeology, paleontology, etc. But after enough instances where some experts have authoritatively proclaimed that the Bible was wrong--such as about the existence of the Hittites--and then subsequent further exploration and discovery have verified the Bible's account and repudiated all the others (such as proving that the Hittites did exist, and they existed where and when the Bible said they did), eventually you begin to get the idea that the Bible has been proven right and every contrary opinion proven wrong so many times, that it would be prudent to assume the Bible is probably right. Another example: Experts used to claim that the Bible accounts of Nebuchadnezzar's importance, that he "built" Babylon up to its greatest peak of glory, were false. But then further excavation and analysis in the ruins of Babylon turned up myriads of bricks, all with Nebuchadnezzar's name inscribed on them.
It gets to the point where you have to realize that you must view with skepticism anyone who comes along and contradicts anything in the Bible. You need to ask "Why is this person claiming this? Is it really based on valid evidence, or is it really a product of personal bias, what the person wants to believe, or wants NOT to believe?
In the Bible accounts of creation and the global flood, there are many things that many experts today authoritatively denounce. But creationist scientists have answered all those claims point by point, and have presented solid, concrete evidence that is best explained by the Biblical creation and flood accounts, and clearly is contrary or at least very hard to explain from an evolutionary or uniformitarian perspective.
Here the fight goes on. There is a lot of inertia, a lot of long-held bias, that has been built up, enforced by people in positions of power who have shown themselves willing to threaten the tenure of, or the granting of government grants to, even the most qualified scientists who openly ask if Intelligent Design might actually have something to it.
But this battle is not over. Evolution and uniformitarian geology will eventually lose, because they are not true. Eventually this will be proven to the point where no one will deny it anymore. In the meantime, it is prudent to back the already many-times proven winner, the Bible.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Nothing else claims to be inspired by the Creator ...
Meanwhile
quote:Qurʾān, (Arabic: “Recitation”) also spelled Quran and Koran , the sacred scripture of Islam and, for all Muslims, the very word of God, revealed through the agency of the archangel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
You know, just because some historically based stories (in what, in the Old Testament, is also very much the history book of a people as well as a holy book) turn out to be true - and honestly, I really love it when that happens - doesn't mean that everything in the story, and everything related to the story, is also true.
A lot of people assumed that Troy probably never existed until people started excavating sites which suggest that it's likely that it did. Doesn't mean that the events described in The Odyssey can now be assumed to be completely accurate.
And what about Aris' prophecy point?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Down the road, there is the Book of Mormon, purported to be revealed to Joseph Smith by way of golden tablets delivered by an angel.
And at another ranch,
quote:According to Hindu tradition, the Vedas are apauruṣeya "not of human agency",[3] are supposed to have been directly revealed, and thus are called śruti ("what is heard").[4][5]
[3] Apte, pp. 109f. has "not of the authorship of man, of divine origin" [4] Apte 1965, p. 887 [5] Müller 1891, pp. 17–18
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: The Information Challenge
By Richard Dawkins
In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists — a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.
With hindsight — given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place — it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth — I have a horror of blinding people with science — and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of “information”. Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated — not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer’s memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the “Information Challenge”, at adequate length — the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article. Information
The technical definition of “information” was introduced by the American engineer Claude Shannon in 1948. An employee of the Bell Telephone Company, Shannon was concerned to measure information as an economic commodity. It is costly to send messages along a telephone line. Much of what passes in a message is not information: it is redundant. You could save money by recoding the message to remove the redundancy. Redundancy was a second technical term introduced by Shannon, as the inverse of information. Both definitions were mathematical, but we can convey Shannon’s intuitive meaning in words.
Redundancy is any part of a message that is not informative, either because the recipient already knows it (is not surprised by it) or because it duplicates other parts of the message. In the sentence “Rover is a poodle dog”, the word “dog” is redundant because “poodle” already tells us that Rover is a dog. An economical telegram would omit it, thereby increasing the informative proportion of the message. “Arr JFK Fri pm pls mt BA Cncrd flt” carries the same information as the much longer, but more redundant, “I’ll be arriving at John F Kennedy airport on Friday evening; please meet the British Airways Concorde flight”. Obviously the brief, telegraphic message is cheaper to send (although the recipient may have to work harder to decipher it — redundancy has its virtues if we forget economics). Shannon wanted to find a mathematical way to capture the idea that any message could be broken into the information (which is worth paying for), the redundancy (which can, with economic advantage, be deleted from the message because, in effect, it can be reconstructed by the recipient) and the noise (which is just random rubbish).
“It rained in Oxford every day this week” carries relatively little information, because the receiver is not surprised by it. On the other hand, “It rained in the Sahara desert every day this week” would be a message with high information content, well worth paying extra to send. Shannon wanted to capture this sense of information content as “surprise value”. It is related to the other sense — “that which is not duplicated in other parts of the message” — because repetitions lose their power to surprise. Note that Shannon’s definition of the quantity of information is independent of whether it is true. The measure he came up with was ingenious and intuitively satisfying. Let’s estimate, he suggested, the receiver’s ignorance or uncertainty before receiving the message, and then compare it with the receiver’s remaining ignorance after receiving the message. The quantity of ignorance-reduction is the information content. Shannon’s unit of information is the bit, short for “binary digit”. One bit is defined as the amount of information needed to halve the receiver’s prior uncertainty, however great that prior uncertainty was (mathematical readers will notice that the bit is, therefore, a logarithmic measure).
In practice, you first have to find a way of measuring the prior uncertainty — that which is reduced by the information when it comes. For particular kinds of simple message, this is easily done in terms of probabilities. An expectant father watches the Caesarian birth of his child through a window into the operating theatre. He can’t see any details, so a nurse has agreed to hold up a pink card if it is a girl, blue for a boy. How much information is conveyed when, say, the nurse flourishes the pink card to the delighted father? The answer is one bit — the prior uncertainty is halved. The father knows that a baby of some kind has been born, so his uncertainty amounts to just two possibilities — boy and girl — and they are (for purposes of this discussion) equal. The pink card halves the father’s prior uncertainty from two possibilities to one (girl). If there’d been no pink card but a doctor had walked out of the operating theatre, shook the father’s hand and said “Congratulations old chap, I’m delighted to be the first to tell you that you have a daughter”, the information conveyed by the 17 word message would still be only one bit. Computer information
Computer information is held in a sequence of noughts and ones. There are only two possibilities, so each 0 or 1 can hold one bit. The memory capacity of a computer, or the storage capacity of a disc or tape, is often measured in bits, and this is the total number of 0s or 1s that it can hold. For some purposes, more convenient units of measurement are the byte (8 bits), the kilobyte (1000 bytes or 8000 bits), the megabyte (a million bytes or 8 million bits) or the gigabyte (1000 million bytes or 8000 million bits). Notice that these figures refer to the total available capacity. This is the maximum quantity of information that the device is capable of storing. The actual amount of information stored is something else. The capacity of my hard disc happens to be 4.2 gigabytes. Of this, about 1.4 gigabytes are actually being used to store data at present. But even this is not the true information content of the disc in Shannon’s sense. The true information content is smaller, because the information could be more economically stored. You can get some idea of the true information content by using one of those ingenious compression programs like “Stuffit”. Stuffit looks for redundancy in the sequence of 0s and 1s, and removes a hefty proportion of it by recoding — stripping out internal predictability. Maximum information content would be achieved (probably never in practice) only if every 1 or 0 surprised us equally. Before data is transmitted in bulk around the Internet, it is routinely compressed to reduce redundancy.
That’s good economics. But on the other hand it is also a good idea to keep some redundancy in messages, to help correct errors. In a message that is totally free of redundancy, after there’s been an error there is no means of reconstructing what was intended. Computer codes often incorporate deliberately redundant “parity bits” to aid in error detection. DNA, too, has various error-correcting procedures which depend upon redundancy. When I come on to talk of genomes, I’ll return to the three-way distinction between total information capacity, information capacity actually used, and true information content.
It was Shannon’s insight that information of any kind, no matter what it means, no matter whether it is true or false, and no matter by what physical medium it is carried, can be measured in bits, and is translatable into any other medium of information. The great biologist J B S Haldane used Shannon’s theory to compute the number of bits of information conveyed by a worker bee to her hivemates when she “dances” the location of a food source (about 3 bits to tell about the direction of the food and another 3 bits for the distance of the food). In the same units, I recently calculated that I’d need to set aside 120 megabits of laptop computer memory to store the triumphal opening chords of Richard Strauss’s “Also Sprach Zarathustra” (the “2001” theme) which I wanted to play in the middle of a lecture about evolution. Shannon’s economics enable you to calculate how much modem time it’ll cost you to e-mail the complete text of a book to a publisher in another land. Fifty years after Shannon, the idea of information as a commodity, as measurable and interconvertible as money or energy, has come into its own. DNA information
DNA carries information in a very computer-like way, and we can measure the genome’s capacity in bits too, if we wish. DNA doesn’t use a binary code, but a quaternary one. Whereas the unit of information in the computer is a 1 or a 0, the unit in DNA can be T, A, C or G. If I tell you that a particular location in a DNA sequence is a T, how much information is conveyed from me to you? Begin by measuring the prior uncertainty. How many possibilities are open before the message “T” arrives? Four. How many possibilities remain after it has arrived? One. So you might think the information transferred is four bits, but actually it is two. Here’s why (assuming that the four letters are equally probable, like the four suits in a pack of cards). Remember that Shannon’s metric is concerned with the most economical way of conveying the message. Think of it as the number of yes/no questions that you’d have to ask in order to narrow down to certainty, from an initial uncertainty of four possibilities, assuming that you planned your questions in the most economical way. “Is the mystery letter before D in the alphabet?” No. That narrows it down to T or G, and now we need only one more question to clinch it. So, by this method of measuring, each “letter” of the DNA has an information capacity of 2 bits.
Whenever prior uncertainty of recipient can be expressed as a number of equiprobable alternatives N, the information content of a message which narrows those alternatives down to one is log2N (the power to which 2 must be raised in order to yield the number of alternatives N). If you pick a card, any card, from a normal pack, a statement of the identity of the card carries log252, or 5.7 bits of information. In other words, given a large number of guessing games, it would take 5.7 yes/no questions on average to guess the card, provided the questions are asked in the most economical way. The first two questions might establish the suit. (Is it red? Is it a diamond?) the remaining three or four questions would successively divide and conquer the suit (is it a 7 or higher? etc.), finally homing in on the chosen card. When the prior uncertainty is some mixture of alternatives that are not equiprobable, Shannon’s formula becomes a slightly more elaborate weighted average, but it is essentially similar. By the way, Shannon’s weighted average is the same formula as physicists have used, since the nineteenth century, for entropy. The point has interesting implications but I shall not pursue them here. Information and evolution
That’s enough background on information theory. It is a theory which has long held a fascination for me, and I have used it in several of my research papers over the years. Let’s now think how we might use it to ask whether the information content of genomes increases in evolution. First, recall the three way distinction between total information capacity, the capacity that is actually used, and the true information content when stored in the most economical way possible. The total information capacity of the human genome is measured in gigabits. That of the common gut bacterium Escherichia coli is measured in megabits. We, like all other animals, are descended from an ancestor which, were it available for our study today, we’d classify as a bacterium. So perhaps, during the billions of years of evolution since that ancestor lived, the information capacity of our genome has gone up about three orders of magnitude (powers of ten) — about a thousandfold. This is satisfyingly plausible and comforting to human dignity. Should human dignity feel wounded, then, by the fact that the crested newt, Triturus cristatus, has a genome capacity estimated at 40 gigabits, an order of magnitude larger than the human genome? No, because, in any case, most of the capacity of the genome of any animal is not used to store useful information. There are many nonfunctional pseudogenes (see below) and lots of repetitive nonsense, useful for forensic detectives but not translated into protein in the living cells. The crested newt has a bigger “hard disc” than we have, but since the great bulk of both our hard discs is unused, we needn’t feel insulted. Related species of newt have much smaller genomes. Why the Creator should have played fast and loose with the genome sizes of newts in such a capricious way is a problem that creationists might like to ponder. From an evolutionary point of view the explanation is simple (see The Selfish Gene pp 44 – 45 and p 275 in the Second Edition). Gene duplication
Evidently the total information capacity of genomes is very variable across the living kingdoms, and it must have changed greatly in evolution, presumably in both directions. Losses of genetic material are called deletions. New genes arise through various kinds of duplication. This is well illustrated by haemoglobin, the complex protein molecule that transports oxygen in the blood.
Human adult haemoglobin is actually a composite of four protein chains called globins, knotted around each other. Their detailed sequences show that the four globin chains are closely related to each other, but they are not identical. Two of them are called alpha globins (each a chain of 141 amino acids), and two are beta globins (each a chain of 146 amino acids). The genes coding for the alpha globins are on chromosome 11; those coding for the beta globins are on chromosome 16. On each of these chromosomes, there is a cluster of globin genes in a row, interspersed with some junk DNA. The alpha cluster, on Chromosome 11, contains seven globin genes. Four of these are pseudogenes, versions of alpha disabled by faults in their sequence and not translated into proteins. Two are true alpha globins, used in the adult. The final one is called zeta and is used only in embryos. Similarly the beta cluster, on chromosome 16, has six genes, some of which are disabled, and one of which is used only in the embryo. Adult haemoglobin, as we’ve seen contains two alpha and two beta chains.
Never mind all this complexity. Here’s the fascinating point. Careful letter-by-letter analysis shows that these different kinds of globin genes are literally cousins of each other, literally members of a family. But these distant cousins still coexist inside our own genome, and that of all vertebrates. On a the scale of whole organism, the vertebrates are our cousins too. The tree of vertebrate evolution is the family tree we are all familiar with, its branch-points representing speciation events — the splitting of species into pairs of daughter species. But there is another family tree occupying the same timescale, whose branches represent not speciation events but gene duplication events within genomes.
The dozen or so different globins inside you are descended from an ancient globin gene which, in a remote ancestor who lived about half a billion years ago, duplicated, after which both copies stayed in the genome. There were then two copies of it, in different parts of the genome of all descendant animals. One copy was destined to give rise to the alpha cluster (on what would eventually become Chromosome 11 in our genome), the other to the beta cluster (on Chromosome 16). As the aeons passed, there were further duplications (and doubtless some deletions as well). Around 400 million years ago the ancestral alpha gene duplicated again, but this time the two copies remained near neighbours of each other, in a cluster on the same chromosome. One of them was destined to become the zeta of our embryos, the other became the alpha globin genes of adult humans (other branches gave rise to the nonfunctional pseudogenes I mentioned). It was a similar story along the beta branch of the family, but with duplications at other moments in geological history.
Now here’s an equally fascinating point. Given that the split between the alpha cluster and the beta cluster took place 500 million years ago, it will of course not be just our human genomes that show the split — possess alpha genes in a different part of the genome from beta genes. We should see the same within-genome split if we look at any other mammals, at birds, reptiles, amphibians and bony fish, for our common ancestor with all of them lived less than 500 million years ago. Wherever it has been investigated, this expectation has proved correct. Our greatest hope of finding a vertebrate that does not share with us the ancient alpha/beta split would be a jawless fish like a lamprey, for they are our most remote cousins among surviving vertebrates; they are the only surviving vertebrates whose common ancestor with the rest of the vertebrates is sufficiently ancient that it could have predated the alpha/beta split. Sure enough, these jawless fishes are the only known vertebrates that lack the alpha/beta divide.
Gene duplication, within the genome, has a similar historic impact to species duplication (“speciation”) in phylogeny. It is responsible for gene diversity, in the same way as speciation is responsible for phyletic diversity. Beginning with a single universal ancestor, the magnificent diversity of life has come about through a series of branchings of new species, which eventually gave rise to the major branches of the living kingdoms and the hundreds of millions of separate species that have graced the earth. A similar series of branchings, but this time within genomes — gene duplications — has spawned the large and diverse population of clusters of genes that constitutes the modern genome.
The story of the globins is just one among many. Gene duplications and deletions have occurred from time to time throughout genomes. It is by these, and similar means, that genome sizes can increase in evolution. But remember the distinction between the total capacity of the whole genome, and the capacity of the portion that is actually used. Recall that not all the globin genes are actually used. Some of them, like theta in the alpha cluster of globin genes, are pseudogenes, recognizably kin to functional genes in the same genomes, but never actually translated into the action language of protein. What is true of globins is true of most other genes. Genomes are littered with nonfunctional pseudogenes, faulty duplicates of functional genes that do nothing, while their functional cousins (the word doesn’t even need scare quotes) get on with their business in a different part of the same genome. And there’s lots more DNA that doesn’t even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies of junk, “tandem repeats”, and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesn’t seem to be used in the body itself.
Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA. Information in the genome
Can we measure the information capacity of that portion of the genome which is actually used? We can at least estimate it. In the case of the human genome it is about 2% — considerably less than the proportion of my hard disc that I have ever used since I bought it. Presumably the equivalent figure for the crested newt is even smaller, but I don’t know if it has been measured. In any case, we mustn’t run away with a chaunvinistic idea that the human genome somehow ought to have the largest DNA database because we are so wonderful. The great evolutionary biologist George C Williams has pointed out that animals with complicated life cycles need to code for the development of all stages in the life cycle, but they only have one genome with which to do so. A butterfly’s genome has to hold the complete information needed for building a caterpillar as well as a butterfly. A sheep liver fluke has six distinct stages in its life cycle, each specialised for a different way of life. We shouldn’t feel too insulted if liver flukes turned out to have bigger genomes than we have (actually they don’t).
Remember, too, that even the total capacity of genome that is actually used is still not the same thing as the true information content in Shannon’s sense. The true information content is what’s left when the redundancy has been compressed out of the message, by the theoretical equivalent of Stuffit. There are even some viruses which seem to use a kind of Stuffit-like compression. They make use of the fact that the RNA (not DNA in these viruses, as it happens, but the principle is the same) code is read in triplets. There is a “frame” which moves along the RNA sequence, reading off three letters at a time. Obviously, under normal conditions, if the frame starts reading in the wrong place (as in a so-called frame-shift mutation), it makes total nonsense: the “triplets” that it reads are out of step with the meaningful ones. But these splendid viruses actually exploit frame-shifted reading. They get two messages for the price of one, by having a completely different message embedded in the very same series of letters when read frame-shifted. In principle you could even get three messages for the price of one, but I don’t know whether there are any examples. Information in the body
It is one thing to estimate the total information capacity of a genome, and the amount of the genome that is actually used, but it’s harder to estimate its true information content in the Shannon sense. The best we can do is probably to forget about the genome itself and look at its product, the “phenotype”, the working body of the animal or plant itself. In 1951, J W S Pringle, who later became my Professor at Oxford, suggested using a Shannon-type information measure to estimate “complexity”. Pringle wanted to express complexity mathematically in bits, but I have long found the following verbal form helpful in explaining his idea to students.
We have an intuitive sense that a lobster, say, is more complex (more “advanced”, some might even say more “highly evolved”) than another animal, perhaps a millipede. Can we measure something in order to confirm or deny our intuition? Without literally turning it into bits, we can make an approximate estimation of the information contents of the two bodies as follows. Imagine writing a book describing the lobster. Now write another book describing the millipede down to the same level of detail. Divide the word-count in one book by the word-count in the other, and you have an approximate estimate of the relative information content of lobster and millipede. It is important to specify that both books describe their respective animals “down to the same level of detail”. Obviously if we describe the millipede down to cellular detail, but stick to gross anatomical features in the case of the lobster, the millipede would come out ahead.
But if we do the test fairly, I’ll bet the lobster book would come out longer than the millipede book. It’s a simple plausibility argument, as follows. Both animals are made up of segments — modules of bodily architecture that are fundamentally similar to each other, arranged fore-and-aft like the trucks of a train. The millipede’s segments are mostly identical to each other. The lobster’s segments, though following the same basic plan (each with a nervous ganglion, a pair of appendages, and so on) are mostly different from each other. The millipede book would consist of one chapter describing a typical segment, followed by the phrase “Repeat N times” where N is the number of segments. The lobster book would need a different chapter for each segment. This isn’t quite fair on the millipede, whose front and rear end segments are a bit different from the rest. But I’d still bet that, if anyone bothered to do the experiment, the estimate of lobster information content would come out substantially greater than the estimate of millipede information content.
It’s not of direct evolutionary interest to compare a lobster with a millipede in this way, because nobody thinks lobsters evolved from millipedes. Obviously no modern animal evolved from any other modern animal. Instead, any pair of modern animals had a last common ancestor which lived at some (in principle) discoverable moment in geological history. Almost all of evolution happened way back in the past, which makes it hard to study details. But we can use the “length of book” thought-experiment to agree upon what it would mean to ask the question whether information content increases over evolution, if only we had ancestral animals to look at.
The answer in practice is complicated and controversial, all bound up with a vigorous debate over whether evolution is, in general, progressive. I am one of those associated with a limited form of yes answer. My colleague Stephen Jay Gould tends towards a no answer. I don’t think anybody would deny that, by any method of measuring — whether bodily information content, total information capacity of genome, capacity of genome actually used, or true (“Stuffit compressed”) information content of genome — there has been a broad overall trend towards increased information content during the course of human evolution from our remote bacterial ancestors. People might disagree, however, over two important questions: first, whether such a trend is to be found in all, or a majority of evolutionary lineages (for example parasite evolution often shows a trend towards decreasing bodily complexity, because parasites are better off being simple); second, whether, even in lineages where there is a clear overall trend over the very long term, it is bucked by so many reversals and re-reversals in the shorter term as to undermine the very idea of progress. This is not the place to resolve this interesting controversy. There are distinguished biologists with good arguments on both sides.
Supporters of “intelligent design” guiding evolution, by the way, should be deeply committed to the view that information content increases during evolution. Even if the information comes from God, perhaps especially if it does, it should surely increase, and the increase should presumably show itself in the genome. Unless, of course — for anything goes in such addle-brained theorising — God works his evolutionary miracles by nongenetic means.
Perhaps the main lesson we should learn from Pringle is that the information content of a biological system is another name for its complexity. Therefore the creationist challenge with which we began is tantamount to the standard challenge to explain how biological complexity can evolve from simpler antecedents, one that I have devoted three books to answering (The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable) and I do not propose to repeat their contents here. The “information challenge” turns out to be none other than our old friend: “How could something as complex as an eye evolve?” It is just dressed up in fancy mathematical language — perhaps in an attempt to bamboozle. Or perhaps those who ask it have already bamboozled themselves, and don’t realise that it is the same old — and thoroughly answered — question. The Genetic Book of the Dead
Let me turn, finally, to another way of looking at whether the information content of genomes increases in evolution. We now switch from the broad sweep of evolutionary history to the minutiae of natural selection. Natural selection itself, when you think about it, is a narrowing down from a wide initial field of possible alternatives, to the narrower field of the alternatives actually chosen. Random genetic error (mutation), sexual recombination and migratory mixing, all provide a wide field of genetic variation: the available alternatives. Mutation is not an increase in true information content, rather the reverse, for mutation, in the Shannon analogy, contributes to increasing the prior uncertainty. But now we come to natural selection, which reduces the “prior uncertainty” and therefore, in Shannon’s sense, contributes information to the gene pool. In every generation, natural selection removes the less successful genes from the gene pool, so the remaining gene pool is a narrower subset. The narrowing is nonrandom, in the direction of improvement, where improvement is defined, in the Darwinian way, as improvement in fitness to survive and reproduce. Of course the total range of variation is topped up again in every generation by new mutation and other kinds of variation. But it still remains true that natural selection is a narrowing down from an initially wider field of possibilities, including mostly unsuccessful ones, to a narrower field of successful ones. This is analogous to the definition of information with which we began: information is what enables the narrowing down from prior uncertainty (the initial range of possibilities) to later certainty (the “successful” choice among the prior probabilities). According to this analogy, natural selection is by definition a process whereby information is fed into the gene pool of the next generation.
If natural selection feeds information into gene pools, what is the information about? It is about how to survive. Strictly it is about how to survive and reproduce, in the conditions that prevailed when previous generations were alive. To the extent that present day conditions are different from ancestral conditions, the ancestral genetic advice will be wrong. In extreme cases, the species may then go extinct. To the extent that conditions for the present generation are not too different from conditions for past generations, the information fed into present-day genomes from past generations is helpful information. Information from the ancestral past can be seen as a manual for surviving in the present: a family bible of ancestral “advice” on how to survive today. We need only a little poetic licence to say that the information fed into modern genomes by natural selection is actually information about ancient environments in which ancestors survived.
This idea of information fed from ancestral generations into descendant gene pools is one of the themes of my new book, Unweaving the Rainbow. It takes a whole chapter, “The Genetic Book of the Dead”, to develop the notion, so I won’t repeat it here except to say two things. First, it is the whole gene pool of the species as a whole, not the genome of any particular individual, which is best seen as the recipient of the ancestral information about how to survive. The genomes of particular individuals are random samples of the current gene pool, randomised by sexual recombination. Second, we are privileged to “intercept” the information if we wish, and “read” an animal’s body, or even its genes, as a coded description of ancestral worlds. To quote from Unweaving the Rainbow: “And isn’t it an arresting thought? We are digital archives of the African Pliocene, even of Devonian seas; walking repositories of wisdom out of the old days. You could spend a lifetime reading in this ancient library and die unsated by the wonder of it.”
1 The producers never deigned to send me a copy: I completely forgot about it until an American colleague called it to my attention.
2 See Barry Williams (1998): “Creationist Deception Exposed”, The Skeptic 18, 3, pp 7 – 10, for an account of how my long pause (trying to decide whether to throw them out) was made to look like hesitant inability to answer the question, followed by an apparently evasive answer to a completely different question.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I should think so. Don't you? If I created you and knew everything you would ever do, but had the ability to make you so you did different things, then I have chosen to make you in this specific way. Thus making it my responsibility that you have behaved that way.
I agree that you'd be responsible. But just because you are responsible, that doesn't mean I'm not also responsible or that I didn't choose to do it. I think we'd both be responsible for my choice.
I see the cookie situation as different only in degree. Sure, God is truly certain of how I will behave, whereas the father is only pretty certain of how his child will behave. And sure, God completely created me, whereas a father just helped shape his child. But in both cases its still one party effectively manipulating the other to make them choose a certain thing.
If I tempted a child to eat a cookie, knowing that if I did so then he'd eat the cookie, I think I'm responsible for him eating it. But again, that doesn't absolve him of his responsibility and it doesn't mean he didn't choose to do it. Multiple people can be responsible for the same outcome.
I see the whole free will debate as being motivated by a misguided attempt to rationalize the problem of evil. Yes, I am responsible for bad choices I make. But if someone created me knowing exactly what choices I will make, then they are also responsible. Thus, you can't simply use "free will" to make the problem of evil go away.
[ January 22, 2011, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
For Bible prophecy you can Chris, because there is no competition. Nothing else claims to be inspired by the Creator, Who alone can know the future.
A. Every religious text claims to be inspired by the Creator, doesn't it? Such as the ones mentioned above? B. Since I am also not starting from the premise that a Creator exists at all, this is still not much of a compelling argument to use on me.
All you've done is add another layer of circular logic onto the previous one: The accuracy of the Bible can be proven by the events detailed in the Bible, which is true because it was inspired by God, and we know this because the Bible tells us so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But again, that doesn't absolve him of his responsibility and it doesn't mean he didn't choose to do it. Multiple people can be responsible for the same outcome.
Is it morally sound for God to punish people when He shares direct responsibility for their actions? Who punishes God?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well, I'll put it this way - if a father sets up his son to eat a cookie he's not supposed to, the father certainly can punish his son for making the wrong decision, even if he knew his son would do it. Perhaps the father deserves punishment too for causing his son to do the wrong thing, but that depends on what purpose you think the punishment has. If punishment is morally required to right wrongdoings, then the father probably deserves punishment. But if punishment is just an educational tool to teach right from wrong, then the father may not need punishment - in fact, if the father provoked the wrong in order to teach his son something, then its possible the wrong is actually part of a greater good.
I generally believe that if God is omniscient then he must also be perfectly good (because someone who knows everything must know what is good and that it is good to be good), which means that if He has set us up to do wrong things then those wrongs must be necessary for some greater good. I tend to believe a world with evil and wrong choices is more meaningful than one with no evil where everyone always makes the right choice. And that's not because making all the right choices would take away our free will - I don't think it would.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Make sure you interpret the prophecy in a manner that is not based merely on subjective imagination, but is based on sound scholarship--including allowing the Bible alone to define all its symbols and terms; allowing the context to indicate what time in history the prophecy is to be applied to; and being careful to avoid taking literally what is figurative, and avoid taking as figurative what is literal--using reasonable methods of literary analysis, including checking to see how the term or symbol is used elsewhere in Scripture.
As Chris says, this is simply bad scholarship, bad reasoning, bad logic, and it's certainly not 'objective' as you have claimed elsewhere.
quote:For Bible prophecy you can Chris, because there is no competition. Nothing else claims to be inspired by the Creator, Who alone can know the future.
OK, this is another lie. There are plenty of texts, claimed by plenty of people, that purport to be inspired by God. There are even plenty of versions of the Bible, Ron. It's impossible that you don't know that, so it's a knowing lie you just told.
ETA: And, y'know, this is yet another area you've been proven factually wrong on, Ron. I look forward with pleasure to your slight backpedaling and pretending this conversation never happened.
I also think your remarks on this subject - no other religion's texts claim to be inspired by the Creator - are an attack on other religions, which would be true if anyone said it, I believe, since it's a pretty obvious falsehood. But it's especially true coming from you, given the enormous amount of weight you place on such things.
It'd be one thing to say, "I don't believe they're inspired by God." But you go further than that. They don't even claim to be inspired by God. Who on Earth do you think you are, anyway, Ron? Something for you to consider: for all the holiness and credence and moral weight you ascribe to the Bible, how much of that is supposed to shine from you, exactly?
[ January 22, 2011, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: For Bible prophecy you can Chris, because there is no competition. Nothing else claims to be inspired by the Creator, Who alone can know the future.
So, considering that this statement is in no way true, would you be willing to admit that you can't actually tautologically claim the bible as a solid authority? I mean, "nothing else claims to be inspired by the Creator" is pretty much one of the most untrue things you've said, and that's really saying something.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
There is a lot here to comment on, and I need to leave for church in 20 minutes. I will try to give more complete answers later.
The Bible goes a lot further in claiming to be the Word of God. Does the Koran anywhere claim to be the Word of God? What angel "gave" the Koran to Mohammed--Gabriel, or Lucifer? As I understand it, much of the Koran is cribbed from the Old Testament. From what I have heard from scholars who have studied the Koran, Moslems accept much of Old Testament history--their main point of divergence is in rejecting the New Testament claims that Jesus Christ was more than just a prophet, He is the Eternal, Self-Existent God, who said "Before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58) The Koran also does not contain anything equivalent to the Ten Commandments. I asked this question directly of some Moslem scholars I met, and they said emphatically that the Koran does not have this concept of Divine Law. It does have something called "Sharia" law, but those Moslem scholars did not view that as being the same. Apparently they are more on the level of the regulations that were to govern the kingdom of Israel
The Bible many times claims to be directly inspired by God, and He is quoted many times. The Bible also gives the text of the Ten Commandments, which God Himself wrote with His own finger on tablets of stone.
Not to be overly repetitive, but the Bible is validated by prophecies that are accurate, prophecies we can compare to history and see they were given to prophets by Someone who can see the future as clearly as the past. I have never heard of any comparable prophecies in any other purported "holy book."
As far as the different versions of the Bible--if you would read even a few of them, you would see that they do not contradict each other on any significant point (except for a few that are paraphrases, not literal translations, thus are bound to be influenced by the views of the paraphraser). In a few cases the meaning of the original text is obscure, so it is good to consult a number of different versions. I have 12 versions on my Bible, including the Textus Receptus Greek version, and the Nestle-Alland Greek version.
There are the books of the Apocrypha--that Protestant scholars choose not to include in the Bible, and Catholic scholars almost decided the same. The problem with the Apocrypha is that there is serious question about their authorship, they contain statements that directly contradict the overall teaching of the rest of the Bible (such as hinting at reincarnation), and no other Bible writers refer to them or quote from them. Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Old Testament frequently (it has been estimated that one third of the New Testament is quotation from the Old Testament), and they did not quote from the Apocryphal books. That is not to say the Apocrypha is not useful--they probably contain some things that are true. I think they are probably correct where they say that it was Jeremiah who led a group of faithful Levites in carrying away the Ark of the Covenant and hiding it in a cave, before the Babylonians conquered Judah and looted and destroyed the Temple.
More later. It's about time for me to leave.
[ January 22, 2011, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So you're moving the goalposts: first, it's 'nothing else claims to be inspired by the Creator,' now you're talking about how it's the Word of God. For your information, though, the bible does not have the monopoly on being considered the Word of God. Yes, the Koran claims to be the word of god (see sura 85:21-22 as well as the clarifying statements of muslim clerics all over the world).
This doesn't change the whole thing you're going to predictably try to weasel away from, where you said something which was clearly wrong and used it to reinforce and/or justify your tautological reasoning.
That, and you seem stuck on this whole idea of that "hey, MY book makes the more outlandish claims; that's how you know it's true!" If book A claims that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is all-seeing all-knowing god of the entire universe and book B claims that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is merely a prophet tied into larger universal forces, this is not evidence that book A is obviously more credible and true by default for virtue of its claims, any more so than we can say that judaism is obviously more provably true because of how it makes the claim of mass revelation.
That said though:
quote:I have never heard of any comparable prophecies in any other purported "holy book."
Of course you haven't! You're a notoriously selective reader and interpreter!
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Old Testament frequently (it has been estimated that one third of the New Testament is quotation from the Old Testament)
So your argument that the New Testament is genuine is that much of it comes from the Old Testament, and your argument that the Qurʾān is not genuine is, in part, this:
quote: As I understand it, much of the Koran is cribbed from the Old Testament.
That's... interesting. Also interesting is that in your 'holy books dictated by angels' issue, you didn't mention the Book of Mormon. What angel, in your humble opinion, delivered that one? Now prove it. Oh, wait. You can't.
As for this:
quote:The Bible also gives the text of the Ten Commandments, which God Himself wrote with His own finger on tablets of stone.
You can also find these in the Torah, among about 600 other holy laws given by God. If they're so important to you, Ron, why aren't you Jewish?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I really don't think Ron understands why people call him a liar and I don't think he understands why. He'll say something that is untrue or even contradictory and can even be shown this plainly multiple times, but if he persists in claiming it it's really not because he's lying in the sense of intentionally deceiving. He really believes he is clarifying things with evidently true statements and that disagreement is absolutely because of a 'refusal to consider points with an open mind' or an 'unwillingness to face the truth,' even when he's wrong on basic and fundamental levels or is committing multiple and egregious fallacies.
Yeah, I know, it might not be nicer to confront the fact that he is actively and pervasively deluded and irrational, but I want to retire the whole 'ron is a liar' meme.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't grant that premise, Samprimary. I simply don't believe it's possible for someone with even a passing knowledge of multiple religions to be unaware that they claim to be inspired by God.
The way he so frequently refuses to address direct questions, backpedals without acknowledging the misstep, etc., bottom line is he knows some of the thongs he refuses to admit, making him a liar. Why he is lying and changing goalposts is another question.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Apply that to pretty much anything else ron does in terms of his all-consuming tendencies!
"I simply don't believe it's possible for someone with even a passing knowledge of biology to <X>"
He really thinks he's coming at this from an intellectually honest standpoint.
The only thing which is left to wonder is whether or not he admits to himself when he's being evasive, given the regularity of when he will drop a previous tact in response to questions that he has no real answer for.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The Bible goes a lot further in claiming to be the Word of God. Does the Koran anywhere claim to be the Word of God? What angel "gave" the Koran to Mohammed--Gabriel, or Lucifer?
Muslims believe the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammed by the angel Gabriel and that it is the word-for-word copy of God's final revelation. Sura 85:21-22: "Nay this is a glorious Qur'an, (inscribed) in a tablet preserved." Every letter and every word is believed to be free from any human influence. And I'm sure you knew this, since you invoked Gabriel as a potential source. Nice way to get that "is it from Satan?" dig in there, though.
As I understand it, much of the Koran is cribbed from the Old Testament.
Much of the Old Testament is history, and Muslims share that history, so yes. The Qur'an purports to build on the Old Testament in much the same way the New Testament purports to build on the Old Testament.
The Koran also does not contain anything equivalent to the Ten Commandments.
Not in a handy, bullet-point list, no. Each of the rules in the Ten Commandments is included in the Qur'an, however.
I asked this question directly of some Moslem scholars I met, and they said emphatically that the Koran does not have this concept of Divine Law. It does have something called "Sharia" law, but those Moslem scholars did not view that as being the same. Apparently they are more on the level of the regulations that were to govern the kingdom of Israel.
To be fair, I don't believe Judaism considers the Decalogue to be of more significance than the rest of Jewish law as it was handed down, either. And many Christian faiths have differing opinions as to the order, wording, number, and meaning. Even Jesus, when asked which ones to keep, mentioned only six of them. (Matthew 19:13-19)
The Bible many times claims to be directly inspired by God, and He is quoted many times.
Yes, it does. So? The Bible cannot be the only source to prove the accuracy of the Bible.
The Bible also gives the text of the Ten Commandments, which God Himself wrote with His own finger on tablets of stone.
The Bible also gives the text of the Ten Commandments, twice, in two slightly different versions, which the Bible says that God Himself wrote, but, as mentioned above, the Bible cannot be the only source to prove the accuracy of the Bible.
Not to be overly repetitive, but the Bible is validated by prophecies that are accurate, prophecies we can compare to history and see they were given to prophets by Someone who can see the future as clearly as the past. I have never heard of any comparable prophecies in any other purported "holy book."
Not to be overly repetitive, but the Bible contains many prophecies that have been dismissed as metaphor, possibly for their crime of not coming true. More religious texts with prophecy: see Bahá'í, The Book of the Hopi, Chen prophecy books, etc. None of them are as huge, self-consistent, or widespread as the Bible, granted, but none of them have had the time, the PR, or the many, many translators and interpreters endlessly working on them to make them so. Thousands of years of arguing over what those different prophecies mean don't help your case, either.
There are the books of the Apocrypha--that Protestant scholars choose not to include in the Bible, and Catholic scholars almost decided the same. The problem with the Apocrypha is that there is serious question about their authorship, they contain statements that directly contradict the overall teaching of the rest of the Bible (such as hinting at reincarnation), and no other Bible writers refer to them or quote from them.
Amazing how accurate the Bible is when you choose to leave out the stuff that doesn't work.
Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Old Testament frequently (it has been estimated that one third of the New Testament is quotation from the Old Testament), and they did not quote from the Apocryphal books.
Tell me, is every book in the Old Testament quoted from in the New somewhere? If not, why aren't those unquoted books considered apocryphal?
So now we have the Bible, which is utterly true in every particular because it tells us it is, and because it is the Word of God, which we know to be true because the Bible tells us that, and because it contains prophecy which is amazingly accurate except for the ones which those of us who believe in the accuracy of the Bible have decided are metaphorical or taken out of context, and because we decided to leave out those books with errors since they can't be part of the Bible if they have errors because the Bible is perfect, which we know because it has no errors in it.
Oddly, I'm still not convinced.
[ January 22, 2011, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The New Testament writers quote from the Old Testament to prove their doctrines. They use it as Authority.
Let me address the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24:34: "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (NKJV)
Many people have questioned this, including devout Christians. So I do not wish to convey the idea that anyone is stupid for wondering about this. But the answer is very simple, when you take things in context.
The problem is many people jump to conclusions about who is meant by the expression "this generation." They assume it means the generation of the people He is talking to. But this ignores the subject of His discourse. Jesus did not say, "You will not pass away," or "your generation will not pass away." He said "this generation will not pass away." Who was He referring to by "this generation"?
Throughout Matthew chapter 24, Jesus is answering the disciples' question about when would be the destruction of the temple and the end of the world (asked in v. 3). After saying things that relate mainly to the destruction of the temple (which took place in 70 A.D. when the Roman army overthrew Jerusalem), Jesus talked about the final end of the world, the time of His Second Coming.
First He warned them that there would be false prophets and false Christs, seeking to deceive the faithful. Then He gives the signs that Satan will not be permited to counterfeit. "For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Mat. 24:27; NKJV)
He tells them about a great tribulation that will come to all the world, the greatest tribulation of all time (v. 21). Then in vs. 29-31 He says: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." (NKJV)
He gives a metaphorical comparison to the signs by which we know that Autumn is near (v. 33). He is saying that the signs He has given will indicate to us that His Second Coming is near. It is here that He says "this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (v. 34)
Jesus is talking about the generation that will see the signs of the end of the world. This is the generation that will not pass away until all the signs have been fulfilled and Jesus returns to earth to gather His saints. In other words, all the end-time final events will take place very rapidly--within the span of one generation.
A generation is typically taken as being about 20-22 years. So Jesus is saying that when the first of the signs of the end begin to appear, all the others will follow and His Second Coming will arrive sooner than 20-22 years. Maybe ten years. Maybe less. But one generation will witness all the signs and see His Second Coming.
I hope this is a satisfactory explanation. I feel that questions about Mat. 24:34 and their answer demonstrate the importance of the methods of sound Bible scholarship, which includes taking things in context--paying attention to the topic of a given discourse.
[ January 22, 2011, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I will not reply to anyone who calls me a liar, or suggests that there is anyting factual that I do not admit to. I do not accept their opinions and assertions as factual, especially because they seem to be insincere, and exhibit hateful hostility and unfairness. Anyone who continues insisting on building a strawman and calling it me, can talk to his strawman. The conversation does not involve me.
If anyone wishes to nitpick and misconstrue my statement about the uniqueness of the Bible's claim to be the Word of God, then let me rephrase it to be clearer: The Bible is the only writing on earth that is verified as being the Word of God. It not only claims it, it proves it by providing proof that cannot be counterfeited--fulfilled prophecy relating to the outline of history over thousands of years, up to the end of time.
I did admit that I have never read the Koran. Nor have I read the Book of Mormon. But I have not heard from anyone who has, that these writings have 100% accurate prophecies of the future history of the world.
Chris, you said in part: "...and because we decided to leave out those books with errors since they can't be part of the Bible if they have errors...." I was referring to doctrinal errors, that contradict the overall teaching of the Bible. I don't recall any prophecies in the Apocrypha, so the way you stated this seems to be a red herring.
Again, if anyone thinks the prophecies of the Bible are not 100% accurate, then please give me a specific example. I will see if I can explain it in the same manner as I did the question about the meaning of Mat. 24:34.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Is there even a single person left on this forums who doesn't know by now that you won't own up to making untrue statements? Are you saying you want to not respond to anyone who corrects you?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I will not reply to anyone who calls me a liar, or suggests that there is anyting factual that I do not admit to.
I have done neither of these things, and you will not respond to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Again, if anyone thinks the prophecies of the Bible are not 100% accurate, then please give me a specific example.
As I've said before, I will have this conversation with you once you can demonstrate to me that you know what an "objective fact" is, and how to recognize one.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Again, if anyone thinks the prophecies of the Bible are not 100% accurate, then please give me a specific example. I will see if I can explain it in the same manner as I did the question about the meaning of Mat. 24:34.
But Ron, you DIDN'T explain it. You hand-waved it in EXACTLY the way everyone said you would.
They are not 100% accurate to an objective observer. No more than today's horoscope are, at least, in that they can be interpreted by someone looking at them in hindsight as meaning pretty much what they want them to mean.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If anyone wishes to nitpick and misconstrue my statement about the uniqueness of the Bible's claim to be the Word of God, then let me rephrase it to be clearer: The Bible is the only writing on earth that is verified as being the Word of God. It not only claims it, it proves it by providing proof that cannot be counterfeited--fulfilled prophecy relating to the outline of history over thousands of years, up to the end of time.
There's no misconstruing going on. You said something completely different which was wrong, and now you're trying to avoid admitting that what you said was wrong.
Remember, what you said was that besides the Bible, nothing else claims to be inspired by the Creator. That was obviously untrue. Now you are making different claims 'to be clearer' and not even talking about your previous claims.
Care to address that?
Right now, you're just running from it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Isn't there a scholar among us who can point out that under Jewish scripture Jesus is for sure not the Messiah? That he doesn't actually fufill all of the requirements and the Christians just copted out of it by saying there would be a second coming?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
just_me, are you being honest and fair-minded when you deny my explanation of Mat. 24:34 was reasonable and completely in keeping with the context? If you call that mere "hand waving," then there is not much point in expecting you to have any willingness to think critically.
Blayne, it was the Jews who were confused. They confused the first coming of Christ with the second coming. There is even a third coming after the millennium when He comes to earth with the New Jerusalem to set up the throne of God on earth forever. (This is spoken of in Zechariah 14:4. At His second coming, Jesus' feet never touch the ground.) The Jews rejected their Messiah because He did not come in triumphal power, the way they wanted. Instead they got the suffering servant, and rejected Him.
The Apostle Peter states this about the focus of Old Testament Messianic prophecies: "Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow."
Note what Peter says here: The prophets of the Old Testament wrote prophecies that pertained to the coming of the Messiah that would involve His suffering, and to the coming of the Messiah in glory. Two different comings to this world.
Also notice that Peter was saying the prophets did not themselves necessarily understand what they were prophesying, and they studied diligently the messages they had been given to try to understand.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yo, I know you can read my posts. You're reading this right now, Ron. You can at least understand that we're pointing out that you said 'nothing else claims to be inspired by the Creator' and that you're not backing this up by switching to a completely different argument, a la 'only the bible is backed up by 100% accurate prophecy'
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
OK Sam, just to confound you, I was wrong to say only the Bible claims to be the Word of God. What I meant to say--what I should have said, is the way I clarified it later, that the Bible is the only writing on earth in all history that backs up its claim to be the Word of God.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Blayne, it was the Jews who were confused
That's going to go well.
*gets out popcorn* Where's Lisa?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, why should Lisa and I argue? I know she's Jewish, she knows I'm a Christian. The essential Christian position is the one I stated, that the Jews wanted the Messiah's coming in glory, and they rejected the Messiah who came as the Suffering Servant. So Jews are still looking for the first coming of the Messiah, and we are looking for His second coming. Lisa and I have discussed Bible scholarship issues before. I have learned a lot from her about how Jews see certain things, such as some prooftexts we Christians like to use. I appreciate Lisa's willingness to discuss such matters. I have encountered some Jews who literally run away when Jesus is mentioned. The fact that we both believe in the seventh-day Sabbath gives us a certain common ground, even though she has insisted that the Sabbath is only for the Jews.
But I think you are really just trying to get this thread even further off the track.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: just_me, are you being honest and fair-minded when you deny my explanation of Mat. 24:34 was reasonable and completely in keeping with the context? If you call that mere "hand waving," then there is not much point in expecting you to have any willingness to think critically.
Of course I'm being honest and fair-minded. I don't have my mind made up already - I don't know whether the bible is the word of god or not, I don't know whether its prophecies are true, I don't even know whether or not I believe in god anymore, and if I do whether I even like him.
On the other hand your explanation uses circular logic, post hoc reasoning and an assumption of infallibility as a basis. I guess you could say it's "keeping with the context" if the context is "how to cherry-pick what is literal and what is metaphorical to try and prove a point".
You must have a very odd definition of thinking critically... or at least a very non-standard one. I think it's pretty clear... here we have 2 people:
1) I don't know what's true, show me all the info and let me decide.
2) This document is infallible and anyone who doesn't agree with that is <insert negative classification here>
One of these two clearly meets the standard definition of fair-minded. (HINT - it's not the one you are!)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...what I should have said, is the way I clarified it later, that the Bible is the only writing on earth in all history that backs up its claim to be the Word of God.
Yeah, you didn't clarify it later, Ron. It wasn't a, "Whoops, I misspoke, lemme fix that," moment. But by all means, let's just file this alongside strong gun ownership n'stuff.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, I don't remember saying anything about strong gun ownership. That is not an issue that is of much importance to me. I don't own any guns. You probably have me confused with someone else. I think you have done that before. When you are in the habit of building strawmen, all strawmen look alike.
just_me, what is difficult for you about following the logic I presented? Instead of taking Jesus' statement out of context and jumping to the conclusion that when He said "this generation shall not pass" he was talking about the people He was addressing, what is really sound scholarship is to take His statement in context. As I showed in some detail, He was talking about the signs of the end of the world and His Second Coming. How could it be circular reasoning to point out what He was talking about, and that it was the generation that would see these signs who would see all of them fulfilled--in one generation? How is that not reasonable? How is that not objective and accurate scholarship? Just because it is different from the interpretation you may have heard before, does not mean there is anything wrong with it. In any exercise in critical thinking, you have to consider what alternatives would be reasonable. The most fundamental practice in analyzing anything, in any written work--Bible or secular--is to take things in context. Can you see that?
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
I don't know.. "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." seems pretty clear to me that he was talking to THOSE WHO WERE STANDING THERE, not some hypothetical "future generation".
And you're right "Just because it is different from the interpretation you may have heard before, does not mean there is anything wrong with it. In any exercise in critical thinking, you have to consider what alternatives would be reasonable.", so you should admit it's reasonable that the alternative - this was a statement that didn't pan our - is also reasonable.
But you want us to admit the possibility of error despite the fact you are incapable of doing so??? Seems you aren't such a good thinker after all, huh?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: How is that not objective and accurate scholarship?
Tom has said you need to demonstrate you understand what an 'objective fact' is. I don't think you do!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, I don't remember saying anything about strong gun ownership. That is not an issue that is of much importance to me. I don't own any guns. You probably have me confused with someone else. I think you have done that before. When you are in the habit of building strawmen, all strawmen look alike.
Of course you don't, Ron. When comparing liberals and conservatives, you said that conservatives appreciated and responded to imagery that included strength, such as things that included that gun ownership.
I asked you about it at the time and, as you so often do, you didn't address the issue.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
That is what you call a "strong gun ownership statement"?
If that is what you are referring to, then I did not reply because what you said made no sense. I thought you must be referring to some strong statement about gun ownership, which I have never made, other than simply to note the second amendment.
There is nothing wrong with what I did say. Conservatives do tend to identify more with imagery that suggests strength and confidence and individualism (including images such as those related to gun ownership), because that is what conservatism is about--empowering the individual.
How could you possibly take issue with that?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What, now you want to talk about it? Just to be clear.
ETA: Here's the relevant quote:
quote:One of the identifying characteristics of conservatives is their confidence in themselves, which means they favor individualism, freedom of choice, religious liberty, freedom from excessive taxation that punishes the productive and rewards the non-productive. Naturally they will gravitate to images involving personal strength, such as gun ownership, and use of gun-related metaphors. Liberals, by contrast, seem to be seduced by the siren song of socialism and the delusive appeal of the "nanny state." They would be glad to let someone else take care of them, let government take sole responsibility for the use of force, while the populace is all disarmed and padded with styrofoam and bubblewrap--provided at government expense (meaning at the expense of the productive).
Gun ownership takes exactly zero personal strength. In fact the point of firearms is that they allow people with very little personal strength to have lethal force in their hands, as opposed to requiring them to be big, muscular, and well-trained in things like archery or swordplay or horsemanship.
I objected to it because it was a profoundly silly statement for the reasons I described. Gun ownership doesn't require personal strength, it only suggests personal strength in much the same way that driving a red sports car makes one look cool. And that's aside from the absurd straw-manning of liberals.
quote:Because it requires personal strength to own a firearm? I don't 'oppose' the Second Amendment, as I imagine you to mean that statement, Ron, but this is simply a ridiculous statement, equating strength with gun ownership. It takes zero strength at all to own a gun. All it takes is a few bucks and a very little government-deemed competence and a waiting period.
And that's my reply from the time, so you can't say I didn't 'make sense' back when it was a topic. You simply ignored it because you didn't have an answer, a very common response for you.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, I would appreciate it if you would cease making false accusations, such as that I did not answer you because I did not have any answers, and (you imply) somehow I must have lacked the courage to face up to your logic. Don't be ridiculous. I have never been afraid to answer anyone in this or any other forum.
I do not generally reply to statements that do not make sense. I don't waste my time that way. As I have pointed out to you, what you said was not clear.
Thanks for the clarification. You are merely indicating a philosophical difference. In a way, I can agree with you that gun ownership is not essential for the strong individualism that is the heart and foundation of the conservative view of the world. As I said, I do not own any guns. And I am sure there are a few liberals who own guns. But for many conservatives, gun ownership is associated with conservatism. Surely everyone can appreciate that it is more forceful to say something like "We're going to target that office-holder and blow him away," than it is to say "We are going to try to defeat that office-holder, and we feel very resolved and confident that we can." Metaphors enrich our language, and no one is going to give up their freedom of expression without a fight.
[ January 23, 2011, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'Thanks for the clarification'? Ron, as I've stated, this clarification is something I said at the time of the initial conversation which you ignored.
If you didn't answer once, or twice, or even three times people's questions I wouldn't say you did it because you didn't have an answer. But you make such a habit of it, and it comes up so reliably on topics such as this, and breathing tubes, and 'no other religion's texts claim to be inspired by God'.
Those are just recent examples from the past week or two in which you either refused to acknowledge you'd made a mistake or absolutely had to be nailed down, in one case by an actual accredited professional in the field, and you still wouldn't just say, "Yeah, that was silly."
As for the courage thing, well, if you hadn't made a point more than once of bragging about your 'courage' in standing up to people in an online setting, perhaps I wouldn't call it into question when you so pointedly don't do so, Ron. If you're going to trumpet your courage in standing up to people, you have to actually stand up to them. I've been asking for a response from you on this for quite some time now, to no avail. You don't get to claim guts for it now.
quote:In a way, I can agree with you that gun ownership is not essential for the strong individualism that is the heart and foundation of the conservative view of the world.
Again you're shifting the conversation. I took issue with your suggestion that gun ownership was a thing which indicated strength, and conservatives as the group more likely to participate in that were stronger than the lily-livered weak-kneed nanny-state bubble-wrap loving liberals. Gun ownership doesn't require strength, which is what you suggested. Liberals are not weaker than conservatives for not being appealed to by such imagery.
quote:Surely everyone can appreciate that it is more forceful to say something like "We're going to target that office-holder and blow him away," than it is to say "We are going to try to defeat that office-holder, and we feel very resolved and confident that we can." Metaphors enrich our language, and no one is going to give up their freedom of expression without a fight.
It's more forceful, yes. Is it stronger? That depends on how you define strength. I look forward to a Christian perspective on defining strength as viewed through violence-laced language, by all means. Furthermore, no one is looking to take away anyone's freedom of expression. Challenging whether it is responsible to use violence-laced expression isn't the same thing as demanding they give up their freedom of expression. That's another false equivalency, and an attempt to change the discussion.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I have never been afraid to answer anyone in this or any other forum.
*ahem*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Liberals are not weaker than conservatives for not being appealed to by such imagery.
I'm a big-time gun owner and, if anything, I think people who don't inflate their sense of self worth with something like gun ownership, who are immune to that sort of compensation? Yeah, I'd think they're the stronger ones.
Same thing with sports cars. Mmmm, sports cars.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Blessed are the meek and the peacemakers, for they shall surely target that office-holder and blow him away.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
a peacemaker sure, but I've never heard of a meek. is it a revolver or a semiauto?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Claiming a lack of fear in answering an online question is silly anyway. If courage is needed, it ain't much. Vanity, on the other hand...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sean, Rakeesh, et. al., if I do not answer someone it is usually because I do not think their question is worthy of an answer. You should always take it as a rebuke for either being silly, and/or insulting, for making no sense, or ignoring what I have already said and I don't need to repeat myself. I have too many hostile posters in this forum for me to waste time on people who either do not know how to debate, or are unwilling to debate in a mature and civilized manner.
Case in point: TomDavidson's innane demand that I give him a definition for the word, "objective." This fails the test for meriting my direct response in several ways. First, it is the height of presumption for Tom to imply he knows better than I do what the meaning of such a common word is, when I am and have been a professional writer and editor for decades. I am pretty sure my vocabulary is at least three times more extensive than his, and I am always careful how I use words. Thus in my judgment his demand is silly beyond words. Also, he is obviously hiding behind his bogus demand to duck my perfectly reasonable request that he give me a specific example of an application of Bible prophecy I gave that he said is completely false. I have made this reasonable request four times, and he keeps ducking it. He does not get to claim I was mistaken in an interpretation of Bible prophecy, and not tell me specifically what he is referring to, so I can defend what I said. I don't care what demands he makes. He is in no position to make any demands. But if he is foolish enough to commit himself to not communicating with me at all until his bogus demand is met, then fine. Let him keep to his promise, and not bother me any further. (This is something I said I would never do, make such a "threat," because I do not wish to commit myself to not communicating. Apparently Tom does not even realize what he has done to himself.)
No one should ever conclude that I did not answer because I have no answer, or am afraid to answer, or some such thing. Once in a while I might overlook someone's question in the midst of answering several others. But if you ask again, and I still answer with studied silence, then that is my deliberate, pointed answer.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Sean, Rakeesh, et. al., if I do not answer someone it is usually because I do not think their question is worthy of an answer. You should always take it as a rebuke for either being silly, and/or insulting, for making no sense, or ignoring what I have already said and I don't need to repeat myself. I have too many hostile posters in this forum for me to waste time on people who either do not know how to debate, or are unwilling to debate in a mature and civilized manner.
But all too often you go silent on a straightforward, respectfully presented question/argument. Sometimes you are kind enough to make a dismissive comment about it being a word game or sophomoric something-or-other but in either case you are using a personal opinion about the nature of the argument in order to avoid addressing it.
As a result, some of the most salient positions that are contrary to your own are completely ignored and the impression it leaves, regardless of your claimed reaction, is that you aren't actually capable of addressing these arguments.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I've pointed this out to others before, but 'I'll avoid their questions, that'll show them' is like the most counterproductive way to think you aren't ceding ground when you are.
Secondly:
quote:Case in point: TomDavidson's innane demand that I give him a definition for the word, "objective." This fails the test for meriting my direct response in several ways. First, it is the height of presumption for Tom to imply he knows better than I do what the meaning of such a common word is, when I am and have been a professional writer and editor for decades. I am pretty sure my vocabulary is at least three times more extensive than his, and I am always careful how I use words. Thus in my judgment his demand is silly beyond words.
Yeah, this makes it even worse! A claim to self-authority that ducks the question, while assuring everyone how easy it would be for you to show that you were more right about the definition of objectivity than he is. When people do this, they never make themselves look good. Especially when you are obviously misunderstanding what Tom said he would or would not do ("if he is foolish enough to commit himself to not communicating with me at all until his bogus demand is met, then fine").
Also, Mr. Professional Writer and Editor for Decades who has a Vocabulary Probably Definitely Three Times as Large as Tom's: just as an example, it's "inane."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron:
quote:Case in point: TomDavidson's innane demand that I give him a definition for the word, "objective." This fails the test for meriting my direct response in several ways.
It is an age old principle when two learned people discuss something like the claim, "The Bible is objectively true" to discuss the definitions of the nouns and adjectives.
"How do you define objective?" "When you say Bible, do you mean as it exists today?" "What do you mean by true?"
Once that is done, hopefully in an efficient manner (though sometimes people end up debating definitions), you can then proceed to discuss the claim. Otherwise you end up arguing because one person says one thing that means something very different to the listener, who then has the same problem when responding.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron, leaving everything else in your post aside, I want to clarify that I will not have a conversation about specific elements of Biblical prophecy with you until you can demonstrate to me that you understand what it means to be "objective." I'm sure that you agree that this is actually a very important concept when discussing whether or not a given assertion is objectively true, or whether someone is evaluating a given claim "objectively" as opposed to "subjectively."
Regardless of your own level of literacy, I am unconvinced that you really understand what it means to be "objective." This isn't to say that I think you are incapable of looking up the definition, or using the word correctly -- for a given value of "correctly" -- in a sentence; rather, I think you lack certain critical thinking skills that are necessary to distinguish between objective and subjective forms.
The reason for this requirement -- which I understand may seem unfair -- is that I have noticed that you have a tendency to hyperbolically declare that something is "obvious to anyone" or "objectively true" or the like when in reality it is nothing of the kind, and I worry that any attempt to have this discussion with you would rapidly devolve into "is not/is too" exchanges unless you agreed that, yes, there is actually a mechanism by which things that are objective can be distinguished from things that are subjective, and that both of us agreed on what that mechanism looked like.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Let him keep to his promise, and not bother me any further. (This is something I said I would never do, make such a "threat," because I do not wish to commit myself to not communicating.
The above quote seems to me to be add odds with this one, Ron:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I will not reply to anyone who calls me a liar, or suggests that there is anyting factual that I do not admit to.
Now, you could argue that the second quote means specifically that you won't respond to the particular post in which the accusation occurs, rather than to the person who makes the accusation. That argument would be supported by your saying, slightly later in the same paragraph that the second quote comes from, " Anyone who continues insisting on building a strawman and calling it me, can talk to his strawman," since it implies that you would be open to dialogue with people who have formerly engaged in behavior you object to, as long as they cease to do so.
I don't think that the argument holds water, though, given that you, who are always so precise with your language (not sarcasm, here; I do appreciate your ability to convey precisely what you mean, even though I often disagree with what you are saying), specify that it is the people in question that you will not be responding to, rather than particular posts of theirs.
You, of course, are ultimately the best person to check with on this. Does that argument hold water, or are the two quotes in conflict with each other? Or is there a third possibility that simply hasn't occurred to me?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sean, Rakeesh, et. al., if I do not answer someone it is usually because I do not think their question is worthy of an answer. You should always take it as a rebuke for either being silly, and/or insulting, for making no sense, or ignoring what I have already said and I don't need to repeat myself. I have too many hostile posters in this forum for me to waste time on people who either do not know how to debate, or are unwilling to debate in a mature and civilized manner.
Don't know how you got any of that from my posts. Let me summarize:
- On page two, you said that assuming that all of scripture was inspired by the One Divine Mind, then it logically follows that the Bible can define and interpret its own terms and symbols.
- I said, in essence, "whoa, whoa, back up there to that first part. Why should we make that assumption in the first place?"
- Your next post was an explanation of the Bible's consistency in its own interpretation of terms and symbols.
- I responded to try to explain that I'm not interested in the second part of your statement, I'm interested in the first part; the assumption of the One Divine Mind, not the interpretation of symbols.
- You responded again about the interpretation of symbols.
- I pointed out that you are now saying that the Bible's consistency with respect to its own interpretation of terms and symbols is reason to accept that it was all inspired by the One Divine Mind. You have switched the A and B parts of your statement. That is circular reasoning. (And that, in the same thread where you elsewhere complained about being accused of circular reasoning.)
- You went silent.
If you think what I was asking was silly, I think it's kind of sad for a self-professed christian to think its silly when someone asks about the existence of God.
If you think what I posted makes no sense, maybe the above summary will help.
If you think I'm ignoring what you have already said, it's because it had nothing to do with what I asked.
If you think what I posted was insulting, I think you have a problem with private interpretation when it comes to the posts of others.
(ETA: And that last was not an insult itself; I think it likely the truth.)
[ January 24, 2011, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Sean Monahan ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Pointed deliberate silence.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Can you respond to Sean? I don't understand the pointed deliberate silence. He provided clear points and clarified his position.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Pointed deliberate silence.
This is an extraordinarily and transparently weak response to take against positions that you have difficulty addressing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Pointed deliberate silence.
Unsurprisingly, he's not guilty of any of the things that you use as stated criteria for not responding to someone!
Sean is
A. knowledgeable and capable of debate, B. is willing to and is debating in a mature manner, and C. is doing so in a civilized manner.
Now, unless there's something not present for public viewing in this exchange, like he's sending you private messages which are uncivilized and immature, it's clearly visible that he's not doing any of the things that you use to invalidate someone, which would mean ..
well, you can guess.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
None of you have any valid excuse for not answering my reasonable request that anyone who claims the examples I gave of fulfilled Bible prophecy have been "proven wrong" give me a specific example. Since none of you seem willing to discuss this intelligently and honestly and fairly, there is no reason why I should respond to any of you any further. You do not get to set the terms of the debate. This is the kind of control-freak effort you characters always indulge in when you cannot face up to my arguments and evidences and examples. I will not jump through your hoops. Never have, and never will. So wise up and grow up. You are not--any of you--showing maturity, honesty, and civility. What you claim in the way you characterize my response or non-response to your posts, is entirely false. I reject your characterizations of my posts utterly. You are not being honest. You are not being fair-minded. You are not being mature. You are not being civilized.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You say, "You don't get to set the terms but then yourself go and do EXACTLY that, demanding that we judge a document's prophetic accuracy only by its own standards. And even then, when we use "its" own standards we must use what YOU say are its standards, or you'll talk of nothing else.
Not even topics that came up prior to this. Not even a previous question like Sean's. Instead you respond, consistently, with insults thinly veiled or otherwise and then lecture on civility.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: None of you have any valid excuse for not answering my reasonable request that anyone who claims the examples I gave of fulfilled Bible prophecy have been "proven wrong" give me a specific example. Since none of you seem willing to discuss this intelligently and honestly and fairly, there is no reason why I should respond to any of you any further. You do not get to set the terms of the debate. This is the kind of control-freak effort you characters always indulge in when you cannot face up to my arguments and evidences and examples. I will not jump through your hoops. Never have, and never will. So wise up and grow up. You are not--any of you--showing maturity, honesty, and civility. What you claim in the way you characterize my response or non-response to your posts, is entirely false. I reject your characterizations of my posts utterly. You are not being honest. You are not being fair-minded. You are not being mature. You are not being civilized.
Pot, meet kettle.
Seriously Ron... If you are unwilling to debate the in the commonly accepted style here maybe you should just do us all a favor and leave. And don't give us that "I'm defending the huddled masses" crap - we've already shown that no one is going to step forward and say "yeah, Ron is speaking for me".
You might not like the game the way we play it here, but you came here and joined the game. If you don't like the rules you don't have to play - you're welcome to take your marbles and go home. BUT once you declare "I want to play" this constant insistence on changing the rules such that only you can win is ridiculous.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Since none of you seem willing to discuss this intelligently and honestly and fairly, there is no reason why I should respond to any of you any further.
Multiple people are willing, and are certainly discussing this very intelligently, honestly, and fairly. You have no reason to dismiss them, but have imagined their disagreement with you to count for reasons why they're beneath you. Which is nothing but a prideful narrative and character flaw on your part.
quote:You do not get to set the terms of the debate.
Follow your own advice, one of these days.
quote:So wise up and grow up. You are not--any of you--showing maturity, honesty, and civility. What you claim in the way you characterize my response or non-response to your posts, is entirely false. I reject your characterizations of my posts utterly. You are not being honest. You are not being fair-minded. You are not being mature. You are not being civilized.
You always default to this. It's your defensive curl-into-a-ball rationalization for pretty much any debate or issue where you get contradicted soundly. So much so to the extent that earlier I mentioned that it was getting ruefully tiresome that you always jump to saying things like 'the reason you disagree with me is because you can't open your mind and see things fairly and objectively, like me' — this sort of thing has poisoned both your mind and your credibility. You argue from statements that require a certain degree of ethos and logos and you have ceded and squandered both to a remarkable extent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which is, I'm just saying, why I want you to demonstrate to me that you understand what an "objective fact" is before I start talking about what things are or are not objective facts. Because I don't want to waste my time insisting over your objections that something is or is not an objective fact.
Posted by Mikemarx (Member # 11620) on :
I hope no one minds if a lurker inserts himself in to the debate.
The foundation of Ron's argument is that Bible can be proven to be objectively true by the accuracy of it's prophecies. On page two Tom argued that this is not necessarily for a number of reasons, such as the possibility of prophecies being written or cherry-picked after the fact. I find these arguments to be compelling, but to a none-biblical scholar such as myself they are only possibilities. Maybe the prophecies were cherry-picked, or maybe they were written after the fact. Can anyone give an example where this definitely happened (or at least where there's a very strong consensus)?
Ron asked for an examples of biblical prophecy which turned out to be not correct. Aris Katsaris provided an example from Matthew, and Ron argued why it wasn't untrue. Ron, I don't find your response to be entirely convincing, but I admit it's a possible interpretation of the text, so I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt here. Let's call that one a wash. So, can someone provide a few more examples of biblical prophecy they believe to be false?
Ron also argues that the Bible should be allowed to define it's own symbols. This seems fair to me, as I think he means to caution against bringing outside assumptions into the text. Ron, am I correct here, or am I missing something?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mikemarx. You have it correct.
I guess at this point the debate has reached the point of impass, though, so this will be my last post to this thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's a shame that a request to define terms constitutes an impasse, IMO.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mikemarx: So, can someone provide a few more examples of biblical prophecy they believe to be false?
Shur.
quote:13:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
13:20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.
13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
13:22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.
Babylon status: Still occupied by humans.
Babylonian dragon and satyr count: 0
quote:Isaiah 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
Damascus status: still a city, not a ruinous heap.
quote:Isaiah 19:4-5 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts. And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up.
Nile status: still a bountiful natural resource.
quote:Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.
Egypt status: still ain't speaking cannanite.
quote:Isaiah 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.
Jerusalem status: still accepting uncircumcised people to dwell within.
quote:Ezekiel 29:10-11 Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years.
Egyptian 40 year uninhabited period status: didn't happen.
quote:"Thou [Tyrus] shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD."
Tyre status: understroyed by Nebuchandrezzar. Even visited by Jesus and Paul later.
quote:28:25 Thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in their land that I have given to my servant Jacob. 28:26 And they shall dwell safely therein, and shall build houses, and plant vineyards; yea, they shall dwell with confidence, when I have executed judgments upon all those that despise them round about them; and they shall know that I am the LORD their God.
Israel status: not dwelling safely within, still warring over land and security, etc.
and so on, so forth. It's pretty easy to find massive lists full of these things. Individual passages that are really failed prophecy will be reinterpreted significantly enough to say 'no, see, it's not quite failed, it's different' but once you start seeing this selective re-interpretation done ten, twenty, fifty times? Pattern recognition implies a habit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And here is where Ron's 'Biblical prophecy is literally, provably accurate', argument fails, Mikemarx.
Invariably a host of objections to these criticisms will swarm up: these are 'outside interpretations'. The passages aren't actually speaking to the people it appears they're speaking to. That particular passage is clearly a metaphor, not meant to be taken literally.
It would be as if you put a witness up on the witness stand and began cross-examining him, which is a pretty reasonable standard to go about proving or disproving a document's prophetic accuracy, but at any given time when questioned on a specific prophecy he could say, "I didn't mean that prophecy, or not in that way, or I wasn't addressing that prophecy to those people in that place at that time."
No one would accept that kind of shenanigans from anyone, anywhere, anytime, but we're supposed to accept it from the Bible, why exactly? Because it's the Bible, and the Bible is supposedly of proven prophetic accuracy, the only document which is claimed (depending on when you ask Ron) to have been inspired by God, and the only document which has a perfect prophetic track record. And yet the only way you can establish that track record is by taking it as a given.
You need, I kid you not, drawing tools to create such perfectly circular reasoning, yet Ron refuses to address this initial assumption when challenged: why must we accept the Bible's perfect prophetic accuracy as a given, when the only way you can arrive at such a conclusion is by believing it?
That works brilliantly for the faithful, but very poorly indeed for those with questions.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Now I have to add another post. Samprimary, the ruins of Babylon exist today in Iraq. Not as a city, but as ruins. To my knowledge, it is still uninhabited. Scorpions and snakes and other wild creatures (and maybe a few archaeologists) are found there.
As for "dragons" and "satyrs," it is always a good idea to check different translations, especially when something pecular turns up in the five-centuries old King James Version. The word "dragons" appears in the KJV in Isaiah 13:22. In virtually every other translation (the modern ones) the translation gives "jackals."
Likewise in verse 21, where the word "satyrs" appears in the KJV, virtually every other translation renders it "wild goats" or "shaggy goats."
Isaiah 17:1 does not say Damascus would remain a ruinous heap forever. You are reading into the text something that is not there.
Isaiah 19:4-5 does not say the conditions described would be forever. Again, you are reading into the text something that is not there.
Isaiah 19:18 does not say that the conditions described would last forever. It says that for a time Judah would dominate Egypt, then later the Assyrians (led by Sargon) would dominate Egypt. Wars and imperial dominations went back and forth for hundreds of years in the Middle East. There is no clear failing of the prophecy here.
Isaiah 52:1 is part of a prophecy that describes the final deliverance of Israel. Many of these prophecies were conditional upon the faithfulness of the people of Israel (conditional like in the the prophecy against Ninevah in the book of Jonah, the predicted destruction was turned aside when the people of Ninevah repented).
Faithful Bible believers observe that while many prophecies are conditional, God's purpose in promising triumph and blessing is never thwarted, at most only delayed. Many prophecies, including Isaiah 52:1, are expected to be fulfilled in the New Earth, after the Second Coming of Christ.
Here is what God, who inspired these prophecies, said about whether they would be fulfilled or not:
"If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." (Jeremiah 18:7-10)
Also remember, one of the principles of sound, objective Bible interpretation I mentioned was to allow the context to indicate to us WHEN in history the prophecy was to be applied.
The 40 years inwhich Egypt would be uninhabited (Ezekiel 29:10-11) cannot be verified one way or the other, because the knowledge historians have of this period is sparse. Existing records do exist that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon did conquer Egypt, and it was his policy to deport peoples from conquered lands--as he did with Judah when he conquered it. There was a 33-year gap between Nebuchadnezzar's attack against Egypt, and Cyrus of Medo-Persia's conquest of Babylon. Allowing either for rounded numbers or time to return to Egypt, we have a possible span which could be seen as 40 years.
For lack of evidence, this cannot definitively be claimed as a failed prophecy.
You mentioned the city of Tyre. Perhaps you have not studied the actual history. The original Tyre used to exist a couple of miles out to sea from the present site of the new city called Tyre. The original site was utterly destroyed, and has never been rebuilt.
Samprimary and Rakeesh, nothing tricky or evasive is required to answer these claimed failures of Bible prophecy. All that is needed is sound scholarship.
But you are going through the entire Bible, perhaps going by some list from some anti-Bible prophecy website, and trying to come up with some instances--"cherry-picked" to use your own terminology--where questions might be raised. I have shown you that none of these are definitive, once sound scholarship is employed.
You still have not done what you originally claimed, which was that you could show where prophecies I have presented when I gave examples from Daniel that correctly foretell future history, were proven wrong. The prophecies I presented are clear and definitive, once interpreted by sound, objective means--allowing the Bible to define all its own symbols, and applying them when context clearly states they are to be applied. Link: http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=013271;p=0&r=nfx
[ January 25, 2011, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You keep using the word "objective." Please, please, stop using the word "objective" until you are able to explain what you mean by it.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mikemarx: Ron also argues that the Bible should be allowed to define it's own symbols. This seems fair to me, as I think he means to caution against bringing outside assumptions into the text. Ron, am I correct here, or am I missing something?
Others have addressed the rest of your post, but I don't see anyone talking about this, so here's my take.
The caution about bringing in outside assumption is a valid one, but it cuts both ways. You have to look at what the bible says by asking "what is this saying, what words are used and what did these words mean when this was written" as well as "have these words been altered by centuries of recopying and if so how much". This s how you avoid bringing in "outside assumptions"
The alternative is to do what Ron is doing and approach it from the perspective of "I know the bible is true so everything it says is true to to understand the prophecies I just have to interpret them in such a way that they make sense". This is brining in the outside assumption that the bible is always true.
Also, I think saying you have to let the bible define its own symbols is a bit of misdirection. You of course have to assign meaning to the symbols that make sense within the context of their use - when and where they were recorded - but this isn't the same thing as saying you have to let the bible define its own symbols. The only way to let the text itself define the symbols is by working backwards from the answer. You can determine the meaning of the symbols properly, however, by examining what the contemporary meaning was when the text was written.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
That is not always true, just_me. It is one thing to determine the cultural context of certain words and terms. It is quite another to define the meaning of apocalyptic symbolism.
An example of the former, where culture context can inform us, is in determining what the term "antipas" means in Rev. 2:13. Literally in Greek, the word can be translated as "in place of the father." Some people take it as meaning "against the father." This can be misleading (just as the term "antiChrist" can be misleading to those who thinks it means one person who is against Christ, rather that a religious system that claims to take the place of Christ). In the culture of the time of John, the expression "antipas" was something positive, not negative. It signified a son following in his father's footsteps. Note that in Rev. 2:13, Antipas is called "My faithful martyr."
In the second case, where there is apocalyptic symbolism used, we have to go by the Bible's definitions. Here is one of the classic examples, because it is so clearly a definition of a symbol: "Then he said to me, 'The waters which you saw [in verse one], where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues.'" (NKJV) Here culture has no relevance. Guessing at meanings of symbols based on subjective imagination, is forbidden by the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:20: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
As for your claims about "circular reasoning," it is not circular reasoning to take the Bible as it reads and defines itself in a consistent manner, and then judge whether the interpretations produced that way work. Any responsible scholar will base his judgment of a text on the way the text itself says it is to be interpreted. Anything else would be unfair.
If I might draw an analogy to the scientific method, what is proper methodology is to propose a theory and then test it. This is what I propose should be done with Bible prophecy. First you have to put together a "theory." It has to be based upon a consistent and objective (as opposed to subjective) determination of the meanings of symbols. Then you can test it to see if it works. It does. In fact, with the Bible, there is an additional check. You can run the same test where the same symbol occurs in other apocalyptic prophecies of the Bible, and see if the same interpretation "plugged in" there also works in a consistent manner. As far as I have found, it always does.
As for the suggestion someone made that later prophets might have been "borrowing" the prophetic symbols from earlier prophets, that does not work, because in many, perhaps most, cases, the prophets did not themselves understand what the symbols meant. God gave the visions. The prophets did not choose the symbols. Notice what the Apostle Peter said about the prophets NOT necessarily understanding what they were writing: "Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into." (1 Peter 1:10-12)
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
Ron, has your understanding of scriptural prophecy ever changed in any way since you first started believing that it was correct? Do you think it ever will change?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So Ron doesn't understand "circular reasoning" or "objective." Got it.
quote:You still have not done what you originally claimed, which was that you could show where prophecies I have presented when I gave examples from Daniel that correctly foretell future history, were proven wrong.
Who are you talking to. Now it's only the prophecies you presented which have to be proven wrong before you concede anything?
The goalposts are now making a whooshing sound as you hurl them around the battlefield. I might as well take all the prophecies of nostradamous, pick out the lottery winners, and say 'prove these specific ones are wrong, or nostradamus is God.'
I want to say I like how we see this:
quote: nothing tricky or evasive is required to answer these claimed failures of Bible prophecy
In the same post as this:
quote:The 40 years inwhich Egypt would be uninhabited (Ezekiel 29:10-11) cannot be verified one way or the other, because the knowledge historians have of this period is sparse. Existing records do exist that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon did conquer Egypt, and it was his policy to deport peoples from conquered lands--as he did with Judah when he conquered it. There was a 33-year gap between Nebuchadnezzar's attack against Egypt, and Cyrus of Medo-Persia's conquest of Babylon. Allowing either for rounded numbers or time to return to Egypt, we have a possible span which could be seen as 40 years.
Aaaaaaaaaand the classic example thus:
quote:Many of these prophecies were conditional ...
Oh, really!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
also:
quote:If I might draw an analogy to the scientific method, what is proper methodology is to propose a theory and then test it.
Hypothesis. You propose a hypothesis and then test it. Theories, such as the theory of evolution, are different.
(hey look! I tied in the original subject of the ronthread!)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Isaiah 17:1 does not say Damascus would remain a ruinous heap forever. You are reading into the text something that is not there.
Isaiah 19:4-5 does not say the conditions described would be forever. Again, you are reading into the text something that is not there.
Isaiah 19:18 does not say that the conditions described would last forever. It says that for a time Judah would dominate Egypt, then later the Assyrians (led by Sargon) would dominate Egypt. Wars and imperial dominations went back and forth for hundreds of years in the Middle East. There is no clear failing of the prophecy here. . . . The 40 years inwhich Egypt would be uninhabited (Ezekiel 29:10-11) cannot be verified one way or the other, because the knowledge historians have of this period is sparse. Existing records do exist that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon did conquer Egypt, and it was his policy to deport peoples from conquered lands--as he did with Judah when he conquered it. There was a 33-year gap between Nebuchadnezzar's attack against Egypt, and Cyrus of Medo-Persia's conquest of Babylon. Allowing either for rounded numbers or time to return to Egypt, we have a possible span which could be seen as 40 years.
For lack of evidence, this cannot definitively be claimed as a failed prophecy.
You mentioned the city of Tyre. Perhaps you have not studied the actual history. The original Tyre used to exist a couple of miles out to sea from the present site of the new city called Tyre. The original site was utterly destroyed, and has never been rebuilt.
I'm willing to bet that this pretty much goes without saying, but none of these things happened. Damascus has been a city continuously since the time of that prophecy. The Nile never dried up in this was. And there was never a Canaanite domination of Egypt.
Nebuchnezzar never conquered Egypt and we do actually know that Egypt was not a desolation for 40 years. Likewise, Nebuchenezzar, despite Ezekiel's prophecy, did not conquer Tyre and the island itself has been populated continuously since then.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
shadowland--yes and yes. No one is born right. Anyone who ever wants to get it right must learn and grow.
Mr. Squicky. You make bald assertions about history that contradict the history I have read about. Who told you that Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt? At one time, he was the acknowledged ruler of the entire Middle East. How could that be true if he did not conquer Egypt? And it was his policy to relocate whole populations, scattering and distributing them elsewhere, I would guess so they could not unify and rise up against him again.
The island that was the original site of Tyre might have some people living there, or at least fishermen fish from there, but it is not Tyre. Tyre was rebuilt inland.
I quoted God in explaining His own attitude toward His prophecies. When He foretells destruction, it may be turned aside or modified based on the behavior of the people. Likewise with blessings that He foretells. God has always been very concerned with freedom of choice. The best example we see of this is in the book of Jonah, where Jonah was sent by God to prophesy the destruction of Nineveh, and then the ruler and people of Nineveh were deeply impressed and repented, and God relented and did not destroy Nineveh. Jonah was a bit out of sorts about this. But God asked Jonah: "And should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?" (Jonah 4:11; NASB)
It is because God is Good that He behaves this way, and is willing to alter or put on hold the judgments He has foretold. He is not a heartless tyrant, the way some people are quick to claim, people who do not know Him.
And I remind you again of the specific things I explained from the prophecies of Daniel that apply perfectly to history--which was my original contention, if you will recall. That is what some of you challenged, and you still have not shown that any of those examples I gave were not fulfilled in history, even though that is what you claimed.
The apocalyptic prophecies of the Bible--especially Daniel 2, 7, 8-9, and 11; Zechariah 1-6; and most of the book of Revelation--are on a different level than the other prophetic passages in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc. The apocalyptic prophecies provide an outline of world history that is directly and explicitly tied to history. Thus the prophecies are not conditional, like local prophecies made against local situations involving local kingdoms and empires. At least I do not know of any conditional elements in those prophecies, other than perhaps the last part of Daniel 9:27--which some Bible students have suggested has been delayed in final fulfillment because the people of Judah (Judea) did not fulfill the role they were supposed to play, had they received their Messiah and not rejected Him.
But even in those local prophecies, there are some surprising things. Such as in the prophecies of Isaiah that foretold the role that Cyrus would play in overthrowing Babylon, written before Cyrus had even been born, even before Babylon had conquered Judah, and yet calling him by name:
quote:"It is I who says of Cyrus, 'He is My shepherd! And he will perform all My desire.' And he declares of Jerusalem, 'She will be built,' And of the temple, 'Your foundation will be laid.' Thus says the Lord to Cyrus His anointed, Whom I have taken by the right hand, To subdue nations before him, And to loose the loins of kings; To open doors before him so that gates will not be shut: I will go before you and make the rough places smooth; I will shatter the doors of bronze, and cut through their iron bars. And I will give you the treasures of darkness, And hidden wealth of secret places, In order that you may know that it is I, The Lord, the God of Israel, who calls you by your name." (Isaiah 44:28-45:3; NASB)
Note the reference to the gates "that will not be shut." As a quick summary, ancient Babylon was impregnable, with walls a hundred feet high that were so thick chariots could drive on the tops of them. Babylon also was assured of a water supply, since the Euphrates river flowed right though the city, through the wall. The passage through the wall was protected by a huge metal gate. But Cyrus and his ally, Darius, diverted the waters of the Euphrates so they could march their armies to the river gates of Babylon. This would not have worked either, but the combined Persian and Median armies found that the gate was unlocked and standing open when they reached it by night. The Babylonian guards were all drunk, while the king and all the other leaders were at Belshazzar's feast.
When Daniel was given his time prophecy in Daniel 8:14, he obviously understood it to refer to a vast span of centuries of time. Because this seemed to contradict God's promise in Jeremiah that the captivity of Judah in Babylon would only last 70 years, he faints away before the angel can finish giving him the prophecy. Then we find in the opening verses of Daniel chapter nine that Daniel is studying the prophecy of Jeremiah, and praying earnestly, acting as an intercessor for his people, confessing the sins of God's people to whom the promise had been given, praying that God would not set aside the promise in Jeremiah that the Jews would be restored to their own homeland after only 70 years. (See Daniel 9:2-20. Especially note verse 2.) So here we have an example of the Bible prophet realizing there could be a change in the prophecy God gave through Jeremiah because of the sins of the people and rulers. It is interesting that in Daniel's intercessory prayer for his people, he says that "We have sinned," even though the Bible does not record any sin in the life of Daniel himself.
[ January 26, 2011, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
I'm not sure how you can make an argument regarding certain explanations being objectively factual or self-evident when you recognize that even what you believe now may not be completely correct.
The problem with trying to prove a prophecy, such as Daniel's, false is that because of the extensive use of symbols, the prophecy can have any number of possible fulfillments. The real question is which fulfillment, if any, is the correct one, and this is going to be a subjective interpretation. Merely repeating subjective interpretations and assertions does not make it an objective fact. And until you acknowledge this, there's not really much else to discuss regarding this topic.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: At one time, he was the acknowledged ruler of the entire Middle East.
source please.
quote:As a quick summary, ancient Babylon was impregnable, with walls a hundred feet high that were so thick chariots could drive on the tops of them. Babylon also was assured of a water supply, since the Euphrates river flowed right though the city, through the wall. The passage through the wall was protected by a huge metal gate. But Cyrus and his ally, Darius, diverted the waters of the Euphrates so they could march their armies to the river gates of Babylon. This would not have worked either, but the combined Persian and Median armies found that the gate was unlocked and standing open when they reached it by night. The Babylonian guards were all drunk, while the king and all the other leaders were at Belshazzar's feast.
source please.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The island that was the original site of Tyre might have some people living there, or at least fishermen fish from there, but it is not Tyre. Tyre was rebuilt inland.
That's not true. Tyre is spread over both the island and the mainland. There are parts of the island that are not inhabited (although they have ruins on them and are not bare rock as the prophecy says), but much of the original site of the city is still inhabited.
But that's really besides the point. The prophecy was a lot more specific than just "Tyre will be destroyed". It specifically said that Nebuchadnezzar would do it. He didn't. He besieged it for 13 years, but failed to conquer the city. It was centuries later when Tyre was first conquered, by Alexander the Great, and he did not destroy it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, since you won't believe anything I say about history, do your own homework.
MrSquicky, apparently you disregarded my entire explanations about (1) God being willing to alter or forego fulfillments of calamities or blessings He has foretold, on the basis of the behavior of the people involved; and (2) about the difference between apocalyptic prophecies such as Daniel 2, 7, 8-9, 11-12--and local prophecies regarding local kingdoms and empires which are always conditional; and (3) my repeated reminders that the original issue was the prophetic applications I gave in previously published articles (especially of Daniel) which are perfectly fulfilled in the overall outline of world history, which some of you deniers claimed were not true, and you have persistently refused to give me a specific example.
If you are not willing to be fair about this, or even pay attention, then I can only conclude that you do not want to engage in a scholarly discussion where the mutual goal is to arrive at a clearer understanding of truth, but rather you merely want to argue blindly. As God once said of Ephraim, you appear to be joined to your idols, so I will leave you alone. Sadly, for your sake. There is so much you could have known that would have done you great good.
shadowland, so you were not asking your question in reasonable good faith, you were just trying to get me to say some words you could seize upon and twist unfairly. And I categorically deny that the interpretations I have given of Bible prophecy are in any way subjective. I have gone by the only methods that could possibly provide the one true, objective interpretation, based on the way the Bible defines its own terms, based on the indication of context when a prophecy is to be applied, and based on a reasonable determination (again consulting the text for context and example) of what is to be taken literally, and what is to be taken figuratively. There are no other methods than these that anyone can use to arrive at an interpretation that avoids being subjective or "private," as the Apostle Peter put in in 2 Peter 1:20.
If this is the best that any of you can do, then I will no longer post to this thread.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So there's another condition in which prophecies don't have to be fulfilled in order for Biblical prophecy to be 100% accurate: the extremely subjective behavior of huge groups of people involved. Objectivity is CERTAINLY possible in such conditions, Ron.
Put simply, when it comes to predicting the future, there's only ONE way to be objective: whether it accurately predicts the future. Your way involves so many hoops to jump through you need a paragraph's exposition to tell people why they should believe it's true. Otherwise, they only buy it if they ALREADY believe. That ain't objective. Objective things stand on their own. Your analysis doesn't, and never has.
Evidence: your repeated demands that folks jump through the subjective hoops you've established before you'll discuss.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:MrSquicky, apparently you disregarded my entire explanations about (1) God being willing to alter or forego fulfillments of calamities or blessings He has foretold, on the basis of the behavior of the people involved; and (2) about the difference between apocalyptic prophecies such as Daniel 2, 7, 8-9, 11-12--and local prophecies regarding local kingdoms and empires which are always conditional; and (3) my repeated reminders that the original issue was the prophetic applications I gave in previously published articles (especially of Daniel) which are perfectly fulfilled in the overall outline of world history, which some of you deniers claimed were not true, and you have persistently refused to give me a specific example.
I'm not sure how that is relevant. I mean, if you wanted to say from the beginning that those prophecies didn't come true, you probably should have said so. Instead, you tried to say that they were true by stating things that are clearly untrue and only retreated to saying that they didn't have to come true after I showed that what you were claimed never happened.
It looks to me like you don't really have the dedication to Biblical truth and the accuracy of the prophecies that you claim if you didn't know, from the start, that these prophecies didn't come true and thought that they needed to be defended by falsehoods.
Posted by J-Put (Member # 11752) on :
The bible is true. We can see that because all the prophesies in it came true. Except the ones that didn't. But that's ok because it says that some of them might not come true in the bible...which is always right. That's obvious from the fact that all the prophecies came true.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, since you won't believe anything I say about history, do your own homework.
I can very easily believe something you say about history. I am asking you for what your source is. You didn't have information on the specific widths and impregnabilities of the Babylonian walls imprinted on your mind via magic, you also don't have an impression of how the city was sieged due to inattentive drunkard guards that originated from nowhere. You have a source. Please provide your source.
Responding to a request for a source by saying 'do your own homework' is startlingly immature. The point of asking the questions is not to get research I can find myself. It's to find out where YOU get YOUR facts from. Asking you is the research. Answering the questions is the homework.
Don't run away from this one and then say it's obviously because we 'can't do good enough for you.' Saying that after refusing to respond to the questions in the first place makes your surrender readily apparent.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Bear in mind that you have arrogated to yourself the right to declare which predictions constitute real prophecies, rather than metaphors, and then comb through thousands of years of history to find the best matches. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)