Bible Vs Scientism

[MichaelBoll]

Please explain clearly why you think that I owe you an apology.

I did that yesterday, showing your clear mistakes in multiple posts... mistakes you haven't directly addressed for some reason. 🤔

1. My questions were valid - as evidence by the source I presented yesterday that says "it is gravity that BINDS the atmosphere to the earth".
2. My questions were not misrepresenting anything Magenta said, since all she said was, "It's called gravity" - leaving us all to our own imaginations of what that might mean or how that might work.
3. My polite request for further explanation was sincere, for the reason mentioned above.
4. My insistence that my questions were valid and not a strawman was also therefore sincere - meaning that I wasn't lying.

But don't worry. I was just kidding around when I said I was holding my breath. I'm not really doing that. I never actually expected you to apologize for your false accusations against me. 😉

 

[MichaelBoll]

Right here:

Easier to show this one with a screenshot...



I posted screenshots from the search results. Search results usually contain a linked title of an article, and then a little snippet of the article below that title, which contains some of the search terms you used.

Dino, are you saying that (after underlining some of the words under the title in those screenshots in red and quoting some of those words in my response) when I suggested you read more than just the title, I was telling to to read all 4 of those articles in their entirety?

Or are you saying that you think the little snippet the web browsers include under the title that matches your search terms IS the entire article?

Either way, just to help you out in the future, if I ever post something like this...



... and suggest that you read more than just the title, I'm actually suggesting that you read that little snippet of the article in the black font directly underneath the blue font title. I wasn't suggesting that you pause your life to read FOUR entire articles.

You are really something else, dude. 😅😂

 

[MichaelBoll]

You don't need to say anything. 😊💕
Btw, did he ever actually state he did read your articles? Has he posted in a way that would prove he read them?

Not yet. Dino clearly isn't interested in a respectable and honest discussion of whether or not the Bible and Scientism blatantly and largely contradict each other. He is only interested in playing games that he seems to think make him look like some great intellectual debater. But he serves my purpose for now.

 

[Dino246]

I have... many years ago. From Brown-Driver-Briggs...

the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it, Genesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 1:8 (called שָׁמַיַם; all P), Psalm 19:2 ("" הַשָּׁמַיַם), ׳זֹהַר הָר Daniel 12:3; also ׳ר הַשָּׁמִיִם Genesis 1:14,15,17, ׳הַשּׁ ׳עַלמְּֿנֵי ר Genesis 1:20 (all P). **רְקִיעַ עֻזּוֺ Psalm 150:1 (suffix reference to ׳י).​

It's from the root word "raqa". From Strong's....

raqa: to beat, stamp, beat out

​

A few scriptural examples...

Exodus 39:3...Then they hammered out gold sheets

Numbers 16:39... they hammered them out as a plating

Isaiah 40:19... A goldsmith plates it with gold

​

Raqia basically refers a solid object that is beaten into shape with a tool, such as a hammer. And this is the word God used to describe our solid heaven that supports the waters above the heaven. (Gen 1:6-7, Ps 148:4)

Now, show me "my misunderstanding".

Simple: I didn't ask you to show me the scriptural uses of the Hebrew term translated as "firmament". You would waste less of your time if you read more carefully.

Really? Are you really going to sit here and pretend that the defenders of Scientism (modern cosmology if you prefer)

I don't prefer. You use the term "Scientism" as slander. Try showing respect for those with whom you disagree.

claim that heaven IS a firm barrier over the earth, and that there ARE floodgates that can be opened and closed?

I have no obligation to disprove your assertion; I can dismiss it until you provide supporting evidence. Until then, it is merely your opinion.

Dino, honest questions here... Do you seriously believe that it is merely my opinion that modern cosmologists (that I call defenders of Scientism) don't think heaven is a solid barrier and don't think it has floodgates within it? Do you seriously believe that I need to find a direct statement from one of them saying those exact words in order for you to address my point - because without that direct statement it is only my opinion?

No, but you are making broad-brush accusations with no evidence (presented) whatsoever. Show up with some evidence, both for your position (beyond your own interpretation, that is), and for the position you decry.

 

[Dino246]

Easier to show this one with a screenshot...

View attachment 241254

I posted screenshots from the search results. Search results usually contain a linked title of an article, and then a little snippet of the article below that title, which contains some of the search terms you used.

Dino, are you saying that (after underlining some of the words under the title in those screenshots in red and quoting some of those words in my response) when I suggested you read more than just the title, I was telling to to read all 4 of those articles in their entirety?

Or are you saying that you think the little snippet the web browsers include under the title that matches your search terms IS the entire article?

Either way, just to help you out in the future, if I ever post something like this...

View attachment 241255

... and suggest that you read more than just the title, I'm actually suggesting that you read that little snippet of the article in the black font directly underneath the blue font title. I wasn't suggesting that you pause your life to read FOUR entire articles.

You wouldn't be the first to do so.

 

[Bluesproverb]

Not yet. Dino clearly isn't interested in a respectable and honest discussion of whether or not the Bible and Scientism blatantly and largely contradict each other. He is only interested in playing games that he seems to think make him look like some great intellectual debater. But he serves my purpose for now.

Then when he berated you for implying he didn't read those articles, and he actually didn't read them, he was false.

What have you gotten yourself into?

 

[Dino246]

Not yet. Dino clearly isn't interested in a respectable and honest discussion of whether or not the Bible and Scientism blatantly and largely contradict each other. He is only interested in playing games that he seems to think make him look like some great intellectual debater. But he serves my purpose for now.

Third-party criticism on a public forum is inappropriate, and you are a hypocrite.

 

[Oriel36]

What was that answer? And how was it verified?

When Galileo had to defend his support of Copernicus and the reasons for the daily and orbital motions of the Earth, he used Augustine to remark on those who misuse the traditions within the Bible and thereby diminish what it means to be Christian in these great affairs-

"If' anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and
manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken;
for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is
beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what
is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be
there." Augustine

There is much to discuss in terms of the motions of the Earth in a Sun-centred system and recover astronomy as an observational exercise once more from a period of vandalism. It is not going to be done by those who take a false satisfaction over conclusions that not even the geocentric astronomers held on to.

All Christians have these gifts, some more and some less, if they make the effort to use them.

 

[MichaelBoll]

Simple: I didn't ask you to show me the scriptural uses of the Hebrew term translated as "firmament". You would waste less of your time if you read more carefully.

Lame attempt to save face. I've demonstrated what the word means, what its root word means, and how the Hebrews considered the properly translated firmament (named "heaven" by God) to be a solid vault covering the earth, and holding back the waters above the heaven.

I don't prefer. You use the term "Scientism" as slander. Try showing respect for those with whom you disagree.

Try just answering a question now and then, instead of working yourself into a sweat trying to get out of answering them. Thanks.

I have no obligation to disprove your assertion; I can dismiss it until you provide supporting evidence. Until then, it is merely your opinion.

Cowardly tripe. Translation: I can't go toe to toe with you in an actual discussion, so I need to keep adding more and more ridiculous hoops into the equation, and demanding that you jump through each of them before I give a straight answer... which will never actually come, because there is no limit to the amount of hoops I can keep adding.

Dino, honest questions here... Do you seriously believe that it is merely my opinion that modern cosmologists (that I call defenders of Scientism) don't think heaven is a solid barrier and don't think it has floodgates within it? Do you seriously believe that I need to find a direct statement from one of them saying those exact words in order for you to address my point - because without that direct statement it is only my opinion?

No, but you are making broad-brush accusations with no evidence (presented) whatsoever. Show up with some evidence, both for your position (beyond your own interpretation, that is), and for the position you decry.

Admission of guilt. Thank you. Translation: I know you won't be able to actually find some astronomer who will point blank say that heaven is NOT solid, and there AREN'T floodgates within it. And I don't really even need you to do that, because what you have claimed is indeed accurate. But since my answer to your questions that are indeed based on accurate information will make me look bad and you look good, I will STILL demand that you provide these things that I know don't actually exist.
😅😂

 

[Bluesproverb]

When Galileo had to defend his support of Copernicus and the reasons for the daily and orbital motions of the Earth, he used Augustine to remark on those who misuse the traditions within the Bible and thereby diminish what it means to be Christian in these great affairs-

"If' anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and
manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken;
for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is
beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what
is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be
there." Augustine

There is much to discuss in terms of the motions of the Earth in a Sun-centred system and recover astronomy as an observational exercise once more from a period of vandalism. It is not going to be done by those who take a false satisfaction over conclusions that not even the geocentric astronomers held on to.

All Christians have these gifts, some more and some less, if they make the effort to use them.

As I recall Gallaleo recanted his heleocentric theory under threat of the Inquisition.

 

[Jocund]

"Scientism" is very clearly defined by me in the OP of the thread.

All of that said, you're more likely going to see the terms metaphysical naturalism or physicalism to try to explain a concept that the world is somehow ruled only by a cosmological matrix that exists without a creator. That is a philosophic position and not scientific. If that is what you mean to express by "scientism", I agree that it is not scientific by its nature and instead represents a philosophic position that is contrary to Christianity.

Read the above again. If you mean metaphysical naturalism, I don't think anyone here has advocated for that position. If are conflating metaphysical naturalism with old earth creationism, that's something that needs to corrected. They are different things. Empiricism and speculative science do not rely on metaphysical naturalism.

Yes. Light itself was created on day one - and is in fact the mechanism for there to BE a day one.

So you assume. As I pointed out with the sun standing still, the measure of a day is necessarily independent of standard cycles of light and darkness.

One light/dark cycle on earth (actually the waters from which the earth would soon be formed) is what God defined as a day.

More assumptions.

I assume that you were thinking that the sun is the reason for light on earth.

If you would read more carefully you would see that I was proposing that it is not necessarily the case that any light was actually cast on the earth in the first few days.

Do you think that means that God created light somewhere else besides the formless and void earth?

I am suggesting that the light was not necessarily cast on the earth until the verse that states that light was cast on the earth.

In scripture, there is such as thing as invisible light.

"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." - 1 John 1:5 KJV

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" - 1 Col 1:15 KJV

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" - Rom 1:20 KJV

The earth could have been in darkness until day 4 where the evening and morning were unseen.

If so, please elaborate on where you think this light was, if not breaking up the darkness that previously covered the earth.

Your problem here is that you are relying on what seems to intuitively be the case rather than what is possibly the case. It is necessarily the case that light was cast on the earth during day 4, it is only possibly the case that light was cast on the earth prior to that.

Yes. The singular form of yowm was used figuratively in the Bible, just like the singular form of day is used figuratively by us, ie: "back in the day of prohibition".

Great: progress.

"back in the day of prohibition" is the figurative use of "day"

The alcohol prohibition has a known time-frame extending over more than one standard day. A better example would be something like Rev 6:17 where it isn't entirely clear whether it is referring to a single standard day or multiple days.

"For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" - Rev 6:17 KJV

Or Phil 1:10 which also isn't clear about the specific time-frame.

"That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ." - Phil 1:10 KJV

Although it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that "back in the day of prohibition" is the figurative use of "day" referring to an unspecified period of time

Some people genuinely hold the position that everything is literal in scripture (or at least they attempt to hold that position). The first step is to make sure everyone's on the same page that some descriptions can be figurative, and from there it comes down to establishing a convention for determining which things are likely figurative or likely literal (we can also just leave it as a mystery and make no comment on likelihood). We can also make cases for double-entendres.

What if I referred to "the FIRST day of prohibition", or to "day 23 of prohibition"? Then would I be still talking about an unspecified general time period? Or would my inclusion of numerical values make it clear that I was talking about literal days?

Does Genesis say "on day 2, this was done"? No. It states a number of happenings and then states that the nth day was concluded.

there are also the clues that I've laid out for you before... clues that you didn't bother to address in your lengthy response for some reason. 🤔

I probably did address them. You might have not understood how some things I mentioned cover your points. It's also possible I missed the significance of something you noted. Feedback is always good. Let me know.

What if I referred to "the morning of the first day of prohibition", or "the evening of the 23rd day of prohibition"? Would I then be talking about an unspecified time period? Or would the inclusion of morning and evening make it clear that I was talking about literal days?

Sure, for most things that convention might work. The creation is a special case. It is clear to see how those numbered days could be explaining numbered sequences of creation. The numbering of days serves as a marker for chronology. it serves a function. If the Gen 1 "day" is figurative in the same way as Gen 2:4, it would stand to reason that "day" basically means "age".

If you look at the sequences as "the day of plants, etc.", and which happened first, and then "the day of fish, etc." We can see the sense of "day" referring to a figurative period of time.

I asked before, and I'll ask again... Please DEFINE the word "day" in these passages.

I already did. You ignored my answer. Clearly "a day in the eyes of the Lord is like 1000 years" is not referring to the length of the day in that case being 24 hours.

1. How God may or may not EXPERIENCE the passing of a day has no bearing on what God means

You could certainly take the approach that 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 are expressions of "experienced time" but your approach would not be a necessary interpretation. It also is not particularly compelling interpretation. The explanation right after 2 Peter 3:8 was basically to note that you shouldn't expect neat little windows of 1 standard day events when it comes to the Day of the Lord.

Look back at 2 Peter 3 as a whole. What does "day" mean in that chapter? What do you think the author is trying to explain?

He told the Israelites to work six and rest on the seventh BECAUSE He also worked six and then rested on the seventh.

The weekly cycle is not a good argument for the actual duration of the creation "days". E.g. Passover covers 40 days to represent 40 years. The week days can be representative or commemorative of periods of time without needing to be the same length.

 

[Jocund]

Of course you'll agree that these additions make it abundantly clear that I now mean literal days, right?

I'm sure the Pharisees were amply surprised to find out that the "seed" promises weren't actually made to "seeds". Assuming context in scripture can be a dangerous game where you end up with an understanding that appears consistent but is not necessarily true. If it isn't necessarily the case, why not admit it?

You have assumed that the days in Genesis are literal. And within that assumption, you have also assumed that the length of day follows the standard 24 hour cycle where no such thing is explicitly mentioned. You have assumed that light was cast on the earth prior to the 4th day.

Every single time the word yowm (day) is used in scripture and includes either evening/morning or a numerical value, it is always a literal day.

Incorrect. Please see Psalms 90.

So there can be a "day" independent of the movement of the sun - as with the first 3 days of creation?

Good: more progress. Now explain why you believe that a day is always the same length of time even before the sun governed the length of day.

2. Peter's statement goes both ways.

No it does not. That be relying on the opposite of Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8.

"back in the days of Noah"

"Days of Noah is tied to a specific number of years (950 years). There was intentional precision included when "days of Noah" is stated instead of "day of Noah".

They only promote that a "day" could be 365,000 times LONGER than a literal day,

Well... or longer, because that is what Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 state.

That would amount to a couple of seconds of our time to create everything. Of course, we won't see you ever promoting that idea, will we?

If you followed the natural conclusions of the "billions of years worth of happenings in six 24 hour periods" from earlier posts, you would see that changing "24 hours" to "split seconds" isn't an issue for that model.

I'm not sure if you're trying to come from the angle of "Look! There are instances of literal days!" I don't disagree. Some references to "day" seem to best fit with standard cycles of some kind.

However, it is clear that the standard cycle is not dependant on light cycles. And it is also not dependant on high rise and even-tide (evening) as the moon also stood still in Joshua 10:13.

How did they measure how long the time was that the sun stood still? Hour glasses? Divine revelation telling them the fact? You proposed that it was an estimate. Does that make it a figurative length of time? We can also just leave it as a mystery and acknowledge the strangeness of what was meant by the sun standing still for a day.

Has the length of day changed since the beginning of time? I can't think of any way to assess that scripturally. What if in Moses's day the length of day was 1 hour shorter than the current length of day? It's possible. There's nothing that would contradict that.

Anyway, it appears as if you are bending over so far backwards to avoid just accepting the most logical and straightforward meaning of the scriptural texts that you've bumped your head on the ground.

"Most logical" What do you mean by that? Do you mean "most compelling"? If so, I don't agree.

"Straightforward" I don't find straightforwardness to be a good measure of what is true. Back to the "seed" example, the promises to the "seed" of Abraham violated the Pharisee's "straightforward" understanding of "seed" to mean the promises were directly to "descendants" plural that they had assumed to be true. They were wrong. The "straightforward" meaning is not necessarily right and there are some cases where it necessarily was wrong.

 

[GaryA]

It's not a deflection to point out the fallacy.When the "main point" of an argument depends upon a logical fallacy, there is no point. There is nothing remaining to be addressed or considered.

My "strawman" remark was "offhand" and about the nature of what you posted. It was not a basis and foundation for the "main point" of the post.

It still stands.

 

[GaryA]

I saw it immediately, and was cheering that another member not only saw through the games that some people play, but actually had to the nerve to call them out for it like I do.

I was even going to comment with a "Hip, hip, hooray", but then you seemed to have changed your mind after having some dinner - and appeared to have retracted all the spot on things you had previously claimed. So I remained silent.

But yes, you called Dino out for his nonsense, and I loved seeing it. 👍👍👍

I would not suggest that 'retracted' is the best word to use here...

I really was too tired as I looked back at all of the posts that evening. The post you refer to really was a "tired" kind of response.

Normally, if I decide I am too tired, sleepy, etc. - I just wait until sometime later. For some reason, I did not do that. Instead, I went ahead and posted...

It was a "too tired and do not want to deal with this right now" kind of response.

And, speaking of "tired" - I have to work tomorrow - the rest of "this mess" will have to wait until a later time...

 

[MichaelBoll]

Third-party criticism on a public forum is inappropriate, and you are a hypocrite.

Well, you could always prove me wrong by demonstrating that you ARE interested in a respectable adult discussion.

What have you gotten yourself into?

😅

 

[MichaelBoll]

It was answered about a thousand years later by Copernicus, a canon of the Church, when he presented the reasons for the daily and annual motions of the Earth.

What was that answer? And how was it verified?

When Galileo had to defend his support of Copernicus and the reasons for the daily and orbital motions of the Earth, he used Augustine to remark on those who misuse the traditions within the Bible...

I didn't make clear what I was asking you. You said the question (of star trails/heliocentrism) was ANSWERED by Copernicus.

I'm asking what Copernicus' answer was, and how his answer was verified.

The answer to my question is: Copernicus' answer was to create a mathematical model in which the wandering stars (you call them "planets") moved around the sun in circular orbits. His model was never verified, but instead debunked because actual observations from the earth put these "planets" at different places in the sky than they would have been if they had circular orbits.

Then Keppler got involved with his own mathematical model - which changed them to elliptical orbits - to solve the failure of Copernicus' model.

Keppler's mathematical equations produced more questions than answers... the majority of which were answered with the baseless claim, "A meteor impact must have somehow, at some time, did it." It has many other problems too - and has never been verified. It is just a mathematical model that we were all indoctrinated into believing as fact from the time we were in kindergarten.

 

[maxwel]

Yet you presume to place boundaries on me for politely speaking my mind?

If not, what exactly was the purpose of you butting into this thread to address me concerning Magenta and the OP?

You see, here on the forum, there is no such thing as "butting in."
The act of "butting in" is a thing which doesn't exist here.
You don't own any of these threads, not even the ones you start.
It isn't a private conversation, and you don't own it - neither do you control it or manage it.

You have no special authority to say whatever you like, and then accuse others of wrongdoing when they do the same.
You have no special authority to tell others how to respond, or how much to respond, or when to respond.... or to place any expectations on them of any kind.
Your control over other people on the forum is... nonexistent.
You can "pretend" to have such authority... but you do not.

If you want to have control over a conversation, then you need to teach in a private setting.
This is not a private setting.
You have no control over conversations here, or over the people in them.

If I feel like it, I can pop into every page of every thread you ever post, from now to the end of time, and say whatever I like, and then pop back out, and never bother explaining myself at all.
And so can everyone else.
Your control here is nonexistent, and your expectation of control here is nothing but an irritation.
Now, if you want people to engage with you in a polite and congenial manner... you should simply do the same.

So am I telling you what to do?
Not at all.
You can do whatever you please.
I'm simply pointing out the reality of the situation in case you're unaware: although you accuse people of wrongdoing whenever they respond in a way you dislike, as if you have authority to do so... you have no such authority, and people can say and do whatever they please.
I'm simply making you aware of the situation here.
I'm also making you aware that, since people can freely speak however they please... if you continue to accuse them of wrongdoing whenever you don't like what they say, you're just going to lose all credibility as either polite or rational.
So, do whatever you like.
You may do whatever you please - but if you behave impolitely or irrationally, there will be natural consequences... and they will have nothing to do with me.

So, that is all.
Your control over this thread, and the behavior of those in it, is nonexistent.
If you want people to engage politely, then you need to do the same.
That is all.
You can take that information, and do whatever you please with it.


Take care, and have a lovely day.
.

 

[MichaelBoll]

When you start providing evidence, we can continue the discussion.

You haven't tried to actually DISCUSS anything since you joined this thread. 😂 I have jumped through your last hoop, sir. It matters very little to me whether you stick around or not.

If you do, get busy on the point you feigned (but never actually made) concerning the word raqia.
Get busy on the moving atmosphere explanation that you feigned (but never actually gave).
Get busy explaining why Felix Baumgartner landed only 23 miles away from where he launched.
Get busy explaining why the Bible says there are floodgates in heaven that can be opened to let the waters above heaven in - while such a thing would be impossible in the heliocentric model.

Or don't. I truly and sincerely couldn't care less.

 

[MichaelBoll]

You see, here on the forum, there is no such thing as "butting in."

There actually is. It's sad that most people today will talk to people on social media in ways they'd never talk to a person in real life. But just like you are free to act that way, I am free to call your action what it was... butting in to something that didn't concern you.

Anyway, what is your answer to the question I actually asked you? (Let me highlight a different part of it than you did, and remove the accurate phrasing that you disagreed with, so you don't think you got off on a technicality like a few days ago.)

Mike Boll: "Yet you presume to place boundaries on me for politely speaking my mind?

If not, what exactly was the purpose of you butting into this thread to address[ing] me concerning Magenta and the OP?"

That's the one I want you to answer, Max: If not to place boundaries on or scold ME, then what exactly WAS your purpose of addressing me at all?

 

[tourist]

Well, you could always prove me wrong by demonstrating that you ARE interested in a respectable adult discussion.

😅

Where is this respectable adult discussion that you are referring to?