Posted on 12/18/2006 8:12:55 AM PST by SJackson
Why does it need to be *extra-Biblical*? The Bible contains a historical record of much of what occurred in the Middle East over the last several thousand years. Why should it be discredited because just because those documents are all contained in one book for convenience? If you're going to cast doubt on them, then why do you accept as valid other historical documents from those eras? If the documents that compose Scripture are unreliable, how can you be sure that ANY documents from that era are reliable, and not just made up fables? Yet we teach kids history in schools as if it's fact based on those other documents.
Why?
It is not necessary to demonstrate that all creationists believe that ALL Scripture is literally true. It is enough to demonstrate that many do. The term "Creationist" itself implies that the person believes that Genesis is literally true. The term "Christian" would be the alternative description of someone who believes that Genesis is allegory, with the general meaning that "God did it", allowing science to fill in details such as evolution.
I once was a Christian. In fact at one time I studied in college with the intent of becoming a missionary. But some in these threads convinced me that I had to believe the Bible, as is, literally, or it is all fiction (or at least not true about a literal God or Saviour). Since Genesis cannot be possibly be true, then I had to reject my faith.
It sucks to know that when I'm dead, I'm dead. It would have been a more pleasant life if I could have kept my faith, and my understanding that the Bible wasn't a science textbook so I could ignore literal interpretations. This is why literal interpretations and attacks on science are dangerous to Christianity. It chases people away from the faith, hardly a Christlike thing for people to do.
My first reaction to this statement was to think: “Ah, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black!” But it’s really not that simple, LiberalGunNut.
The problem that I have with the neo-Darwinist position is it reduces evolution to a premise that cannot be demonstrated: i.e., a common ancestor that no one has ever seen whose origin is never explained. It assumes the world of nature is thoroughgoingly materialistic and naturalistic, that everything that exists and the universe itself ultimately reduces to the material and nothing more. In short, for the typical Darwinist today, the scientific method of observation, falsification, and replicable experiments is the “touchstone of truth” for evaluating the reality of everything that exists; that to which the method cannot be applied — and there are domains of reality that are simply not susceptible to direct observation, that cannot be “objectified” into directly testable data — is assumed to be an illusion, false.
But to me, there is no way the empirical, “naturalistic” approach of Sir Francis Bacon, who arguably is the father of the modern scientific method, can suffice for all questions that man has about the universe and his place in it.
And I think Lord Bacon would agree with this assessment. I offer as evidence the following prayer, attributed to his authorship,* which if he actually did write it would demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Bacon was more than just one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, that he was, in fact, an extraordinarily multi-faceted thinker of soaring genius and profound spirituality:
Jesus Mihi OmniaSir Francis Bacon was evidently no materialist reductionist, as your typical neo-Darwinist is these days. It seems pretty plain to me that he did not reduce the world to the capacity of his own mind, that he realized human intellect is not “the measure of all things.”
Oh Thou everywhere and good of all, whatsoever I do remember, I beseech Thee, that I am but dust, but as a vapour sprung from earth, which even Thy smallest breath can scatter. Thou hast given me a soul and laws to govern it; let that fraternal rule which Thou didst first appoint to sway man order me; make me careful to point at Thy glory in all my wayes, and where I cannot rightly know Thee, that not only my understanding but my ignorance may honor Thee — I cast myself as an honourer of Thee at Thy feet, and because I cannot be defended by Thee unless I believe after Thy laws, keep me, O my soul’s Sovereign, in the obedience of Thy Will, and that I wound not conscience with vice and hiding of Thy gifts and graces bestowed upon me, for this, I know, will destroy me within, and make Thy illuminating Spirit leave me. I am afraid I have already infinitely swerved from the revelations of that Divine Guide which Thou hast commanded to direct me to the truth, and for this I am a sad prostrate and penitent at the foot of Thy throne. I appeal only to the abundance of Thy remissions O God, my God. For outward things I thank Thee, and such as I have I give unto others, in the name of the Trinity, freely and faithfully…. In what Thou hast given me I am content — I beg no more than Thou hast given, and that to continue me uncontemnedly and unpittiedly honest. Take me from myself and fill me but with Thee. Sum up Thy blessings in these two, that I may be rightly good and wise, and these, for Thy eternal truth’s sake, grant and make grateful.
*James Phinney Baxter, (1831–1921), scholar and man of letters, attributed this prayer to Sir Francis Bacon on the basis of exhaustive comparative textual analysis. Baxter also accepted the increasingly well-documented theory that Bacon was (among other things) a Rosicrucian adept (and a Freemason to boot), and thus had acquired habits of secrecy, of concealment regarding what he was thinking and what he was up to.
One of Baxter’s major contributions to the literature of the world was an important learned study of the Bacon–Shakespeare controversy. This was published in 1915 under the title of “The Greatest of Literary Problems” and continues to elicit much discussion among scholars today. (Baxter was a major proponent of the theory that Bacon was the true author of Shakespeare’s works. On the basis of the exhaustive evidence he presents, I personally think he may be right.)
heres some extra biblical evidence, that the eyewitnesses testimonies collected in the bible, shouldn't be discardered arbitrarily and are accurately recorded history.
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html
the manuscript is entitled
Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit, (1958)
I posted this on another thread recently in response to a similar statement:
You are right, science is limited to that which can be observed.On the other hand, we have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, public opinion, Ouija boards, tarot cards, witch doctors, the unguessable verdict of history, and a host of other un-natural phenomena.
Thanks, I'll stick with science. It doesn't seem that inferior a method for judging reality when one considers the alternatives.
*grumble*
You wrote, "we have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, public opinion, Ouija boards, tarot cards, witch doctors, the unguessable verdict of history, and a host of other un-natural phenomena."
Do you think the man who wrote the lines in italics above was given over to magic, superstition, wishful thinking, etc.?
If you think so, then you destroy the authority of the scientific method itself.
Too many of you "Evo" guys are just "Johnny one-notes." FWIW.
Thanks for writing, coyoteman. Good to see you!
Good to hear. Who knows what we might yet discover. Causality can be a singular event, a continuous event, a continual event, or a constant event. Sometimes these are coeval; sometimes they are sequential, sometimes they are independent (separate), but cooperative.
There's more reality and to reality that can be observed and measured by science. By limiting yourself to only one segment of the world around you, you're getting a distorted picture of reality. The conclusions drawn from such a distortion may fit well enough within that framework, but it doesn't mean that they're right or accurate or ture.
A lot of things that would be considered *magic* by less developed cultures are simply what we know as technology, things like flashlights, televisions, telephone,... So if those cultures had the mindset of what is called science today, that of ignoring *magic* and *superstition* then they would not investigate such things only to find out that there was no magic to them in the first place.
Scientists can't claim to even begin to know everything about this world, and things that they have labeled as *superstition* and *magic* could very well be a part of the natural world, but nobody is going to find out because sciencists have so restricted themselves that they won't even consider investigationg it. It's like putting blinders on a horse; they'll only see what's in front of them so that they're not scared when they're surprised by the rest of the world around them.
It sucks even worse....
Luke 12:4-5
4. "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more.
5. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
Warning! The above may be mere allegory...
UHhhh... we ain't got no lives and just sit at these terminals all day long, yakking about stuff?
Yup...
It's called: Muddying the waters.
heheh....true enough.
Betty, I don't remember disagreeing with anything else you have said, but I think the theory that Bacon wrote Shakespeare's works simply won't fly. Also, I don't find that prayer you cite to be in Bacon's usual style; it lacks his usual rhythms and his rhetorical manipulation of the members within his lengthy periods.
Of course, he might have used a different style for prayer, but it just doesn't sound anything like him to me. On Bacon's style there's an excellent book by Brian Vickers.
The Bible is a collection of many books, written by many authors, over a few millennia. I have never had any doubt that some of it is genuine history, some of it recorded only 70 years or so after the fact. It would be as if today we wrote down the story if the crash of the Hindenberg, with no pictures, no movies, nothing prior written down, but merely from stories our parents generation told us who witnessed it personally. The story would be fairly accurate, but not perfect, just as the Gospels have slight differences between them.
But what human witnessed the events in Genesis? Obviously, none. Who wrote Genesis? No one has any idea. At best case, one could make the claim that it was inspired by direct revelation from God. All kinds of people have made claims of divine revelation over the centuries. Some might be believable, some are not. The creation account in Genesis, given the massive amount of physical history evident in the earth itself, is not believable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.