Are Old Testament Stories Allegory or Literal History?

[Gramps]

Think the world of you Gramps, but you know you'd have as much luck teaching a cat to tap dance than having a rational discussion about religion with Mercy or Septic.

I like to play with them occasionally, why I don't know.

 

[MercyPercy]

I have no idea if the universe is ~14,800,000,000 years old, the Earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old and our species has been around for for about ~200,000 years.

It is beyond ridiculous for anyone to think for one second that man can date anything back in time billions of years with any type of certainty.

I apologize for being blunt, but you only think it's ridiculous because you've never learned the science/methodology. To understand how one can estimate the age of the universe, you have to know how we estimate the age of stars, and how we determined the rate of the expanding universe. To understand how one can estimate the age of the earth, you have to understand how radiometric dating works and why it is accurate. To understand how one can estimate how long our species has been existed, you look at the fossil record. Just like with any species. I can provide you with links to educational sites if you would like to delve into the specifics of the methodology, or I can give some half assed explanations myself- of course I don't think you'd take my word for it.

 

[MercyPercy]

Think the world of you Gramps, but you know you'd have as much luck teaching a cat to tap dance than having a rational discussion about religion with Mercy or Septic.

That's precious.

I'm just trying to figure out how Gramps personally determines whether something is a fact or not. Any insight?

 

[Grand Vol]

Heathens!!!

No, only one is a Florida fan.

 

[MercyPercy]

Have you ever heard of a calendar Percy?

So, something being written on a calendar makes it an objective fact?

If you haven't picked up what I'm putting down yet regarding your flip flop notion of what constitutes a fact, it just may be beyond your grasp, but I like to think it isn't. You're a smart guy, Gramps.

If you didn't already realize, I agree that, based on the historical evidence, Christianity was started ~2000 years ago. That's a logical inference, and essentially a fact in the most common application(we often use fact for things we believe happened with 99.9% probability, like evolution), but as with all science and historical science(archaeology, paleontology, etc), things can change with the addition of new evidence, so rarely are such things considered an absolute fact(objective truth).

Scientific evidence suggests the age of the universe, the earth, and our species. This evidence is, in many ways, more reliable than the criteria for things you yourself consider casual facts. You apparently did not know this evidence exists, or if you did, you found it unreliable. I'd love to hear your arguments for why the methods are unreliable. If you have to look them up, take your time and make sure to read thoroughly.

Percy, do you actually think that man has the brains or ability to date anything with certainty to be let's say 10,500,000,000 years old? If you do you need to lay the bowl down and run as far from it as you can.

Again, you have yet to provide any argument against the methodology(most likely because you do not know the methodology). I do not blame you for not knowing the specifics, but at the same time, you have a wealth of knowledge at your fingertips available to you. I know you rarely deviate from Redtube and VN, but do it for ol Percy.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I am disputing it is fact that the universe is ~14,800,000,000 years old, the Earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old. Our species has been around for for about ~200,000 years.


It may be, it may not, we do not know, therefore it is not fact.

I have no idea if the universe is ~14,800,000,000 years old, the Earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old and our species has been around for for about ~200,000 years.

It is beyond ridiculous for anyone to think for one second that man can date anything back in time billions of years with any type of certainty.

Have you ever heard of a calendar Percy?


Percy, do you actually* think that man has the brains or ability to date anything with certainty to be let's say 10,500,000,000 years old? If you do you need to lay the bowl down and run as far from it as you can.

What is the cut-off date of certainty? Why?

At what point in time does the same thing happen in the opposite direction? Why?

 

[SergeantVol]

No, only one is a Florida fan.

Alright then, godless Jezebels!

 

[Gramps]

So, something being written on a calendar makes it an objective fact?

If you haven't picked up what I'm putting down yet regarding your flip flop notion of what constitutes a fact, it just may be beyond your grasp, but I like to think it isn't. You're a smart guy, Gramps.

If you didn't already realize, I agree that, based on the historical evidence, Christianity was started ~2000 years ago. That's a logical inference, and essentially a fact in the most common application(we often use fact for things we believe happened with 99.9% probability, like evolution), but as with all science and historical science(archaeology, paleontology, etc), things can change with the addition of new evidence, so rarely are such things considered an absolute fact(objective truth).

Scientific evidence suggests the age of the universe, the earth, and our species. This evidence is, in many ways, more reliable than the criteria for things you yourself consider casual facts. You apparently did not know this evidence exists, or if you did, you found it unreliable. I'd love to hear your arguments for why the methods are unreliable. If you have to look them up, take your time and make sure to read thoroughly.



Again, you have yet to provide any argument against the methodology(most likely because you do not know the methodology). I do not blame you for not knowing the specifics, but at the same time, you have a wealth of knowledge at your fingertips available to you. I know you rarely deviate from Redtube and VN, but do it for ol Percy.

You just made my point with the bold Percy. Science suggest the age. It does not know the age.

 

[MercyPercy]

You just made my point with the bold Percy. Science suggest the age. It does not know the age.

Did you miss the entire point of my post which spoke to exactly what you're doing here?

 

[Gramps]

I apologize for being blunt, but you only think it's ridiculous because you've never learned the science/methodology. To understand how one can estimate the age of the universe, you have to know how we estimate the age of stars, and how we determined the rate of the expanding universe. To understand how one can estimate the age of the earth,you have to understand how radiometric dating works and why it is accurate. To understand how one can estimate how long our species has been existed, you look at the fossil record. Just like with any species. I can provide you with links to educational sites if you would like to delve into the specifics of the methodology, or I can give some half assed explanations myself- of course I don't think you'd take my word for it.

Thank you Percy. You made my point 3 times in that post. I am proud of you.

 

[Gramps]

Did you miss the entire point of my post which spoke to exactly what you're doing here?

What? I was not paying attention. I was watching the Grizz hit Mrs Percy on RedTube. Man he tore her up!!!!

:crazy:

 

[Obsessed]

Chattanooga?

Anything I can do to help? I/we (church) would be happy to stand in and help in any way we can, especially if you're out of town.

Thank you for the offer. I may need to take you up on that

I'll be arriving in town Wednesday. She seems to be better right now. But has an appointment with a neurologist to see what steps need to be taken to improve her health.

She is actually in Soddy Daisy

 

[MercyPercy]

Thank you Percy. You made my point 3 times in that post. I am proud of you.

I'm not proud of you for still not understanding the difference between the notion of absolute truth and the way science operates. You seem to believe your claim(date of christianity's beginning) is an absolute truth based on the evidence, when it is no more an absolute truth than the ages we have determined for the universe, the earth, and our species. All of those claims have solid supporting evidence, evidence which suggests those claims are true. Of course, that depends on the methodology being accurate. So, Gramps, please don't avoid this question. Why is the methodology used in dating the earth less valid than the methodology used in dating christianity? Please be specific.

 

[MercyPercy]

What? I was not paying attention. I was watching the Grizz hit Mrs Percy on RedTube. Man he tore her up!!!!

:crazy:

I'm glad you're in good spirits, Gramps. :hi:

 

[Gramps]

I'm glad you're in good spirits, Gramps. :hi:

I couldn't resist percy, you left the door wide open. :hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

Thank you for the offer. I may need to take you up on that

I'll be arriving in town Wednesday. She seems to be better right now. But has an appointment with a neurologist to see what steps need to be taken to improve her health.

She is actually in Soddy Daisy

Just let me know. Praying for you both.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I apologize for being blunt, but you only think it's ridiculous because you've never learned the science/methodology. To understand how one can estimate the age of the universe, you have to know how we estimate the age of stars, and how we determined the rate of the expanding universe. To understand how one can estimate the age of the earth, you have to understand how radiometric dating works and why it is accurate. To understand how one can estimate how long our species has been existed, you look at the fossil record. Just like with any species. I can provide you with links to educational sites if you would like to delve into the specifics of the methodology, or I can give some half assed explanations myself- of course I don't think you'd take my word for it.

No dating method we have is infallible and 100% accurate. The methods we use are just the best available to us at this time. It could be that one day in the distant future, a more accurate method may be created. It may show that the Earth, stars and solar system iare much, much older than we ever imagined. Also its possible that a new method could prove that the dating methods we are using to date things currently, were totally wrong.

Dating the Earth is difficult. The dates have changed as new evidence has emerged and new dating techniques have become available. Dating the planets in our solar system is next to impossible with any kind of accuracy. As you said it can only be an estimate. Dating the stars with any kind of accuracy is even more difficult. Trying to date anything outside of our solar system is beyond what our minds can handle.

 

[Septic]

No dating method we have is infallible and 100% accurate. The methods we use are just the best available to us at this time. It could be that one day in the distant future, a more accurate method may be created. It may show that the Earth, stars and solar system iare much, much older than we ever imagined. Also its possible that a new method could prove that the dating methods we are using to date things currently, were totally wrong.

Dating the Earth is difficult. The dates have changed as new evidence has emerged and new dating techniques have become available. Dating the planets in our solar system is next to impossible with any kind of accuracy. As you said it can only be an estimate. Dating the stars with any kind of accuracy is even more difficult. Trying to date anything outside of our solar system is beyond what our minds can handle.

The estimated date isn't that important - the scientific dating could be off by a factor of a billion years and it wouldn't change the absurdity of claiming the revelation of the creator of the universe to bronze age goat herders 2000 years ago by a 33 year old carpenter.

The proof? A heavily edited book written by scores of people who mostly never met him - but, had heard story's.

 

[Deputy Fife]

Trying to date anything outside of our solar system is beyond what our minds can handle.

And the atheist is accused of arrogance, of not willing to imagine anything greater than himself.

Just because you can't or won't understand science doesn't mean that everyone is so limited. Whether you'll admit it or not, our species has had the good fortune of having many members whose intelligence bests yours and mine combined by several orders of magnitude.

That of course doesn't mean we should automatically accept everything that leaves the mouth of a smart person, but when the results are reliable, consistent, and repeatable, when a theory is put forth that could easily be falsified but isn't, when specific predictions are fulfilled, you cannot take refuge in believing that everyone is as stupid as you are.

While complex mathematics and word-salad theology are equally incomprehensible to me, I can at least realize that the mathematician knows what the hell he's doing, that his work is noble and beautifully consistent and capable of giving reliable and useful results. The salad maker on the other hand could be correct, but only through sheer coincidence.

This is the difference between science and theology. If tomorrow there was discovered a precambrian rabbit, scientists wouldn't equivocate or move the goalposts but outright admit their mistakes and go back to the drawing board. Religion on the other hand cannot be falsified. Mother Teresa, for example, was told that her complete and utter lack of true conviction, the constant dial tone she received when trying to call God, was an indication of her special relationship with Him such that He felt the need to test her. Of course if she had reported having detailed discussions with Him that would indicate her special position as well. This is how you play tennis without the net.

One reader of an early draft of this chapter complained at this point, saying that by treating the hypothesis of God as just one more scientific hypothesis, to be evaluated by the standards of science in particular and rational thought in general, Dawkins and I are ignoring the very widespread claim by believers in God that their faith is quite beyond reason, not a matter to which such mundane methods of testing applies. It is not just unsympathetic, he claimed, but strictly unwarranted for me simply to assume that the scientific method continues to apply with full force in this domain of truth.

Very well, let's consider the objection. I doubt that the defender of religion will find it attractive, once we explore it carefully.

The philosopher Ronaldo de Souza once memorably described philosophical theology as "intellectual tennis without a net," and I readily allow that I have indeed been assuming without comment or question up to now that the net of rational judgement was up. But we can lower it if you really want to.

It's your serve.

Whatever you serve, suppose I return service rudely as follows: "What you say implies that God is a ham sandwich wrapped in tin foil. That's not much of a God to worship!". If you then volley back, demanding to know how I can logically justify my claim that your serve has such a preposterous implication, I will reply: "oh, do you want the net up for my returns, but not for your serves?

Either way the net stays up, or it stays down. If the net is down there are no rules and anybody can say anything, a mug's game if there ever was one. I have been giving you the benefit of the assumption that you would not waste your own time or mine by playing with the net down.
-Daniel C. Dennett

If the people of Europe had known as much of astronomy and geology when the bible was introduced among them, as they do now, there never could have been one believer in the doctrine of inspiration. If the writers of the various parts of the bible had known as much about the sciences as is now known by every intelligent man, the book never could have been written. It was produced by ignorance, and has been believed and defended by its author. It has lost power in the proportion that man has gained knowledge. A few years ago, this book was appealed to in the settlement of all scientific questions; but now, even the clergy confess that in such matters, it has ceased to speak with the voice of authority. For the establishment of facts, the word of man is now considered far better than the word of God. In the world of science, Jehovah was superseded by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. All that God told Moses, admitting the entire account to be true, is dust and ashes compared to the discoveries of Descartes, Laplace, and Humboldt. In matters of fact, the bible has ceased to be regarded as a standard. Science has succeeded in breaking the chains of theology. A few years ago, Science endeavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the bible. The tables have been turned, and now, Religion is endeavoring to prove that the bible is not inconsistent with Science. The standard has been changed.
-Robert G. Ingersoll

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

The estimated date isn't that important - the scientific dating could be off by a factor of a billion years and it wouldn't change the absurdity of claiming the revelation of the creator of the universe to bronze age goat herders 2000 years ago by a 33 year old carpenter.

The proof? A heavily edited book written by scores of people who mostly never met him - but, had heard story's.

There is the old Septic, using any and all opportunities to post bigoted garbage to push an even dumber agenda.

Welcome back my friend.

 

[Gramps]

The estimated date isn't that important

True.

- the scientific dating could be off by a factor of a billion years and it wouldn't change the absurdity of claiming the revelation of the creator of the universe to bronze age goat herders 2000 years ago by a 33 year old carpenter.

absurd post.

Science has not nor cannot rule out a creator of the universe.

The proof? A heavily edited book written by scores of people who mostly never met him - but, had heard story's.

Are the actual books edited or is it the translation of the actual transcripts being edited by large book companies in an effort to appease the world of today in order to sell more books?

 

[MercyPercy]

No dating method we have is infallible and 100% accurate. The methods we use are just the best available to us at this time. It could be that one day in the distant future, a more accurate method may be created. It may show that the Earth, stars and solar system iare much, much older than we ever imagined. Also its possible that a new method could prove that the dating methods we are using to date things currently, were totally wrong.

You aren't saying anything I haven't already said in this thread regarding the very nature of science and how new information can affect our calculations.

Dating the Earth is difficult. The dates have changed as new evidence has emerged and new dating techniques have become available.

And the dating methods have become more and more accurate over time, giving more and more accurate results. Particular methods of radiometric dating's accuracy are very reliable at this point, with a margin of error of only ~2 million years or so in measuring the age of rock that is over 2 billion years old. That is, in the grand scheme of things, absurdly accurate.

Dating the planets in our solar system is next to impossible with any kind of accuracy.

You are wrong. Research the methodology.

As you said it can only be an estimate. Dating the stars with any kind of accuracy is even more difficult.

If by accuracy, you mean the exact date, of course they aren't that accurate. "Any" kind of accuracy? Again, you are wrong. Research the methodology.

Trying to date anything outside of our solar system is beyond what our minds can handle.

Logically absurd and factually incorrect, again. Research the methodology.

 

[Septic]

There is the old Septic, using any and all opportunities to post bigoted garbage to push an even dumber agenda.

Welcome back my friend.

My agenda is reason and this thread is an open discussion about the the veracity of the stories in the bible. Don't let that deter you from assuming your natural role as a victim though. Poor little guy.

 

[Septic]

True.


absurd post.

Science has not nor cannot rule out a creator of the universe.


Are the [actual books edited or is it the translation of the actual transcripts being edited by large book companies in an effort to appease the world of today in order to sell more books?

You just answered your own question, an edit is an edit is an edit. So when you factor in that with the fact that the bible was written about the life of a man that most of the authors only heard about and never met - it's hard to believe that the 'word of god' is anything but a loosely bound collection of bronze age tales being used to sell salvation.

 

[n_huffhines]

There is the old Septic, using any and all opportunities to post bigoted garbage to push an even dumber agenda.

Welcome back my friend.

Bigoted: A word that VN hotly contests when it comes to race but is thrown around like candy when it comes to religion.