Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

Yes, agreed. When someone it pushing some line of argument that is ultimately based on a "lack of accuracy and factual correctness " then we should be willing to address it up front and openly ask questions. Or else if we are forced to just accept or ignore a basic lack of accuracy and factual correctness then it leads to cognitive dissonance. And that is bad. Or at least I thought that is what we were saying?

If not then please accept my apology for asking how someone can know precisely and beyond dispute who didn't write a script that in fact no longer even exists OR how rotation of the planet defines gravity and thereby making the story of Joshua "impossible". I apologize for asking for accuracy on any of this.

klp wrote: If not then please accept my apology for asking how someone can know precisely and beyond dispute who didn't write a script that in fact no longer even exists OR how rotation of the planet defines gravity and thereby making the story of Joshua "impossible". I apologize for asking for accuracy on any of this.

The longest day in the OT does cause questions from the perspective of physics. Agricola is basically correct. Inertia from stopping the earth's rotation suddenly would cause the atmosphere to tear against the land mass and cause giant tsunamis. With God all things are possible. Science as it is today is still ignorant of God. Not all scientists. The list of problems for the stories in Genesis can fill whole volumes. Questions what about Penguins or freshwater fish during Noah's flood. Why is there no KT boundary equivalent for the flood? Dinosaurs are found under the KT boundary and mammal skeletons above including man. The KT boundary comes comes a six mile wide meteor that crashed into the earth in Mexico. The crater was found using topographical maps. It is very old and worn. I have trouble with the Tower of Babel story. I know that language drift exists. I have seen it in English during my life time. Dig? Bible Greek is not modern Greek. The English of the Original Wycliffe Bible is nearly unreadable. He translated it from a Latin Vulgate of his day. Here is the beginning of Genesis 1: 1-2.

"1 In the bigynnyng God made of nouyt heuene and erthe.
2 Forsothe the erthe was idel and voide, and derknessis weren on the face of depthe; and the Spiryt of the Lord was borun on the watris. "

The point is that not all things are knowable to us or science. The solution to cognitive dissonance is find the truth where you can. Many things believed in my CoC were not true! I am looking at stuff that most Christian's don't know. The problem is huge because Christian History changed Christianity. The council of Nicea caused the trinity idea to
happen in 325 CE. It is not exactly stated in the Bible. I even question that. The more you know the more you don't.

ena wrote:...The longest day in the OT does cause questions from the perspective of physics. Agricola is basically correct. Inertia from stopping the earth's rotation suddenly would cause the atmosphere to tear against the land mass and cause giant tsunamis. ....

And if that had been the argument (about rotation and inertia) then you would be basically correct in stating that Agri was basically correct. However, Agri argued that rotation would effect/negate gravity and doubled down on the assertion. So no, Agri was not "basically correct" in the assertion that was actually made and repeated.

But the offered wisdom is that it is OK to make factually incorrect assertions as long as the intention is OK. So there is no use to you arguing that she might had been "basically correct" if she had actually argued something else.

klp wrote:

ena wrote:...The longest day in the OT does cause questions from the perspective of physics. Agricola is basically correct. Inertia from stopping the earth's rotation suddenly would cause the atmosphere to tear against the land mass and cause giant tsunamis. ....

And if that had been the argument (about rotation and inertia) then you would be basically correct in stating that Agri was basically correct. However, Agri argued that rotation would effect/negate gravity and doubled down on the assertion. So no, Agri was not "basically correct" in the assertion that was actually made and repeated.

But the offered wisdom is that it is OK to make factually incorrect assertions as long as the intention is OK. So there is no use to you arguing that she might had been "basically correct" if she had actually argued something else.

So sue me. I meant to convey that stopping the earth's rotation would cause planetwide havoc (unless, of course, absolutely everything else simultaneously stopped (and restarted). Gravity, planetary rotation, and inertia are not exactly SEPARATE THINGS. Unless you think they ARE separate things, in which case I was very much not conveying my message correctly at all.

You can't stop the earth from rotating (and make the sun look like it stood still) without affecting EVERYTHING IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. And why? Because of gravitational effects.

Of course, stopping the sun in some fashion so it appears to remain in one place in the earth's sky would ALSO mess up the entire universe and for the same reason. The point is, the story as written requires such an extreme series of inevitable natural after - affects, that it is impossibility piled up upon impossibility until the entire edifice of creation is in a fantastical wobbling pile.
And seriously? THIS IS NOT HOW GOD TYPICALLY WORKS MIRACLES in the Bible. Most miracles depicted are pretty subtle - a bush in the desert, observed by one man, burns but is not consumed. Rain falls - and falls and falls and there is a flood. A wind blows from the east all night long and the water in a (shallow) sea is pushed away revealing dry land.

Miracles are 'seen' by the mind, mostly, not by the physical eye. Simple things, tricks of the mind's eye - if you 'see' them, there they are! Easiest to believe a smallish group of warriors perceived (SEEMED TO SEE) that this one day was going very slowly and time did not APPEAR to be passing: 'the sun stood still' (for us).

Because this occurred in actual historical time, after writing was invented, and interfering with the entire universe to make one day last as long as two for one small group of warriors would make that same day last as long as two FOR EVERY CULTURE ON EARTH - including some with written records - like the Chinese, or the inhabitants of Mesopotamia (was it Assyrians at that time? I forget - but Hammurabi was writing laws just prior to this) AND NOBODY MENTIONS anything like it. You'd think they'd NOTICE.

'Inerrancy' can't mean 'factually correct in every detail' because if it does, then this one story will 'break' a person's faith: you either have to stop believing ANYTHING the Bible says, or you have to decide to stick to 'the Bible is right' and forego every single bit of history, archeology, physics, astronomy - every human discipline on earth - AND you have to believe (because of that) that God deliberately fashioned the natural world to deceive humans - on purpose.

So then what happens to 'the heavens display the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork'? If you have to believe that the heavens and the earth (the firmament) are doing nothing but lying to us, every minute of every day?

If God is 'truth' and God's creation 'tells the truth', then the Bible is not factually inerrant. That does not mean it doesn't have vitally important and 'true' spiritual messages. But it does mean the Bible is not history, or biology, or physics, or astronomy - and the written stories reflect the knowledge and culture OF THAT TIME AND PLACE, not ALL times and places.

agricola wrote:...You can't stop the earth from rotating (and make the sun look like it stood still) without affecting EVERYTHING IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. And why? Because of gravitational effects....

And so the insistence continues that the rotation of Earth is related to the gravity of the mass of Earth and that "in turn" would effect (in all caps) everything in the Universe. I am so glad that we agreed factual correctness and now even notional correctness are not important or else the cognitive dissonance might be too much for the more gentle reader.

Insisting that a discussion of Natural Law vs Truth will dictate/limit/proscribe things like creation or age just moves the discussion back but ultimately it still gets to an ex nihilo. And then we get to it being turtles all the way down. It comes to a choice on what to believe, no matter what...it is a choice. The problem comes when one person insists philosophically that their choice is really no choice but in fact is "proved" and beyond dispute. And then all other choices (or really just one particular choice) is invalid and those that still hold that choice are flawed. It is all choice, and no amount of claiming that unknowable things are "beyond dispute" changes the fact that it is all choice. But hey, if you want to explain how the rotation of Earth drives or effects the gravity of Earth, then please do because I would like to know.

No. I'm done. That's not within the topic, really.

The TOPIC is Biblical 'inerrancy' and the problems with extending that concept to matters of natural world behavior ('the laws of nature') and historical events.

The sort of thing, in other words, that leads some people to try to teach Young Earth Creationism in high school science classes.

agricola wrote: I meant to convey that stopping the earth's rotation would cause planetwide havoc (unless, of course, absolutely everything else simultaneously stopped (and restarted). Gravity, planetary rotation, and inertia are not exactly SEPARATE THINGS. Unless you think they ARE separate things, in which case I was very much not conveying my message correctly at all.

You can't stop the earth from rotating (and make the sun look like it stood still) without affecting EVERYTHING IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. And why? Because of gravitational effects.

I like your stab at it. I always found gravity to be affected by mass. This even goes down even to the atomic level. Even electrons have some mass. If you go the galactic scale it is mind boggling. We are in motion several ways at once at fantastic velocities. Our Galaxy rotates so even our sun is moving. I am not sure that science has it all nailed down. God does. I am OK with that.

agricola wrote: If God is 'truth' and God's creation 'tells the truth', then the Bible is not factually inerrant. That does not mean it doesn't have vitally important and 'true' spiritual messages. But it does mean the Bible is not history, or biology, or physics, or astronomy - and the written stories reflect the knowledge and culture OF THAT TIME AND PLACE, not ALL times and places.

Exactly. I believe that this is the point. The "of that time and place" above is very important to proper understanding that many miss. The careful parsing of the NT to guess how early Christians lived and thought by my CoC was horribly inadequate.

Tsathoggua wrote:

agricola wrote: So - did anybody ELSE have a little cognitive dissonance going on between church teachings and an actual education in grade school? Because I know I sure did, but my questions at church got shut down REAL fast. Apparently having a question = having a doubt, and having a doubt = sinning.

Sigh.

"Sigh", indeed! Yes, I had my doubts very early on. I learned that people weren't too happy when you expressed them out loud. No one was actually interested in discussion; you were supposed to just sit there stupidly and silently, and accept the bible as the ultimate truth.

There was cognitive shutdown enforced by fear of condemnation. It is self reinforcing. This happened at so many levels. It locks you in while denying you any freedom to think. God gave you a brain for a reason. I not believe the Bible should be built up beyond what is known historically. This is not known by most Christians. It leads to massive over reach.

agricola wrote:No. I'm done. That's not within the topic, really.

The TOPIC is Biblical 'inerrancy' and the problems with extending that concept to matters of natural world behavior ('the laws of nature') and historical events.

The sort of thing, in other words, that leads some people to try to teach Young Earth Creationism in high school science classes.

OK, well I am cool with the topic, it was the unsupportable stuff that was just thrown out as "beyond dispute" to support the topic that caught my attention. Such as who didn't write something and that rotation of the Earth effects or creates the gravity, those things caught my attention and I asked for support of the assertions. Sorry. I personally do not find it helpful to throw in erroneous stuff and unsupportable stuff on a topic about inerrancy. Again, I apologize for thinking the scientific and textual assertions being made here were not intended to be accurate. I am just glad that I don't have to worry about this idea that the rotation of planets is what created or set their gravity...that was causing some major cognitive dissonance for me. I now know it was never intended to be accurate. That is cool.