Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: The Great Trinity Debate

Expand Messages
  • Paul Leonard
    Hi, A few thoughts, I would like to raise teh simple, but sometimes troublesome question of what assumptions do we bring to the table when we interpret
    Message 1 of 25 , May 10, 2010

      Hi,

      A few thoughts,

       

      I would like to raise teh simple, but sometimes troublesome question of what assumptions do we bring to the table when we interpret scripture to support one position or another in regards to the Trinity. Scripture clearly tells us that humans are sinners and liars, and modern science clearly agrees at least on the lying part.

      I have no idea what part "modern science" plays in this, since it does not take 'science' to figure it out. Experience alone does it. Plus while man lies, he does not always do so, and can avoid it if he wishes. Supporting one position or another does not require lying on anyone's part.

      Do we lie to ourselves in how we interpret scripture, or is that the one area that is excluded.

      Some may and some may not. How would you know if they were lying to themselves or convinced they were correct?

      Do we assume that the findings of science are irrelevant in understanding scripture or do we seek to use them in understanding, even if doing so forces us to change from traditional understandings.

      You are assuming a couple of things. One. That science is not in harmony with scripture. Two that science cannot be wrong, where it disagrees with scripture. When the two are in conflict how do we determine which is correct?

      After all while some people believed the earth was flat , the Bible spoke of the circle of the earth. Men were wrong and based their authority on the Bible, but the Bible and science were in agreement.

      The question is valid as long as we recognize that while our understanding may be wrong, that can be our understanding of science, as well as scripture.

      If we reject the findings of science, are we certain that we are allowed to do so by scripture?

      If we reject scripture on the basis of science how do we know the science is truly correct? I can think of lots of things "science" once said was true, that isn't.

      Do we truly understand the original languages perfectly enough to dare ascert that our position is clearly correct, or are we relying on the opinions of other lying, sinful humans and refusing to argue with them.

      What if we depend on people who are truthful? After all how do you know the scientists, also liars (sinful humans) , are not lying to you? People with a moral compass, based on scripture, are a lot less likely to lie than those who have no moral compass.

    • William
      Paul, I have no doubts that science can lie to us or be wrong. I also have no doubts that theologians are likewise capable of it. I merely raise the question
      Message 2 of 25 , May 11, 2010
        Paul,

        I have no doubts that science can lie to us or be wrong. I also have no doubts that theologians are likewise capable of it. I merely raise the question about what assumptions we are bringing to the table.

        I for one assume that scripture and the findings of science may be reconciled. I assume that both are dealing with the same reality. However, I also assume that when someone starts with defining something as true and unchallengable, they are far more likely to end up lying to me then when they start as defining something as true until evidence suggests it is not. Further, the more people who are attempting to prove something true or false as opposed to agreeing that some point is true by definition and unchallengable, the more I am inclined to trust the ultimate outcome. Theologians hold predefined truths to be true without question, scientists keep challenging what is accepted as true and seeking to prove it either true or false. Neither side is guaranteed to be ultimately correct, but at least science offers the appearance of seeking to confirm what is believed true.

        One quick pair of examples, theology holds that Jesus was fully God and fully human (a contradiction)by definition. Science holds that photons are both particles and waves (also a contradiction) because testing so indicates. The definition rests on a specific worldview and a specific understanding of certain passages in scripture, as opposed to any other possible understandings or worldview. The testing relies on numerous people trying numerous times and consistently obtaining the same information, and this includes hiogh school students the world around, regardless of worldview or understanding.

        You might like, 'it is so because so and so has decreed it to be'. However I like 'it seems to be so because everyone, myself included, who have tested it gets the same answer'.

        Bill
      • Jeff
        Wow, Paul! Great response. Many amens. One note -- I found it hard to follow where you were quoting William and where you were speaking. A little bit of a
        Message 3 of 25 , May 11, 2010
          Wow, Paul! Great response. Many amens.

          One note -- I found it hard to follow where you were quoting William and where you were speaking. A little bit of a technical point.

          But I wholly agree with your reply. I thought of replying myself, and I couldn't have done half the job you did.

          Jeff

          --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > Hi,
          >
          > A few thoughts,
          >
          >
          >
          > I would like to raise teh simple, but sometimes troublesome question of what assumptions do we bring to the table when we interpret scripture to support one position or another in regards to the Trinity. Scripture clearly tells us that humans are sinners and liars, and modern science clearly agrees at least on the lying part.
          >
          > I have no idea what part "modern science" plays in this, since it does not take 'science' to figure it out. Experience alone does it. Plus while man lies, he does not always do so, and can avoid it if he wishes. Supporting one position or another does not require lying on anyone's part.
          >
          > Do we lie to ourselves in how we interpret scripture, or is that the one area that is excluded.
          >
          > Some may and some may not. How would you know if they were lying to themselves or convinced they were correct?
          >
          > Do we assume that the findings of science are irrelevant in understanding scripture or do we seek to use them in understanding, even if doing so forces us to change from traditional understandings.
          >
          > You are assuming a couple of things. One. That science is not in harmony with scripture. Two that science cannot be wrong, where it disagrees with scripture. When the two are in conflict how do we determine which is correct?
          >
          > After all while some people believed the earth was flat , the Bible spoke of the circle of the earth. Men were wrong and based their authority on the Bible, but the Bible and science were in agreement.
          >
          > The question is valid as long as we recognize that while our understanding may be wrong, that can be our understanding of science, as well as scripture.
          >
          > If we reject the findings of science, are we certain that we are allowed to do so by scripture?
          >
          > If we reject scripture on the basis of science how do we know the science is truly correct? I can think of lots of things "science" once said was true, that isn't.
          >
          > Do we truly understand the original languages perfectly enough to dare ascert that our position is clearly correct, or are we relying on the opinions of other lying, sinful humans and refusing to argue with them.
          >
          > What if we depend on people who are truthful? After all how do you know the scientists, also liars (sinful humans) , are not lying to you? People with a moral compass, based on scripture, are a lot less likely to lie than those who have no moral compass.
          >
        • Jeff
          I did have one thing I did want to ask. Science may agree on the lying part, but why? Why do people lie? Why do people teach themselves to lie? Does
          Message 4 of 25 , May 11, 2010
            I did have one thing I did want to ask. Science may agree on the lying part, but why? Why do people lie? Why do people teach themselves to lie? Does science have the answer to that question? Of course, if the Bible is true about us being sinners, we have an explanation.

            Jefff

            --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "William" <eliadefollower@...> wrote:
            >
            > I would like to raise teh simple, but sometimes troublesome question of what assumptions do we bring to the table when we interpret scripture to support one position or another in regards to the Trinity. Scripture clearly tells us that humans are sinners and liars, and modern science clearly agrees at least on the lying part. Do we lie to ourselves in how we interpret scripture, or is that the one area that is excluded. Do we assume that the findings of science are irrelevant in understanding scripture or do we seek to use them in understanding, even if doing so forces us to change from traditional understandings. If we reject the findings of science, are we certain that we are allowed to do so by scripture? Do we truly understand the original languages perfectly enough to dare ascert that our position is clearly correct, or are we relying on the opinions of other lying, sinful humans and refusing to argue with them.
            >
            > Bill
            >
          • tcmadd2@aol.com
            Folks, I once read an article in National Geographic about gorillas who were being raised in reasearch lab. They were being taught sign language and videotaped
            Message 5 of 25 , May 11, 2010
              Folks,
               
              I once read an article in National Geographic about gorillas who were being raised in reasearch lab. They were being taught sign language and videotaped 24/7.  On one night after the humans had left one young gorilla took another one's doll and tore it up. When confronted by the trainer/scientists he lied, saying he did not do it.
               
              Another occassion he got into a conflict with the other gorilla over something. He got quite upset about the issue and signed "toilet" followed by the sign for "face" and "you".  In other words, he was deliberately insulting his buddy.
               
              Tom M.
              Fullerton


              -----Original Message-----
              From: Jeff <preachingjeff@...>
              To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 10:59 am
              Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: The Great Trinity Debate

               
              I did have one thing I did want to ask. Science may agree on the lying part, but why? Why do people lie? Why do people teach themselves to lie? Does science have the answer to that question? Of course, if the Bible is true about us being sinners, we have an explanation.

              Jefff

              --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, "William" <eliadefollower@ ...> wrote:
              >
              > I would like to raise teh simple, but sometimes troublesome question of what assumptions do we bring to the table when we interpret scripture to support one position or another in regards to the Trinity. Scripture clearly tells us that humans are sinners and liars, and modern science clearly agrees at least on the lying part. Do we lie to ourselves in how we interpret scripture, or is that the one area that is excluded. Do we assume that the findings of science are irrelevant in understanding scripture or do we seek to use them in understanding, even if doing so forces us to change from traditional understandings. If we reject the findings of science, are we certain that we are allowed to do so by scripture? Do we truly understand the original languages perfectly enough to dare ascert that our position is clearly correct, or are we relying on the opinions of other lying, sinful humans and refusing to argue with them.
              >
              > Bill
              >

            • Isa
              Hi, to all: The issue raised by Bill cannot be resolved in this forum because we do not know factually whether or not some of the Bible writers lied. As for
              Message 6 of 25 , May 11, 2010
                Hi, to all:

                The issue raised by Bill cannot be resolved in this forum because we do not know factually whether or not some of the Bible writers lied.

                As for science, it cannot be applied to spiritual revelations until we find ways to test empirically spiritual assertions.

                What we can and must do in our study of the Bible as a whole and the Trinity specifically is to use LOGIC, REASON (which I define as the intellectual acceptance of conclusions demanded by logic from valid premises) and the RESOLUTION OF APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS throughout all the books of the Bible, without resorting to claims of errors or lies on the part of writers, realizing that the New Testament declarations over-ride OT declarations, the NT being a set of NEW REVELATIONS to give light to OT declarations.

                Thus, without the NT, we are bound to recognize but One God who is the God of Israel alone - YHWH or Yahweh or Jehoval. With the NT, however, we are bound to accept that the "Almighty One of Israel" happens to be also the "Glorified Jesus of the book of Revelation" who happended to be both FINITE and, therefore, CANNOT BE THE ONE INFINITE GOD of humankind but simply His MANIFESTATIONS to finite being at differents stages of man's divine history.

                May God bless us all.

                Isa
                In Service to the Lay People of God
                --------


                --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, tcmadd2@... wrote:
                >
                >
                > Folks,
                >
                > I once read an article in National Geographic about gorillas who were being raised in reasearch lab. They were being taught sign language and videotaped 24/7. On one night after the humans had left one young gorilla took another one's doll and tore it up. When confronted by the trainer/scientists he lied, saying he did not do it.
                >
                > Another occassion he got into a conflict with the other gorilla over something. He got quite upset about the issue and signed "toilet" followed by the sign for "face" and "you". In other words, he was deliberately insulting his buddy.
                >
                > Tom M.
                > Fullerton
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Jeff <preachingjeff@...>
                > To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 10:59 am
                > Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: The Great Trinity Debate
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > I did have one thing I did want to ask. Science may agree on the lying part, but why? Why do people lie? Why do people teach themselves to lie? Does science have the answer to that question? Of course, if the Bible is true about us being sinners, we have an explanation.
                >
                > Jefff
                >
                > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "William" <eliadefollower@> wrote:
                > >
                > > I would like to raise teh simple, but sometimes troublesome question of what assumptions do we bring to the table when we interpret scripture to support one position or another in regards to the Trinity. Scripture clearly tells us that humans are sinners and liars, and modern science clearly agrees at least on the lying part. Do we lie to ourselves in how we interpret scripture, or is that the one area that is excluded. Do we assume that the findings of science are irrelevant in understanding scripture or do we seek to use them in understanding, even if doing so forces us to change from traditional understandings. If we reject the findings of science, are we certain that we are allowed to do so by scripture? Do we truly understand the original languages perfectly enough to dare ascert that our position is clearly correct, or are we relying on the opinions of other lying, sinful humans and refusing to argue with them.
                > >
                > > Bill
                > >
                >
              • William
                Jeff, Science does not have an true answer on the why of people lying, but then to take scripture s attitude that humans are sinners does not really answer
                Message 7 of 25 , May 12, 2010
                  Jeff,

                  Science does not have an true answer on the "why" of people lying, but then to take scripture's attitude that humans are sinners does not really answer the "why" either. It defines the problem as existing, and recounts the what is supposedly the first occassion. But if we take that account in a different way then is traditional we end up with the exact same situation as science describes for individuals lying to themselves.

                  Now for when humans first lie to themselves, science does have an answer. And interestingly enough, the ultimate outcome of the first lie that humans tell themselves and subsequently believe and base much of their lives on, will logically produce the exact same effects that Sin does. Interesting coincidence, don't you think? Of course though, it must be purely coincidence though, otherwise it implies problems with traditional understandings as we cannot have that, can we.

                  Bill

                  --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff" <preachingjeff@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I did have one thing I did want to ask. Science may agree on the lying part, but why? Why do people lie? Why do people teach themselves to lie? Does science have the answer to that question? Of course, if the Bible is true about us being sinners, we have an explanation.
                  >
                  > Jefff
                • William
                  Isa, The question as to whether or not we may factually know if biblical writers lied or not rests largely on what you call a lie . Scripture claims that God
                  Message 8 of 25 , May 12, 2010
                    Isa,

                    The question as to whether or not we may factually know if biblical writers lied or not rests largely on what you call a "lie". Scripture claims that God is not human, therefore God does not lie. This implies that humans do. If then humans wrote the Bible, then they lied in doing so. If God wrote it then there are no lies. Further, if there are no lies in the Bible, then on at least one occassion, a donkey talked.

                    Now I could point out other problems where what is recorded conflicts with what may be deduced from science or other sources, but I think a talking donkey is sufficient to raise doubts.

                    Bill

                    --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Isa" <isalcordo@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi, to all:
                    >
                    > The issue raised by Bill cannot be resolved in this forum because we do not know factually whether or not some of the Bible writers lied.
                    >
                    > As for science, it cannot be applied to spiritual revelations until we find ways to test empirically spiritual assertions.
                    >
                    > What we can and must do in our study of the Bible as a whole and the Trinity specifically is to use LOGIC, REASON (which I define as the intellectual acceptance of conclusions demanded by logic from valid premises) and the RESOLUTION OF APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS throughout all the books of the Bible, without resorting to claims of errors or lies on the part of writers, realizing that the New Testament declarations over-ride OT declarations, the NT being a set of NEW REVELATIONS to give light to OT declarations.
                    >
                    > Thus, without the NT, we are bound to recognize but One God who is the God of Israel alone - YHWH or Yahweh or Jehoval. With the NT, however, we are bound to accept that the "Almighty One of Israel" happens to be also the "Glorified Jesus of the book of Revelation" who happended to be both FINITE and, therefore, CANNOT BE THE ONE INFINITE GOD of humankind but simply His MANIFESTATIONS to finite being at differents stages of man's divine history.
                    >
                    > May God bless us all.
                    >
                    > Isa
                    > In Service to the Lay People of God
                    > --------
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, tcmadd2@ wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Folks,
                    > >
                    > > I once read an article in National Geographic about gorillas who were being raised in reasearch lab. They were being taught sign language and videotaped 24/7. On one night after the humans had left one young gorilla took another one's doll and tore it up. When confronted by the trainer/scientists he lied, saying he did not do it.
                    > >
                    > > Another occassion he got into a conflict with the other gorilla over something. He got quite upset about the issue and signed "toilet" followed by the sign for "face" and "you". In other words, he was deliberately insulting his buddy.
                    > >
                    > > Tom M.
                    > > Fullerton
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > From: Jeff <preachingjeff@>
                    > > To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                    > > Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 10:59 am
                    > > Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: The Great Trinity Debate
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > I did have one thing I did want to ask. Science may agree on the lying part, but why? Why do people lie? Why do people teach themselves to lie? Does science have the answer to that question? Of course, if the Bible is true about us being sinners, we have an explanation.
                    > >
                    > > Jefff
                    > >
                    > > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "William" <eliadefollower@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > I would like to raise teh simple, but sometimes troublesome question of what assumptions do we bring to the table when we interpret scripture to support one position or another in regards to the Trinity. Scripture clearly tells us that humans are sinners and liars, and modern science clearly agrees at least on the lying part. Do we lie to ourselves in how we interpret scripture, or is that the one area that is excluded. Do we assume that the findings of science are irrelevant in understanding scripture or do we seek to use them in understanding, even if doing so forces us to change from traditional understandings. If we reject the findings of science, are we certain that we are allowed to do so by scripture? Do we truly understand the original languages perfectly enough to dare ascert that our position is clearly correct, or are we relying on the opinions of other lying, sinful humans and refusing to argue with them.
                    > > >
                    > > > Bill
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Paul Leonard
                    Oh I don t know, I have known some donkey s that type. is that harder than talking? Because science doesn t know how it happened doesn t mean it can t or
                    Message 9 of 25 , May 12, 2010
                      Oh I don't know,

                      I have known some donkey's that type. is that harder than talking?

                      Because "science" doesn't know how it happened doesn't mean it can't or didn't. Not to mention all those "honest" scientists who would never lie, since apparently they aren't human.

                       

                      Isa,

                      The question as to whether or not we may factually know if biblical writers lied or not rests largely on what you call a "lie". Scripture claims that God is not human, therefore God does not lie. This implies that humans do. If then humans wrote the Bible, then they lied in doing so. If God wrote it then there are no lies. Further, if there are no lies in the Bible, then on at least one occassion, a donkey talked.

                      Now I could point out other problems where what is recorded conflicts with what may be deduced from science or other sources, but I think a talking donkey is sufficient to raise doubts.

                      Bill

                      --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, "Isa" <isalcordo@. ..> wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi, to all:
                      >
                      > The issue raised by Bill cannot be resolved in this forum because we do not know factually whether or not some of the Bible writers lied.
                      >
                      > As for science, it cannot be applied to spiritual revelations until we find ways to test empirically spiritual assertions.
                      >
                      > What we can and must do in our study of the Bible as a whole and the Trinity specifically is to use LOGIC, REASON (which I define as the intellectual acceptance of conclusions demanded by logic from valid premises) and the RESOLUTION OF APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS throughout all the books of the Bible, without resorting to claims of errors or lies on the part of writers, realizing that the New Testament declarations over-ride OT declarations, the NT being a set of NEW REVELATIONS to give light to OT declarations.
                      >
                      > Thus, without the NT, we are bound to recognize but One God who is the God of Israel alone - YHWH or Yahweh or Jehoval. With the NT, however, we are bound to accept that the "Almighty One of Israel" happens to be also the "Glorified Jesus of the book of Revelation" who happended to be both FINITE and, therefore, CANNOT BE THE ONE INFINITE GOD of humankind but simply His MANIFESTATIONS to finite being at differents stages of man's divine history.
                      >
                      > May God bless us all.
                      >
                      > Isa
                      > In Service to the Lay People of God
                      > --------
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, tcmadd2@ wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Folks,
                      > >
                      > > I once read an article in National Geographic about gorillas who were being raised in reasearch lab. They were being taught sign language and videotaped 24/7. On one night after the humans had left one young gorilla took another one's doll and tore it up. When confronted by the trainer/scientists he lied, saying he did not do it.
                      > >
                      > > Another occassion he got into a conflict with the other gorilla over something. He got quite upset about the issue and signed "toilet" followed by the sign for "face" and "you". In other words, he was deliberately insulting his buddy.
                      > >
                      > > Tom M.
                      > > Fullerton
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > From: Jeff <preachingjeff@ >
                      > > To: biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com
                      > > Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 10:59 am
                      > > Subject: [biblicalapologetic s] Re: The Great Trinity Debate
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > I did have one thing I did want to ask. Science may agree on the lying part, but why? Why do people lie? Why do people teach themselves to lie? Does science have the answer to that question? Of course, if the Bible is true about us being sinners, we have an explanation.
                      > >
                      > > Jefff
                      > >
                      > > --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, "William" <eliadefollower@ > wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > I would like to raise teh simple, but sometimes troublesome question of what assumptions do we bring to the table when we interpret scripture to support one position or another in regards to the Trinity. Scripture clearly tells us that humans are sinners and liars, and modern science clearly agrees at least on the lying part. Do we lie to ourselves in how we interpret scripture, or is that the one area that is excluded. Do we assume that the findings of science are irrelevant in understanding scripture or do we seek to use them in understanding, even if doing so forces us to change from traditional understandings. If we reject the findings of science, are we certain that we are allowed to do so by scripture? Do we truly understand the original languages perfectly enough to dare ascert that our position is clearly correct, or are we relying on the opinions of other lying, sinful humans and refusing to argue with them.
                      > > >
                      > > > Bill
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >

                    • Paul Leonard
                      Hi I have no doubts that science can lie to us or be wrong. I also have no doubts that theologians are likewise capable of it. I merely raise the question
                      Message 10 of 25 , May 12, 2010
                        Hi

                        I have no doubts that science can lie to us or be wrong. I also have no doubts that theologians are likewise capable of it. I merely raise the question about what assumptions we are bringing to the table.


                        True, as well as what attitude we bring.

                        I for one assume that scripture and the findings of science may be reconciled. I assume that both are dealing with the same reality. However, I also assume that when someone starts with defining something as true and unchallengable, they are far more likely to end up lying to me then when they start as defining something as true until evidence suggests it is not.

                        I am sure we all can identify such cases.

                        Further, the more people who are attempting to prove something true or false as opposed to agreeing that some point is true by definition and unchallengable, the more I am inclined to trust the ultimate outcome. Theologians hold predefined truths to be true without question, scientists keep challenging what is accepted as true and seeking to prove it either true or false. Neither side is guaranteed to be ultimately correct, but at least science offers the appearance of seeking to confirm what is believed true.

                        Well I am not sure that is totally true. As an example if enough peop0le study the Bible  and determine it is true, then they will also assume that the Basics are true also. It is in the details that disagreement comes into play.

                        One quick pair of examples, theology holds that Jesus was fully God and fully human (a contradiction) by definition.

                        Note to be accurate you should say some theology holds that Jesus is both god and man. Not all theology does so.

                        Science holds that photons are both particles and waves (also a contradiction) because testing so indicates. The definition rests on a specific worldview and a specific understanding of certain passages in scripture, as opposed to any other possible understandings or worldview. The testing relies on numerous people trying numerous times and consistently obtaining the same information, and this includes hiogh school students the world around, regardless of worldview or understanding.

                        You might like, 'it is so because so and so has decreed it to be'. However I like 'it seems to be so because everyone, myself included, who have tested it gets the same answer'. 


                        The problem can also be related to the test and the assumptions behind the test and the 'expected' results. I deal with that in Chemistry all the time. Everyone starts with assumptions. The real test comes when we are faced with genuine and specific challenges to those assumptions. Broad assumptions are of minimal value until refined to a specific case/application.

                        Bill

                      • Isa
                        Bill: You wrote: If God wrote it then there are no lies. Further, if there are no lies in the Bible, then on at least one occassion, a donkey talked. My
                        Message 11 of 25 , May 12, 2010
                          Bill:

                          You wrote:

                          If God wrote it then there are no lies. Further, if there are no lies in the Bible, then on at least one occassion, a donkey talked.

                          My response:

                          The Bible is the most sensible revelation of God given to and written down by man. Until science can DEMONSTRATE to us the CAUSE and the SOURCE of biological LIFE and the SOURCE of the energy and the CAUSE to have that energy explode to produce the BIG BANG, I chose to believe in the Biblical account of the creation of Man and the Universe.

                          Also, I believe that the Bible are without error and lies in the original tongue. Errors may have crept in in translations and in theological extrapolations. So, it is necessary for us lay people to study the Bible using LOGIC and REASON and word-for-word and verse-by-verse study to point out and eliminate CONTRADICTIONS and INCONSISTENCIES so as to purify the Bible of these errors due to translations and theological biases. There are also errors from introducing non-Biblical philosophies like the "immortality of souls" when the Bible declares that "GOD ALONE IS IMMORTAL."

                          You wrote:

                          Now I could point out other problems where what is recorded conflicts with what may be deduced from science or other sources, but I think a talking donkey is sufficient to raise doubts.

                          My response:

                          As for a donkey talking, I do not believe this is a lie or an error. It is so obviously unbelievable so that it MUST BE TRUE! I believe the writer reported this incident against all his humanly reasons but was forced to include it in his narrative to be TRUE to the words of God.

                          May God bless us all.

                          Isa
                          In Service to the Lay People of God
                          ---------


                          --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "William" <eliadefollower@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Isa,
                          >
                          > The question as to whether or not we may factually know if biblical writers lied or not rests largely on what you call a "lie". Scripture claims that God is not human, therefore God does not lie. This implies that humans do. If then humans wrote the Bible, then they lied in doing so. If God wrote it then there are no lies. Further, if there are no lies in the Bible, then on at least one occassion, a donkey talked.
                          >
                          > Now I could point out other problems where what is recorded conflicts with what may be deduced from science or other sources, but I think a talking donkey is sufficient to raise doubts.
                          >
                          > Bill
                          >
                          > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Isa" <isalcordo@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Hi, to all:
                          > >
                          > > The issue raised by Bill cannot be resolved in this forum because we do not know factually whether or not some of the Bible writers lied.
                          > >
                          > > As for science, it cannot be applied to spiritual revelations until we find ways to test empirically spiritual assertions.
                          > >
                          > > What we can and must do in our study of the Bible as a whole and the Trinity specifically is to use LOGIC, REASON (which I define as the intellectual acceptance of conclusions demanded by logic from valid premises) and the RESOLUTION OF APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS throughout all the books of the Bible, without resorting to claims of errors or lies on the part of writers, realizing that the New Testament declarations over-ride OT declarations, the NT being a set of NEW REVELATIONS to give light to OT declarations.
                          > >
                          > > Thus, without the NT, we are bound to recognize but One God who is the God of Israel alone - YHWH or Yahweh or Jehoval. With the NT, however, we are bound to accept that the "Almighty One of Israel" happens to be also the "Glorified Jesus of the book of Revelation" who happended to be both FINITE and, therefore, CANNOT BE THE ONE INFINITE GOD of humankind but simply His MANIFESTATIONS to finite being at differents stages of man's divine history.
                          > >
                          > > May God bless us all.
                          > >
                          > > Isa
                          > > In Service to the Lay People of God
                          > > --------
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, tcmadd2@ wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > Folks,
                          > > >
                          > > > I once read an article in National Geographic about gorillas who were being raised in reasearch lab. They were being taught sign language and videotaped 24/7. On one night after the humans had left one young gorilla took another one's doll and tore it up. When confronted by the trainer/scientists he lied, saying he did not do it.
                          > > >
                          > > > Another occassion he got into a conflict with the other gorilla over something. He got quite upset about the issue and signed "toilet" followed by the sign for "face" and "you". In other words, he was deliberately insulting his buddy.
                          > > >
                          > > > Tom M.
                          > > > Fullerton
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > -----Original Message-----
                          > > > From: Jeff <preachingjeff@>
                          > > > To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                          > > > Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 10:59 am
                          > > > Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: The Great Trinity Debate
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > I did have one thing I did want to ask. Science may agree on the lying part, but why? Why do people lie? Why do people teach themselves to lie? Does science have the answer to that question? Of course, if the Bible is true about us being sinners, we have an explanation.
                          > > >
                          > > > Jefff
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "William" <eliadefollower@> wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > I would like to raise teh simple, but sometimes troublesome question of what assumptions do we bring to the table when we interpret scripture to support one position or another in regards to the Trinity. Scripture clearly tells us that humans are sinners and liars, and modern science clearly agrees at least on the lying part. Do we lie to ourselves in how we interpret scripture, or is that the one area that is excluded. Do we assume that the findings of science are irrelevant in understanding scripture or do we seek to use them in understanding, even if doing so forces us to change from traditional understandings. If we reject the findings of science, are we certain that we are allowed to do so by scripture? Do we truly understand the original languages perfectly enough to dare ascert that our position is clearly correct, or are we relying on the opinions of other lying, sinful humans and refusing to argue with them.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Bill
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • William
                          Isa, You wish to use logic and reason to eliminate errors and restore the pure original scriptures. That is well and good, but as you noted, theological
                          Message 12 of 25 , May 13, 2010
                            Isa,

                            You wish to use logic and reason to eliminate errors and restore the pure original scriptures. That is well and good, but as you noted, theological biases caused some of these errors in what was passed on. How do you eliminate your own theological biases when you seek to restore?

                            Now, since you so nicely responded as I hoped in regards to Balaam's ride speaking, would you care to explain the worldview that allows for both this to occur and all the findings of modern science? I admit that it is possible, but it is only through a very narrow and not widely known worldview. And, NO, I am not sharing it in general forum. You can if you both know it and are willing, or share it with me privately. However, the answer of the random intervention of God to allow such things challenges all modern science (conservation of matter and energy) so it does not fit the criteria.

                            Bill
                          • William
                            Paul, I think that in large part we tend to agree more than disagree. I have studied in enough different areas of knowledge that I find the easy answers
                            Message 13 of 25 , May 13, 2010
                              Paul,

                              I think that in large part we tend to agree more than disagree. I have studied in enough different areas of knowledge that I find the easy answers usually don't fit all the way across the board. It is this type of study that has led me to the conclusion that the numerous people studying the scriptures have almost all the same initial assumptions, and thus have almost all the same ultimate problems in their conclusions.

                              Also, as I noted in a response to Isa, I do beleive that donkeys are capable of what would be preceived as intelligible verbal communication with humans, just as dogs, cats and other species that have close enough ties to humans can. Other species would be capable, but for the most part do not with to try. However, this also requires certain specific assumptions, most of which are suggested by what many would consider to be borderline questionable scientific studies, including: Oschmann, Jahn and Dunne, and Sheldrake.

                              Bill

                              --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Hi
                              >
                              > I have no doubts that science can lie to us or be wrong. I also have no doubts that theologians are likewise capable of it. I merely raise the question about what assumptions we are bringing to the table.
                              >
                              > True, as well as what attitude we bring.
                              >
                              > I for one assume that scripture and the findings of science may be reconciled. I assume that both are dealing with the same reality. However, I also assume that when someone starts with defining something as true and unchallengable, they are far more likely to end up lying to me then when they start as defining something as true until evidence suggests it is not.
                              >
                              > I am sure we all can identify such cases.
                              >
                              > Further, the more people who are attempting to prove something true or false as opposed to agreeing that some point is true by definition and unchallengable, the more I am inclined to trust the ultimate outcome. Theologians hold predefined truths to be true without question, scientists keep challenging what is accepted as true and seeking to prove it either true or false. Neither side is guaranteed to be ultimately correct, but at least science offers the appearance of seeking to confirm what is believed true.
                              > Well I am not sure that is totally true. As an example if enough peop0le study the Bible and determine it is true, then they will also assume that the Basics are true also. It is in the details that disagreement comes into play.
                              >
                              > One quick pair of examples, theology holds that Jesus was fully God and fully human (a contradiction) by definition.
                              >
                              > Note to be accurate you should say some theology holds that Jesus is both god and man. Not all theology does so.
                              > Science holds that photons are both particles and waves (also a contradiction) because testing so indicates. The definition rests on a specific worldview and a specific understanding of certain passages in scripture, as opposed to any other possible understandings or worldview. The testing relies on numerous people trying numerous times and consistently obtaining the same information, and this includes hiogh school students the world around, regardless of worldview or understanding.
                              >
                              > You might like, 'it is so because so and so has decreed it to be'. However I like 'it seems to be so because everyone, myself included, who have tested it gets the same answer'.
                              >
                              > The problem can also be related to the test and the assumptions behind the test and the 'expected' results. I deal with that in Chemistry all the time. Everyone starts with assumptions. The real test comes when we are faced with genuine and specific challenges to those assumptions. Broad assumptions are of minimal value until refined to a specific case/application.
                              >
                              > Bill
                              >
                            • Paul Leonard
                              Hi Bill, Below you make a statement I question. Now, since you so nicely responded as I hoped in regards to Balaam s ride speaking, ... However, the answer
                              Message 14 of 25 , May 13, 2010

                                Hi Bill,

                                Below you make a statement I question.


                                Now, since you so nicely responded as I hoped in regards to Balaam's ride speaking, ...  However, the answer of the random intervention of God to allow such things challenges all modern science (conservation of matter and energy) so it does not fit the criteria.

                                A.P. IF there is an all powerful God, who created all things, then is it not reasonable that he is capable of manipulating anything he wishes or applying scientific principles we are not yet aware of. "Modern" science is not omniscient.

                                Paul

                              • William
                                Paul, If there is an omnipotent God who created all things then His ability to influence whatever He would wish would be present by definition. However, the
                                Message 15 of 25 , May 14, 2010
                                  Paul,

                                  If there is an omnipotent God who created all things then His ability to influence whatever He would wish would be present by definition. However, the existence of such a being is likewise outside the realms of modern science. It does fit with traditonal theology though.

                                  However, a god who operates purely within what appears to be the boundaries of science could likewise do all that the biblical god does. This assumption requires humans change their common understanding of reality in favor of truths that have ben recognized for at least 2500 years, if not far longer. It also requires that scientists accept some concepts for which there is ambiguous evidence rather than the currently more popular explanations for the evidence.

                                  Which way is correct is open to debate, but I would note that the Bible teaches that the wrong path seems very good to most people, and is far easier to follow. The path I propose is downright scary, and rejected as highly improbable by most. It also leads to measurable changes and great abundance of what many people preceive to be "fruits of the spirit".

                                  Bill

                                  --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Hi Bill,
                                  >
                                  > Below you make a statement I question.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Now, since you so nicely responded as I hoped in regards to Balaam's ride speaking, ... However, the answer of the random intervention of God to allow such things challenges all modern science (conservation of matter and energy) so it does not fit the criteria.
                                  > A.P. IF there is an all powerful God, who created all things, then is it not reasonable that he is capable of manipulating anything he wishes or applying scientific principles we are not yet aware of. "Modern" science is not omniscient.
                                  >
                                  > Paul
                                  >
                                • Paul Leonard
                                  Hi, If there is an omnipotent God who created all things then His ability to influence whatever He would wish would be present by definition. However, the
                                  Message 16 of 25 , May 15, 2010
                                    Hi,


                                    If there is an omnipotent God who created all things then His ability to influence whatever He would wish would be present by definition. However, the existence of such a being is likewise outside the realms of modern science. It does fit with traditonal theology though.

                                    OK

                                    However, a god who operates purely within what appears to be the boundaries of science could likewise do all that the biblical god does. This assumption requires humans change their common understanding of reality in favor of truths that have ben recognized for at least 2500 years, if not far longer. It also requires that scientists accept some concepts for which there is ambiguous evidence rather than the currently more popular explanations for the evidence.

                                    I would agree

                                    Which way is correct is open to debate, but I would note that the Bible teaches that the wrong path seems very good to most people, and is far easier to follow. The path I propose is downright scary, and rejected as highly improbable by most. It also leads to measurable changes and great abundance of what many people preceive to be "fruits of the spirit". 

                                    Being unpopular and even not easy to follow still does not make it right. Now it doesn't make it wrong either.

                                    I am interested in hearing about the "path" you are suggesting and how it ties to Scripture, which is necessary on this forum.

                                    Paul
                                    Bill

                                    --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Hi Bill,
                                    >
                                    > Below you make a statement I question.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Now, since you so nicely responded as I hoped in regards to Balaam's ride speaking, ... However, the answer of the random intervention of God to allow such things challenges all modern science (conservation of matter and energy) so it does not fit the criteria.
                                    > A.P. IF there is an all powerful God, who created all things, then is it not reasonable that he is capable of manipulating anything he wishes or applying scientific principles we are not yet aware of. "Modern" science is not omniscient.
                                    >
                                    > Paul
                                    >

                                  • William
                                    Paul, The easiest place to start to show a difference between an interpretation that is compatible with science and traditional theology would lie in a review
                                    Message 17 of 25 , May 16, 2010
                                      Paul,

                                      The easiest place to start to show a difference between an interpretation that is compatible with science and traditional theology would lie in a review of the account of the fall in Genesis 3. Clearly the Hebrew tells us that God spoke firmly regarding not eating the fruit of the tree. And taking this as a command might be quite proper. However, what is the exact nature and meaning of the command.

                                      That is to ask, is the command like that of a parent to their child of do not cross the street alone, which implies do not violate my wishes, or is it like that, also of a parent, of do not touch the burners on the stove, which implies that if the act is done there will be harm irregardless of the parent's wishes. To answer that question, let us consider some points that I am often told are irrelevant to the story, but I find highly relevant. This is, just who was Eve going to change by eating the fruit? She preceived that it would make one wiser, but which one did she see as getting wiser? If we consider a fundamental law of physics and psychiatry we know that the one person she could not have been truly aware of to improve was EVE. No one is capable of truly preceiving themselves, but merely preceiving an image that they have decreed to be themself, an image that they hold up in front of their true self and proclaim to be real and use to isolate themselves from other persons and even God. Further, individuals act in accordance with how they preceive this image to be and what they preceive its needs to be, leading to multiple problems including murder, theft, drunkenness and numerous other problems defined by Paul as fruits of the flesh, or the results of Sin.

                                      Now taking this approach, that is staying with science and God's command to Adam and Eve as being one which He gave because its violation would lead to problems that God did not desire but were also inevitable, rather then God's command as one of an arbitary wish, we are able to make Sin a scientific reality and the consequences of Sin to be logical certainties without having to charge God with arbitariness in who suffers the consequences and who does not.

                                      Admittedly I have not explained here just how the consequences are avoided through faith in Jesus (actually faith like Jesus which is actually more correct if you know the Greek) but it can logically be done.

                                      Now if you truly wish to pursue this further, I would suggest that we do it outside the forum as to many people jumping in will surely muddy the waters and make it impossible to explain in sufficient detail for you to decide if you find it plausible or not.

                                      Bill
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.