reconciling Biblical and Scientific History

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

edit: removed. no offense intended.

 

[andresimon]

Everyone keeps talking about religion and how the bible depicts history etc...I'm not religious or defending religion but I think anyone who reads our history books and doesn't criticizes them but criticizes religion is necessarily a hypocrite. If I remember correctly every event in history had a very simple narrative attached to it, pawned as the truth. Each teaching young children a set of values, belief systems, and "facts". I rather have the rules/teachings, the unconditionals, of religion, almost any religion, over the bullshit of the post-modern era.

 

[Lark]

Well, not really reconciling the two.

Just a chart for people who like charts.

No offense is meant nor is this an attempt to start a heated creationism vs evolution debate. I realize this is probably inevitable though.

Thoughts?

This one amused me because it based the correlation between the two timelines on the geological record, therefore placing the end of the Cretaceous near the Stock Market Crash of 1929

Again, not trying to incite a flame war, I just happened to find this when I was researching the last dinosaurs to survive (although I think their descendants and the descendants of their "cousins" continued on after the end of the Cretaceous and I was more interested in the last living of what are traditionally and popularly accepted as dinosaurs)

Yeah, for a lot Christians who are roman catholics, like myself, the absurdity which is solo scripture and biblical literalism should have ended millenia ago.

A lot of this error has been compounded and extended by trends arising out of the "higher criticism" which treated the bible as a literary object of study, discovering many, various and often conflicting texts, which was actually kicked off and stocked by and within the protestant tradition itself, as it does treat the bible differently to the RCC one which values tradition as much or more, I think rightly so, the church spawned the bible and not vice versa.

This higher criticism was the end of faith for a lot who responded to revelations about the origins of scripture but for others, just as at the time of the reformation, the crisis resulted in some bone headed reassertions of dogmatic influences (I mean that among the Lutherans before anyone thinks I'm endorsing the linear "progressivist" version of history, read Luther and Erasmus' discourse on free will as I do annually and you'll know what I'm talking about).

Then skip ahead to the birth of "fundamentalism" in the US southern states and its many spawnings, ie tele-evangelism, omega project, other strains of evangelism, and you have something resembling Nietzsche's eternal recurrence going on.

I dont see any dichotomy between science and religion at all, I think the people who like to imagine there is in order to bolster one camp and attack the other are over compensating for all sorts of private doubts and secret anxiety or repressed religosity.

 

[Lark]

Everyone keeps talking about religion and how the bible depicts history etc...I'm not religious or defending religion but I think anyone who reads our history books and doesn't criticizes them but criticizes religion is necessarily a hypocrite. If I remember correctly every event in history had a very simple narrative attached to it, pawned as the truth. Each teaching young children a set of values, belief systems, and "facts". I rather have the rules/teachings, the unconditionals, of religion, almost any religion, over the bullshit of the post-modern era.

Well said, very insightful about history too, especially since there is the recognition that it was more than just "victors justice" or "winner's history" but about rolling out normative education in another guise or shape.

The post-modern era's rules and teaching are hopelessly vague informed by the idea that people dont really need any rules, teaching or learning and can just muddle through.

Its an assault on memory and its functional purpose, the ideal is a societal version of amnesia and brain injury, like fifty first dates as a social schema.

 

[Lark]

So, assuming the cosmos were created a mere 6,000 years ago, and the light from galaxies and stars billions of light years away is visible to us, we must assume that the light was created in mid-transit (as some of you have jokingly suggested). So for galaxies and stars which would've already burned out (or which are still burning but beyond 6,000 LY away) in the timeframe accepted by most scientists, did God simply create the light itself to give the illusion of distant galaxies, stars, planets, objects, etc? If so, is everything past a certain point (6000 light years or so) a vast illusion, the cosmic equivalent of a giant black sheet with holes cut out for light? And where is the light coming from behind the sheet? How would we see it if it is emanating from beyond the giant sheet which is approximately 6000 LY out, as it would still need more time to reach the sheet? For that matter, what would the ancients have been able to see in the night sky? Would their sky have been devoid of much light, or would god's "sheet" have been placed closer to our solar system? Were billions of angels with flashlights hiding on the other side of the sheet? Who sewed the sheet? Was it a gianormous dysan sphere-like object surrounding the boundaries of space? Would God expand those boundaries with the progression of time (perhaps busy building more worlds to fill the expanding cosmos) or would it be stationary at a fixed location(s). Now I'm getting outlandish and need to stop.

(I don't necessarily believe any of this, just something I was pondering during my commute to work)

edit: I'm going to see if facebook friends have any replies to these questions as well. I will share any comments here.

Why do these things matter?

I tend to find the people, whether they are affirming atheism or something else, who care so much about the minutia of detail in these cases have a pressing need to be correct and to have that correctness vindicated by external evidence or an equally pressing need for others not to be correct in their disagreeable opinion on the matter.

In either case there is an individual who has a crying need for validation from others and who is pretty other directed without even knowing about it.

That sort of thing has become a huge trend, I've watched it grow and grow, to begin with I thought it was just this generations version of sectarian disputes which are as old as the hills, the existed within and between religious sects, then within and between political or ideological ones, the sketches in Monty Pythons' life of brian about the peoples front of judea and the judean peoples front will be known by a lot of people as true grit who've been involved with left wing fringe groups but I think its gotten way beyond that.

Its like that comic book story line in which Batman is displaced in history and thrown back the ways, he battles through different epochs travelling back to the present but unknown to him he is carrying a bomb which with each epoch passing is gaining momentum and power until he will reach the present and it will detonate destroying all trace of life in the universe or something like that.

I like to link high and low cultural critiques, what can I do.

 

[Coriolis]

Well, not really reconciling the two.

Just a chart for people who like charts.

No offense is meant nor is this an attempt to start a heated creationism vs evolution debate. I realize this is probably inevitable though.

I don't see any point in trying to reconcile biblical and scientific history. The two have quite different purposes. Scientific history as you put it is, well, scientific. We expect it to be objective, independently verifiable, and to give the same answer to each person who asks the same question. Biblical history, on the other hand, serves to teach us lessons about human nature, the nature of God, our place in the universe, our relationship with the divine, and the meaning of life. These questions are highly subjective, and depend less on the facts of the stories than their themes and characterizations. We just need to remember to use the right tool for the job.

 

[Totenkindly]

That's a nice way for you personally to look at it, but that's not how it is being approached by the people under discussion and thus the topic of the thread. They view "Biblical history" as supplanting scientific history, which is then why people are comparing the claims and drawing conclusions.

 

[Coriolis]

That's a nice way for you personally to look at it, but that's not how it is being approached by the people under discussion and thus the topic of the thread. They view "Biblical history" as supplanting scientific history, which is then why people are comparing the claims and drawing conclusions.

Quite. In this sense, I am questioning the premise of the OP.

I must admit, I do remember one year in middle school when we were studying ancient history in school, and the corresponding parts of the Bible in Sunday School. It was easy to see then where there was agreement and where divergence or embellishment. As a ~12yo at the time, I was surprised to see that the Bible had any historical accuracy. I don't see the message behind a timeline in which the earth is only ~6300 years old, but I can certainly see it in stories like Noah's Ark, even if they have absolutely no historical basis. Expecting it to match up with "scientific" history is just barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Riva]

Not all people who believe in creation think that the Earth has only been here for six thousand years. Many believe that the creative "days" aren't literal 24 hour days, but symbolic of long periods of time. At least, that's how they've explained it to me.

But yeah, those "Young Earth" Creationists... I just don't know how anyone can ignore so much evidence that the earth, and the universe, has been around for much, much longer.

Lolz abrahamic religions are full of shit.

Everytime something in their holy books are proven wrong they come up with excuses such as: those are symbolic, relative, metaphors etc.

But the rest of our books are 100% true and you are a perverted sinner for not believing in them.

Lolz and if i am not mistaken the story of moses is aslo historically proven to be wrong.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I think my last post provoked some strong reactions.

It wasn't meant as a criticism although I can see how it would easily present itself as just that, so, sorry if I gave anyone the wrong idea. It was just a stupid thought experiment that I felt like sharing, nothing more, nothing less--it ran through my head at 6:45 in the morning while I was still half awake and lacking caffeine. I hope I didn't offend anyone; it was not my intent to make any particular belief system look silly or illegitimate.
[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] Minute details: yes they are insignificant and I realize none of this matters. I wasn't trying to affirm one school of thought over another. I just wanted to share a pointless, stupid scenario from my head. It's stupid and immature, so please nobody take it as an attack or a reaffirmation of something you think I believe. I have no need to validate anything I believe to be truth over others' truths; wasn't the purpose of that post. I wasn't trying to start a serious debate.

I should've titled this thread differently. I think it might be provoking inappropriate reactions to what was just a humorous chart. I never seriously intended to reconcile the two contrasting perspectives of history. recall from post #1:

Well, not really reconciling the two.

Sorry, everyone. I'll keep this shit squirreled away in my private blog next time.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Well said, very insightful about history too, especially since there is the recognition that it was more than just "victors justice" or "winner's history" but about rolling out normative education in another guise or shape.

The post-modern era's rules and teaching are hopelessly vague informed by the idea that people dont really need any rules, teaching or learning and can just muddle through.

Its an assault on memory and its functional purpose, the ideal is a societal version of amnesia and brain injury, like fifty first dates as a social schema.

Do you think that different people have different perspectives?

 

[Coriolis]

Lolz abrahamic religions are full of shit.

Everytime something in their holy books are proven wrong they come up with excuses such as: those are symbolic, relative, metaphors etc.

But the rest of our books are 100% true and you are a perverted sinner for not believing in them.

Lolz and if i am not mistaken the story of moses is aslo historically proven to be wrong.

I'm pretty sure there wasn't really a tortoise who beat a hare in a road race either. I suppose that means Aesop is full of shit also.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

EDIT: IGNORE THE THREAD TITLE

Well, not really reconciling the two.

Just a chart for people who like charts.

No offense is meant nor is this an attempt to start a heated creationism vs evolution debate. I realize this is probably inevitable though.

Thoughts?

This one amused me because it based the correlation between the two timelines on the geological record, therefore placing the end of the Cretaceous near the Stock Market Crash of 1929

Again, not trying to incite a flame war, I just happened to find this when I was researching the last dinosaurs to survive

this reminds me of doing bank recs and that's never a good thing...

LOL...

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty sure there wasn't really a tortoise who beat a hare in a road race either. I suppose that means Aesop is full of shit also.

Aesop was one cruel mofo. his fables torque and tweek my brain and make me sick to my stomach...but they lure me in with false promises of relevant wisdom.

 

[Coriolis]

Aesop was one cruel mofo. his fables torque and tweek my brain and make me sick to my stomach...but they lure me in with false promises of relevant wisdom.

What wisdom do they promise, and in what way has this promise proved false?

 

[GarrotTheThief]

What wisdom do they promise, and in what way has this promise proved false?

They promise the wisdom of self knowledge and they deliver nothing but unanswered questions(spits in a bucket).

 

[Coriolis]

They promise the wisdom of self knowledge and they deliver nothing but unanswered questions(spits in a bucket).

That's because self-knowledge must be found within yourself. All Aesop, or the Bible, or anyone else can do is to help you ask the right questions.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

That's because self-knowledge must be found within yourself. All Aesop, or the Bible, or anyone else can do is to help you ask the right questions.

Wish you saw the eureka bulb go off over my head when I read this.

 

[andresimon]

Do you think that different people have different perspectives?

Perspectives yes but more accurate to say different people have different motives/purpose because that's the driving force here.