Do Christians deny the speed of light?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-07-2014, 09:26 AM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2014 09:34 AM by kingschosen.)
RE: Do Christians deny the speed of light?
You do realize that YEC is a small, relatively new belief in Christianity, right? As an accepted belief, it's a little over 100 years old.

Please do your research first before over generalizing an entire group of people.

And to answer your question, yes... yes, many Christians believe in the SoL as well as evolution.

YECs are the ONLY group that struggles with it because of their literal interpretations.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
10-07-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: Do Christians deny the speed of light?
(10-07-2014 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  You do realize that YEC is a small, relatively new belief in Christianity, right? As an accepted belief, it's a little over 100 years old.

Please do your research first before over generalizing an entire group of people.

That is only because it did not need to be made explicit until there was a more compelling alternative.

Such beliefs were implicit and universal well into the 19th century, so long as nobody had any better information.

Is 40% of the United States relatively small?

But yes, in modern contexts the qualifier is useful.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
10-07-2014, 09:48 AM
RE: Do Christians deny the speed of light?
(10-07-2014 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(10-07-2014 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  You do realize that YEC is a small, relatively new belief in Christianity, right? As an accepted belief, it's a little over 100 years old.

Please do your research first before over generalizing an entire group of people.

That is only because it did not need to be made explicit until there was a more compelling alternative.

Such beliefs were implicit and universal well into the 19th century, so long as nobody had any better information.

Is 40% of the United States relatively small?

But yes, in modern contexts the qualifier is useful.

Ummm, no.

YEC didn't become accepted and widespread until Ellen G. White.

The first couple of millennia in Christianity the accepted belief was a non-literal interpretation. It was first contrasted by St. Augustine when he endorsed a non-literal interpretation of the Creation Story and warned against the belief in a literal translation.

But you are right about it not being explicit... except your facts are switched. The majority believed in a non-literal translation so there wasn't anything made explicit that spoke against that until the mid 1800s.

And as far as a small percentage goes: I'm talking about in church history. It's a minute piece of church history that will hopefully fade away in the next century. The percentage that believe in it are vastly overshadowed by the Christians who did not believe in it from the beginning of church history to the present.

And even now, the majority of Christians do not believe in a YEC point of view.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2014, 10:09 AM
RE: Do Christians deny the speed of light?
(10-07-2014 09:48 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-07-2014 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That is only because it did not need to be made explicit until there was a more compelling alternative.

Such beliefs were implicit and universal well into the 19th century, so long as nobody had any better information.

Is 40% of the United States relatively small?

But yes, in modern contexts the qualifier is useful.

Ummm, no.

YEC didn't become accepted and widespread until Ellen G. White.

The first couple of millennia in Christianity the accepted belief was a non-literal interpretation. It was first contrasted by St. Augustine when he endorsed a non-literal interpretation of the Creation Story and warned against the belief in a literal translation.

But you are right about it not being explicit... except your facts are switched. The majority believed in a non-literal translation so there wasn't anything made explicit that spoke against that until the mid 1800s.

And as far as a small percentage goes: I'm talking about in church history. It's a minute piece of church history that will hopefully fade away in the next century. The percentage that believe in it are vastly overshadowed by the Christians who did not believe in it from the beginning of church history to the present.

And even now, the majority of Christians do not believe in a YEC point of view.

I think cjlr is closer to the mark than you on this one.

Quote:James Ussher (4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656) was Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625 and 1656. He was a prolific scholar, who most famously published a chronology that purported to establish the time and date of the creation as the night preceding Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC, according to the proleptic Julian calendar.

Many of the objections to theories of cosmology and evolution were based on an understanding of a not-very-old earth and universe.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-07-2014, 10:12 AM
RE: Do Christians deny the speed of light?
(10-07-2014 09:48 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Ummm, no.

YEC didn't become accepted and widespread until Ellen G. White.

One word for you: Ussher.
(demonstrably the prevailing view through the 17th century - literal Biblical chronology)

(10-07-2014 09:48 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  The first couple of millennia in Christianity the accepted belief was a non-literal interpretation. It was first contrasted by St. Augustine when he endorsed a non-literal interpretation of the Creation Story and warned against the belief in a literal translation.

But that isn't the proper paradigm. Non/literalism could not exist as a concept until there was actual knowledge to compare it to. Mythical history is an old concept, and that's the lens many early peoples used for interpretation - and yet, Augustine would never have needed mention the issue if there weren't those who did hold literal beliefs!

Augustine seriously denigrated science and material knowledge in any case. We cannot possibly say for sure how he would have reacted to scientific knowledge 1500 years beyond him.

But in any case, early geological catastrophism was explicitly indentified with the Biblical flood long before White wrote anything. The following sentence was written in 1813:
Quote:"Although the Mosaic account of the creation of the world is an inspired writing, and consequently rests on evidence wholly independent of human observation and experience, still it is interesting, and in many respects important, to know that it coincides with the various phenomena observable in the mineral kingdom."

So there's that as an example.
(explicitly identifying Biblical accounts as inspired and unassailably true, for one)

(10-07-2014 09:48 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  But you are right about it not being explicit... except your facts are switched. The majority believed in a non-literal translation so there wasn't anything made explicit that spoke against that until the mid 1800s.

There was nothing made explicit against scientific findings until the mid-19th century because there were no explicit scientific findings until the mid-19th century. It's a little silly to claim that means nobody privileged Biblical history over, say, Greek mythological history. The likes of the Flood and the Exodus were taken as implicit fact. Ditto a recent creation.

When Wilberforce debated Huxley on evolution in 1860, neither could possibly have had even the faintest idea who White was.

It's similar to the prevalence of Biblical cosmology. Such beliefs were not necessarily explicitly identified pre-Renaissance, because there was nothing else going. After the likes of Galileo and Kepler, that was no longer teneble. And in much the same way there are holdouts even today...

(10-07-2014 09:48 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  And as far as a small percentage goes: I'm talking about in church history. It's a minute piece of church history that will hopefully fade away in the next century. The percentage that believe in it are vastly overshadowed by the Christians who did not believe in it from the beginning of church history to the present.

And even now, the majority of Christians do not believe in a YEC point of view.

A strong majority of American christians are some flavour of creationist, and America has the most Christians of any country on Earth.

I think it's very disingenuous to say the majority of historical believers did not give credence to literal interpretations.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
10-07-2014, 12:12 PM
RE: Do Christians deny the speed of light?
Okay, that's fine.

I'm not going to argue it anymore.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2014, 01:03 PM
RE: Do Christians deny the speed of light?
(10-07-2014 12:12 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Okay, that's fine.

I'm not going to argue it anymore.

You can't - you are clearly wrong.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
10-07-2014, 01:12 PM
RE: Do Christians deny the speed of light?
My understanding is similar to Chas and Cljr. Prior to s little over 150 years ago, no one had reason to believe the earth was older than the bible implied. The concept of epochs, mass extinctions, etc., was not at all conceived. Everyone was a young earth believer. Or, almost everyone. I'm sure some in the scientific community were starting to grasp the truth.
I once read that when early geologists first started to grasp what rock strata implied they had a real issue because the evidence contradicted the bible. And when they found dinosaur bones in the rocks it was a huge impact on their beliefs.

So, arguing at least young earth belief is new is factual wrong. I can't comment on the creationist part but I strongly suspect most everyone believed in creation until fairly recently.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
10-07-2014, 01:46 PM
RE: Do Christians deny the speed of light?
(10-07-2014 01:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-07-2014 12:12 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Okay, that's fine.

I'm not going to argue it anymore.

You can't - you are clearly wrong.
Try again.

Young Earth Creationists have claimed that their view has its earliest roots in ancient Judaism, citing, for example, the commentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089–1164).[4] Shai Cherry of Vanderbilt University notes that modern Jewish theologians have generally rejected such literal interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who oppose some aspects of Darwinian thought generally accept scientific evidence that the Earth is much older.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
10-07-2014, 02:04 PM
RE: Do Christians deny the speed of light?
(10-07-2014 01:46 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-07-2014 01:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  You can't - you are clearly wrong.
Try again.

Young Earth Creationists have claimed that their view has its earliest roots in ancient Judaism, citing, for example, the commentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089–1164).[4] Shai Cherry of Vanderbilt University notes that modern Jewish theologians have generally rejected such literal interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who oppose some aspects of Darwinian thought generally accept scientific evidence that the Earth is much older.

KC, that citation is for modern Jews.

Whether or not the actual six days of creation themselves were literally six days or something more mythic was an open question for most of history. Sure.
(and it technically still is)

The belief that God had created the Earth in more-or-less its present form in relatively recent history (on the order of thousands of years) - literally, a belief in creationism and a young Earth - was omnipresent and unquestioned in Christian societies until the last couple centuries.

Only in the late 18th century did the science begin to suggest otherwise. Only in the mid 19th century was the science conclusive.

To quote the same Wikipedia article you do:
The Protestant reformation hermeneutic inclined some of the Reformers, including John Calvin and Martin Luther, and later Protestants toward a literal reading of the Bible as translated, believing in an ordinary day, and maintaining this younger-Earth view.

An Earth that was thousands of years old remained the dominant view during the Early Modern Period (1500–1800) and is found typically referenced in the works of famous poets and playwrights of the era, including Shakespeare:
"...The poor world is almost 6,000 years old."

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: