tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post4806063972059244489..comments2024-03-18T18:19:19.002-07:00Comments on bylogos: Does the Bible Use Phenomenal Language?john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-74849906994960017992023-11-20T18:47:53.828-08:002023-11-20T18:47:53.828-08:00sorry im late. i agree. if the bible tells me the ...sorry im late. i agree. if the bible tells me the sun moves and the moon moves and the earth is fixed and does not move, i will believe it. man came up with the idea of the opposite. man says the earth moves and the sun and moon dont. are we going to trust mere humans or God? i am saddened to see bible websites say the language of appearance applies. they are saying what we see is not really what is happening and it's sad. they are being led astray by satan and his lies. all of these humans came up with these stupid theories and now even christians are falling for it. God will not and does not dumb down His word for us to make it seem false. He is not the author of confusion. terry j autryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04862957986014426040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-74586837704855651372023-06-14T08:36:31.859-07:002023-06-14T08:36:31.859-07:00Hi Jay
Thanks for your comments. For my response ...Hi Jay<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. For my response to Ligonier's use of the "book of nature" see my post <a rel="nofollow"> What is the genuine Reformed view of science?</a>.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-72767965666876027362023-06-10T02:57:09.855-07:002023-06-10T02:57:09.855-07:00Some good reads for your consideration. The Bible&...Some good reads for your consideration. The Bible's use of phenomenological language needs to be recognized on some occasions. In fact, it's consistent with the historical-grammatical approach in the interpretation of the Scripture. It's not merely a form of accommodation. <br /> <br />In addition, the Bible is actually not against and even for the use of extra-biblical sources. Remember Psalm 19? The book of Scripture and the book of Nature (The Word and the World). https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/basic-literary-forms-i https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/all-truth-gods-truth-reformed-approach-science-and-scripture https://www.reformation21.org/blog/on-plundering-the-egyptians Jay Mar Bagalacsahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02606449912758419692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-60847541751283366152023-06-10T02:51:48.331-07:002023-06-10T02:51:48.331-07:00Some good reads for you https://www.ligonier.org/l...Some good reads for you https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/basic-literary-forms-iJay Mar Bagalacsahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02606449912758419692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-85446003033251234282022-03-23T13:47:45.749-07:002022-03-23T13:47:45.749-07:00Genesis 1 is about the Earth, and life, and the va...Genesis 1 is about the Earth, and life, and the value which the Sun, Moon and stars have to life on Earth. The Sun is the 'greater' of the 'two great lights' in this regard.<br /><br />The skeptic may love to find fault with the account's reference to the Sun and Moon this way. But the skeptic is living a fantasy of an atheistic, and deeply life-indifferent, version of (a) empirical inquiry and (b) exegesis. To fault the account for its failing to mention the factoids of actual comparative physical size of the Sun to many stars is like complaining that, since the 'greatest apple pie' your grandma ever made is smaller than the average, cheap apple pie, it is an error to call her pie her 'greatest' apple pie.Daniel Pechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01773080742362000732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-55624767733707362332022-03-23T13:47:25.838-07:002022-03-23T13:47:25.838-07:00Genesis 1 is not simply 'a history'. To de...Genesis 1 is not simply 'a history'. To definitionally reduce it to such a generic idea would be like definitionally reducing the Moon to 'a round object', or definitionally reducing a human being to 'a life form'.<br /><br />Genesis 1 is about the Earth, and life, and the value which the Sun, Moon and stars have to life on Earth. The Sun is the 'greater' of the 'two great lights' in this regard.<br /><br />The skeptic may love to find fault with the account's reference to the Sun and Moon this way. But the skeptic is living a fantasy of an atheistic, and deeply life-indifferent, version of (a) empirical inquiry and (b) exegesis. To fault the account for its failing to mention the factoids of actual comparative physical size of the Sun to many stars is like complaining that, since the 'greatest apple pie' your grandma ever made is smaller than the average, cheap apple pie, it is an error to call her pie her 'greatest' apple pie.Daniel Pechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01773080742362000732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-61944197623994065032021-12-29T07:13:41.562-08:002021-12-29T07:13:41.562-08:00Dr, Byl:
In a recent copy of Astronomer’s Handbook...Dr, Byl:<br />In a recent copy of Astronomer’s Handbook, the times of sunrise and sunset, as well as of moonrise and moonset, are all given in earth time according to the time zone of the region for which they are produced. Our GPS system of location, and of satellite placements in their orbits to give us these locations, are all “as they appear to our senses”, in the Ptolemaic or geocentric model. <br /><br />The Handbook and GPS mean to give us "the actual reality", but describe it in terms of "as it appears to our senses". How, then, would one describe "miracle", if confined to the definitions given by Kant? Metaphysically? In terms of natural laws? Do our senses not tell us that a miracle occurs when we can see no natural explanation for it? Is "phenomenalogical" language any less "noumenal" because of that?<br /><br />I agree with you and Mr. Pemberton: these are not viable objections from a scientific standpoint. How should one describe a miracle noumenally, what actually happened, by Kant’s definition? It’s a self-defeating assumption to confine miracle to these categories.<br /><br />JohnVJohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-76383892279248629932021-12-28T10:51:37.466-08:002021-12-28T10:51:37.466-08:00I’ve thought a lot about this. Sure, the Bible use...I’ve thought a lot about this. Sure, the Bible uses phenomenological language (PL). However, there’s a difference between the way the Bible describes something and what the bible says something is. The PL argument is typically employed to discount certain miracles. Not all miracles can be so dismissed. PL can’t be used for something like the parting of the Red Sea, for example. In the case of the creation of stars on Day 4 we run into the distant starlight problem. It’s not really a problem, but it’s made out to be a problem. The way it’s made out to be a problem is by an appeal to known physical laws and principles. Interestingly, the way it’s typically answered is by an appeal to the same known physical laws and principles. What is missed is that the bible nowhere says that it was an event that happened using natural means only. Instead, it was an act of creation by an omnipotent Creator. We don’t have the tools to evaluate such a claim because our tools of scientific discovery are limited to the natural laws created to govern observable creation. If we stick only to that as matter of epistemology, then we deny the Creator his right of self-revelation beyond creation. And if we want to deny simple miracles, then we have no basis for trusting that the origin of this world came about by the Creator supernaturally creating.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.com