Absolute knowledge vs. Relativism

by Vidqun 44 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Vidqun

  Believing in a God is a leap of faith. Being an atheist is also a leap of faith, and that goes for the evolutionists too. I believe in absolute truth as found in the Bible. This type of knowledge is in stark contrast to the type of knowledge that modern scholars cling to, classified under the term relativism. According to this theory, truth, being a relative concept, can change at whim, being dependant on people, circumstances and events. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11 th edition) defines relativism as follows:

  1a. a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing.

  1b. a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.

  Conversely, [true] knowledge as absolute truth from God is indeed available in this day and age. I find these truths in the Bible. The Bible as a book has greatly influenced Western Civilization (see quote below). If you study the origins of Roman Law, where our modern system of Law comes from, the Bible has made its mark there. Then there is lots of principles in the Bible worth emulating, e.g., Love your neighbour as yourself, etc. I would concede that the Bible text has suffered under a multitude of editors, but enough has remained for us to use.

  I am not alone in this belief. Many before me felt the same way. E.g., Rudolf Kittel, the first editor of Biblia Hebraica (BH), containing the Masoretic Text of the HAS, said: “Even so the Biblia Hebraica will remain subject to the saying, ‘One day instructs another’. May it find everywhere fair critics, but especially readers worthy of the greatness of the subject!” [i]

  Adolf von Harnack, author of the authoritative two-volume work, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (‘The mission and expansion of Christianity during the first three centuries’) commented on the influence of the LXX on Western thought: “The most common attitude among Greeks who came into contact with the Old Testament was that this book and the cosmos are mutually related and must be understood together. Whatever they might think about the book, it appeared to be certain that it was a creation parallel to the world itself, equally great, and comprehensive, and that both are the work of the same Creator. What other book received a comparable verdict among thinking men?” [ii]

  R.H. Pfeiffer, in his Introduction to the Old Testament, insists, “No book or collection of books have over the years been more carefully read, more widely circulated or more zealously studied than the books of the Old Testament”. I think Rudolf Kittel summed it up nicely. The Bible has no equal and it's worth studying, no matter what the critics say.

  ---

  [i] Biblia Hebraica edidit Rudolf Kittel, Württembergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart, 1973 edition, Introduction p. xxviii.

  [ii] E. Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica , p. 49.
• 

  cofty

  Being an atheist is also a leap of faith, and that goes for the evolutionists too.

  Not accepting the flimsy evidence for a god requires no faith at all.

  Accepting the overwhelming quantity and quality of evidence for evolution from multiple fields of science requires absolutely no faith at all. By the way what's an "evolutionist"?

  No book or collection of books have over the years been more carefully read, more widely circulated or more zealously studied than the books of the Old Testament

  Harry Potter must be catching up fast.
• 

  Larsinger58

  Hi Cofty:

  Not accepting the flimsy evidence for a god requires no faith at all.

  Granted. But that doesn't apply to those who have had personal interaction with God. Your above belief presumes all have the same level of evidence or lack of evidence for God. That is, the presumption is that God never appears to anyone in the modern age so we must go by faith. What is not considered is whether God chooses to "hide" from the masses and those he does appear to he swears them to secrecy. So that's the real situation; some like you who doubt God, and reasonably so, because of the lack of direct evidence for God. OTOH, some of the elect, like myself have personally interacted with God so we know for a fact he not only exists, but is the God of the Bible. It creates two camps; those that know for sure, like myself and the elect, and those who guess or make a judgment based on "flimsy evidence" God leaves for them.

  Accepting the overwhelming quantity and quality of evidence for evolution from multiple fields of science requires absolutely no faith at all. By the way what's an "evolutionist"?

  Interesting conundrum. Since some of us have actual direct evidence of God, how does that jibe with evolution evidence? For me personally, what I have considered from those who feel they have evidence of evolution, I didn't find it challenging to the alternative of creationism. (BTW an "evolutionist" is someone who believes in the theories of evolution.) For instance, a problem I have with evolution is how it all began. Abiogenesis. When evolutionists are put to the task of explaining abiogenesis, they cop-out and say "evolution is separae from abiogenesis" and they don't have to explain it. Of course, abiogenesis is direct evidence of creation and challenges evolution.

  Another issue is the presumption of chronology and how much time scientists think it took for evolution to develop. That's a matter of interpreetation based on what is present NOW. But who knows what the atmosphere or chemical interactions were going on in the Earth 20 or 100,000 years earlier? No one can say. So evolution starts out with a presumption. Finally, those of us who know God a little more personally knows he likes playing games with people who think they are smart and those deceived by Satan. That is, God has the power to make things look old when they are not that old. So while scientists are, indeed, making what might seem to be reasonable conclusions based on what they see, they can't see around the curve of God's absolute creative powers. God ccan speed up or slow down lots of creative processes, or even change seasons if he wants to. Who says we always had four seasons. Maybe before the flood "summers" occurred every three months, so that what is presumed to reflect annual cycles were really much shorter periods of time utilized by God during the early developmental stages of creation, thus scientists are coming to the wrong conclusion.

  The fact that evolutionists think their theory still works without regard to abiogenesis confirms the level of stupidity that is present for those who believe all the science backing evolution. But since God is real and has proven himself to a select few, we have no choice but to be amazed at the level of deception, some of which might be manipulated by God for his own purpose.

  Bottom line, evolution is a false, misguided theory and God is real. Also, of course, there are other things that God has created and set in place, like the solar system. Astronomy has nothing to do with evolution but who put the solar system in place? Who adjusted the Earth's position in relation to the sun to be conducive to life? Who put the moon up there and creaed its special orbit so that you can tell the time of the month it is and use it for timekeeping based on the eclipse cycle? Ancient astronomical texts recording eclipses can be linked to specific years! It's amazing. That might be coincidental except the Bible tells us the solar system was creaed in a way to fascilitate timekeeping. In that regard, the solar system is an amazing clock of great precision. That's impressive. It is easy to believe a "god" did this rather than this being an accident. Anyone looking at a beautiful new car would never presume it created itself, no matter how much time was involved. We have sense enough to know "intelligent design" for the things we create. Yet that sense goes out the window for things occurring naturally. Thus I believe creationists see things differently than evolutionists. Creationists seem to understand the complexity of intelligent design in every little thing in creation whereas evolutionists lack that sense and presume over time this just developed, which is profoundly stupid to us creationists.

  So in conclusion, evolution is its own thing. I don't have all the answers. I understand the presuasiveness of science for the average person. But there is no doubt there is a living God so the two must exist together.

  Not all have "absolute knowledge" of God as I do, so I understand their continued doubt. But I'm exempted from guessing. The Bible is true and God is real. I know these things for a fact, but only because I was chosen to know them by God. Unfortunately, such "absolute knowledge" doesn't transfer easily. People who say they've talked to God are considered to be mentally ill or liars. So that ends that. Nothing I can do about that other than observe that God apparently is only interested in some knowing for sure he really exists while not minding keeping others guessing in the dark.

  LS
• 

  Vidqun

  Thanks Lars, not much more I can add, except perhaps relate a personal experience. One of my subjects used to be Microbiology. We went into the history and origin of the subject of Microbiology. There we learnt that the Greeks believed in spontaneous generation. Leave meat in a jar, and soon it teems with life. With the advent of the microscope (Antonie von Leeuwenhoek, if I'm not mistaken) they realized that there are organisms that the eye cannot see. Louis Pasteur with his experiments proved that micro-organisms exist, and that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation. From about that time doctor's started washing their hands. A Dr. Mendellsohn encouraged washing hands, and he was not popular. Before that, the more bloodied your apron, the more senior the doctor you are. Interestingly, the Bible encouraged washing hands from an early period. In Microbiology you learn that single celled organisms are as complicated as multi-celled organisms. Man can copy them, but he can't build one from scratch. But to come back to the point, when migrating to Zoology (and Biology) classes, lo and behold, there they teach spontaneous generation yet again.

  And I agree with your assessment of the universe. All the laws are in place, and the position of the earth in our solar system is certainly no accident. Not too hot, not too cold. And I have noticed, there's not many atheists amongst the astronomers. These study the universe, and convinced of a Superior Being, being out there. The Bible puts it simply: "Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things are God" (Hebr. 3:4; cf. Rom. 1:20).
• 

  Twitch

  Welcome back, Alice ;)
• 

  leavingwt

  I believe in absolute truth as found in the Bible.

  Please provide some examples of the absolute truth found in the Bible.
• 

  garyneal

  Not accepting the flimsy evidence for a god requires no faith at all.

  So at best we can only prove agnosticism?
• 

  Vidqun

  Let's start with prophecy. No human can predict the future. This is something only God can do. The Bible contains many prophecies. Quite a few of these have come true. And those that are still outstanding, I believe they will come true.
• 

  xchange

  Being an atheist is also a leap of faith

  I stopped reading here.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Oh look, logical fallacies are out in force again. Does debunking these nutjobs ever make a difference?