The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Creationists fall, broadly, into one of two camps. The first type contrive to trip over their shoelaces while sitting down, while the second may manage a step or two before negotiating more serious damage to reality, or themselves, or both.

And so, it's fun to see Dr "Wise" manage all three within his lengthy puff-piece, maneuvering himself through a standard set of non-sequiturs and logical potholes, to arrive at the following bizarre call to action:Think "weird". Indeed.

Ah, well - horses, water... rather die of thirst than sip fresh water from Creation's pool. I still hope to keep the way open, however.:D

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just shows he knew nothing about Biblical faith.

I figured you might say that. Everyone is wrong except you.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Why? Many early works of history do exactly that - events close to the time of the writer are more or less factual, and the further back you go, the less historical the material is. Holinshed's Chronicles are a good example, but almost any Greek or Roman history starts with stories of gods and heroes, but ends up in politics and personalities.

cordially,
Scofflaw

As I said in my post, less historical would be an honest way to treat an narrative account. An historical account may well be increasingly mistaken as to the facts the further it goes back - but it cannot be excused as reverting to metaphor. Did the Greeks and Romans believe their gods and their deeds were metaphoric?

Genesis is either mistaken or it is accurate. Metaphoric it is not.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

I figured you might say that. Everyone is wrong except you.

Now don't be silly. Everyone who agrees with me is also right.:D;)

Ekancone

The Scientific Method Made Easy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. Why? Many early works of history do exactly that - events close to the time of the writer are more or less factual, and the further back you go, the less historical the material is. Holinshed's Chronicles are a good example, but almost any Greek or Roman history starts with stories of gods and heroes, but ends up in politics and personalities.

As I said in my post, less historical would be an honest way to treat an narrative account. An historical account may well be increasingly mistaken as to the facts the further it goes back - but it cannot be excused as reverting to metaphor. Did the Greeks and Romans believe their gods and their deeds were metaphoric?

Genesis is either mistaken or it is accurate. Metaphoric it is not.

As we've established before, 'mythic' and 'metaphoric' are things you (incorrectly) equate with "lies" and "errors". Mythic is not metaphoric, and yes, I think the ancient historians knew perfectly well that they were dealing with myth at the beginnings of their histories (and some of them said so, as far as I recall).

Genesis is a myth. It portrays a universal order, and timeless truths, not history.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

Why creationist's are wrong about mutation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote:

Genesis is either mistaken or it is accurate. Metaphoric it is not.

I am certainly no scholar of ancient Hebrew, but was not the Torah written in verse, ie., it was in rhyme. (any Hebrew scholars feel free to correct me on this)

Now unless you think the Moses et al were going around talking in rhyme I think you can hardly take it literally.

EDIT: Ok I did a little more research. Perhaps the word "verse" would be more accurate than "rhyme". Still, my point stands.

wolfsbane

iUseVi wrote: »

I am certainly no scholar of ancient Hebrew, but was not the Torah written in verse, ie., it was in rhyme. (any Hebrew scholars feel free to correct me on this)

Now unless you think the Moses et al were going around talking in rhyme I think you can hardly take it literally.

EDIT: Ok I did a little more research. Perhaps the word "verse" would be more accurate than "rhyme". Still, my point stands.

Sorry, I'm unaware of any such construction. Please supply the references.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

As we've established before, 'mythic' and 'metaphoric' are things you (incorrectly) equate with "lies" and "errors". Mythic is not metaphoric, and yes, I think the ancient historians knew perfectly well that they were dealing with myth at the beginnings of their histories (and some of them said so, as far as I recall).

Genesis is a myth. It portrays a universal order, and timeless truths, not history.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So when Jesus and the writer of Hebrews refers to the blood of Abel, they are not referring to an actual man who was murdered, but to a 'timeless truth'?

Likewise for Adam, Enoch, Noah and others from before the Flood?

Did Jesus and the apostles believe it was history or myth? If the latter, the moral case they were basing on such individuals seems extremely weak.

Were they counting on the masses not knowing it was myth?

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

The Scientific Method Made Easy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

Very helpful on scientific method. But its propaganda on evolution is another matter.

For example, that 19th C. biologists, geologists, etc. started out on the premise of a young earth and were forced to change their minds by the evidence they observed. Seems to me many jumped at the chance to interpret the evidence in an old earth way that was not going to be contradicted by their peers in other fields. The time had come for a cross-discipline rejection of the Christian account.

When an idea's time has come - when the social benefits far outweigh the negative consequences - it has a very powerful effect.

German National Socialism was another good example. Had it suceeded, it would be even more entrenched across the world today than Neo-Darwinism.

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sorry, I'm unaware of any such construction. Please supply the references.

Certainly.
Try here:
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

and here:
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_lyric_estes.html

and here:
http://www.classicalhebrewblog.com/2008/01/03/biblical-poetry-parallelism/

wolfsbane

iUseVi wrote: »

Certainly.
Try here:
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

and here:
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_lyric_estes.html

and here:
http://www.classicalhebrewblog.com/2008/01/03/biblical-poetry-parallelism/

Thanks for those. I was aware of all that. It certainly doesn't support the non-historical nature of Genesis.

I note from the first: Approximately 75% of the Tenach (Old Testament) is poetry. All of Psalms and Proverbs are Hebrew poetry. Even the book of Genesis is full of Poetry.

There are several poems in Genesis, for example:
Genesis 4:23 Then Lamech said to his wives:
“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!
For I have killed a man for wounding me,
Even a young man for hurting me.
24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

History expressed poetically - but history nevertheless. How much more for the history that is delivered in non-poetic form! Genesis, never mind the entire Torah, is not written in poetic form. Only parts of it.

A helpful quote:
‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’

Reference
James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984. Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught. It was only the perceived need to harmonise with the alleged age of the earth which led people to think anything different—it was nothing to do with the text itself.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes/barr.asp

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for those. I was aware of all that. It certainly doesn't support the non-historical nature of Genesis.

I note from the first: Approximately 75% of the Tenach (Old Testament) is poetry. All of Psalms and Proverbs are Hebrew poetry. Even the book of Genesis is full of Poetry.

There are several poems in Genesis, for example:
Genesis 4:23 Then Lamech said to his wives:
“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!
For I have killed a man for wounding me,
Even a young man for hurting me.
24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

History expressed poetically - but history nevertheless. How much more for the history that is delivered in non-poetic form! Genesis, never mind the entire Torah, is not written in poetic form. Only parts of it.

Okay, so I will concede the point that not all the Torah is poetic.

Sitll though 75% is quite a lot.

And for the parts that are "History expressed poetically" as you put it, the creation story was certainly one of them.

See here (again):
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/
for explaination on Genesis specifically.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

So when Jesus and the writer of Hebrews refers to the blood of Abel, they are not referring to an actual man who was murdered, but to a 'timeless truth'?

Yes, the story of the first murderer, after whom all other murderers take their pattern.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Likewise for Adam, Enoch, Noah and others from before the Flood?

Yes, the first man, the first saintly patriarch who became more than man, the good man who is allowed to live by the gods.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Did Jesus and the apostles believe it was history or myth? If the latter, the moral case they were basing on such individuals seems extremely weak.

Were they counting on the masses not knowing it was myth?

No, they were counting on the masses to understand myth from a completely different perspective than yours. You simply see myth as lying, and see me therefore as suggesting that Jesus was tricking his audience. That is no more the case than when he was teaching through parables. An audience would not need to be told that what they were hearing was mythic, and it makes no difference whether they were ignorant enough to believe the myths to be historically true - the question of historical truth is as irrelevant to myth as it is to parable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Very helpful on scientific method. But its propaganda on evolution is another matter.

For example, that 19th C. biologists, geologists, etc. started out on the premise of a young earth and were forced to change their minds by the evidence they observed. Seems to me many jumped at the chance to interpret the evidence in an old earth way that was not going to be contradicted by their peers in other fields. The time had come for a cross-discipline rejection of the Christian account.

When an idea's time has come - when the social benefits far outweigh the negative consequences - it has a very powerful effect.

German National Socialism was another good example. Had it suceeded, it would be even more entrenched across the world today than Neo-Darwinism.

No, thats just you twisting the facts to fit the frame.

Killbot2000

I originally asked how a scientist could use geological theories to discover a sea-land transitional species when creationists allege that these theories are erroneous and I am still waiting for a response.

Scofflaw

daithifleming wrote: »

No, thats just you twisting the facts to fit the frame.

wolfsbane has never accepted that early scientists suffered any anguish of conscience over the problem that what they actually saw couldn't be reconciled with the Biblical paradigm. Of course, since he believes that what's out there to see doesn't conflict with the Bible, you can see why he might think that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galvasean

Killbot2000 wrote: »

I originally asked how a scientist could use geological theories to discover a sea-land transitional species when creationists allege that these theories are erroneous and I am still waiting for a response.

Remember, an article (by a chemist no less!) was posted mooting the discovery. Then I pointed out the author's lack of qualifications in the field he was addressing. It kind of faded away then.

Ekancone

I'm training to be an economist. Does that mean i can become a creation scientist?


:D:eek::)

Ekancone

Why Young Earth Creationists Must Deny Gravity, Part III

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAUxQjylzc8

Ekancone

"Ancient DNA destroys the biblical creation story"

"Science: The biblical creation story gets a punch in the belly by new research from the University of Copenhagen. Under kilometres of ice, scientists have found DNA, that is about half a million years old, supporting the theory of evolution."

"God created the earth in seven days. And it happened about 8000 years ago.
That is how millions of christian creationists around the world still claim, that mother Earth and humanity was created.
Now, Danish scientists from the University of Copenhagen can prove, once and for all, that this is not true.
They have found ancient DNA from trees, butterflies and other insects under the several kilometres thick ice cap of Greenland.
Different dating methods show, that this DNA is at least 450,000 years old, and possibly as much as a million years. Their study is published today in the renowned "Science" magazine.
"Here in Denmark most people believe in the theory of evolution, and not in God creating the world some 8 to 10 thousand years ago.
But in the United States, for instance, 40 percent of the population still believe in the biblical creation story. We are the first in the world to find DNA old enough to prove, that there was a well-developed ecosystem thriving in Greenland, and hence on the Earth, half a million years ago," says Jørgen Peder Steffensen, scientist at the Niels Bohr Institute.
"So far creationists have claimed that radiometric dating of fossils were not evidence for the age of the earth. The fact that we now have DNA, that we can prove is that old, is proof that the scientific explanation is coherent," he says.

Together with his colleague, professor Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, and evolutionary biologist Eske Willerslev, they have been making ice core drillings in the ice cap on Greenland.
In the frozen mud at the bottom of the ice cap, the found well-preserved DNA from past animal and plant life.
"Among other things we found DNA from butterflies, yew, pinetrees, moths, beetles and alder.
This demonstrates the climate in Greenland at the time, which must have been something like how southern Sweden looks today. We did not find DNA traces from mammals, but they were probably also there in the woods at that time," says professor Eske Willerslev.
Eske Willerslev is internationally renowned for his work examining DNA from frozen earth and ice cores.
For instance, he also found DNA from mammoths, Steppe Wisents,and wild horses in the Sibirian permafrost.
He is also looking for DNA in frozen stools from past humans.

The scientists' research also shows, that Greenland was covered with ice during the latest interglacial period, Eem, about 125,000 years ago, where the temperature in Greenland was about 5 degrees celsius above the temperature today.
So far, most scientists believed that the ice in southern Greenland would have melted during such a rise in temperature.
"Our research can also be used to make more precise predictions and climate models on the correlation between rise in temperature and the melting of the poles. It seems the ice on Greenland is more robust than we had previously thought, and the rise in water level during the last interglacial period may have been caused primarily by melting of the south pole," says professor Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, also of the Niels Bohr Institute.

robindch

daithifleming wrote: »

Why Young Earth Creationists Must Deny Gravity, Part III

Nice -- I like it when people do "Creation Science"™! Anybody up for some original "Creation Science"™ research? Topics?

robindch

2Scoops wrote: »

They're negatively correlated! Any studies investigating alcohol consumption in creation scientists?? :pac:

Turns out that the report in the NY Times wasn't quite accurate:

http://life.lithoguru.com/index.php?itemid=119

From which:

Some Guy wrote:

Thus, the entire study came down to only one conclusion: the five worst ornithologists in the Czech Republic drank a lot of beer.

wolfsbane

iUseVi wrote: »

Okay, so I will concede the point that not all the Torah is poetic.

Sitll though 75% is quite a lot.

And for the parts that are "History expressed poetically" as you put it, the creation story was certainly one of them.

See here (again):
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/
for explaination on Genesis specifically.

Again, these sites say nothing of the sort. They give a very helpful mechanical and English-orientated mechanical translation of the Hebrew. In nothing does it suggest a poetical or metaphorical/non-historical understanding of the Genesis creation account.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Did Jesus and the apostles believe it was history or myth? If the latter, the moral case they were basing on such individuals seems extremely weak.

Were they counting on the masses not knowing it was myth?

No, they were counting on the masses to understand myth from a completely different perspective than yours. You simply see myth as lying, and see me therefore as suggesting that Jesus was tricking his audience. That is no more the case than when he was teaching through parables. An audience would not need to be told that what they were hearing was mythic, and it makes no difference whether they were ignorant enough to believe the myths to be historically true - the question of historical truth is as irrelevant to myth as it is to parable.

Amazing Judaism and Christianity from the beginning mistook Genesis as history. Or did they too mean myth when they appeared to be speaking history?

But for the moral strength such non-history gives to an argument:
I am not to divorce my wife and take another because God points to his will on the matter - a non-existent man and a non-existent woman were given to each other by God in a non-existent incident and became one flesh.

I am not to be angry/envious of my brother because it led a non-existent man to kill his non-existent brother, and God was none-too-pleased.

Isn't faith a wonderful thing? Look how all those non-existent men pleased God by it:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%2011;&version=50;

Scofflaw, if you ever want to become an astronaut, remember the example set by Dan Dare, Buck Rogers, etc. If they can do it, so can you. :pac::pac::pac:

wolfsbane

daithifleming said:

"Ancient DNA destroys the biblical creation story"

"Science: The biblical creation story gets a punch in the belly by new research from the University of Copenhagen. Under kilometres of ice, scientists have found DNA, that is about half a million years old, supporting the theory of evolution."

"God created the earth in seven days. And it happened about 8000 years ago.
That is how millions of christian creationists around the world still claim, that mother Earth and humanity was created.

Wonderful finds. A pity about the dating methods. What will they do when they find human remains?

Ancient DNA? I suppose you can believe half a million years if you still hold to 70 million years for the soft tissue found in the T-Rex:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

Folk with less faith in your science-god would be inclined to think both come from only several thousand years ago.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Scofflaw said:

Amazing Judaism and Christianity from the beginning mistook Genesis as history. Or did they too mean myth when they appeared to be speaking history?

But for the moral strength such non-history gives to an argument:
I am not to divorce my wife and take another because God points to his will on the matter - a non-existent man and a non-existent woman were given to each other by God in a non-existent incident and became one flesh.

I am not to be angry/envious of my brother because it led a non-existent man to kill his non-existent brother, and God was none-too-pleased.

Isn't faith a wonderful thing? Look how all those non-existent men pleased God by it:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%2011;&version=50;

Scofflaw, if you ever want to become an astronaut, remember the example set by Dan Dare, Buck Rogers, etc. If they can do it, so can you. :pac::pac::pac:

And I know that God rejoices more over the repentant sinner than over the unstrayed, because of a non-existent prodigal son...

Moral stories are virtually never told by reference to history - it's Aesop's Fables, not Aesop's History.

Still, as long as you can't discriminate between 'myth' and 'lies', I can see why you have to believe Genesis is 'history'. All you mean by it, though, is that it is true - the rest follows from your unexamined belief that only the 'historical' is true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

Remember, an article (by a chemist no less!) was posted mooting the discovery. Then I pointed out the author's lack of qualifications in the field he was addressing. It kind of faded away then.

Sorry to disappoint you lads - I'm not the scientist, as I've reminded you often. Perhaps JC will address the issue more fully when he returns from hols.

But here's something else I found in my (sporadic) quest:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/tiktaalik-fishy-fish
Again, the author is only a PhD cell-biologist, not a paleontologist.

In the meantime, let me remind you again of the bigger picture:
That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5543/

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not the scientist

If you do not feel qualified to speak on scientific subjects, then why do you hold fixed opinions about them? Wouldn't your sense of honesty suggest to you that you should not be so fast to make judgments?