homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Noah (Page 9)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Noah
JimT

Ship'th Mythtic
# 142

 - Posted      Profile for JimT     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Afish, since you liked the photo, take a look at this one. The small island in the middle is a volcanic cone inside the larger caldera, where the god of the underworld (Skell) once tried to get out. Behind the island and to the right, on the rim of the caldera, is a lenticular lava flow that clearly shows the face of the god of the overworld (Llao) with his nose in the middle and his cheeks to either side. His hair flows out from either side. He looks out on the lake to make sure that Skell never emerges to kill the People of the Marsh with fire.

You were 100% right about the date. I had it wrong. The eruption was about 7,000 years ago.

quote:
In the early years of study of this area, the primary events in Crater Lake's violent birth were pieced together by patient sifting of the available geological evidence: glacial, scars, pumice deposits, and lava flows. In recent years, carbon-14 dating has provided more precise information. Radioactive carbon in the charcoal of trees, charred and buried under lava and pumice, date the eruption at between 6,600 and 7,100 years ago, or around 4,600 B.C.
You do a real injustice to Native Americans, who accurately told this story from pre-Biblical times to the present, with your "too facile" dismissal of truth in their legends.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Afish, since you liked the photo, take a look at this one.

(tangent)
Crater Lake is a really neat place to visit, too! [Yipee]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Quoth afish:

quote:
...that not believing that The Bible is literally and historically true in everything it asserts to be literally and historically true in whatsoever field, is, in my view, an overturning/rejecting of the whole notion of The Bible as being inspired by God?
Except I can't help feeling that you need to defend this position, rather than just stating "in my opinion". In your opinion based upon what? Why does divine inspiration mean the Bible has to be literally and historically true? Given that I don't see how it overturns the notion of inspiration, perhaps you need to define what you mean by the Bible being inspired by God. Perhaps we mean different things?

I also notice your "is literally and historically true in everything it asserts to be literally and historically true". Given that the Bible does not say as a preface to the Flood story "The following story is literally and historically true", on what basis do you make the judgement that the Bible is asserting that?

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Different subject, different post...

quote:
It is fact that these dates have been given to geological layers based on the use of certain procedures, based on a certain theory. Do I personally have enough confidence in these procedures and the theory to accept the results as being facts? No I don’t.

Why? You've given us no reason to accept your assessment of the evidence over the assessment of those who actually study the subject in hand.

Imagine a court of law. A ballistics expert says the bullet couldn't have come from the gun that is exhibit A. He shows you markings on bullets fired by exhibit A, and markings on the bullet that was found, to support his statement.

The policeman who found the gun says "Oh yes it did because I don't personally think your evidence is good enough because it doesn't convince me and I know he did it!"

Whom do you believe?

Can you tell me why your argument from personal incredulity against mainstream scientific methods is any more credible than the policeman's argument against the ballistics expert?

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47

 - Posted      Profile for Glenn Oldham   Author's homepage   Email Glenn Oldham   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:

...I'm used to "Scripture" being a synonym for "Biblical text," so the verses in Genesis about Noah don't "function as Scripture," they simply are Scripture. Whether they are true, false, or useful Scripture is another matter, but in any event, the verses are Scripture. Status as "Scripture" and status as "true/false" are separate questions in my book. This is just a matter of semantics.

I was thinking of "function" in the sense of functioning spiritually, theologically, etc., and not really concerned here with function in an anthropological or literary sense.
...
By "meaninglessness," I mean spiritual or theological meaninglessness. Like I said, I am not greatly concerned here with the Noah account's anthropological and literary value.
...
It is easy to see how the Noah account reveals something about its originators and those who made it a part of their tradition. For the Noah account to reveal things about God, however, there has to be a way to affirm that what it says about God is really so, and not just human (mis)understanding.

Thanks for your clarification J. J. I will get back to you on these points in a day or two. Suffice it to say that the view that: "For the Noah account to reveal things about God, however, there has to be a way to affirm that what it says about God is really so, and not just human (mis)understanding." raises daunting questions, and not just for the Noah account but for any alleged revelation!

Glenn

--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)

Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174

 - Posted      Profile for J. J. Ramsey   Author's homepage   Email J. J. Ramsey   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:

I also notice your "is literally and historically true in everything it asserts to be literally and historically true". Given that the Bible does not say as a preface to the Flood story "The following story is literally and historically true", on what basis do you make the judgement that the Bible is asserting that?

Generally, one tries to figure out the genre of a work and uses that to figure out whether the intended audience of such a genre was expected to take things literally, figuratively, etc.

--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.

Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sean
Shipmate
# 51

 - Posted      Profile for Sean   Author's homepage   Email Sean   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:

I also notice your "is literally and historically true in everything it asserts to be literally and historically true". Given that the Bible does not say as a preface to the Flood story "The following story is literally and historically true", on what basis do you make the judgement that the Bible is asserting that?

Generally, one tries to figure out the genre of a work and uses that to figure out whether the intended audience of such a genre was expected to take things literally, figuratively, etc.
Surely it's the intention of the author thats important here, not the reader. And if you take an inerrantist view (& possibly if you don't) then the author is God - Moses or whoever is just a messenger. Is it not possible then that He isn't fussed whether the story(ies) in question are taken as literal historical truth or not (each according to the age they live in) but is concerned with how the underlying message is taken.

--------------------
"So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality" - Einstein

Posts: 1085 | From: A very long way away | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174

 - Posted      Profile for J. J. Ramsey   Author's homepage   Email J. J. Ramsey   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:

I also notice your "is literally and historically true in everything it asserts to be literally and historically true". Given that the Bible does not say as a preface to the Flood story "The following story is literally and historically true", on what basis do you make the judgement that the Bible is asserting that?

Generally, one tries to figure out the genre of a work and uses that to figure out whether the intended audience of such a genre was expected to take things literally, figuratively, etc.
Surely it's the intention of the author thats important here, not the reader.

The assumption is that the author knows how the reader is supposed to understand a particular genre and writes in the genre needed to get to the desired understanding.

quote:

And if you take an inerrantist view (& possibly if you don't) then the author is God - Moses or whoever is just a messenger.

You are assuming that inspiration implies that God is dictating and that the human writers are merely divine scribes. If God is acting via his usual "mysterious ways" (or not acting at all), then the writers of Scripture take a far more active role, and their writings reflect the writers a lot more--including the cultural literary assumptions of the writers' times.

quote:

Is it not possible then that He isn't fussed whether the story(ies) in question are taken as literal historical truth or not (each according to the age they live in) but is concerned with how the underlying message is taken.

What the underlying message is depends on how literally the text is meant to be taken. This goes not only for more arguably literal genres like historical narrative, but for more obviously figurative ones like psalms, proverbs, or apocalyptic literature. Literal-figurative is not even the only axis that affects the underlying interpretation. When considering a genre like epistle, one also has to consider how tailored the message of the epistle was to the original recipients. One has to make sense of the medium to make sense of the message.

--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.

Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47

 - Posted      Profile for Glenn Oldham   Author's homepage   Email Glenn Oldham   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by afish:(way back on 01 June 2003 at 13:02)
...
As for evidence of the flood, what evidence exactly would you expect there to be after thousands of years during which the face of the earth has experienced huge disruptions? Why exactly are the mass strata of fossilised remains rejected as possible evidence?

"Why exactly are the mass strata of fossilised remains rejected as possible evidence?" In answer to this look at the numerous detailed and referenced reasons given by this section of the talkorigins site.

7. Producing the Geological Record (From the talkorigins site)

Enough said there I think to show that the theory that the flood is the cause of "the mass strata of fossilised remains" is a complete failure. [Not worthy!] Bravo, Mark Isaak! [Not worthy!]

This is only a small part of the sites examination of the topic of Flood Geology:

The Talk.Origins Archive: Flood Geology FAQs

Glenn

--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)

Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JimT

Ship'th Mythtic
# 142

 - Posted      Profile for JimT     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You know Glenn, I saw that and almost posted it here, but thought sure that the other side would simply click on the "rebuttal" by J. Sarfati. Oh well, the truth is out. But folks here might be amused by the vicious ad hominem attack that launches the rebuttal.

quote:
Many are familiar with Talk.Origins, counted among the top pro-evolution sites on the Internet. Most of the people running it are ostensibly atheistic. Many had a Christian upbringing and are using evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for their apostasy. But they realise that rank atheism is repugnant to many, so they publish articles claiming that you can believe in God and evolution. It’s quite a sight to see people, known personally to us as rabidly hostile to Christianity, yet who are eager to assure inquirers that many Christians accept evolution. It reminds me of Lenin’s strategy of cultivating useful idiots in the West, who were too gullible to realise that they were undermining their own foundations.
[Killing me]

Made my day.

Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
afish
Shipmate
# 1135

 - Posted      Profile for afish   Email afish   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Karl or anyone
Can you clarify this?
quote:
“It's as simple as this - 30 feet of water would double the current atmospheric pressure. 60 feet triple it. You see the problem?”
Do you mean that the water vapour the atmosphere needed to produce enough rain to raise the present world sea level 30ft would double present atmospheric pressure?
Could you also clarify why a different composition/ depth/density of the atmosphere between now and then would make no difference?
Lastly what would have been the problem with a “massive greenhouse effect”?

Kevin Iga you ask,
quote:
“For the historicals, why did God mention this and not other major historical events like the invention of the plow, the crossing of the Bering Strait into the Americas, the invention of writing, the beginning of fertility religions, etc.? Surely God knew about these things and if the point this part of the Bible is to tell history, why doesn't God do more of it?”
The point is not to tell history for the sake of it. But in the telling of His story to teach us and to reveal Himself and ourselves to us. As the author He has chosen which parts of the total His story to include.

Ham’n’Eggs
quote:
“afish, do you genuinely see no distinction between the Bible, and your interpretation of it?
If not, has it never occurred to you that your interpretation of it could be incorrect? I'm certain that mine is, and I should be very surprised if there were anyone who had got it all right!”

In talking about The Flood to a great extent we have been talking about interpretation. but inevitably the inerrancy thing comes in. When it does itis not then a question of interpretation but of, what is The Bible?, what is Divine inspiration?
Some of “my interpretations” have certainly been incorrect and when I’ve realised it I’ve changed view. Some (quite a few in fact) parts of The Bible I am as yet unable to interpret (understand). Some of my present interpretations may well be wrong and when I am able to see that again I will change my view. But Ham’n’Eggs somewhere along the line one does have to decide to believe some thing. In saying that you are certain that your interpretation is incorrect aren’t you saying you’re not sure about anything?

quote:
“What evidence do you have for making this assertion? I bid none.”
Evidence, theory, fact, myth, history, reason, experience, opinion, faith? This is what we’re talking about, ne c’est pas?. I believe therefore I speak.
quote:
”Go to biblical inerrancy . Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Remain posting on that thread for the next 50 posts.”
Are you trying to get rid of me?
><>

[a little bit of UBB tidying]

[ 08. June 2003, 15:16: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

--------------------
"Some things are too hot to touch
The human mind can only stand so much"
Bob Dylan

Posts: 168 | From: France | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by afish:
Karl or anyone
Can you clarify this?
quote:
“It's as simple as this - 30 feet of water would double the current atmospheric pressure. 60 feet triple it. You see the problem?”
Do you mean that the water vapour the atmosphere needed to produce enough rain to raise the present world sea level 30ft would double present atmospheric pressure?
Could you also clarify why a different composition/ depth/density of the atmosphere between now and then would make no difference?
Lastly what would have been the problem with a “massive greenhouse effect”?

Atmospheric pressure is simply the weight of the atmosphere above a unit area of the earths surface. If that 30ft of water was vapour rather than liquid then it doesn't weigh any less. Currently, mean atmospheric pressure at sea level is approximately 10^4 kg m-2; a 1m2 column of water 10m (approx. 30ft) deep weighs 10^4kg, so diving 30ft below the oceans surface doubles the pressure at the surface - and putting that same amount of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect of doubling the atmospheric pressure at the surface.

The composition of the atmosphere is a minor factor regarding atmospheric pressure - that is simply the total mass of the atmosphere. If you were to have enough water vapour in the atmosphere prior to the flood to generate enough rain to raise global water levels by 30ft then if the atmospheric pressure was to be equal before and after the flood then you would need to double the quantity of other gases in the atmosphere while it rained - and then explain how creatures survived previously on an atmosphere with signinficantly less oxygen than in the current atmosphere. And, the more water vapour you have to rain out the worse the problem you have - basically a situation where the atmosphere pre-flood is totally different from that post-flood.

Global warming would just be another part of the different atmosphere needed to explain the amount of rain stipulated. You need to explain how the animals put into the Ark when atmospheric pressure was high enough to crush the lungs of modern creatures survived a very significant reduction in atmospheric pressure while they were on the Ark (deep-sea species have bodies capable of withstanding such pressure - but tend to die very quickly if brought to the surface), and a significant reduction in temperature and probably significant changes in oxygen and other gas concentrations.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47

 - Posted      Profile for Glenn Oldham   Author's homepage   Email Glenn Oldham   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
You know Glenn, I saw that and almost posted it here, but thought sure that the other side would simply click on the "rebuttal" by J. Sarfati. Oh well, the truth is out. But folks here might be amused by the vicious ad hominem attack that launches the rebuttal.

Thanks Jim. [brick wall] Where is the smiley for incredulous despair when you need it!
Glenn

Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
afish
Shipmate
# 1135

 - Posted      Profile for afish   Email afish   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Glen Oldham
quote:
“As human science progresses, weeding out mistakes and consolidating and refining genuine insights, we have every reason to suppose that, overall, our current theories approximate to the truth better than previous ones.”
I found your post of 5th June, from which the above comes, stirred up strange thoughts, hard to express.
Firstly, I am not anti science. Science to me is the observation, measurement and analysis of this natural, material world we find ourselves in. It is a trying to coming to an understanding of what matter is, how is it put together, how things are arranged and react vis à vis one another. This in turn leads on to, what can we, the human inhabitants of this world, do with this matter. How can we control and manipulate it. Now all this can be very useful and beneficial and unfortunately the opposite as well.
Do we know more about matter than we did 500yrs, 3000yrs ago? The answer has to be yes. (In parenthesis, do we know more than people before The Flood? That we don’t know.)
Is it still possible that some “current theories” are erroneous, even plain wrong. I (of course) would say yes. For these three reasons:
Firstly, some of these theories are unverifiable therefore the possibility is always there.

Secondly, we are now in a time when the knowledge, equipment, techniques used to observe, measure, analyses, are so sophisticated and (in a non derogatory sense) way out and the theories themselves are so extended depending on theories that depend on theories that one false assumption, one faulty instrument, one false reading can lead, well who knows where?

Thirdly, there is the problem of The Interface. The interface between what is material and what is spiritual. One often hears, science doesn’t concern itself with religion (the spiritual) so religion shouldn’t interfere with science. BUT that just can’t be so. Unless you are a100% materialist and completely discount that the spiritual is as real (if not realer) as the material then there has to be an interface. I’m NOT talking about scientist talking to priests. Maybe I’m talking about unified truth/ reality.
Where “current theories” either don’t interface with or even put up a barrier to what I believe to be spiritual reality/ truth I must necessarily have doubt about them.
The story of Noah can be considered in a purely this-world way but when The Lord said “As it was in the days of Noah so it will be when The Son of Man returns” He is talking interface, this world relating to/reacting with the one where He is at the moment. After His resurrection, he could be observed, and measured, his movements and his diet analysed but “current theories” seem to divert us from that data rather than interface with it.

Glen I’ve noted your link to talk.origins and will do some perusing to see if it’s worth commenting on.
><>

--------------------
"Some things are too hot to touch
The human mind can only stand so much"
Bob Dylan

Posts: 168 | From: France | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636

 - Posted      Profile for fatprophet   Email fatprophet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Doing a minor in environmental science at University convinced me that the flood cannot account for geological strata or the extinction of all the species found in the fossil reocrd.
There are too many imponderables, not least the practicalities of keeping all those animals in an ark, getting them to and from the ark (in particular from oceanic islands and australasia)..
The rainbow story, though cute and inspiring is also clearly of the mythic, just-so story genre.

No, there was imho no global world wide flood.

So does scripture have to be factually historical? No, of course not. Legends and mythology can contain powerful spiritual lessons without their force depending on being able to answer how, where, when and why of every narrative.
However I agree with the evangelicals that the issue of whether the narrative is historical IS theologically important: If the flood narrative was historical fact it would prove that God was far more interventionist in creation and far more prone to outrages of wrathful apocalyptic destruction. Well, at least evangelicals are consistent on that score!
However an historical flood makes the problem of evil very acute - firstly because why would God do such a thing to his creation and secondly even if planetary destruction could be justified by the evils of the time, why did God not intervene in the same way during Hitler's holocaust or Stalins' purges. Could Noah's day have been more evil? Surely not.
An interventionist deity should be consistent. Which I guess is why the same people who believe in an historical Noah's flood also nonchantly believe that God will wipe out most of the earth in a series of apocalyptic disasters in the near future.

--------------------
FAT PROPHET

Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
afish
Shipmate
# 1135

 - Posted      Profile for afish   Email afish   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jim T.
quote:
“You do a real injustice to Native Americans, who accurately told this story from pre-Biblical times to the present, with your "too facile" dismissal of truth in their legends.”
Not at all Jim.
Do you believe that Native American legends are inerrant?
I don’t dismiss the truth *in* their legends no more than I dismiss the truths *in* the Norse and Greek legends.
I have avoided the, what is myth - what is history - what is truth, thread within this thread because of my inability to focus clearly on more than two things at the same time. Some legends may in deed actually have a historic beginnings. Some may be made up stories (parables) for communicating certain truths.
When I read The Bible I just don’t find anything that reads like the Norse or Greek or Native American legends. Other people seem to but that’s not what I hear. Stories from pre-Biblical times? If such things exist, what ever truths they (or other legends) contain I would always measure by biblical light.
><>

--------------------
"Some things are too hot to touch
The human mind can only stand so much"
Bob Dylan

Posts: 168 | From: France | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:

Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
quote:
And if you take an inerrantist view (& possibly if you don't) then the author is God - Moses or whoever is just a messenger.

You are assuming that inspiration implies that God is dictating and that the human writers are merely divine scribes. If God is acting via his usual "mysterious ways" (or not acting at all), then the writers of Scripture take a far more active role, and their writings reflect the writers a lot more--including the cultural literary assumptions of the writers' times.

As God is omnipotent, omniscient, & eternal; it is quite possible that God could cleverly arrange that what someone wrote of their own free will and for their own purposes, also happened to be just right for some other purpose in some other time.

Christians have always interpreted Scripture in ways that no-one could for a moment claim were likely to have been meant by the original human authors. The Apostle Paul did it all the time. And all the early fathers.

So we all, in practice if not in theory, must be assuming some kind of theory of inspiration that allows God to place messages for us in the Bible over the heads (as it were) of the authors.

This is not of course incompatible with the idea that the authors were freely writing from their own resources, for their own situation. All resolved by recognising that predestination is not incompatible with free will [Smile]

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fatprophet:

The rainbow story, though cute and inspiring is also clearly of the mythic, just-so story genre.

Why? Why does rejecting the idea that the Flood caused the geology we see (no reasonable person could continue to believe it did if they studied geology or real biology), or rejecting the idea that the Flood was global (Genesis may not even claim that it is) force us to reject the historicity of the story?
quote:


even if planetary destruction could be justified by the evils of the time, why did God not intervene in the same way during Hitler's holocaust or Stalins' purges. Could Noah's day have been more evil? Surely not.

1) Why could it not have been more evil? You lack imagination.

2) If it was more evil perhaps God (who after all is God and therefore knows the eternal fate of those who die) was saving some of those who died by drwoning them? At least saving them from a lifetime of torture on earth? Or in Mesopotamia at any rate. After all if George Bush can take it on himself to make such judgments - that a few thousand Iraqis are worth killing for hte sake of the rest - God is in a better position to.

3) After the Flood God makes a covenant. Half-remembered AV language: "Summer and winter, spring time and harvest, shall not cease, as long as Earth abides" (Cue mega-great sf story)

So that sort of intervention is now ruled out.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
afish
Shipmate
# 1135

 - Posted      Profile for afish   Email afish   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan Cresswell
Thanks for that information. Can I “pump” you some more as I am interested in this?

Within what range of pressure is terrestrial life as we know it viable?

If I remember correctly, air as we have it now consists mainly of nitrogen (85%?), which is as far as breathing goes is a neutral. Is there not a way that there could be enough oxygen for life while the volume of atmosphere changes? Mmmm not very clear that one.

I don’t understand the crushed lungs thing. Surely the pressure in our lungs is the same as the pressure outside. I though the air pressure problem was simply one of pressure on the whole organism.
Ok now this last one I’m sure your going to say it’s so far off the wall as to be out of the door but still. Could there have been “waters” above but separated from, that is not directly effecting, the earth’s atmosphere?

KarlI will try to bite your bullet and define/ defend inspiration during the week. But my measure of inspiration for today has run out. The human mind can only take so much.
><>

--------------------
"Some things are too hot to touch
The human mind can only stand so much"
Bob Dylan

Posts: 168 | From: France | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by afish:
we are now in a time when the knowledge, equipment, techniques used to observe, measure, analyses, are so sophisticated and (in a non derogatory sense) way out and the theories themselves are so extended depending on theories that depend on theories that one false assumption, one faulty instrument, one false reading can lead, well who knows where?

I think you are exactly wrong here, for 3 reasons:

1) there are so many people doing science, and so many papers are published, based on previous papers, that a seriously misleading result would be, after a while, scientifically unproductive. Everything is in effect double-checked thousands of times. Modern techniques might be hard to understand (though lots of them aren't) but there are millions of people worldwide trying to understand them.

2) scientists get so much kudos for proving others wrong that anything more than slightly dodgy is consumed by post-doctoral vultures within a few years. Well, decades.

3) The evidence that geology cannot be explained by a single global flood has been available for over 200 years and has been continually reinforced. It doesn't depend on much more high-tech than a hand-lens and high-school chemistry. You need no physics beyond what you learned at secondary school to udnerstand it, no mathematics beyond what you had at primary school. It is easy stuff.

Read the post I made about the chalk a few pages back. Since then I have learned, or been reminded, that the first paper that was generally accepted as showing great age and many incursions of the sea, was by the great French scientist Lavoisier - based on the geology of the chalk.

(I'm afraid I wasn't able to extract meaning from what you wrote about "The Interface". )

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
JimT

Ship'th Mythtic
# 142

 - Posted      Profile for JimT     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by afish:

Do you believe that Native American legends are inerrant?

No, but this specific one accords with modern science and is older than the flood myth.

Now will you tell me why these Native Americans did not drown in the flood? I gave you the scientific method for dating. Why do you dispute it? On the same vague grounds as you've listed elsewhere? "Is only the currrent theory. Maybe it's wrong?" When did this volcano erupt then? How long have the Native Americans been telling this myth? What is the best way to tell? Look in the Bible and say, it must have been after the Flood? I'll ignore all other natural evidence to the contrary because if it challenges a literal and historical interpretation of Genesis it is by definition wrong? That is the best way to date everything archeological and geological?

What fatprophet said. Hear, hear. Most precisely,

quote:
Which I guess is why the same people who believe in an historical Noah's flood also nonchantly believe that God will wipe out most of the earth in a series of apocalyptic disasters in the near future.

Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
afish
Shipmate
# 1135

 - Posted      Profile for afish   Email afish   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Karl
quote:
“Imagine a court of law. A ballistics expert says the bullet couldn't have come from the gun that is exhibit A. He shows you markings on bullets fired by exhibit A, and markings on the bullet that was found, to support his statement.
The policeman who found the gun says "Oh yes it did because I don't personally think your evidence is good enough because it doesn't convince me and I know he did it!"
Whom do you believe?
Can you tell me why your argument from personal incredulity against mainstream scientific methods is any more credible than the policeman's argument against the ballistics expert?”

I’m not sure if I’m interpreting your illustration exactly as you meant it but I think my adaptation (if it so be) will serve.
First a bit of hair splitting. It is not; I am not convinced therefore the evidence is not good enough *but* the evidence is not good enough therefore I’m not convinced.

Second as a member of this imaginary jury I would want to hear a lot more from both the policeman and the expert and I would have in mind that policemen are also not without expertise and that neither policemen nor ballistic experts are inerrant.

Thirdly, in the context of what we are discussing, that is, the age of the earth/ carbon dating/ the theory of evolution, the reality is that as material evidence we have *only* one marked bullet and *nothing* else. There is no gun not even a scale model and there is no unused bullet to put in the gun to verify that the markings tally. There are descriptions/drawings of a gun, that is all.
To be clear, the used bullet = the here and now material world, the gun = the means by which the bullet has come to be where and how it is. The gun and the firing of it using the original bullet *cannot* be replicated. This is true for both a Darwinian gun and for a creation gun. It also applies to dating matter. The expert looks at the bullet (a chunk of rock) and says because of these markings, based on this ballistic theory, I believe this bullet has travelled 50,000,000 years. Fair enough, but not only do we not have the original gun, or and unused bullet but neither do we have a firing-range long enough to verify this belief.

Finally, besides the policeman and the expert there is also being presented to the (now thoroughly bemused) jury a document claimed to be from The Gun Maker Himself by those advocating a creation gun.
Whom do you believe? Exactly!

Karl and other Christians who are convinced that it was a Darwinian type gun that did the deed, can I ask you this question? If you had been brought up in a time and place where the only idea on the table was that God created each sort of life form distinctly, each after it’s own kind, would that have been a problem for you, would you have said, no that can’t be true it must have happened some other way?
><>

--------------------
"Some things are too hot to touch
The human mind can only stand so much"
Bob Dylan

Posts: 168 | From: France | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by afish:
Karl and other Christians who are convinced that it was a Darwinian type gun that did the deed, can I ask you this question? If you had been brought up in a time and place where the only idea on the table was that God created each sort of life form distinctly, each after it’s own kind, would that have been a problem for you, would you have said, no that can’t be true it must have happened some other way?

Well, many Christians without the benefit of modern science would have said that Genesis does not recount history as it actually happened on the basis of the texts themselves (they simply don't really read like history) and their understanding of the nature of God as revealed to them in Scripture and Christ (God wouldn't act like that). Augustine has already been mentioned in this respect (maybe not on this thread, there have been other similar threads recently).

Just to fill out the first point a little. The Creation accounts, for example, contain some very obvious literary devices (structure, use of words, parallels to similar stories etc) that indicate something more than a simple factual telling of events is going on. And then there are internal problems - the identity of Cains wife or the people who might harm him are not new questions.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sean
Shipmate
# 51

 - Posted      Profile for Sean   Author's homepage   Email Sean   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry - not checked this thread for a few days.

quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:

quote:
Surely it's the intention of the author thats important here, not the reader.

The assumption is that the author knows how the reader is supposed to understand a particular genre and writes in the genre needed to get to the desired understanding.


But if the text is intended for as various a readership as the bible (from a group of desert nomads to a modern western audience and beyond, and everything in between, then thats going to take some pretty imaginative writing if everyone is going to draw the same meaning.

quote:

quote:

And if you take an inerrantist view (& possibly if you don't) then the author is God - Moses or whoever is just a messenger.

You are assuming that inspiration implies that God is dictating and that the human writers are merely divine scribes.

I thought I made that assumption explicit. (Its not a view I hold to, BTW).

quote:
quote:

Is it not possible then that He isn't fussed whether the story(ies) in question are taken as literal historical truth or not (each according to the age they live in) but is concerned with how the underlying message is taken.

What the underlying message is depends on how literally the text is meant to be taken. This goes not only for more arguably literal genres like historical narrative, but for more obviously figurative ones like psalms, proverbs, or apocalyptic literature. Literal-figurative is not even the only axis that affects the underlying interpretation. When considering a genre like epistle, one also has to consider how tailored the message of the epistle was to the original recipients. One has to make sense of the medium to make sense of the message.
I don't think we are disagreeing here.

--------------------
"So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality" - Einstein

Posts: 1085 | From: A very long way away | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Afish - you're extending the metaphor far beyong anything I designed it to elucidate.

The point is simply that scientists who have studied the subject matter have very firm conclusions about the age of the earth, and can tell you why.

Your reason for rejecting their conclusions is nothing more than "it doesn't convince me".

Scientific method vs personal incredulity - I know exactly where my money's going.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by afish:
Alan Cresswell
Thanks for that information. Can I “pump” you some more as I am interested in this?

Oy! This is a family thread! No "pumping" please. Especially not in discussions of air pressure. And I'm the biologist here - Alan is a mere physicist IIRC [Smile]

quote:

Within what range of pressure is terrestrial life as we know it viable?

If you mean air pressure

- some bacteria can survive, though not of course grow, in a near vacuum. In fact some have survived on the outside of equipment taken to the moon.

- humans can breathe pretty well down to about half normal atmospheric pressure.

- higher pressures cause trouble, not because of total pressure, but because of partial pressure of oxygen. Once that goes about 50% of a standard atmosphere you start getting physiological problems. Not to mention fire risk. So deep divers use low-oxygen mixes. Spending lots of time below about 7 metres of seawater on pure oxygen, or 20 metres on normal air, will cause oxygen poisoning. One of the reasons divers use helium mixes.

for non air-breathers underwater, things are different, there are fish that can handle 1000 atmospheres. There are bacteria living in rock under pressures many times higher than that.

Plants have even more trouble than we do with high partial pressures of oxygen. Photosynthesis fails at high temperatures with excess oxygen. It works better if there is a lot of CO2 around. Of course that messes animals up...

quote:

If I remember correctly, air as we have it now consists mainly of nitrogen (85%?), which is as far as breathing goes is a neutral.
Is there not a way that there could be enough oxygen for life while the volume of atmosphere changes? Mmmm not very clear that one.

Above about 4 atmospheres you can get nitrogen narcosis. Another reason why some divers use helium.

quote:

Could there have been “waters” above but separated from, that is not directly effecting, the earth’s atmosphere?

Of course there could but then we are back in the realms of miracle. Or at any rate a universe with different physical laws. So not one susceptible to scientific investigation.
Christians who are scientists honour God by studying the universe God has created for them to live in - the one we live in now. So-called "Creation Science" dishonours God by pretending to use science and in fact importing miracle into science whenever science doesn't do what they want it to. It breaks the 9th commandment.

To say that things may have happened a certain way because the universe was then different is really a bit of a fantasy. There is no (scientific) point in it.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
afish
Shipmate
# 1135

 - Posted      Profile for afish   Email afish   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Karl
quote:
“Why does divine inspiration mean the Bible has to be literally and historically true? Given that I don't see how it overturns the notion of inspiration, perhaps you need to define what you mean by the Bible being inspired by God.”
I mean that The Bible from start to finish is from God and by God to us. It is a revealing of what is true and what is false, what is good and what it bad. It is a showing of Himself and ourselves to us. He has done this (and is doing this) by means of a story, a true story, history not fiction. The writing down of this story has been done by people in the story who where inspired directly by God to write what they wrote. Occasionally God simple said, write this but for the greater part the people, though inspired by God, wrote as themselves, using their own thought processes, in accordance with their own personalities and socio-cultural contexts. Though flawed sinners like every one else, what they wrote was inerrant because it was inspired by God. Not just that God inspired them to write something but that He inspired what they wrote so above and beyond being their words it is God’s word.

If The Bible were not, as a whole, a literal historic story told by God but rather a collection of myths told by humans, a mish mash of more or less historical facts and other stuff what would it reveal to us? Certainly not a God Who is literal and historic. God is literal not only in the sense that He is real and not human imagining but also in the sense of literally doing what he says He will do. And one purpose of The Story is to demonstrate that to us.

quote:
“Given that the Bible does not say as a preface to the Flood story "The following story is literally and historically true", on what basis do you make the judgement that the Bible is asserting that?”
On the basis that given that I hear and see The Bible as one book with one main story line running through it. I see and hear nothing in the story of Noah that indicates that it is a piece of fiction there just to enhance the story. To me it reads as an integral part of the main plot.

So much more that could be said but tomorrow has just become today. Must slumber.
><>

Ah Karl naughty, naughty
quote:
Your reason for rejecting their conclusions is nothing more than "it doesn't convince me".
Some thing a little more, that is, It doesn't convince me for the precise reasons I set out.
Will respond to other posts adressed to me ------
eventually.

--------------------
"Some things are too hot to touch
The human mind can only stand so much"
Bob Dylan

Posts: 168 | From: France | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Toby
Shipmate
# 3522

 - Posted      Profile for Toby   Email Toby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by afish:
I mean that The Bible from start to finish is from God and by God to us. It is a revealing of what is true and what is false, what is good and what it bad. It is a showing of Himself and ourselves to us. He has done this (and is doing this) by means of a story, a true story, history not fiction. The writing down of this story has been done by people in the story who where inspired directly by God to write what they wrote. Occasionally God simple said, write this but for the greater part the people, though inspired by God, wrote as themselves, using their own thought processes, in accordance with their own personalities and socio-cultural contexts. Though flawed sinners like every one else, what they wrote was inerrant because it was inspired by God. Not just that God inspired them to write something but that He inspired what they wrote so above and beyond being their words it is God’s word.

If The Bible were not, as a whole, a literal historic story told by God but rather a collection of myths told by humans, a mish mash of more or less historical facts and other stuff what would it reveal to us? Certainly not a God Who is literal and historic. God is literal not only in the sense that He is real and not human imagining but also in the sense of literally doing what he says He will do. And one purpose of The Story is to demonstrate that to us.

I think there is a confusion here about what 'historic', 'history' and 'historical fact' actually mean/imply. There are no documents that can be really considered to be 'literal historic fact'. The line between history and fiction is often hard to draw. What we know about history is based on reading documents and texts that are flawed and biased and coloured by the writers' opinions and perspectives. There is truth in all historical texts (which is why they are history and not fiction) but there is also bias.

Reading the Bible as a historic text means looking at the context, not taking everything literally and at the same time imposing our own filters, perspectives and worldviews on what we read. Ask yourself this question: Would a twelth century person read the same literal meaning into the words of the Bible as a person today? I think not. Their perceptions of what the Bible is literally saying would be different, because their ways of looking at the world, language and meaning are different.

So the writers of the Bible were writing something that can be interpreted in a variety of different ways. Does that mean that our interpretation is superior to that which a person in any other culture/age would have? Do we then have a monopoly on what the literal truth of the Bible really is becaue our way of reading what we think is the 'literal, historical truth' in the ambiguous words is the best? I think not.

Something did happen in history - there is historical reality and truth. It is just impossible to completely recreate it.

--------------------
'Civilization is only savagery silver-gilt'
Allan Quartermain

Posts: 99 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174

 - Posted      Profile for J. J. Ramsey   Author's homepage   Email J. J. Ramsey   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean:

Sorry - not checked this thread for a few days.

quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:


quote:
Surely it's the intention of the author thats important here, not the reader.

The assumption is that the author knows how the reader is supposed to understand a particular genre and writes in the genre needed to get to the desired understanding.


But if the text is intended for as various a readership as the bible (from a group of desert nomads to a modern western audience and beyond, and everything in between, then thats going to take some pretty imaginative writing if everyone is going to draw the same meaning.


You are confusing the original indended audience of the work, which consists of the author's approximate contemporaries, and the secondhand audiences, like our modern Western selves.

quote:

quote:

quote:

And if you take an inerrantist view (& possibly if you don't) then the author is God - Moses or whoever is just a messenger.

You are assuming that inspiration implies that God is dictating and that the human writers are merely divine scribes.

I thought I made that assumption explicit. (Its not a view I hold to, BTW).


There is no need to assume that inerrancy implies that the biblical authors were scribes, and few modern inerrantists subscribe to that particular model of inspiration.

quote:

quote:


quote:

Is it not possible then that He isn't fussed whether the story(ies) in question are taken as literal historical truth or not (each according to the age they live in) but is concerned with how the underlying message is taken.

What the underlying message is depends on how literally the text is meant to be taken. This goes not only for more arguably literal genres like historical narrative, but for more obviously figurative ones like psalms, proverbs, or apocalyptic literature. Literal-figurative is not even the only axis that affects the underlying interpretation. When considering a genre like epistle, one also has to consider how tailored the message of the epistle was to the original recipients. One has to make sense of the medium to make sense of the message.

I don't think we are disagreeing here.

You may not be disagreeing, but I don't think you understand the consequences of needing to make sense of the medium to make sense of the message. The way one extracts the underlying message from a text meant to be taken literally is different from the way one extracts the underlying message from a text meant to be taken figuratively. That means that understanding the underlying message from a story requires figuring out whether you are dealing with a literally true story, or an allegory, or (as in Jim T's example) a story that is a composite of real occurrences with some dramatic embellishment. That also means that the question "Is this literal" cannot be dodged and is important.

--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.

Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
JimT

Ship'th Mythtic
# 142

 - Posted      Profile for JimT     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by afish:
The writing down of this story has been done by people in the story who where inspired directly by God to write what they wrote.

Not true, especially for the subject of this thread. Noah did not write the story of Noah. Not one single story in the entire book of Genesis was written by the person in the story. You have a leg to stand on for the New Testament. However, for the entire book of Genesis, which is what we are discussing on this thread, your house is built upon the sand.

These are not eyewitness accounts by the people who were there. These were stories handed down over the ages until Moses wrote them down. This is precisely why so many here have said that Genesis reads like "myth."

Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed, given that there is no reason besides ancient tradition to assume that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the stories had been passed down even longer than that.

You seem to be making a very strange leap of logic Afish:

quote:
If The Bible were not, as a whole, a literal historic story told by God but rather a collection of myths told by humans, a mish mash of more or less historical facts and other stuff what would it reveal to us? Certainly not a God Who is literal and historic.
I really don't get this at all. Why must a God who is active in history produce an inerrant Bible?

And I really don't see any reason why your resistance to the findings of modern science goes beyond personal incredulity. Give me a scientific reason for doubting these findings. "The Bible says otherwise" is nothing but personal incredulity - "I can't believe this rock is 70 million years old because I believe the Bible says it can't be." Reality is not dictated by your opinion about the nature and content of Scripture.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276

 - Posted      Profile for markporter   Author's homepage   Email markporter   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
Originally posted by afish:
The writing down of this story has been done by people in the story who where inspired directly by God to write what they wrote.

Not true, especially for the subject of this thread. Noah did not write the story of Noah. Not one single story in the entire book of Genesis was written by the person in the story. You have a leg to stand on for the New Testament. However, for the entire book of Genesis, which is what we are discussing on this thread, your house is built upon the sand.

These are not eyewitness accounts by the people who were there. These were stories handed down over the ages until Moses wrote them down. This is precisely why so many here have said that Genesis reads like "myth."

hmmmm? what happened to the tablet theory?
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
Originally posted by afish:
The writing down of this story has been done by people in the story who where inspired directly by God to write what they wrote.

Not true, especially for the subject of this thread. Noah did not write the story of Noah. Not one single story in the entire book of Genesis was written by the person in the story. You have a leg to stand on for the New Testament. However, for the entire book of Genesis, which is what we are discussing on this thread, your house is built upon the sand.

These are not eyewitness accounts by the people who were there. These were stories handed down over the ages until Moses wrote them down. This is precisely why so many here have said that Genesis reads like "myth."

hmmmm? what happened to the tablet theory?
Are you proposing the entire Pentateuch was on the tablets of stone?

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47

 - Posted      Profile for Glenn Oldham   Author's homepage   Email Glenn Oldham   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by afish:

If The Bible were not, as a whole, a literal historic story told by God but rather a collection of myths told by humans, a mish mash of more or less historical facts and other stuff what would it reveal to us? Certainly not a God Who is literal and historic.

Nope, this argument does not hold water afish.

Let’s try:
If The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius were not, as a whole, a literal historic story told by God but rather a collection of myths told by humans, a mish mash of more or less historical facts and other stuff what would it reveal to us? Certainly not a Julius Caesar who is literal and historic.
No that doesn’t work, because we can be reasonably certain that Julius Caesar was a real historical character.

Let’s try:
If story that Nathan told to David, after his adultery with Bathsheba, about the poor man with one little ewe lamb (2 Samuel 12) were not, as a whole, a literal historic story told by God but rather a … a mish mash of more or less historical facts and other stuff what would it reveal to David? Certainly not a message from God.
No that doesn’t work, either, because it did. .

Glenn

Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Astro
Shipmate
# 84

 - Posted      Profile for Astro   Email Astro   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The tablet theory

--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)

Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
The tablet theory

"interesting" site ... though there are a few things that shouted "woooah" to me as I briefly skimmed it.
  • Just where the heck did this guy get his history of science?
    quote:
    A quasi-scientific basis for retreat from Biblical authority took root when, in 1830, Charles Lyell published "Principles of Geology," which first described the so-called "Geologic Column." Here the age of a rock stratum was supposedly given by the types of fossils which it contains. This idea set the stage for Charles Darwin's publication, in 1859, of his famous "Origin of Species." His organic evolution theory captured the imagination of most scientists.
    Does he actually think Lyell was aiming to undermine Genesis as a history book? Or that Darwin was working to support such a cause? They were both, like any scientist, simply examining evidence and drawing obvious conclusions ... if I was to label anything "quasi-scientific" it wouldn't be the work of Lyell and Darwin.
    I'm not sure how much I'd trust someone so far off the mark on fairly modern history who then writes about ancient history.
  • Why only describe the JEDP-documentary hypothesis and the tablet hypothesis? There are more than two ways of looking at Genesis, and there are possibly elements of both hypotheses in the true description of how Genesis was written/compiled (not that I think we will ever know the truth)
  • Assuming Wiseman is right in reading the "These are the generations of ... " as colophons at the end of sections does that mean the named person was the author? No, of course not! The structure could be there because the actual author/compiler(s) were used to that structure in such documents (a reflection of the old tablet style of writing them) and so copied it as the stories were put together inserting suitable names as appropriate ... it's hardly unknown for ancient writers to use the name of some ancient hero to add weight to what they were saying
Just some initial thoughts on the Tablet Theory

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276

 - Posted      Profile for markporter   Author's homepage   Email markporter   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, whether it's true or not, it is a theory that allows the possibility of the stories being eyewitness accounts.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
Well, whether it's true or not, it is a theory that allows the possibility of the stories being eyewitness accounts.

Hey, I could make up a theory that allowed the possibility that the stories were made up by Fargons from the planet Quaggle.

The question is one of plausibility...

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Even if Genesis records actual historical events then the tablet theory is one of at least two means by which "eye witness accounts" got recorded - the other being faithful verbal transmission. It doesn't alter the fact that if the intention of the writer/compiler(s) of Genesis was not to write an account of actual historical events then whether or not there were eye witness accounts of the Flood are largely irrelevant - they would have been adapted to suit the needs of the author/compiler(s) of Genesis.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JimT

Ship'th Mythtic
# 142

 - Posted      Profile for JimT     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I gave the tablet theory a close read. My summary is this:

1. First, let's get straight that Religious Liberalism is dangerous.

2. Hard evidence in archaeology points to oral tradition, followed by writing long after the fact, but that undermines people's belief in Biblical authenticity.

3. It is a known fact that some ancient writings were on clay tablets, especially geneologies, which were affixed with "signed, the person who vouches for the above information."

4. Genesis has lots of geneologies.

5. The best way to fight religious liberalism is to theorize that God wrote the first tablet, describing the creation in six literal days, himself; perhaps to teach Adam how to write.

6. Adam wrote his stories on clay tablets and so did everyone else.

7. There is not a scrap of physical evidence to support this, but it refutes religious liberalism, which is our first goal. Therefore it is best to believe that there were in fact clay tablets from the Beginning of Human Time and the Bible was faithfully transcribed from those now-destroyed clay tablets.

Six literal days? We must create evidence that fits the Bible into science or religious liberalism will lead people astray? Same ole same ole. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276

 - Posted      Profile for markporter   Author's homepage   Email markporter   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
7. There is not a scrap of physical evidence to support this, but it refutes religious liberalism, which is our first goal. Therefore it is best to believe that there were in fact clay tablets from the Beginning of Human Time and the Bible was faithfully transcribed from those now-destroyed clay tablets.

And you'd expect there to be this evidence? After all this time, all this wandering in the wilderness, and after having transferred the information somewhere else anyway?

I think that the hypothesis is just as valid as any alternative.

Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
JimT

Ship'th Mythtic
# 142

 - Posted      Profile for JimT     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
And you'd expect there to be this evidence?

See, that's just the problem. The evidence does not exist and is likely never to appear. The theory is therefore "trivial" in a formal sense, meaning "always possible, but not deniable."

quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
I think that the hypothesis is just as valid as any alternative.

Any hypothesis that relies on the existence of non-existent evidence is an inferior hypothesis. This hypothesis is even worse, because as you say the evidence has virtually no chance of ever appearing.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The site is extremely unimpressive.

Its whole argument is circular.

It starts with the assumption that the Bible is literally historically true: e.g.
quote:
I should say here that the following discussion is based on a firm belief that the six days of creation are literal 24-hour days, as the clear phraseology of the Bible states.

Then uses this assumption to generate a Biblical origin hypothesis that defends the view that the Bible is literally, historically true.

It writes of the JEDP hypothesis by saying the JEPD documents have never been found. This is irrelevant anyway; J, E, D & P may be oral traditions rather than documents. It then hand-waves the fact that the tablets it proposes haven't been found anyway.

The only reason for giving this whole concoction any credence is because it supports what the reader wants to believe. This is not the way a rational man works.

It also contains some out and out bullshit:

quote:
But most evolutionist scientists object just as much to theistic evolution as they do to miraculous creation.
Not true. Even the most vitriolic atheist evolution supporters reserve their main objection to the pseudo-science of young earth creationism. And they are are the minority. Many 'evolutionist' scientists (i.e. over 95% of scientists) are themselves theists. There is no conflict between them and atheistic scientists within the scientific field.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
Well, whether it's true or not, it is a theory that allows the possibility of the stories being eyewitness accounts.

Why should anyone who takes the Bible literally believe such an obviously made-up theory of its composition. There are a infinite number of possible Just-So Stories that would explain the origin of the Bible.

Genesis never claims to be written by Moses, or anyone else. A real literalist would have no truck with tablet theories or whatever. They are a compromise with Roman Catholic tradition and early mediaeval legends. How can you prove the authorship of an anonymous book from within its own pages? An inspired anonymous book at that? If God had wanted us to know who write Genesis he would have inspired them to sign it.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Many 'evolutionist' scientists (i.e. over 95% of scientists)

Over 99.5% certainly. Possibly over 99.95%

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
A quasi-scientific basis for retreat from Biblical authority took root when, in 1830, Charles Lyell published "Principles of Geology," which first described the so-called "Geologic Column." Here the age of a rock stratum was supposedly given by the types of fossils which it contains. This idea set the stage for Charles Darwin's publication, in 1859, of his famous "Origin of Species." His organic evolution theory captured the imagination of most scientists.
Does he actually think Lyell was aiming to undermine Genesis as a history book? Or that Darwin was working to support such a cause? They were both, like any scientist, simply examining evidence and drawing obvious conclusions ... if I was to label anything "quasi-scientific" it wouldn't be the work of Lyell and Darwin.
I'm not sure how much I'd trust someone so far off the mark on fairly modern history

Worse than that, it's dead, Jim.

Lyell wasn't the first to describe the geological column by about 2 generations.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ham'n'Eggs

Ship's Pig
# 629

 - Posted      Profile for Ham'n'Eggs   Email Ham'n'Eggs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Try William Smith.

--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S


Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
Try William Smith.

Yep!

But the original idea was due to Steno, 150 years before even Smith. And Lavoisier & others had been doing detailed work on the geologial column in the 1770s.

Smith and Sedgeick and their contemporaries finished the job. After their work, say the 1820s and 1830s, young earth ideas were no longer tenable. People like John Ray (my hero!) could have rational arguments about it in the 17th century, or in the 18th, but by the early 19th century we pretty well knew what was going on. (Well, the naturalists did - it took the astronomers & physicists a while to catch up!)

John Ray's thoughts on fossil plants of apparently extinct species, back in th 17th century:

quote:

Yet on the other side there follows such a train of consequences, as seem to shock the Scripture-History of the novity of the World; at least they overthrow the opinion generally received. . . that since the first Creation there have been no species of Animals or Vegetables lost, no new ones produced. But whatever may be said for the Antiquity of the Earth it self and bodies lodged on it, yet that the race of mankind is new upon the earth, and not older than the Scripture makes it, may I think by many arguments be almost demonstratively proved. . .


Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Many 'evolutionist' scientists (i.e. over 95% of scientists)

Over 99.5% certainly. Possibly over 99.95%
Why quibble over numbers? Just say "all real scientists."

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
JimT

Ship'th Mythtic
# 142

 - Posted      Profile for JimT     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Smith and Sedgeick and their contemporaries finished the job. After their work, say the 1820s and 1830s, young earth ideas were no longer tenable.

Anyone know of any duels over the issue? [Big Grin]
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools