|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Does Creation Science Give Comfort to the Enemy?
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
He only believed in a real Good Samaritan because it was a scoop for the Jerusalem Sun on that particular day. It happened.
But Jesus used the story to make a point about the identity of "neighbour".
Whether it was fictional or not is beside the point.
Not at all. As Jamat pointed out, if the story isn't literally true then any larger point derived from it is necessarily false as well. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
As I don't know anyone who takes the parables as being about real people in real situations, I'm bemused by the last couple of comments. It's well known that rabbis do and did teach by way of stories/fables that are not literally true. That's been the case since well before Jesus was born.
The idea that there has to be a literal Good Samaritan, or a real Prodigal Son makes as much sense as suggesting that there had to be a real tortoise racing in real time against a real hare for that one of Aesop's fables to convey something true.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Agree with John Holding. ( He a cricket umpire by any chance?)
Nonsense to suggest that the incident must be historically true for a point to be made.
Else the genesis parables ( Chaps 1- 3) have got nothing to say
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
As I don't know anyone who takes the parables as being about real people in real situations, I'm bemused by the last couple of comments. It's well known that rabbis do and did teach by way of stories/fables that are not literally true. That's been the case since well before Jesus was born.
The idea that there has to be a literal Good Samaritan, or a real Prodigal Son makes as much sense as suggesting that there had to be a real tortoise racing in real time against a real hare for that one of Aesop's fables to convey something true.
John
I think most people here would agree with that. Most of us would also agree with shamwari's last post.
The problem is that Jamat is insisting that Genesis must be literally true to convey something true and Croesus used the example of the parables to suggest that it ain't necessarily so.
If anyone can explain to me how proposing that Jesus did not believe that everything he said was literally true, is saying that "black is white", I would be grateful. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
No one denies metaphor; we live and breathe it. But it is contextually suggested. Jesus said "He who made them from the beginning made them.."
What did he say? He said... etc etc.
The problem is did he mean what he said? The burden of proof is on you who assert he didn't, to explain why.
It isn't such a good look to explain it by saying: "It inconveniences my theology" and my evolutionary preconceptions."
When he spoke in parables, the writer indicated it. Not the case here.(Matt19:4, Mk 10:6) In both cases it is a direct quote from Genesis. Ergo: Jesus beleved Genesis.
[ 05. April 2010, 23:41: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
No one denies metaphor; we live and breathe it. But it is contextually suggested. Jesus said "He who made them from the beginning made them.."
What did he say? He said... etc etc.
The problem is did he mean what he said? The burden of proof is on you who assert he didn't, to explain why.
Speaking in metaphor is not the same as not meaning what you say. Jesus meant what he said, as a metaphor.
quote:
It isn't such a good look to explain it by saying: "It inconveniences my theology" and my evolutionary preconceptions."
It's not a good look either to say it inconveniences your theology or your anti-evolutionary preconceptions.
quote:
When he spoke in parables, the writer indicated it. Not the case here.(Matt19:4, Mk 10:6) In both cases it is a direct quote from Genesis. Ergo: Jesus beleved Genesis.
That first sentence is not true. For instance, Luke 15-16. Only the verses of chapter 15, 4-6, is explicitly said to be a parable. Nothing of the rest is indicated to be a parable explicitly.
Let's add, if you're insisting on the literal accuracy of what Jesus is saying, that it's not true according to either Genesis account that humanity was made male and female "from the beginning of creation", as Mark has it. In the first Genesis account, there are at least five days between the beginning of creation and the creation of humanity. In the second account from which Jesus is quoting, Adam has time to name all the animals before God makes Eve.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It isn't such a good look to explain it by saying: "It inconveniences my theology" and my evolutionary preconceptions."
When he spoke in parables, the writer indicated it. Not the case here.(Matt19:4, Mk 10:6) In both cases it is a direct quote from Genesis. Ergo: Jesus beleved Genesis.
Isn't your whole case against descent with modification that it inconveniences your theology?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If it is a myth there is no fall there is no original sin and consequently no need for redemption. The whole gospel becomes unnecessary.
There's no indication that Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan is a parable. We can certainly infer that it's not a literal tale, but there's nothing in the text that says "this is a parable".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
When he spoke in parables, the writer indicated it.
Not the case.
Matthew 5:13-16
Matthew 7:15-20
Matthew 7:24-27
Matthew 9:16-17
Matthew 16:5-12
Matthew 18:12-14
Matthew 19:24
Mark 8:14-21
Luke 10:25-37 (Good Sam)
Luke 11:33-36
Luke 13:18-21
Luke 14:15-24
Luke 16:1-15
Luke 16:19-31
Luke 17:7-10
John 12:24
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Parable? Is it not simply teaching by means of a story or an argument from analogy?
What's the deal? When there is a little story and a principle is extracted from it, an indication is being made by the writer. Is it not all part of the back story? Regarding Jesus' references to the original couple, there is no such back story, just an appeal to the authority of scripture. I repeat, Jesus believed in Genesis- inconvenient as it may be to some.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Parable? Is it not simply teaching by means of a story or an argument from analogy?
What's the deal? When there is a little story and a principle is extracted from it, an indication is being made by the writer. Is it not all part of the back story? Regarding Jesus' references to the original couple, there is no such back story, just an appeal to the authority of scripture.
No, Jesus is depicted as telling a story (God created gender) and extracting a principle (therefore don't divorce). It fits rather well with your description of how we recognize a parable in the Gospels.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I repeat, Jesus believed in Genesis- inconvenient as it may be to some.
You can repeat it all you want, but just repeating the same thing over and over isn't the same as making your case.
But supposing for a moment you're right and Jesus held the same literalist interpretation of Genesis you do, so what? If Jesus believed that there is a vast expanse of water above the sky or that the moon produces its own light instead of being the sun's mirror, does that necessarily make those things true?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Why in the hell would it be inconvenient to anybody?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
You suggest my hermeneutic implies that the one by whom the universe was created is under some misconception about how it operates? Is this not insulting your own intelligence?
The Bible is God's revelation. If it says something straightforward then one assumes that is true. Making a 'case' for what Jesus plainly states and implies is not necessary. He has made his own 'case'. It is our part to accept or reject it as we see fit in this time of God's grace.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You suggest my hermeneutic implies that the one by whom the universe was created is under some misconception about how it operates? Is this not insulting your own intelligence?
He's not suggesting it. He's stating it outright. Your hermeneutic does imply that the one by whom the universe is created is under some misconception about how it operates. That's not a problem for us. That is a problem for your hermeneutic.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
When there is a little story and a principle is extracted from it, an indication is being made by the writer. Is it not all part of the back story? Regarding Jesus' references to the original couple, there is no such back story, just an appeal to the authority of scripture.
You keep saying that there is an indication, but you haven't given an example.
I put it to you: you think there's an indication where it's not inconvenient for your theology, and you think there isn't an indication where it is inconvenient for your theology. That is, your indication that a story is not literally true is simply its inconvenience for your theology. It is quite circular and depends entirely upon your presuppositions.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You suggest my hermeneutic implies that the one by whom the universe was created is under some misconception about how it operates? Is this not insulting your own intelligence?
As Dafyd points out, if you acknowledge that your hermeneutic is insulting to everyone's intelligence, maybe there's something wrong with it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You suggest my hermeneutic implies that the one by whom the universe was created is under some misconception about how it operates? Is this not insulting your own intelligence?
As Dafyd points out, if you acknowledge that your hermeneutic is insulting to everyone's intelligence, maybe there's something wrong with it.
So, There is something wrong with believing Jesus actually meant what he said touching the creation story? And you base this on?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
The "something wrong" is that the creation story is wrong. It didn't happen. So either Jesus was wrong, or he was being metaphorical. And those are the only two options. Period.
I assume that your view of Jesus presumes that he wasn't wrong. therefore he was speaking in parables. As he often did before, and after.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think that Jesus was a person of his time and circumstances - just as we are. His understanding of creation would be theological - not scientific.
God is the creator and sustainer of all things.
Science (begins to) explain how all things were created.
...
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
The "something wrong" is that the creation story is wrong. It didn't happen.
So perhaps you could tell us what did happen?
No, thought not.
The issue is the assumptions we begin with. If Christ is the one by whom the worlds were created, (John's gospel ch 1) My assumption is that he knew a thing or two.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
The "something wrong" is that the creation story is wrong. It didn't happen.
So perhaps you could tell us what did happen?
No, thought not.
It's incredibly bad form to ask someone a question and then answer it for them. Have you no manners?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue is the assumptions we begin with. If Christ is the one by whom the worlds were created, (John's gospel ch 1) My assumption is that he knew a thing or two.
Well, let's go through your argument as you laid it out.
1) Jesus was the omniscient, omnipotent Creator of Everything.
2) Jesus made an oblique reference to his belief that God created humans with gender.
3) This reference to gender can only be interpreted as an unconditional endorsement of the literal veracity of every aspect of the book of Genesis as it is known to us today.
It's this last one that seems to be a bit of conclusion jumping to most folks here, though I personally would dispute point #1 as well.
Anyway, the conclusions that can be derived from this set of axioms is fairly puzzling, as I mentioned in a previous post (which you seem to have ignored). It suggests questions like 'Why doesn't the Hubble Space Telescope break apart when it runs into the "water above"?' or 'Why does the omnipotent and omniscient Creator of Everything insist that the moon creates its own light when we can tell that it doesn't?' There are other points at which Genesis diverges from reality, but those seem like a good place to start.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Well, if we must plod...
What I assume is that the Scripture clearly states Jesus' role in the creation.
That Genesis is affirmed by Christ as authoritative as is the rest of the pentacheuch.
That the 'waters above' belonged to the antedeluvian world.
That scripture never teaches that the moon generates light.
My view is that one takes scripture at face value unless there is a clear editorial or contextual reason not to. One's theological or evolutionary preconceptions are not such a reason.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That the 'waters above' belonged to the antedeluvian world.
You've got some sort of scriptural reference for deciding this, I presume? Would you care to share it?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That scripture never teaches that the moon generates light.
My view is that one takes scripture at face value unless there is a clear editorial or contextual reason not to. One's theological or evolutionary preconceptions are not such a reason.
Well, when the moon is referred to as one of "two great lights", you'd think that the clear meaning is that it's a light. Given that the generation of light is pretty much the defining characteristic of a light, I'd say that, taking scripture at face value as you advocate, one would have to conclude that scripture does indeed teach that the moon generates light.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Now, that's just being nit picky.(about the moon, I mean.)
Genesis, with which I assume you have a modicum of familiarity, tells us that when the flood arrived the windows of heaven opened (Gen 7:11)and it rained for 40 days. In 'The Genesis Flood' by Whitcomb and Morris, it is suggested that this refers to a precipitation of a vapour canopy in the atmosphere which up until this time maintained a more or less constant temperature on the planet. The polar regions were temperate as suggested by the vast animal graves in Siberia. Tropical flora has been found in the systems of frozen mammoths.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Now, that's just being nit picky.(about the moon, I mean.)
What do you mean "nit picky"? At face value "light" means "light", but you apparently have found some editorial or textual reason to think in this case "light" means "rock" or "mirror". That certainly seems to go against your professed method of taking scripture at face value.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Genesis, with which I assume you have a modicum of familiarity, tells us that when the flood arrived the windows of heaven opened (Gen 7:11)and it rained for 40 days. In 'The Genesis Flood' by Whitcomb and Morris, it is suggested that this refers to a precipitation of a vapour canopy in the atmosphere which up until this time maintained a more or less constant temperature on the planet. The polar regions were temperate as suggested by the vast animal graves in Siberia. Tropical flora has been found in the systems of frozen mammoths.
Most modern translations use the term "floodgates" instead of "windows". Of course, the other source of water is said to be the "springs of the deep" or "fountains of the deep". According to Genesis the Deluge stopped when "the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed". The King James Version, which you seem to favor, says "The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped", but the sentiment is the same. The Bible is not saying that either of these sources were emptied, just that they were blocked up again. Besides, if you were to conclude that the "waters above" were only an antediluvian phenomenon, wouldn't intellectual consistency force you to conclude the same about groundwater (i.e. "the springs of the deep")?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What I assume is that the Scripture clearly states Jesus' role in the creation.
That Genesis is affirmed by Christ as authoritative as is the rest of the pentacheuch.
Indeed. Let's ignore the mythical writing of Genesis. Let's also ignore the evidence of our senses which makes those stories out to be horse hockey.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Did the shadow go backwards?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Well, we do know that Hezekiah needed to adjust his calendar.
The ancient year was 360 days and when you look at the 70 weeks of Daniel, they make sense if seen as weeks of years each @ 360 days. The authority in this is Sir Robert Anderson founder of Scotland Yard who wrte a book called "The Coming Price" which lays it all out.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Genesis is affirmed by Christ as authoritative as is the rest of the pentacheuch.
Authoritative in what sense, and for what purpose?
In the example we've been looking at, Jesus cites the early chapters of Genesis that God created human beings male and female, and this is used in support of an argument against divorce. The most you can get from that is that humanity is created by God, and that gender and complementary relationships within marriage are part of the design of God ... there seems nothing that requires a particular mechanism for Creation.
There are, of course, other examples where Jesus cites the Pentateuch. Of course, it could be argued that in so doing he's affirming these books as authoritative within the context of discussions of ethics and theology. It could equally be argued that he was using the texts accepted as authoritative by his opponents to show that their views were contrary to the authoritative texts they accepted - which doesn't necessarily imply He accepted them as authoritative.
BTW, I accept the Pentateuch and the rest of Scripture) as authoritative, and that Jesus accepted them as authoritative. I just don't think that the use Jesus made of these texts necessarily supports that belief. Also, the authority of the Bible doesn't extend to particular interpretations of Scripture.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
The "something wrong" is that the creation story is wrong. It didn't happen.
So perhaps you could tell us what did happen?
No, thought not.
Astronomers, particle physicists, geologists, and palaeontologists between them can give a pretty good description of what happened and the order in which it happened - certainly in greater detail than in either the first Genesis story or the second Genesis story. But that's where we came in.
It's not as if we've got the two Genesis stories or nothing.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My view is that one takes scripture at face value unless there is a clear editorial or contextual reason not to.
How about following one account of the creation with another account of the creation in which events happen in a completely different order? Would that count as a clear editorial or contextual reason not to?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If you say the shadow did not turn back, then you place science over the clear, plain meaning of Scripture.
If you say it did turn back, then you say either:
(a) The earth kept turning in the same way, but God made it look like it turned back. In which case God is a liar.
(b) The earth stopped in its rotation and started spinning in the opposite direction, then stopped again and started spinning the right way again. And nobody noticed, nothing went flying through the air because it had momentum in one direction and the earth had stopped. No lurches in anybody's stomach. In short a planet the size and mass of the earth stopped and it had no effect on anything whatsoever except that one shadow moved backwards. Nobody anywhere else in the earth noticed this contrary motion of the shadows. This is cloud-cuckoo land.
The only conclusion is that sometimes science trumps scripture. And once you allow that foot in the door, all Hell breaks loose.
(to those not in the know: 2 Kings 20:9-11)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
If you say the scripture is authoritive in terms of ethics and theology but not of history, and/or that it is not authoritative in support of 'particular interpretations', you are in effect deciding unilaterally what the rules are. You are saying if it offends me or if it cuts across my biases, preconceptions then I can ignore it.
That is no authority at all.
BTW Dafyd I see the two creation accounts as complementary. Many literary genres use the same facts in different ways. Jewish thinking was not linnear like mine or yours.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So which is it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
BTW Dafyd I see the two creation accounts as complementary. Many literary genres use the same facts in different ways. Jewish thinking was not linnear like mine or yours.
So what you're saying is that our thinking is linear and the Bible's thinking is non-linear, so we shouldn't take the Bible at what we think is face value?
For example, if the Bible says that flowers were made on day three and fish on day five, that doesn't necessarily mean that fish were made two days after flowers? It could mean that fish came into existence millions of years before flowers. Because the Bible is non-linear.
This is the same reason why when the Bible says that the moon is a light, this doesn't mean as we would take to be face value, that the moon is a light, but means that it reflects light - even though the Bible says nothing about reflecting.
[ 08. April 2010, 19:35: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you say the shadow did not turn back, then you place science over the clear, plain meaning of Scripture.
If you say it did turn back, then you say either:
(a) The earth kept turning in the same way, but God made it look like it turned back. In which case God is a liar.
(b) The earth stopped in its rotation and started spinning in the opposite direction, then stopped again and started spinning the right way again. And nobody noticed, nothing went flying through the air because it had momentum in one direction and the earth had stopped. No lurches in anybody's stomach. In short a planet the size and mass of the earth stopped and it had no effect on anything whatsoever except that one shadow moved backwards. Nobody anywhere else in the earth noticed this contrary motion of the shadows. This is cloud-cuckoo land.
The only conclusion is that sometimes science trumps scripture. And once you allow that foot in the door, all Hell breaks loose.
(to those not in the know: 2 Kings 20:9-11)
This is indeed an interesting quandry. I believe the bible does not mislead us.
Your analysis of the situation that would occur if the sun in fact stood still is not necessarily accurate.
In 701BC there appears to have been a cataclysmic event, one of several, in which the ancients recorded.
Time forbids lengthy dicussion but if you are familiar with Velikovsky's 'Worlds in collision', you can check that he researched a change in the calendars of all ancient people groups at that time. Hezekiah appears to have doubled the month of Nisan in the year in question (recorded in the Talmud) and latterly, Jews simply added an extra month every few years to keep the lunar calendar accurate.
Cutting a long story very short, it is quite possible that Mars' and Earth's orbits came very close in that year. Remember, the ancients were terrified of the planets. This would have brought the two planets into a huge gravitational altercation resulting in both losing a bit of spin momentum.
The sun standing still as it did also in Joshua 10, could be accounted for by a shift in orbits and tilt. The earth wouldn't need to stop spinning.
[ 09. April 2010, 09:50: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
BTW Dafyd I see the two creation accounts as complementary. Many literary genres use the same facts in different ways. Jewish thinking was not linnear like mine or yours.
So what you're saying is that our thinking is linear and the Bible's thinking is non-linear, so we shouldn't take the Bible at what we think is face value?
For example, if the Bible says that flowers were made on day three and fish on day five, that doesn't necessarily mean that fish were made two days after flowers? It could mean that fish came into existence millions of years before flowers. Because the Bible is non-linear.
This is the same reason why when the Bible says that the moon is a light, this doesn't mean as we would take to be face value, that the moon is a light, but means that it reflects light - even though the Bible says nothing about reflecting.
I don't see your beef really.
I simply think the events happened and were recorded. Chronology does not necessarily matter
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Who recorded them?
As far as I know there were no tabloid reporters there (at least not until God created the Sun)
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Given the longevity of the antedeluvians, Many generations were alive concurrently. The creation story could easily have been preserved. Some speculate that Moses wrote by special revelation but it is worth remembering that Shem would still have been alive at the time of Abraham. Moses father in Law, Jethro, was a descendant of Keturah, Abraham's second wife. The 40 years in the desert could have been ample time for Moses to complete 'History of Mankind 101'.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Jamat, you're using Immanuel Velikovsky as a reference? Seriously? Seriously dude? seriously???? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I'll take this nonsequitur tangent about orbital dynamics as an indication that you don't have any textual reasons to refute my prior point about the Biblical position on lunar luminosity or "the waters above". Moving on.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you say the shadow did not turn back, then you place science over the clear, plain meaning of Scripture.
If you say it did turn back, then you say either:
(a) The earth kept turning in the same way, but God made it look like it turned back. In which case God is a liar.
(b) The earth stopped in its rotation and started spinning in the opposite direction, then stopped again and started spinning the right way again. And nobody noticed, nothing went flying through the air because it had momentum in one direction and the earth had stopped. No lurches in anybody's stomach. In short a planet the size and mass of the earth stopped and it had no effect on anything whatsoever except that one shadow moved backwards. Nobody anywhere else in the earth noticed this contrary motion of the shadows. This is cloud-cuckoo land.
The only conclusion is that sometimes science trumps scripture. And once you allow that foot in the door, all Hell breaks loose.
(to those not in the know: 2 Kings 20:9-11)
This is indeed an interesting quandry. I believe the bible does not mislead us.
Your analysis of the situation that would occur if the sun in fact stood still is not necessarily accurate.
In 701BC there appears to have been a cataclysmic event, one of several, in which the ancients recorded.
Time forbids lengthy dicussion but if you are familiar with Velikovsky's 'Worlds in collision', you can check that he researched a change in the calendars of all ancient people groups at that time. Hezekiah appears to have doubled the month of Nisan in the year in question (recorded in the Talmud) and latterly, Jews simply added an extra month every few years to keep the lunar calendar accurate.
Cutting a long story very short, it is quite possible that Mars' and Earth's orbits came very close in that year. Remember, the ancients were terrified of the planets. This would have brought the two planets into a huge gravitational altercation resulting in both losing a bit of spin momentum.
You should have stuck with your earlier position.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Without blinding me with science about which I am profoundly ignorant . . .
Anyway, here's a back of the envelope calculation on the gravitational effects of a close Mars approach. The closest Mars gets to Earth, assuming current orbits, is if Earth happens to line up with Mars when Earth is at aphelion (furthest from the Sun) and Mars is both at perihelion (closest to the Sun) and crossing the ecliptic (the plane of Earth's orbit) at the same time. This is a distance of about 54.6 million km. At this distance, and given the masses of both planets, the attraction between the two bodies is about 8.59×10²² N or, to put it in perspective, about 0.04% of the force exerted on the Earth by its moon.
For further perspective, consider the maximum distance the Earth and Mars can be apart at closest approach. This situation has Earth at perihelion and Mars both at aphelion and its maximum separation from Earth's orbital plane (1.85°). This about doubles the distance of closest approach to 102.3 million km, which would mean the attraction for a near Mars approach would be about four times as big as for a distant Mars approach, but would still be about three orders of magnitude smaller than the monthly variations associated with the Moon moving from apogee to perigee, which doesn't seem to do much to reverse Earth's rotation or qualify as "a huge gravitational altercation".
Now, you may note the modifier I used above, "assuming current orbits". Unfortunately if you assume different orbits then you're back to mousethief's case (b), since disrupting orbits suddenly is just as calamitous as shifting rotation suddenly.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The sun standing still as it did also in Joshua 10, could be accounted for by a shift in orbits and tilt. The earth wouldn't need to stop spinning.
As noted above, moving the Earth's orbit over a short timespan would have similarly disruptive effects as changing its rotation.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
It should also be noted that detecting cosmic disasters by calendar variations is a dubious practice at best. One could just as easily use the same "reasoning" to argue for a massive orbital disruption around 1582.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Well, if you laugh Velikovsky out of court, you dismiss a huge raft of research. He trawled ancient records assiduously. His main thesis may or may not be correct, He wasn't there neither were any of us.
My purpose in quoting him is mainly to show a belief in ancient catastrophism is not simply lunatic fringe and that the uniformitarian assumptions of Immanual Kant that have been so thoroughly accepted, do not have truth status. Look for instance at the craters on the moon.
Incidentally, Croesos, I answered ypour queries..you disagree? So what.
There is a model created by Donald Paton, Ronald R Hatch and Lauren C Steinhauer who suggest that ancient catastrophes occurred quite often in the ancient world often in October and March around every 108 years or multiples thereof. Their model that Mars could at the point of 'Ahaz's sundial' come as close as 70 thousand miles. If so it would have been 50 times the size of the moon and accompanied by bolide and meteor showers, tidal waves and crustal tides of huge power. The cities would have been flattened. No wonder there are so many legends about Mars, the God of war.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Jamat, Velikovsky is as lunatic fringe as you can _get_. Come on now. The man had no scientific credentials, and he changed his hypothesis book-to-book. The man was a whack job, a nut case.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally, Croesos, I answered ypour queries..you disagree? So what.
No, you didn't. The question was whether you had any scriptural reasons for your assertion that the moon is not a "great light" as described in Genesis or that the "waters above" were strictly an antediluvian phenomenon, contrary to Genesis 8. You haven't provided any citations.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
There is a model created by Donald Paton, Ronald R Hatch and Lauren C Steinhauer who suggest that ancient catastrophes occurred quite often in the ancient world often in October and March around every 108 years or multiples thereof. Their model that Mars could at the point of 'Ahaz's sundial' come as close as 70 thousand miles. If so it would have been 50 times the size of the moon and accompanied by bolide and meteor showers, tidal waves and crustal tides of huge power. The cities would have been flattened. No wonder there are so many legends about Mars, the God of war.
I think you mean appeared to be fifty times the size of the moon.
So the theory is what? That Mars leaves its current orbit every century and for whatever reason comes between the Earth and its moon and then returns to the stable orbit we know? Or is it that Mars' orbit is wildly more eccentric than is currently reported (scientific cover-up!!!) and that it crosses (or nearly crosses) Earth's orbit regularly but only intercepts the planet itself every century or so? Is there some explanation as to why, since Mars is crossing inside the Moon's orbit, those two bodies have never collided? Or, for that matter, since at 113,000 km (70,000 miles) the attraction between Mars and Earth would be of the same magnitude as between the Earth and Sun why the two planets have never hit each other?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
There is no theory. The point of what I wrote is that I believe the Bible is accurate on the points of fact it contains. I believe it is not unreasonable to expect it to be so and I believe also that our human arrogance often leads is to presumptuous conclusions.
I do not exempt myself from this presumption. I could be quite wrong in the things I have stated they are only what I have read. The devastation caused by crustal tides of 80 feet is unimaginable. The fact that the last event of this nature was 701 BC may well have a naturalistic explanation but I do thank God for the basic promise to Noah that the Earth will be preserved in its seasonal patterns.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
There is no theory. The point of what I wrote is that I believe the Bible is accurate on the points of fact it contains.
Fine. If you want to play semantic games you can substitute your preferred word "model" for "theory" in my last post and go from there. The question is either where in the Bible does it say Mars approaches within 113,000 km of Earth or whether you consider Paton, Hatch, and Steinhauer to be part of the Bible. You're the one who advanced their model/theory as accurate, or at least plausible, so make your case!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
Jamat,
You'd sound less loony with a simple "goddidit" than making up wild models (or supporting wild models) which further contradict everything we know about natural history and how the universe works. At least relying on a miracle is not disprovable.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I think Jamat means these people in his second last post. His spelling was a bit off.
quote:
Donald W. Patten, Ronald R. Hatch and Loren C. Steinhauer. The Long Day of Joshua and Six Other Catastrophes. Seattle: Pacific Meridan, 1973.
L.
[ 09. April 2010, 23:26: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I simply think the events happened and were recorded. Chronology does not necessarily matter
If you're going to say you're taking the Bible at face value, then chronology does matter. Because if taking the Bible at face value doesn't mean that you believe the events occurred in the same order as they're described then it begins to look like it doesn't mean anything.
If you're going to say that accepting the Bible means rejecting evolution, then chronology does matter. If you take the chronology out of the Bible account, what are you left with that contradicts evolution? Pretty much nothing.
You still haven't told Croesos or the rest of us why you don't believe there are windows above the earth holding the rain in even though Genesis repeatedly says they're there and there is no "clear editorial or contextual reason not to" take it at face value.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Jamat,
You'd sound less loony with a simple "goddidit" than making up wild models (or supporting wild models) which further contradict everything we know about natural history and how the universe works. At least relying on a miracle is not disprovable.
Well, I just mention the models to make it possible to investigate what the guys wrote. I think 'Goddidit' as well. He is the great orchestrator in the sky after all.
Thank you Louise BTW. Well done on the spelling.
There is one detail to add to the 'looniness' you might find interesting. Jonathan Swift in 'Gulliver's Travels' mentions Mars has two moons. At the time no one thought Mars had moons. They did not become visible to astronomers until 150 years later. Was he working from an ancient source? Did that suggest that some time in the past Mars was close enough for them to be visible with the naked eye?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
