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   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Scientific Dating Methods and Counter Claims (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Scientific Dating Methods and Counter Claims
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I do not deny metaphor or sybbolism.

But you do. That is exactly what you're doing when you treat a poetic and mythical creation narrative as a historical document. What you really mean is that you accept, out of necessity, that there are some passages where the Bible doesn't mean what the words literally say, but you want to set yourself up as the arbiter of exactly when it's acceptable to treat an account as metaphorical or symbolic.
Not at all. You do not perhaps recognise what metaphor actually is. It is the presentation of a reality in a figurative way by using contrast. We live and breathe metaphor in the communication of our literal realities. viz: Searing heat: heat that damages etc etc. And so does the Bible. Metaphor does not equate to myth which is a different genre.

Symbol in the Bible is self interpreting. The Dragon of Rev 12 is Satan as the text says so. Stars are angels. The issue here is the kinds of meaning created by these devices.

That meaning is no less real meaning than a blunt statement like: 'The dog ate its dinner.'

--------------------
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      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Not at all. You do not perhaps recognise what metaphor actually is. It is the presentation of a reality in a figurative way by using contrast. We live and breathe metaphor in the communication of our literal realities. viz: Searing heat: heat that damages etc etc. And so does the Bible. Metaphor does not equate to myth which is a different genre.

Symbol in the Bible is self interpreting. The Dragon of Rev 12 is Satan as the text says so. Stars are angels. The issue here is the kinds of meaning created by these devices.

So the Bible's multiple references to God's storehouses of rain, hail, and snow reflect the literal existence of such weather storehouses, but they're also used to illustrate a wider point? Where exactly are these storehouses located? Somewhere near the "floodgates of heaven"? (Or is that "windows of heaven"?

I'm even more curious about your take on the immobility of the Earth, for obvious historical reasons.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That meaning is no less real meaning than a blunt statement like: 'The dog ate its dinner.'

Nope, no possible metaphor there! [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Not at all. You do not perhaps recognise what metaphor actually is. It is the presentation of a reality in a figurative way by using contrast. We live and breathe metaphor in the communication of our literal realities. viz: Searing heat: heat that damages etc etc. And so does the Bible. Metaphor does not equate to myth which is a different genre.

Symbol in the Bible is self interpreting. The Dragon of Rev 12 is Satan as the text says so. Stars are angels. The issue here is the kinds of meaning created by these devices.

So the Bible's multiple references to God's storehouses of rain, hail, and snow reflect the literal existence of such weather storehouses, but they're also used to illustrate a wider point? Where exactly are these storehouses located? Somewhere near the "floodgates of heaven"? (Or is that "windows of heaven"?

I'm even more curious about your take on the immobility of the Earth, for obvious historical reasons.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That meaning is no less real meaning than a blunt statement like: 'The dog ate its dinner.'

Nope, no possible metaphor there! [Roll Eyes]

You don't actually get what figurative langage does. It reflects a reality that is literal. In this case that God originates and controls weather and seasons. On the question of literal storehoses you might try the asteroid belt.
code:
  

Here

--------------------
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
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So let's see if I've got this right: mirror is another word for light, stars are angels, the asteroid belt is God's storehouse of snow and ice, and Genesis happened exactly as described. [Ultra confused]

And am I the only on who thinks that a self-interpreting symbol is an oxymoron?

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I do not deny metaphor or sybbolism.

But you do. That is exactly what you're doing when you treat a poetic and mythical creation narrative as a historical document. What you really mean is that you accept, out of necessity, that there are some passages where the Bible doesn't mean what the words literally say, but you want to set yourself up as the arbiter of exactly when it's acceptable to treat an account as metaphorical or symbolic.
Not at all. You do not perhaps recognise what metaphor actually is. It is the presentation of a reality in a figurative way by using contrast. We live and breathe metaphor in the communication of our literal realities. viz: Searing heat: heat that damages etc etc. And so does the Bible. Metaphor does not equate to myth which is a different genre.
Different possibly, but not mutually exclusive. In fact, myth is generally loaded with metaphor. But I notice that you've concentrated entirely on the use and meaning of one particular word in order to avoid addressing the wider point.

It's clear that I'm not alone in being somewhat confused by your apparently inconsistent approach to non-literal interpretation of Biblical texts, so could you spell out your clear, objective criteria for deciding whether a text should be understood literally or symbolically?

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Gen 1:1-2,3 records the creation in chronological sequence.

Says who? Lots of people read it and did not think it was a chronological sequence.
What ken says. The text talking about days before the sun and moon are created was usually taken as a clue.

--------------------
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      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You do not perhaps recognise what metaphor actually is. It is the presentation of a reality in a figurative way by using contrast. We live and breathe metaphor in the communication of our literal realities. viz: Searing heat: heat that damages etc etc. And so does the Bible. Metaphor does not equate to myth which is a different genre.

If we're being picky, searing heat is a literal statement. Also, metaphor is a trope rather than a genre. A myth can be seen as an extended and complex metaphor.
What all the above is not doing is explaining why we cannot take Genesis 1 and 2 as extended metaphor.

quote:
Symbol in the Bible is self interpreting. The Dragon of Rev 12 is Satan as the text says so.
Whereas if the text doesn't say that a sword coming out of someone's mouth is a symbol, then there really was a sword coming out of his mouth. And if it doesn't say that a talking snake is Satan then there really was a literal talking snake. I don't think that your statement that all symbols in the Bible are interpreted in the text is so.

--------------------
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      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You don't actually get what figurative langage does. It reflects a reality that is literal. In this case that God originates and controls weather and seasons. On the question of literal storehoses you might try the asteroid belt.
Here

Most people would interpret "The Lord will open the heavens, the storehouse of his bounty, to send rain on your land in season" to be describing rainfall. You seem to think it describes asteroid bombardment, and all that scientific mumbo jumbo about evaporation and the water cycle is just godlessness. Ditto snow and hail, which apparently selectively falls on battlefields. Given how many panzers were disabled at Stalingrad by asteroid strike . . . [Killing me]

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  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 Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Did Jesus sin?

No
Hawk took care of this bit of inanity. And note: counter-examples to outrageous false claims aren't "cheap shots." Learn to argue rationally. Learn what a counter-example is, and how to deal with it without sarcasm. You put me in mind of Tundra Barbie and her "gotcha questions" which means questions she is unable to answer.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I happen to agree with Jamat that "we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" is a good example of something that Scripture is clear about.

Unborn infants? Or do they not count in the "all"? Again, this is not clear and plain. Something that needs the interpretive framework this requires cannot possibly said to be "clear and plain."

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

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

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Unborn infants? Or do they not count in the "all"? Again, this is not clear and plain. Something that needs the interpretive framework this requires cannot possibly said to be "clear and plain."

Unborn infants? Roman Catholic and Reformed theology would say yes they are. Orthodox would say no.

The answer, as with so many things, depends on your interpretive framework. There's a thread in Purgatory dealing with Original Sin now where this is being discussed.

--------------------
Last ever sig ...

blog

Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Did Jesus sin?

No
Hawk took care of this bit of inanity. And note: counter-examples to outrageous false claims aren't "cheap shots." Learn to argue rationally. Learn what a counter-example is, and how to deal with it without sarcasm. You put me in mind of Tundra Barbie and her "gotcha questions" which means questions she is unable to answer.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I happen to agree with Jamat that "we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" is a good example of something that Scripture is clear about.

Unborn infants? Or do they not count in the "all"? Again, this is not clear and plain. Something that needs the interpretive framework this requires cannot possibly said to be "clear and plain."

You issue was answered above. Your 'counter example' is a non sequitur. Jesus' lack of sin does not demonstrate that sin is not the universal disease of mankind,it only demonstrates why he is qualified to save the rest of us...who are sinners. Our universal sinfulness is why he had to do it. This is the clear statement of a multitude of scriptures.

The issue of infants doesn't have any bearing on the issue either. Paul states that 'all are sold under sin.' The innocence of infants is in terms of action (they have not actively sinned yet) rather than in terms of nature (Their tendency towards sinfulness)

Here's an unequivocal fact for you.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." Gen 1:1
The Earth was formed by God out of water and between the waters. 2Pet 3:5.
His eternal power and divinity have been made intelligible and clearly discernible through the things that have been made Ro 1:20

--------------------
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
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That. Is. Not. A. FACT!
It is a belief. As such, it is entirely equivocal.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  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 Jamat:

Here's an unequivocal fact for you.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." Gen 1:1
The Earth was formed by God out of water and between the waters. 2Pet 3:5.
His eternal power and divinity have been made intelligible and clearly discernible through the things that have been made Ro 1:20

The unequivocal fact is that the Bible (in whatever translation you've just quoted) contains those phrases.

As lilBuddha pointed out, anything beyond that is a belief. Now, I would say that "God created the heavens and the earth" is a belief held by practically all Christians (and, Jews and Muslims and probably others as well). It is a belief that has considerable support from the Bible, and the teachings of the church over the last two millenia. It is a belief that says diddly-squat about how God created, and over what time scale.

And, if you do infact believe that "His eternal power and divinity have been made intelligible and clearly discernible through the things that have been made", then perhaps you should be demonstrating that belief by listening to what "the things that have been made" are actually saying about the eternal power and divinity of God. Rather than ignoring or totally denying their testimony.

--------------------
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      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." Gen 1:1
The Earth was formed by God out of water and between the waters. 2Pet 3:5.
His eternal power and divinity have been made intelligible and clearly discernible through the things that have been made Ro 1:20

And in my translation of 2 Peter 3:5 it says 'out of water and by means of water'. So there's something that's not a plain fact.
Also, are the bits of chemistry that say that you can't make rocks out of water, because they're composed of different elements, now also part of the godless materialist conspiracy?

All of these quotes need unpacking. For example: it's not clear what it means to say something is clearly discernible if few to no people clearly discern it.

--------------------
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      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Also, are the bits of chemistry that say that you can't make rocks out of water, because they're composed of different elements, now also part of the godless materialist conspiracy?

It's a well known fact that the periodic table of elements has a bias towards godlessness. Teach the controversy!

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  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 balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Unborn infants? Or do they not count in the "all"? Again, this is not clear and plain. Something that needs the interpretive framework this requires cannot possibly said to be "clear and plain."

Unborn infants? Roman Catholic and Reformed theology would say yes they are. Orthodox would say no.

The answer, as with so many things, depends on your interpretive framework.

EXACTLY MY POINT! It's not clear and plain.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue of infants doesn't have any bearing on the issue either. Paul states that 'all are sold under sin.' The innocence of infants is in terms of action (they have not actively sinned yet) rather than in terms of nature (Their tendency towards sinfulness)

You quoted the saying, "All have sinned." If that's not true (and you have just stated it isn't) then that saying is not clear and plain. Which is my only point. Thank you for proving it.

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

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

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dafyd: I don't know the Greek, but could saying that the Earth was formed "out of the waters" mean not from the raw material of water, but be referring to an image of islands rising up out of the sea? Not that this helps Jamat's case any, but I'm not sure your gloss on it is the only possible one (which indeed doesn't help Jamat's case at all!).

[ 24. August 2012, 17:05: Message edited by: mousethief ]

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Rather than ignoring or totally denying their testimony.
Without revisiting all the detail, I deny this absolutely.

It is true that I am a Christian and that my starting point is that God made us, that we are flawed and need redemption and that to me the testimony of creation increasingly reinforces Biblical evidence.

However, we live in a post Christian environment where empiricists have held the keys of knowledge since the C17. I do not deny discoveries or their benefits but there is simply no way that theories of origins are testable and there are huge agendas at stake in the theory of evolution.

I do not deny my own agenda either. If I found I was wrong at the end of the day then I hope I would admit it. If that happened, I would be an atheist as if I were convinced the universe occurred by natural processes, I would see no benefit in having faith in a creator.

Your 'faith' in radiometric dating depends on the amount of particular elements originally present in samples. You know that really there is no way of knowing that. How can you then say the dates are accurate and not 'best guesses.'

I'm not saying and have never said that God's mechanisms of creation are clear. I agree the Bible does not reveal the 'how' but it does reveal the 'what' in a manner accessible to all human eras.

I recognise that "In the beginning" is not a precise phrase. It is nevertheless true that human records date only fom 6K years. The solar system alone works so strangely that it defies naturalistic explanations. Why are planetary orbits so varied in angle and direction? No one knows and we will never know. God did it. Who else could have?

--------------------
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      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Your 'faith' in radiometric dating depends on the amount of particular elements originally present in samples. You know that really there is no way of knowing that. How can you then say the dates are accurate and not 'best guesses.'

When zirconium crystals are formed they will incorporate uranium but strongly reject lead. Hence the assumption that initial lead content is either zero or close enough to zero that it makes no difference. Is that something you'd care to deny and, if so, do you have any grounds other than "it would be inconvenient for my argument"?

Following from this fact, any lead found in the crystal is thus taken to be the end product of the uranium decay chain. It is therefore possible to know the age of the crystal by determining the ratio of these two elements.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | 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 Jamat:
If I found I was wrong at the end of the day then I hope I would admit it. If that happened, I would be an atheist as if I were convinced the universe occurred by natural processes, I would see no benefit in having faith in a creator.

Have I understood this correctly? Do you really consider that there are only two alternatives - a recent (within the last 10,000 years) creation of all things over a period of six 24h days in the order described in the opening chapters of Genesis, or the evolution of the whole universe over a period of billions of years from a Big Bang without any divine involvement. There have been a vast number of alternatives proposed in between those two positions with differing kinds of involvement for a Creator, I admit I find many of them as unsatisfactory as YEC but I do at least recognise they exist. What is your problem with all of them?

--------------------
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
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Why are planetary orbits so varied in angle and direction?
Umm, they aren't. All the planets move round the sun in the same direction, and together with the asteroids and a few other minor bodies are in much the same plane. Even though Mercury has an inclination somewhat greater than most, and Pluto, which is probably a member of a group of objects with more in common with comets, has a much steeper inclination, the orbits are close to what would be expected from a disc of material rotating round a forming star.

You'd have to look for much odder evidence than that to justify a special creation of the Solar System. Not to say there isn't any to be found, but what you cite isn't it. Computer programmes have produced many similar arrangements in simulations based on various postulated starting conditions.

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055

 - Posted      Profile for Pre-cambrian   Email Pre-cambrian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I recognise that "In the beginning" is not a precise phrase. It is nevertheless true that human records date only fom 6K years.

Do you mean that human written records are no more than 6,000 years old? That is true but I don't see how it is relevant to the age of humanity. Records of human existence - bones, remains of buildings, debris of human activities - go back much longer than 6,000 years.

And we don't need to look back into far antiquity to see that the existence of written records, or even the ability to write, is not a determinant of human presence. None of the pre-Roman tribes in Britain wrote, but there is very clear evidence of their existence. The vast majority of the peoples that Europeans have come across in the last 500 years have not written or left written records. But they most definitely existed. So if all these peoples were living in pre-literate societies the strange thing would be to suggest that there was no pre-literate society before the invention of writing, rather than the other way round.

--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."

Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I recognise that "In the beginning" is not a precise phrase. It is nevertheless true that human records date only fom 6K years.

Do you mean that human written records are no more than 6,000 years old? That is true but I don't see how it is relevant to the age of humanity. Records of human existence - bones, remains of buildings, debris of human activities - go back much longer than 6,000 years.
And there's an unbroken dendrochronological record going back almost twice that far.

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
And we don't need to look back into far antiquity to see that the existence of written records, or even the ability to write, is not a determinant of human presence. None of the pre-Roman tribes in Britain wrote, but there is very clear evidence of their existence.

I think you're overlooking the obvious solution, which is that Britain was created sometime in the fourth century BC, around the time Greek merchants first made reference the island in written records. Before that there was nothing but empty ocean and sea serpents.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Your 'faith' in radiometric dating depends on the amount of particular elements originally present in samples. You know that really there is no way of knowing that. How can you then say the dates are accurate and not 'best guesses.'

When zirconium crystals are formed they will incorporate uranium but strongly reject lead. Hence the assumption that initial lead content is either zero or close enough to zero that it makes no difference. Is that something you'd care to deny and, if so, do you have any grounds other than "it would be inconvenient for my argument"?

Following from this fact, any lead found in the crystal is thus taken to be the end product of the uranium decay chain. It is therefore possible to know the age of the crystal by determining the ratio of these two elements.

You are sure of all that? See here

--------------------
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
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I believe I shall initiate a petition for a face-palm emoticon.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Why are planetary orbits so varied in angle and direction?
Umm, they aren't. All the planets move round the sun in the same direction, and together with the asteroids and a few other minor bodies are in much the same plane. Even though Mercury has an inclination somewhat greater than most, and Pluto, which is probably a member of a group of objects with more in common with comets, has a much steeper inclination, the orbits are close to what would be expected from a disc of material rotating round a forming star.

You'd have to look for much odder evidence than that to justify a special creation of the Solar System. Not to say there isn't any to be found, but what you cite isn't it. Computer programmes have produced many similar arrangements in simulations based on various postulated starting conditions.

What about axial tilt variations? Venus 3degrees, Earth 23.5 degrees and mars about 25 degrees? here

--------------------
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      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
What is your problem with all of them?
Yo are correct. I guess my problem is my view of scripture: viz: if the root cannot support the branch, the tree falls.

[ 27. August 2012, 03:36: 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
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 
So, because you interpret the opening chapters of Genesis in a novel way (ie: teaching a creation over 6 24h periods within the last 10,000 years) you immediately consider anything else to be wrong. I'm assuming you would consider yourself to be evangelical, and likely within that strand of evangelicalism that would include the "Fundamentals" series of books written at the start of the 20th century as part of your tradition. If so, why do you want to step so far outside the fundamental, evangelical tradition you are a part of?

--------------------
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
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 Jamat:
You are sure of all that? See here

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I believe I shall initiate a petition for a face-palm emoticon.

I find this one tends to be appropriate at times like this.
[brick wall] [brick wall] [brick wall] [brick wall]

--------------------
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
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055

 - Posted      Profile for Pre-cambrian   Email Pre-cambrian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
And we don't need to look back into far antiquity to see that the existence of written records, or even the ability to write, is not a determinant of human presence. None of the pre-Roman tribes in Britain wrote, but there is very clear evidence of their existence.

I think you're overlooking the obvious solution, which is that Britain was created sometime in the fourth century BC, around the time Greek merchants first made reference the island in written records. Before that there was nothing but empty ocean and sea serpents.
You mean God created Britain complete with Stonehenge to confuse the wicked and test the righteous, just like he did with fossils? It certainly makes sense from a consistency point of view.

--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."

Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Very good evidence of pre-written existence of humans is to be found in the Lascaux caves, and in the rock art of the ancient peoples of this land. Some of that is confidently dated at at least 40,000 years ago. There may be others in other countries as well.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Some of that is confidently dated at at least 40,000 years ago.

Ah - but that makes use of the ungodly materialist concept of radioactivity, which isn't in the Bible. Nuclear weapons are all part of the conspiracy. Disarmament now!

--------------------
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
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jamat, you have clearly identified your problem:

'I guess my problem is my view of scripture: viz: if the root cannot support the branch, the tree falls.'

Because your view of scripture is one that was never intended for it in the first place.

You also state that you would have to abandon your belief in God if you believed that the universe developed through natural processes. Well, guess what? I'm a theist but believe that the universe developed through natural processes ...

I can't see how one negates the other.

You wouldn't have to abandon the scriptures nor your faith if you were simply to accept that everything was not quite so binary.

Jesus is God. Jesus is human. Jesus is the God-Man. Jesus is both man and God at one and the same time. Look, it's possible to hold two things together at one at the same time. We've done it with Christology, why can't we do it with creation, with the scriptures, with the Church ... with anything else.

This is how it works:

The Church is a divine institution | The Church is a flawed, human institution

Bingo! The Church is both a divine institution and a flawed human one at one and the same time.

More examples:

I am justified | I am a sinner

Bingo! I am a justified sinner ...

You can do this right across the board, with RC, Orthodox and Protestant theology.

Try it. It's fun. It also works.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
When zirconium crystals are formed they will incorporate uranium but strongly reject lead. Hence the assumption that initial lead content is either zero or close enough to zero that it makes no difference. Is that something you'd care to deny and, if so, do you have any grounds other than "it would be inconvenient for my argument"?

Following from this fact, any lead found in the crystal is thus taken to be the end product of the uranium decay chain. It is therefore possible to know the age of the crystal by determining the ratio of these two elements.

You are sure of all that? See here
Yep, very sure. You'll note that your link 1) doesn't deal with the question of why uranium/lead dating would be inaccurate and 2) is based almost entirely on a single non-peer-reviewed study using a questionable sample and even more questionable methodology. The only reason to give more weight to a single non-repeated (non-repeatable?) study with a questionable sample and even more questionable methodology (how do you justify not distinguishing between Helium-3 and Helium-4?) than to a century of science not directly addressed by your cited study is because it gives you your pre-determined result.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Why are planetary orbits so varied in angle and direction?
Umm, they aren't. All the planets move round the sun in the same direction, and together with the asteroids and a few other minor bodies are in much the same plane. Even though Mercury has an inclination somewhat greater than most, and Pluto, which is probably a member of a group of objects with more in common with comets, has a much steeper inclination, the orbits are close to what would be expected from a disc of material rotating round a forming star.
What about axial tilt variations? Venus 3degrees, Earth 23.5 degrees and mars about 25 degrees? here
What about axial tilt variations do you find problematic? They're much more subject to later gravitational interference and impact alteration than orbital plane variations. Given that modern cosmology doesn't predict that all planets should have the same or similar axial tilts, why are you venturing on this non sequitur?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Why are planetary orbits so varied in angle and direction?
Umm, they aren't. All the planets move round the sun in the same direction, and together with the asteroids and a few other minor bodies are in much the same plane. Even though Mercury has an inclination somewhat greater than most, and Pluto, which is probably a member of a group of objects with more in common with comets, has a much steeper inclination, the orbits are close to what would be expected from a disc of material rotating round a forming star.

You'd have to look for much odder evidence than that to justify a special creation of the Solar System. Not to say there isn't any to be found, but what you cite isn't it. Computer programmes have produced many similar arrangements in simulations based on various postulated starting conditions.

What about axial tilt variations? Venus 3degrees, Earth 23.5 degrees and mars about 25 degrees? here
If you refer back to what you wrote, you cited orbital angles and directions, not axial tilt, so I answered what you had shown interest in. Incidentally, Venus' tilt is 177.36 degrees, since it rotates backwards.
These (and other) variations are usually attributed to the chaotic state of the early solar system, evidenced by the large craters on many of the Solar System objects, which seem in a number of cases to have been just short of what would be required to break the object up. In some of the smaller bodies, they do seem to have broken, and to have reconstituted. Again, these processes can be modelled successfully in simulations, so are not particularly convincing of a special creation.

[ 27. August 2012, 19:19: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I realise that I wasn't as fully explicit as I could have been in that last post. The idea is that the planets with markedly off vertical axes were probably hit heavily with a large object, as were those planets with very large craters - have a look at the Mare Imbrium on the Moon for one example, or the Caloris Basin on Mercury.
An alternative is that rotation is not such a neat process as is easy to imagine, but unstable. Think of the way a spinning top or gyroscope gradually topples while still spinning, and you get the idea of what could be happening out there - we have only been observing the axial tilts for a relatively short time in the very long history fo the Solar System.

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, because you interpret the opening chapters of Genesis in a novel way (ie: teaching a creation over 6 24h periods within the last 10,000 years) you immediately consider anything else to be wrong. I'm assuming you would consider yourself to be evangelical, and likely within that strand of evangelicalism that would include the "Fundamentals" series of books written at the start of the 20th century as part of your tradition. If so, why do you want to step so far outside the fundamental, evangelical tradition you are a part of?

Novel interpretation? Novel because I do not think it has to be explained away I suppose? It simply says what it means and means what it says. And to believe that, to you is novel? I find THAT novel. I find it extraordinary.

There seems to be some problem here with the concept of interpretation. Of course we interpret and we all have a lens that is a bit unique. One brings all one's preconceptions and world view and experience to a text. I suppose that Levi-Strauss and co showed us the folly of thinking that textual meaning could be objective.

Yet, God has, nevertheless, chosen text to communicate with us, his creation; in fact he has done so through a library of texts which contain internal markers of consistency. The concept of covenantal relationship is one such marker, the concept of sin is another, the concept of monotheism is another. the concept of prophecy is another, the assumption of a world beyond our sight that impacts on ours is another.

These markers exist through the sacred texts, through the 66 books and the 40 authors. What we have in this library is really an integrated message system for any one with a heart to discover it.

One concept that seems apposite here is the repetition of of the gospel phrase "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Obviously, not all have the ability to grasp what the divine author is saying.

regarding the 'novel' interpretation of Genesis. This reveals only your lens. To me it is a narrative, To me it is history, To me it is revelation. It doesn't tell us what we want to know. It tells us what we need to know.

There is no doubt that all of the NT writers trusted the veracity of Genesis and indeed, the whole Pentacheuch. I've written it before but Jesus himself referred to the flood. To deny it you have to cherry pick the gospels for the real versus the mythical. This exercise lacks integrity.

You believe that scripture is God-breathed or you don't. If it is and you ignore it then you place yourself in the path of those who refuse to have ears.

If There was no flood, why did every Biblical writer who touches on the subject believe there was? It is a given in the prophets, in the Psalms, in Job, in the Gospels and in Peter's epistles.

And by the way Penny S do you not feel that a God who has a planet rotate in the opposite way to all the otheres is saying something through the fact? He is saying, Here, explain this another way.

[ 30. August 2012, 09:22: 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
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 Jamat:
Novel interpretation? Novel because I do not think it has to be explained away I suppose?

No, novel as in "new". In the two millenia of Christian history, and the millenia of Jewish history before that, your interpretation has never been especially common. Even before we had evidence indicating that the earth is ancient Christian scholars dismissed the YEC interpretation based on internal evidence of the text. By the turn of the 20th century, with the exception of a very small strand of Lutherism and a few sects such as some 7th Day Adventists, all Christian scholars accepted that the earth is ancient and rejected YECism. Every one of the authors of the Fundamentals series held some form of old earth creationism - mostly "day-age" or "gap" interpretations. The vast majority of evangelicals at that time accepted the theory of evolution - although there was considerable debate about whether humans evolved or were a special creation (which is what the 'monkey trial' was all about).

The YEC interpretation you appear to accept is an approach to Scripture that dates from the 1950s (with the publication of The Genesis Flood, in which Morris and Whitcombe popularised the obscure ideas of some 7th Day Adventists). It is 'novel' because it is an approach that is only 60 years old.

--------------------
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
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You believe that scripture is God-breathed or you don't. If it is and you ignore it then you place yourself in the path of those who refuse to have ears.

Do you think it's possible for something to be God-breathed poetry? God-breathed imagery? God-breathed prophecy? The trouble here, ISTM, is that you appear to think God can only breathe 100% factual history, overpowering everything else like a bad case of halitosis (maybe tallytosis, given all the censuses and counts in Numbers).
quote:
If There was no flood, why did every Biblical writer who touches on the subject believe there was? It is a given in the prophets, in the Psalms, in Job, in the Gospels and in Peter's epistles.
If there was no Ebenezer Scrooge, why do we refer to him so much at Christmas? If there was no such person as John Bull or Uncle Sam, why do people refer to them instead of the UK or USA? If animals don't talk and never challenge each other to races, why do we talk knowingly of the tortoise and the hare?

Let me know when the penny drops.

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
There is no doubt that all of the NT writers trusted the veracity of Genesis and indeed, the whole Pentacheuch. I've written it before but Jesus himself referred to the flood. To deny it you have to cherry pick the gospels for the real versus the mythical. This exercise lacks integrity.
So, we add cultural anthropology to the list of study you find invalid?
You arguments reveal the problem with reading ancient ancient texts without bothering to understand the culture(s) who wrote them.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
There is no doubt that all of the NT writers trusted the veracity of Genesis and indeed, the whole Pentacheuch. I've written it before but Jesus himself referred to the flood. To deny it you have to cherry pick the gospels for the real versus the mythical. This exercise lacks integrity.

<snip>

And by the way Penny S do you not feel that a God who has a planet rotate in the opposite way to all the otheres is saying something through the fact? He is saying, Here, explain this another way.

Speaking of integrity, how do you justify accepting the measurements of heliocentrism-based modern astronomy when, as previously noted, the authors of the Bible clearly regarded the Earth as immobile?

For that matter, I'm still not sure why you consider modern cosmology to require uniform planetary rotation. Expand please?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If There was no flood, why did every Biblical writer who touches on the subject believe there was? It is a given in the prophets, in the Psalms, in Job, in the Gospels and in Peter's epistles.

If there was no Ebenezer Scrooge, why do we refer to him so much at Christmas? If there was no such person as John Bull or Uncle Sam, why do people refer to them instead of the UK or USA? If animals don't talk and never challenge each other to races, why do we talk knowingly of the tortoise and the hare?
I'm very much on the Alan Creswell / Great Gumby side of this argument as a whole, but I think Jamat has a point here. Jesus and all the Biblical writers do seem to refer to the flood as an actual occurrence, don't they?

I'm personally not bothered by this - they were all writing and speaking from within their culture - but I don't think The Great Gumby's analogy holds. Everyone knows 'Uncle Sam' means the USA and 'Ebeneezer Scrooge' is a fictional character so ISTM these aren't the same kind of thing as Biblical writers referring to the flood, Adam and Eve, and so on as factual.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If There was no flood, why did every Biblical writer who touches on the subject believe there was? It is a given in the prophets, in the Psalms, in Job, in the Gospels and in Peter's epistles.

If there was no Ebenezer Scrooge, why do we refer to him so much at Christmas? If there was no such person as John Bull or Uncle Sam, why do people refer to them instead of the UK or USA? If animals don't talk and never challenge each other to races, why do we talk knowingly of the tortoise and the hare?
I'm very much on the Alan Creswell / Great Gumby side of this argument as a whole, but I think Jamat has a point here. Jesus and all the Biblical writers do seem to refer to the flood as an actual occurrence, don't they?

I'm personally not bothered by this - they were all writing and speaking from within their culture - but I don't think The Great Gumby's analogy holds. Everyone knows 'Uncle Sam' means the USA and 'Ebeneezer Scrooge' is a fictional character so ISTM these aren't the same kind of thing as Biblical writers referring to the flood, Adam and Eve, and so on as factual.

"Everyone knows" - exactly. When was the last time you heard someone using one of these analogies and explicitly stating that they're fictions, fables, myths, archetypes or whatever else? They don't, because everyone knows.

But imagine that you don't know - what if you have no idea? If an alien landed and heard you having that discussion about someone being like Scrooge, or how you'd rather be like the tortoise, because slow and steady wins the race, how would it know whether you thought those stories were true? Without a full understanding of the shared culture and understandings, it's impossible to tell the difference between someone who quotes a story they believe to be historical and someone who quotes a story they know to be fictional, because that part goes unsaid.

Personally, I'm not bothered either way about what anyone thought of the historical accuracy of the first few chapters of Genesis, even though I very strongly suspect their view would have been a whole lot more mythical than Jamat's. But I think Jamat would find it very difficult to accept that Jesus might have had an inappropriately literalist approach to the accounts, so I offer this as a possible explanation of why someone quoting a story doesn't imply literal accuracy.

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Everyone knows" - exactly. When was the last time you heard someone using one of these analogies and explicitly stating that they're fictions, fables, myths, archetypes or whatever else? They don't, because everyone knows.

Aha, I understand now - you're saying Jesus and all the Biblical authors probably knew they were referring to myths, not historical accounts. Right, that makes sense to me, cheers.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or - to be absolutely clear - they didn't know whether they were historical, or it didn't matter to them, or something else entirely. All we can say with any confidence is that they were part of a common heritage which was useful at certain times in explaining concepts or illustrating points. All else is speculation, which tells us nothing about how to read Genesis.

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
or it didn't matter to them, or something else entirely.

I agree this is all speculation, but I think it most likely that the question of setting up a dichotomy of fact vs myth over the accounts didn't occur to them.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, because you interpret the opening chapters of Genesis in a novel way (ie: teaching a creation over 6 24h periods within the last 10,000 years) you immediately consider anything else to be wrong. I'm assuming you would consider yourself to be evangelical, and likely within that strand of evangelicalism that would include the "Fundamentals" series of books written at the start of the 20th century as part of your tradition. If so, why do you want to step so far outside the fundamental, evangelical tradition you are a part of?

Novel interpretation? Novel because I do not think it has to be explained away I suppose? It simply says what it means and means what it says. And to believe that, to you is novel? I find THAT novel. I find it extraordinary.

There seems to be some problem here with the concept of interpretation. Of course we interpret and we all have a lens that is a bit unique. One brings all one's preconceptions and world view and experience to a text. I suppose that Levi-Strauss and co showed us the folly of thinking that textual meaning could be objective.

Yet, God has, nevertheless, chosen text to communicate with us, his creation; in fact he has done so through a library of texts which contain internal markers of consistency. The concept of covenantal relationship is one such marker, the concept of sin is another, the concept of monotheism is another. the concept of prophecy is another, the assumption of a world beyond our sight that impacts on ours is another.

These markers exist through the sacred texts, through the 66 books and the 40 authors. What we have in this library is really an integrated message system for any one with a heart to discover it.

One concept that seems apposite here is the repetition of of the gospel phrase "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Obviously, not all have the ability to grasp what the divine author is saying.

regarding the 'novel' interpretation of Genesis. This reveals only your lens. To me it is a narrative, To me it is history, To me it is revelation. It doesn't tell us what we want to know. It tells us what we need to know.

There is no doubt that all of the NT writers trusted the veracity of Genesis and indeed, the whole Pentacheuch. I've written it before but Jesus himself referred to the flood. To deny it you have to cherry pick the gospels for the real versus the mythical. This exercise lacks integrity.

Jesus says, Matthew 13:32, the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds but when it has grown it is the greatest of all shrubs and becomes a tree...

Do you think Jesus really believed that the mustard seed is the smallest of all the seeds and the largest of all shrubs? Are we therefore to cast out botany as well?
And, if he was just making a point, then do you not think that

quote:
You believe that scripture is God-breathed or you don't. If it is and you ignore it then you place yourself in the path of those who refuse to have ears.
You've said all that stuff about interpretation at the top of your post. And then you've suddenly started to just ignore it all.

quote:
And by the way Penny S do you not feel that a God who has a planet rotate in the opposite way to all the otheres is saying something through the fact? He is saying, Here, explain this another way.
What Penny is saying is that cosmologists do explain it in another way. (Or, they have several other ways to explain it and they don't know which are right yet.)

--------------------
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
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, what would require a non-scientific explanation would be if there were a nice neat and tidy pattern to the solar system. But there isn't.

There have been two attempts to find one that I know of.

Titius-Bode's Law, on the distances between the planets.

quote:


This latter point seems in particular to follow from the astonishing relation which the known six planets observe in their distances from the Sun. Let the distance from the Sun to Saturn be taken as 100, then Mercury is separated by 4 such parts from the Sun. Venus is 4+3=7. The Earth 4+6=10. Mars 4+12=16. Now comes a gap in this so orderly progression. After Mars there follows a space of 4+24=28 parts, in which no planet has yet been seen. Can one believe that the Founder of the universe had left this space empty? Certainly not. From here we come to the distance of Jupiter by 4+48=52 parts, and finally to that of Saturn by 4+96=100 parts.

When originally published, the law was approximately satisfied by all the known planets — Mercury through Saturn — with a gap between the fourth and fifth planets. It was regarded as interesting, but of no great importance until the discovery of Uranus in 1781 which happens to fit neatly into the series. Based on this discovery, Bode urged a search for a fifth planet. Ceres, the largest object in the asteroid belt, was found at Bode's predicted position in 1801. Bode's law was then widely accepted until Neptune was discovered in 1846 and found not to satisfy Bode's law. Simultaneously, the large number of known asteroids in the belt resulted in Ceres no longer being considered a planet at that time. Bode's law was discussed as an example of fallacious reasoning by the astronomer and logician Charles Sanders Peirce in 1898.[3]

The discovery of Pluto in 1930 confounded the issue still further. While nowhere near its position as predicted by Bode's law, it was roughly at the position the law had predicted for Neptune. However, the subsequent discovery of the Kuiper belt, and in particular of the object Eris, which is larger than Pluto yet does not fit Bode's law, have further discredited the formula.[4] (Wikipedia)

Then there was the sequence of moons. Earth has one, Jupiter had four to be seen, so Mars should have two, which it has. But it all falls to pieces once you can see how many Jupiter really has, as well as Saturn. No pattern.

Now if, while remaining in the normal plane, Mercury orbited clockwise (viewed from the north), Venus anti-clockwise, Earth clockwise, and so on, that might be making people think. Or if Mercury rotated, as it does, prograde, Venus retrograde, Earth prograde, Mars retrograde and so on. Or if all the asteroids lined up into bar code pattern that spelled out in binary code the first words of Torah in Hebrew.

The solar system certainly bears the marks of having become a cosmos, or ordered state, from chaos, but that is because it still carries a lot of chaos around in it, and that can be read, and interpreted, and made sense of without invoking angelic archons to carry out God's plans in its construction. If created from scratch, by fiat, it would be, presumably, an ordered state with no trace of chaos. It would look as if we were inside a computer program, which, thank God, it doesn't.

Nothing's exact out there. Venus doesn't rotate exactly retrograde at 180 degrees to the solar equator. Show me something exact before attributing meaning to it that it won't bear.

And stop thinking you need to put so much weight on every little punctuation mark in the Bible, and the only alternative is not believing in God. Who said nothing very much about the solar system in his writings. The only bit which isn't about the Sun and the Moon (which bits are wrong) that I can recall is the comparison of the king of Babylon to Venus as the morning star which rises up to rival Jupiter before it is thrown down for its presumption. A very good description of what happened in the evening earlier this year, but often misconstrued as a reference to Satan.

You don't need to cling on to that belief in words as a life jacket. It is the spirit which gives life. God can breathe through the text, as through other people, and nature, but placing too much weight on the letter may not help you to accept that breath into your heart.

Don't try to force the world to fit something that was never meant for it to fit.

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
... To me it is a narrative, To me it is history, To me it is revelation. It doesn't tell us what we want to know. It tells us what we need to know. ...

If it tells us what we need to know, does that really mean we shouldn't know anything else? I don't think so.

I think the Bible tells many people what they need to know about their relationship with God. It doesn't tell us ANYTHING about how to make lasagna, change a tire or write a song, or a million other things we all do every day just fine, without its guidance.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Or if all the asteroids lined up into bar code pattern that spelled out in binary code the first words of Torah in Hebrew.
Actually it spells out the date of the Buddha's enlightenment, so....

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  8  9  10 
 
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