Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 211 of 302 (408461)
07-02-2007 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by IamJoseph
07-02-2007 9:52 PM


Re: because the question posed was really stupid
This is not how the world at large reads it, and they are correct.
I cannot help others ignorance.
Except that genesis specifically forbids cross-specie, and also gives the reason why it is superflous with reproduction, adaptation and hereditary data (dna) transfer!
Are you saying that "kind" as found in Genesis 1 is the same as "Species"?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 9:52 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 11:03 PM jar has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 212 of 302 (408463)
07-02-2007 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by rakaz
07-02-2007 10:04 AM


Re Evidence
Fortunately there is enough evidence for evolution and Genesis has been proven wrong
There is enough evidence to prove micro evolution.
There is not enough evidence to prove macro evolution as it has never been observed or duplicated under laboratory conditions.
As far as proving Genesis 1:1 wrong I wish you lots of luck.
To do so you have to prove God does not exist.
Do you have proof Genesis 1:1 is false?
Enjoy

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by rakaz, posted 07-02-2007 10:04 AM rakaz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by rakaz, posted 07-03-2007 8:14 AM ICANT has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 213 of 302 (408464)
07-02-2007 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by PaulK
07-02-2007 4:44 PM


quote:
paul
If you investigate, 37 is the maximum possible age allowed by the story.
The 37 value is derived from its intergration with other stats in the OT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2007 4:44 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2007 2:32 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 214 of 302 (408465)
07-02-2007 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by jar
07-02-2007 10:08 PM


Re: because the question posed was really stupid
quote:
jar
Are you saying that "kind" as found in Genesis 1 is the same as "Species"?
The term specie is new and in much debate - many of the evidences for cross-specie is subject to special interpretations of the term specie. My reading of 'kind' in genesis would be, as a minimum, the species sited in genesis (veg, fish, mammals, birds, animals, humans). From this perspective, genesis is vindicated - namely, if we read it as animals from animals (genesis). This makes the numerous sub-divisions listed as species within the animal kingdom, derived from darwin, open to a different criteria - it is possible that all animals are one specie (or 'kind') according to genesis, but not so with darwin. I am unsure of this distinction, while one reading makes genesis correct, with the potential to make darwin's conclusion as incorrect: a graduation within animals need not necessarilly be condusive to cross-specia of fish and birds, for example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by jar, posted 07-02-2007 10:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 07-02-2007 11:08 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 216 by Nighttrain, posted 07-02-2007 11:21 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 270 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2007 4:20 PM IamJoseph has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 215 of 302 (408467)
07-02-2007 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by IamJoseph
07-02-2007 11:03 PM


Re: because the question posed was really stupid
My reading of 'kind' in genesis would be, as a minimum, the species sited in genesis (veg, fish, mammals, birds, animals, humans).
Like I said, the post is simply stupid and shows you are just playing kiddie games with made up definitions here just as in all your other posts.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 11:03 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 11:33 PM jar has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 216 of 302 (408468)
07-02-2007 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by IamJoseph
07-02-2007 11:03 PM


Re: because the question posed was really stupid
Hi, IAG. Do you accept that there was a species of man classified Neaderthal? If so, were they pre-Flood or post-Flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 11:03 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 11:37 PM Nighttrain has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 217 of 302 (408469)
07-02-2007 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Equinox
07-02-2007 4:12 PM


quote:
equinox
There is nothing in the story that specifies Isaac’s age, yet you seem to know it is 37 and not 36 or such. Elements in the story suggest that he’s a little boy, like 8 (see how he interacts with his father), but when it comes down to it, I don’t see any number from the text itself.
The texts include Isaac requesting his father to bind him securely so he won't move of fear, which is not condusive to a child but an adult mind aware of the situation at hand. The 37 is derived from calcs of the entire calendar and intergrated dates.
quote:
I mean, I certainly agree with you that the text has been changed over the centuries and is unreliable, but on this point I'm wondering where you see 37.
There is no document subject to more scrutiny than the OT, and this has been seen as very reliable. I mean, there is no document in existence which is unchanged for 2300 years (scrolls), except stone etchings carved on the pyramids. The Septuagint greek edition of the OT (300 BCE) is an independent cross reference of the scrolls affirmation. This makes the OT the least distorted document by period of time.
quote:
'A COMPLEXITY CANNOT RESULT FROM A RANDOM' - Prof Roger Penfold/author MV.
Also, can you explain a bit more about this? It sounds like either Prof Penfold was quoted out of context (quotemining), or that he’s not a professor but rather a creationist poser.
Penholds is the author of MultiVerse and other works of science. To paraphrase him in his interviews and essays, he states that in the foundation of a complex system, there has to be an equavalent structure of complexity which justifies it - basically he negates random to complex.
quote:
As others have pointed out, random processes give rise to order on a regular basis, in your own experience. One example you can try is putting a pan of water on the stove - it’s hard to get simpler than a pan of water, yet it will form orderly convection currents when heated. Similarly, hurricane Katrina was very complex and very well ordered to move energy (and arose out of simplicity)- Katrina must have been intelligently designed? It’s well established in the natural world that order can arise from simplicity - so that quote is probably either a hoax, out of context, or from a non-scientist - that’s my guess at least, thanks for showing me where it came from.
Its poor science. Water levels are subject to a constant of all matter seeks its own levels, including heat and energy levels. This does not condone random to complex: this requires separate evidence that matter, aside from its determined constants, results in a specie becoming another, or a car appearing randomly. The connection is contrived and not seen by itself or in a manifest form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Equinox, posted 07-02-2007 4:12 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2007 12:14 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 251 by Equinox, posted 07-03-2007 1:37 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 218 of 302 (408470)
07-02-2007 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by jar
07-02-2007 11:08 PM


Re: because the question posed was really stupid
quote:
jar
Like I said, the post is simply stupid and shows you are just playing kiddie games with made up definitions here just as in all your other posts.
How so? I listed actual text context. Specie breakdowns within animals is new (200 years). Genesis breaks down life forms in larger groupings, as per its texts - I made no additional amplifications.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 07-02-2007 11:08 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Vacate, posted 07-03-2007 1:20 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 219 of 302 (408471)
07-02-2007 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Nighttrain
07-02-2007 11:21 PM


Re: because the question posed was really stupid
quote:
night
Hi, IAG. Do you accept that there was a species of man classified Neaderthal? If so, were they pre-Flood or post-Flood?
Neaderthal would have to be pre-adam. Genesis does not negate pre-speech prototypes. The 6000 only refers to speech endowed humans, not the age of the earth or when other life forms appeared.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Nighttrain, posted 07-02-2007 11:21 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Nighttrain, posted 07-04-2007 3:47 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 220 of 302 (408473)
07-03-2007 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by IamJoseph
07-02-2007 6:10 AM


Nope. These are constants which cannot be violated. Darwin's evolution contrives around them - unsuccessfully when examined.
But this, again, is something that creationists have made up.
There are no actual scientific principles violated by evolution, or scientists would have noticed, wouldn't they?
This is a reasonable response. We see incredible patterns on butterflies which would compete with any artist, architectural designs which would transcend the best of humans, and the same concerning awesome engineering works throughout the universe, on macro and micro levels. But even darwin never allocated this to a thing called evolution...
Of course Darwin attributed the patterns on butterflies wings to evolution. Don't tell such stories.
If a sited complexity is offered, as you have done - it has to be non-random based. Else it violates the constant:
'A COMPLEXITY CANNOT RESULT FROM A RANDOM' - Prof Roger Penfold/author MV.
That is not a "constant", nor is it a law (which is what you mean, insofar as you can be said to mean anything). It is gibberish. It's not even good English, let alone true. This is because no professor wrote this --- you did.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 6:10 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 221 of 302 (408475)
07-03-2007 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by IamJoseph
07-02-2007 11:29 PM


The texts include Isaac requesting his father to bind him securely so he won't move of fear, which is not condusive to a child but an adult mind aware of the situation at hand.
There are no such texts in the Bible.
The 37 is derived from calcs of the entire calendar and intergrated dates.
And yet Genesis 22 calls Isaac a "boy".
Penholds is the author of MultiVerse and other works of science. To paraphrase him in his interviews and essays, he states that in the foundation of a complex system, there has to be an equavalent structure of complexity which justifies it - basically he negates random to complex.
Could you make your mind up what his name is, and explain why you think that what he writes are "works of science"? Oh, and maybe quote something he actually wrote rather than some nonsense that you made up in your head?
This does not condone random to complex
Apart from being an example of it, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 11:29 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 222 of 302 (408478)
07-03-2007 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by IamJoseph
07-02-2007 11:33 PM


the question posed
My reading of 'kind' in genesis would be, as a minimum, the species sited in genesis (veg, fish, mammals, birds, animals, humans). From this perspective, genesis is vindicated - namely, if we read it as animals from animals (genesis)
You are too fast on vindicating. Lets not get too hasty here. Further down the page you say:
Genesis breaks down life forms in larger groupings
and then further you say:
Neaderthal would have to be pre-adam.
Now where do you wish to put Neaderthal? Is it a man-kind or an mammal-kind, or a pre-speech prototypes-kind? This last choice sounds much like a beta test done by someone who is not sure of the result!
You stated these larger groupings as veg, fish, mammals, birds, animals and humans. Mammal-kind must obviously include apes. I wonder if Neaderthal gets to be its own kind like a human, or does it fit into other much larger groupings like the ape? (you where not clear, I suppose I should ask for clarity on if there was also an ape-kind)
ABE: Personally I would be really interested to see much of this fleshed out. Though slightly on topic right now it would drift too much for "accuracy of Genesis" topic. If you are interested in creating a new topic on your interpretation of "kind" in biblical terms I would be glad to get some clarity on the issue.
Though my biology knowledge is limited I am sure that in a new thread there are others on the board who could ask more pertinent questions regarding some of the issues. I would be glad to participate if you can forgive my lack of technical terminology.
Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 11:33 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 5:05 AM Vacate has replied

Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 223 of 302 (408479)
07-03-2007 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Equinox
07-02-2007 3:50 PM


Re: layers of explanation
Before I respond to you Equinox, it may do you well to see my posts (my posts were under a different screen name "mightyplacenimrod" which ironically refered to the historic name-in Sumerian- of the city of the mighty hunter..... though the actual name wasnt nun.ki) on these issues in this thread below
EvC Forum: The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science?
http://EvC Forum: The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science? -->EvC Forum: The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science?
My posts were around #100 (I made about 5 posts all from around 95-105).The last are under my new name here.
It will help you understand my views better (you have gotten a few important ones very very wrong)
Before I respond to you Equinox, it may do you well to see my posts (my posts were under a different screen name "mightyplacenimrod" which ironically refered to the historic name-in Sumerian- of the city of the mighty hunter..... though the actual name wasnt nun.ki) on these issues in this thread below
EvC Forum: The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science?
http://EvC Forum: The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science? -->EvC Forum: The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science?
My posts were around #100 (I made about 5 posts all from around 95-105).The last are under my new name here.
It will help you understand my views better (you have gotten a few important ones very very wrong)
Nimrod wrote:
I believe that the proto-Semitic stage of the Hebrew language would have been founded
Equinox
You know, linguists have done a lot of work on much of the development of languages. It sounds like you’ve read a little already (though I seriously hope it isn’t just from one source, or even worse, one non-academic source). It may be already decently established which language developed into Hebrew (btw, languages aren’t “founded”, they evolve from earlier languages). I’d go no further without a simple fact check.
The post I made in THIS thread (you responded to one)actually gave the EXACT general scholarly name of the 3 languages that lead to Hebrew.The first was "proto-Semitic" then came "west-Semitic" then "Canaanite".From Canaanite did Hebrew then come.
The book Development of the Canaanite Dialects (Harris JAOS 1939) also wants to include "Amorite" into the Canaanite
category though Amorite is considered a split branch.
Development of the Canaanite Dialects
Harris
pp2-3
2.What Canaanite includes
During the last two millennia B.C. most of the inhabitants of Syria-Palestine spoke a Semitic language of the Northwest-Semitic type.In the course of time many changes took place in this speech, and differences grew up among various parts of the area.It is those changes that form the basis of the present study.
To the extent that these languages can be shown to be of one Semitic sub-division, they are all called by the general name "Canaanite".This term is used to distinguish them from the other, Aramaic, sub-division of the North-West-Semitic group."Canaan" was the ancient name for a large part of the Palestine-Syria coast and as secondarily used to describe these languages which were spoken there.It recieves added color since it appears that most of the linguistic features which distinguished these languages from the Aramaic were not the heritage of some earlier period but had developed here in the area geographically known as Canaan.(see chapter 2.5)
One important section of thi area is excluded from the present study:north-eastern Syria, bordering on the middle Euphrates.The speech of this area was very probably Canaanite, making a linguistic continuum with that of the Mediterranean Coast and inland Syri-Palestine.It should therefore be included in any complete study of Canaanite.Canaanite material from this area is found in the large number of Amorite names in cuneiform tablets of c.2000 B.C. and in the thousands of cuneiform tablets from Mari.However not enough is as yet known of this language to make it clear whether it was merely an outlying section of Canaanite, or whether it had certain early linguistic features which might set it historically apart from the rest of the Canaanite area.At the present writing a large amount of material, afforded by the Mari tablets, has been discovered but ot yet published.It seems therefore best to reserve discussion of this are until the new material is avaliable, and to limit this investigation to the Mediteranean coast and its immediate homeland.
We call the language "Amorite" as did the Sumerians.
William Hallo
History of the Ancient Near East
pp67-
The Middle Bronze Age
ca2100-1600BC
(1)Amorites,Patriarchs, and the Westland
...Mesopotamian and the Egyptian spheres........But between these two urbanized spheres of influence lay the semi-arid northern fringe of the Syrian desert,known today as the Hamid.This area,unable to support urban life, was the home of nomadic peoples known (perhaps on the basis of their most important tribe) as Amurru in the cuneiform sources and Amorites in the Bible.Their territory extended to the Euphrates at the mountain of basar (modern jebel Bishri), which the Sumerians thereforee called the "highland of the Amorites", while in later Mesopotamian usage the geographical term Amurru came to designate an ever larger portion of Transeuphratia, until it embraced all of the "West-land".From their mountian, the nomads posed a threat to Mesopotamia, for the Euphrates route led straight to the heart of Sumer and Akkad.Only the great citadel of Mari, some 100 miles downstream from Mount Basar, blocked their way...
But the confrontation along the Euprates proved fateful for the Amorites as well for Mari, for it lead to an irresistible dilution of nomadic patterns in the direction of seminomadic and, ultimately urban institutions.
......
The contemporaneous Ur III texts from Drehem, however, and the slightly later ones from isin, show ...Here the great majority of persons identified as Amorites actually bear Amorite names; indeed these and later names are to date the chief source for the reconstruction of the Amorite language, the earliest form of West Semitic ..... later and beter known in such forms as Ugaritic, Phoenician , Hebrew, and Aramaic. These unassimilated Amorites were clearly regarded as foreigners...... Literary texts of neo-Sumerian date or origin are even more explicit: their sterotype Amorite is a tent dweller of the mountain, unfamilar with grain or cooked meat, with the life of the city, or (worse yet) with death and burial in a proper grave---he is warlike, uncouth, and generally strange.
....
...archaeological record....beginning of the Bronze Age, most arhcaeologists see in both the Transjordanian and the Palestinian developments the beginning of the Middle Bronze (MB) Age and attribute them ...... to the expansion of the Amorites.
....
In his third year (ca2034), Shu-Sin of ur was constrained to build a defensive wall ...."the Amorite wall"...But the wall did not hold them for long...The Amorites established themsllves as rulers of most most of the numerous city-states and petty kingdoms into which Mesopotamia again quickly disintegrated
Nimrod
after the Babel event
Equinox
Wha? Are you saying you think the tower of Babel legend and the global flood legend describe events that actually happened? If so, you really have some basic homework to do. Both have no evidence for them, and lots of evidence against them.
Somehow I doubt you have done a serious study of texts, history, and research in linguistic development.Plus you dont even know my views.See thread I refered you to.(reminder; I am just looking at what ancient peoples wrote down, and then stacking it up with comparitive anthropology and THEN looking at what is scientifically possible POSSIBLE)
Nimrod
Also, there hasnt been any really decent case made showing the Hebrews borrowing from a SPECIFIC Mesopotamian text.
Equinox
Again, have you compared the creation and flood accounts to the preceding stories in the Mesopotamian texts? Or the legend of King Sargon, as a baby, being kept from a hostile ruler by his being put in a basket and floated down the river? I guess I don’t understand your statement - it sounded like you were denying that the Bible copied stories from earlier legends - which is well known and uncontested, except among fundamentalists who also believe in flying people and talking animals.
If you aren’t convinced of that yet, we could start another thread (though I’ll have sparse attendance until next week).
"you really have some basic homework to do" actually.
I LOVE to see a thread where you show us the text of Genesis and then stack it beside the "copied stories".It may do you good to see you fumble all over yourself.You might notice FINALLY that oft-repeated cannards from the uneducated fall apart when research is done.Honestly, you are quite typical of many internet folk: about 100 years out of date in your "facts" which have long been modified and/or discarded.
Dictionary Of The Ancient Near East
Edited by Piotr Bienkowki And Alan Millard
Creation legends and cosmogonies
.....
In Genesis God creates by command in six days, in sequence, light and darkness, the atmosphere, land an plants, heavenly bodies and time-keeping.........Comparison with Enuma elish has led to assertions of dependence.Genesis 1:2 speaks of "the face of the deep", the *Hebrew word tehom being taken as the same as Tiamat, but it is now clear that there is only a linguistic link rather than any real connection.The seven das were compared t the seven tablets, but the latter are the foruitous result of the division of the text for convinent copying.Splitting Tiamat to mke heaven and earth is like the dividing of the two in Genesis 1,3-5, but this idea is found in creation stories from other societies, too.In the creation of mn with a divine element to care for the earth and the consequent divine rest there is a general similarity.
The Hebrew narrative has more in common wih the older Babylonian poem, the epic of Atrahasis (see flood).Thi begins with the gos wearied through toiling to dig canals and raise food,striking in protest.Eventually Ea proposes the creation of a substitute.With the Mother goddess, he mixes clay with the flesh of an executed god, the gods sit on the mixture, wombs are preared an seven pairs of humans born.The gods rest as man woks the ground.The story continues to the flood.Enuma elish clearly draws on parts of this story nd of others.
....
Flood and flood stories
......
Evidently the *Hebrew and *cuneiform narratives share a common source;the later date of the Hebrew as preserved does not prove it is derived from the Babylonian
Do yourself a favor.Stay away from involving yourself in discussions of the comparative method lol
However, I would be delighted if you could get the powers that be (mods) to transfer our exchange (and all its posts) to its own thread, because this thread has went to crap.I picked a bad thread to discuss this in.Be advised that I will be spending most of my posting time on the Biblical Conquest issues.So I wont be posting much on other issues (including this) for a while.This still needs its own thread though.
Nimrod
some basic details in the early stories of Genesis can be found in nearly all the worlds cultures.
) would be consistent with mass diffusion post-flood but pre Babel
Equinox
Well sure - people are people, and have common themes because those are the things that really happen, such as love, conflict, adultery, etc. This is especially true of the story of a flood - since people live near rivers for water, food, washing, travel and other reasons, and since rivers flood, it’s a no-brainer that everyone has flood stories, sometimes more than one.
Have you studied comparative anthropology and psychology as well as you studied linguistic development and the comparitive method of ANE texts? (lol)
Nimrod
One argument to consider is the order of events in the 6 days of genesis and how they square to scientific discoveries.Two thorny issues are whether everything should be in 100% order- with every stage of evolution carefully included in the Genesis account; then the issue of what an exact word meant or could have meant which I think needs to be expanded into "what primitive concept could the word be a reflection of or translation of".
Equinox
Well, we can look at the Genesis text and see that the order doesn’t make any sense at all. The Genesis account has whales and birds existing before reptiles, and fruit appearing before animals of any kind, and many other egregious mistakes. I don’t understand why anyone claims the “correct order” thing - it’s just silly, like claiming that the words in the US constitution are in alphabetical order, it’s easy to just look and see that it’s incorrect, and it makes it look like the person saying that either doesn't know the Bible, or doesn't know science or perhaps both.
Did you miss my first "thorny" issue above(clearly!)? The issue that people (like you!) demand that Genesis should have seperated every last stage of evolution.Therefore the fact that it mentions the category of water life as coming before all other life (lets the waters bring...)simply isnt enough because people like you think it should be a 2007 science textbook to be credited as a document that could have (maybe) been descended of a revelation from God in the pre/proto historic period in amns past.
I see it as day 1 (big bang), day 2 (atmosphere) (thus the logic of events suggests that the sun and planet formed in-between day 1 and 2)day 3 (land in one place seperate from waters, perhaps a pangea type of description?), day 3 then covers plants (using the sun and seasons to survive) , day 4 (water life), day 5 (land animals BEFORE man), day 6 (finally man LONG after life way already present).
[qs] Then to try to claim that the words mean different things in Hebrew or that the ancients were too stupid to know any better only seem to dig the hole deeper. It seems much better just to avoid making the initial statement. [qs] I didnt say the ancients were stupid.I was simply describing the logical transmission of the text and what would happen in translation (and the expert scholars who produced the Dictionary of the Ancient Near East do say that the evidence indicates that Genesis existed BEFORE the Hebrew language did-so doh... it would need a translation)
Equinox clearly is one of those kids who failed every teaching in school but self-esteme.
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Equinox, posted 07-02-2007 3:50 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Equinox, posted 07-03-2007 12:59 PM Nimrod has replied
 Message 246 by Equinox, posted 07-03-2007 1:02 PM Nimrod has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 224 of 302 (408482)
07-03-2007 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by IamJoseph
07-02-2007 10:48 PM


quote:
The 37 value is derived from its intergration with other stats in the OT.
Given that the actual text barely makes an age of 37 possible, I'd like you to cite those stats to show how you derive that particular age. You can also point to the verses of Genesis that refer to this calendar of yours that you keep talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 10:48 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 4:48 AM PaulK has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 225 of 302 (408496)
07-03-2007 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by PaulK
07-03-2007 2:32 AM


quote:
paulk
Given that the actual text barely makes an age of 37 possible, I'd like you to cite those stats to show how you derive that particular age. You can also point to the verses of Genesis that refer to this calendar of yours that you keep talking about.
Obviously, there is much variances in understanding genesis and the OT here - this document has not been accurately presented via christianity. The 37 year age is not something I made up - it is part of writings and commentary made 1000s of years ago. Re this and the genesis calendar, I will retrieve these later, as I am in-tranit with a laptop without access to my files.
The Hebrew calendar is commonly known and acknowledged, and has been in active usage for over 3000 years till today. Gregory was told by his preists his calendar was wrong by 11 days and that he should adopt the hebrew lunar-solar one; but he replied: we will just cancel those 11 days, siting, 'better to be wrong by the moon than be right by the jews'. Thus we have leap years and history starting 2000 years ago. One of the functions thus negated from an anniversary observence is that it is not a true annual recurrence, as with the genesis formular - here, if the sun was at 12 o'clock high noon in a certain area on 1 Jan 2006, then the sun will be in the same position on 1 Jan 2007.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2007 2:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2007 5:32 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 229 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2007 7:13 AM IamJoseph has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024