Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1
Gigawatts
Junior Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 10
From: Nassau, Bahamas
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 166 of 302 (408198)
07-01-2007 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by jar
06-30-2007 3:33 PM


Re: keeping things on track
Accidentally posted the same reply twice, please see below.
Edited by Gigawatts, : posted same reply twice

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 06-30-2007 3:33 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 8:13 AM Gigawatts has replied

Gigawatts
Junior Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 10
From: Nassau, Bahamas
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 167 of 302 (408199)
07-01-2007 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by jar
06-30-2007 3:33 PM


Re: keeping things on track
Thanks for the welcome Jar. I'm enjoying myself already.
My opinion is that the only "cult of ignorance" imposing its false teachings on our children is the public school system's method of passing off the unproven theories of macro-evolution as undisputed facts. Similarly, I would make no argument that the theory of Creationism (although it is the theory I personally accept) should be taught in schools as fact.
Also, just out of curiosity, where does the following quote come from: "is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children." Over 10,000 US Christian Clergy said that? Is that what you're saying? If that is the case, then I would submit that they are not Christians. Those who would label themselves as Christians and only pick and choose what they'd like to literally believe from the Bible completely destroy the only foundations of their faith. I cannot base my personal religion on a book which I believe to be fiction. THAT is absurd.
Also, you wrote: "If you truly believe the Bible is the Word of God, it is time to stop preaching the lies that are Biblical Creationism." - I'm sorry, but if I truly believe the Bible is the word of God (which I do), how could anything "Biblical" (from the Bible...word of God) be lies? If I accepted a religion where it's common knowledge that my one and only God lies on a regular basis, I'd be in trouble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 06-30-2007 3:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 07-01-2007 10:48 AM Gigawatts has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 168 of 302 (408206)
07-01-2007 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Jaderis
07-01-2007 6:48 AM


It would have been more credible to nominate Hamurabi than the Illiad - which is an oral transmission recalled and put together centuries later. Its authenticity and datings are unverifiable with scholars. I have two of the most popular references below, however feel free to exhibit your preferred aligning with this document and the OT (sic!). Remember that one is a dead document with no historical content, eg. no historical figures, no dates, no background - its characters are based on Apollo and Venus, but its your choice to not see how the OT replaced hellenist paganism: the greeks themselves gave up this mythology when they translated the OT in 300 BCE, and went on to form christianity with the OT as its bedrock. Lets agree to disagree of what is historical and myth.
Perseus Encyclopedia, Hades, Homer
Perseus Encyclopedia
H
Homer
The Greeks traditionally assumed that a single poet named Homer composed both the Iliad and the Odyssey, but we have no certain information about who composed these poems or how. Both the Homeric poems were composed in an oral poetic tradition that preceded the advent of writing. The Homeric poems were by far the most revered and influential works of literature in the ancient Greek (and Roman) world. They affected not only literature, both prose and poetry, but established a vision of the Heroic age that helped shape Greek society itself.
Ancient sources do not agree on when Homer lived or where he came from. Ancient tradition generally connected him with Ionia, in particular with Chios and Smyrna, and the linguistic evidence of the Iliad and the Odyssey would support this, but nothing is certain. Different poets could have composed the Iliad and the Odyssey. And in the case of these epics, we cannot even define precisely what we mean by composition: the Homeric epics were composed in an oral poetic tradition that developed without the use of writing, but writing (which ultimately put an end to the oral composition of Greek poetry) has preserved for us these two poems. Did a “Homer” write these poems with his own hands? Did he dictate them to one or more scribes? Did he teach them, word for word, to disciples who then memorized and in turn passed them on to other generations of poets until they could be written down at some later date? Many have expressed opinions on these matters, but we have no hard evidence as to how these poems were composed, and we can only base our own conjectures on the rumors preserved from antiquity and from what we know of other oral traditions that have been observed in the modern world.
The nature of Homeric epic itself is responsible for our ignorance of who composed these poems. The Iliad and the Odyssey are products of an oral poetic tradition, which developed without the use of writing. These poems are composed of metrical formulas: if the poet wishes to describe the sunrise in a single line, he has a ready made set of words at his disposal which he can apply. It does not matter if the same formulaic expression is repeated dozens of times in the course of a poem: the same line, for example, describes one person speaking to another (“he addressed him speaking winged words”, kai min phnsas epea pteroenta prosuda) at Hom. Il. 1.201, Hom. Il. 2.7, Hom. Il.4.312, Hom. Il.4.369 and at twenty-six other places in the Iliad and the Odyssey. The aesthetics of Homeric epic, at least on the level of the individual phrase or line, thus differ markedly from the conventions of modern poetry, which assiduously avoids repetition and places a very high value on novel turns of phrase. No one ever taught Greek epic poets not to repeat the same word in a single paragraph.
----------------------------------------------
Iliad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Iliad (Greek , Iliás) is, together with the Odyssey, one of two ancient Greek epic poems attributed to Homer, supposedly a blind Ionian poet.
Date
For most of the twentieth century, scholars dated the Iliad and the Odyssey to the 8th century BC. Some still argue for an early dating, notably Barry B. Powell, who has proposed a link between the writing of the Iliad and the invention of the Greek alphabet. Many others (including Martin West and Richard Seaford) now prefer a date in the 7th or even the 6th century BC. Martin Bernal proposes a date several centuries earlier.
[edit] The story of the Iliad
The Iliad begins with these lines:
Sing, goddess, the rage of Achilles the son of Peleus,
the destructive rage that sent countless pains on the Achaeans...
The first word of the Iliad is (mnin), "rage" or "wrath". This word announces the major theme of the Iliad: the wrath of Achilles. When Agamemnon, the commander of the Greek forces at Troy, dishonors Achilles by taking Briseis, a slave woman given to Achilles as a prize of war, Achilles becomes enraged and withdraws from the fighting.
The Iliad's huge cast of characters connects the Trojan War to many Greek myths, such as Jason and the Argonauts, the Seven Against Thebes, and the Labors of Hercules. Many Greek myths exist in multiple versions, so Homer had some freedom to choose among them to suit his story. See Greek mythology for more detail.
The action of the Iliad covers only a few weeks of the tenth and final year of the Trojan War. It does not cover the background and early years of the war (Paris' abduction of Helen from King Menelaus) nor its end (the death of Achilles and the fall of Troy).
Synopsis
As the poem begins, the Greeks have captured Chryseis, the daughter of Apollo's priest Chryses, and given her as a prize to Agamemnon. In response, Apollo has sent a plague against the Greeks, who compel Agamemnon to restore Chryseis to her father to stop the sickness. In her place, Agamemnon takes Briseis, whom the Achaeans had given to Achilles as a spoil of war. Achilles, the greatest warrior of the age, follows the advice of his goddess mother, Thetis, and withdraws from battle in revenge.
In counterpoint to Achilles' pride and arrogance stands the Trojan prince Hector, son of King Priam, a husband and father who fights to defend his city and his family. With Achilles on the sidelines, Hector leads successful counterattacks against the Greeks, who have built a fortified camp around their ships pulled up on the Trojan beach. The best remaining Greek fighters, including Odysseus, Diomedes, and Ajax, are wounded, and the gods favor the Trojans. Patroclus, impersonating Achilles by wearing his armor, finally leads the Myrmidons back into battle to save the ships from being burned. The death of Patroclus at the hands of Hector brings Achilles back to the war for revenge, and he slays Hector in single combat. Hector's father, King Priam, later comes to Achilles alone (but aided by Hermes) to ransom his son's body, and Achilles is moved to pity; the funeral of Hector ends the poem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Jaderis, posted 07-01-2007 6:48 AM Jaderis has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 169 of 302 (408207)
07-01-2007 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Gigawatts
07-01-2007 7:22 AM


Re: keeping things on track
quote:
gigwats
Also, you wrote: "If you truly believe the Bible is the Word of God, it is time to stop preaching the lies that are Biblical Creationism." - I'm sorry, but if I truly believe the Bible is the word of God (which I do), how could anything "Biblical" (from the Bible...word of God) be lies? If I accepted a religion where it's common knowledge that my one and only God lies on a regular basis, I'd be an idiot.
If I can apply my 2 cents here: I present the OT in debates in its scientific and historical context only, and don't get into 'miracles' (stated in the text as miracles, and thus not provable). I believe a theology must pass the test of truth and verifiability in all its historical and science oriented components. I see the OT as the most vindicated document in existence, by period of time, volume of data and by impact: almost everything has been either proven or evidenced of its historicity, and its science oriented statutes are standing up to the best of sciences today. IOW, this document is unique, with nothing like it anyplace I've looked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 7:22 AM Gigawatts has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 8:27 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 174 by anglagard, posted 07-01-2007 8:47 AM IamJoseph has replied

Gigawatts
Junior Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 10
From: Nassau, Bahamas
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 170 of 302 (408208)
07-01-2007 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 8:13 AM


Re: keeping things on track
Thanks for your input, I agree.
Edited by Gigawatts, : Thought I was replying to someone different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 8:13 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 8:38 AM Gigawatts has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 171 of 302 (408209)
07-01-2007 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Jaderis
07-01-2007 6:48 AM


quote:
jaderis
Yes and the OT deals with a mythical Hebraic deity, your point?
Not really. The hebrew God is never described or compared with anything within creation or the universe (logically, a Creator must be transcendent of his Creation), and presented as the Creator of all Creation. Creationism is not a mythical factor - but a legit, and only viable counter to anything else. In fact, non-creationist theories are myth: they have never been proven in any of its postulations - namely a theory, which is inclined in myth. Evolution as per darwin is myth; as per genesis it is vindicated and without dispute that a 'seed' follows its kind. It does not get any more unscientific to present a complexity emerging out of a random: its like imaginative book-keeping, and an unproven even as a theory.
quote:
and is not older than the OT
Dead Sea Scrolls dated to no earlier than the second century BCE
The scrolls represent a recent find and regarded the oldest alphabetical books. But these are backed by much earlier datings from other archeological finds, including the Tel Dan find - which makes king david a real 3000 year figure, who wrote the psalms. The psalms contain numerous mentions of Moses and direct lift-off verses from the OT. aligning with its entire narratives.
There is also an egyptian manuscript which mentions Israel, dated over 3000 years. With regard archeological finds, I can post 100s of evidences continually unearthed in Palestine, including artifacts from the first and second temple period. There is no greater historically verifiable document any place. What was your point here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Jaderis, posted 07-01-2007 6:48 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Jaderis, posted 07-01-2007 10:08 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 172 of 302 (408210)
07-01-2007 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Gigawatts
07-01-2007 8:27 AM


Re: keeping things on track
quote:
gigawatts
I agree to everything you wrote here except the first sentence. The creation of the universe in Genesis was never labeled as a miracle. Many occurences that we would label as supernatural were not specified as "miracles." Regardless, do you not believe in the "miracles" of the Bible (OT and NT, doesn't matter)? Or do you just not present them in debates? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.
I was'nt refering to genesis creation chapter as myth - this is presented with great science and logic, and I do agree with it as having no alternative. By miracles I meant the sea splitting and Noah's flood - even though there are cross-reference, independent evidences of it: the point is these are not provable items, and don't belong in a science or history debate. The provables evidence the OT, and there are literally millions of such provable states in the OT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 8:27 AM Gigawatts has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 8:44 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Gigawatts
Junior Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 10
From: Nassau, Bahamas
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 173 of 302 (408211)
07-01-2007 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 8:38 AM


Re: keeping things on track
Sorry, I understand what you're saying now. I was confused at first because I thought you were Jar, and presenting conflicting arguments. I need to pay attention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 8:38 AM IamJoseph has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 174 of 302 (408212)
07-01-2007 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 8:13 AM


Re: keeping things on track
If I can apply my 2 cents here: I present the OT in debates in its scientific and historical context only, and don't get into 'miracles' (stated in the text as miracles, and thus not provable). I believe a theology must pass the test of truth and verifiability in all its historical and science oriented components. I see the OT as the most vindicated document in existence, by period of time, volume of data and by impact: almost everything has been either proven or evidenced of its historicity, and its science oriented statutes are standing up to the best of sciences today. IOW, this document is unique, with nothing like it anyplace I've looked.
IIRC the OP concerned the accuracy of Genesis 1. If you are making the argument that the Bible or even the book of the Bible called Genesis in its entirety taken as a literal, as opposed to a metaphorical statement, is validated by science, then there are many threads here which are more appropriate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 8:13 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 9:10 AM anglagard has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 175 of 302 (408215)
07-01-2007 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by anglagard
07-01-2007 8:47 AM


Re: keeping things on track
quote:
anglard
IIRC the OP concerned the accuracy of Genesis 1. If you are making the argument that the Bible or even the book of the Bible called Genesis in its entirety taken as a literal, as opposed to a metaphorical statement, is validated by science, then there are many threads here which are more appropriate.
Genesis 1 is not mythical, nor is Creationism: what's the alternative - the BBT culminates in a never-ending array of brick walls? Also, what would you deem a more vindicated explanation - the 'seed' or 'nature' for repro? - and cross-specie or within specie grads - I mean, which are absolutely, indisputably vindicated?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by anglagard, posted 07-01-2007 8:47 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by anglagard, posted 07-01-2007 9:33 AM IamJoseph has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 176 of 302 (408218)
07-01-2007 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 9:10 AM


Re: keeping things on track
Genesis 1 is not mythical, nor is Creationism: what's the alternative - the BBT culminates in a never-ending array of brick walls? Also, what would you deem a more vindicated explanation - the 'seed' or 'nature' for repro? - and cross-specie or within specie grads - I mean, which are absolutely, indisputably vindicated?
Perhaps if you seek to make the arguments for your position in such broad strokes, a belief statement may be more appropriate. If you have specific arguments concerning how science validates a literal reading of the Bible, there are several other threads in this forum which examine in detail the preposition that the Bible is the ultimate science textbook.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 9:10 AM IamJoseph has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 177 of 302 (408219)
07-01-2007 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 1:59 AM


IamJoseph writes:
A 6000 year document can give a formular or premise which can be used to measure time - back or front.
Again, that's not the question. I'm asking: How can you know it's accurate to 100,000 years when the longest it's been tested for is 6000 years? What you're saying is equivalent to saying that a gun that's sighted at 6000 yards is accurate to 100,000 yards.
The genesis calendar is thus very accurate, incorporating the fluctuating movements and inclinations of the bodies which effect time on the earth and the seasonal change patterns and sea levels pursuent to full moon events - noted in Genesis.
Again, you haven't shown where any of those fluctuations or inclinations are mentioned in Genesis.
I can get you the calendar in Genesis, which is common knowledge...
The calendar is common knowledge. The details in Genesis are not. Show them.
but not the billion second demand: seconds were not discovered yet, remember?
You made the claim in Message 136:
quote:
The Genesis calendar, which is the oldest and most accurate in existence [able to predict a sunset a 100,000 years in advance, and accurate to a billionth of a sec]
The discussion isn't about the accuracy of our calendar and it isn't about any connection between our calendar and that of the ancient Hebrews. The discussion is about the knowledge they had.
The "billionth of a second" can not have any relevance to Genesis if they didn't even have seconds.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 1:59 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 11:03 PM ringo has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 178 of 302 (408226)
07-01-2007 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 8:31 AM


The scrolls represent a recent find and regarded the oldest alphabetical books. But these are backed by much earlier datings from other archeological finds, including the Tel Dan find - which makes king david a real 3000 year figure, who wrote the psalms. The psalms contain numerous mentions of Moses and direct lift-off verses from the OT. aligning with its entire narratives.
The Tel Dan (and Mesha Stele) finds are hardly evidence that the biblical King David existed or that anything attributed to him in the OT ever actually happened as stated (or when), including the writing of most of the Psalms.
Just like any evidence for the existence for an historical Homer or Odysseus or an historical city of Troy does not mean that any events depicted in the Homeric Epics are actually true as presented.
There is also an egyptian manuscript which mentions Israel, dated over 3000 years. With regard archeological finds, I can post 100s of evidences continually unearthed in Palestine, including artifacts from the first and second temple period.
Please do. I'm sure many here would love to see such "evidences."
This is getting way off-topic here, though and I won't continue in this thread, so please propose a new topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 8:31 AM IamJoseph has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 179 of 302 (408231)
07-01-2007 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 1:03 AM


Re: The topic is Genesis 1.
You are practicing Theology by the "It is true if I can make up some excuse" method I see.
Sorry, that does not work here at EvC.
Too bad even for you they don't work reasonably or logically either.
The aspect of vegetation is a good point, but you are incorrect here. Genesis does not say vegetation grew, but that the earth was 'static' before luminosity ('Now nothing grew....then a mist appeared and the rains fell'/Gen).
Sorry but that is just another false statement.
Here is a link to Genesis 1 so that you and others can actually read it.
There is no mist. There are no rains. Day and Night are created before the Sun and moon. The Earth is created before the Sun and Moon.
Even if you want to play the silly "Luminosity" card, plants don't grow without the Luminosity and Genesis 1 has grass growing on Day three while the Sun (or the silly Luminosity gambit) is not until Day four.
Again, seed bearing plants and fruit were NOT the first plants and grass was actually a very late comer, one of the last type of plants to exist.
Genesis 1 is simply a Creation Myth.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 1:03 AM IamJoseph has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 180 of 302 (408233)
07-01-2007 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Gigawatts
07-01-2007 7:26 AM


Re: keeping things on track
Also, just out of curiosity, where does the following quote come from: "is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children." Over 10,000 US Christian Clergy said that?
From the Clergy Project.
If that is the case, then I would submit that they are not Christians. Those who would label themselves as Christians and only pick and choose what they'd like to literally believe from the Bible completely destroy the only foundations of their faith. I cannot base my personal religion on a book which I believe to be fiction. THAT is absurd.
Too bad because, as in the case of Genesis 1, the Bible is factually and provably wrong.
Also, you wrote: "If you truly believe the Bible is the Word of God, it is time to stop preaching the lies that are Biblical Creationism." - I'm sorry, but if I truly believe the Bible is the word of God (which I do), how could anything "Biblical" (from the Bible...word of God) be lies? If I accepted a religion where it's common knowledge that my one and only God lies on a regular basis, I'd be in trouble.
Because the Bible is NOT written by God, there is not even such a thing as "The Bible" but rather many different Canons.
These issues come up here regularly, and this thread is narrowly focused on just Genesis 1. But I am sure you can find many threads here dealing with the other issues.
The Facts are, Genesis 1 is simply a myth and while important from a theological perspective, it is not factually correct.
Genesis 1 is NOT about Creation except from the perspective of relationships.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 7:26 AM Gigawatts has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 2:26 PM jar 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