Missing sea creatures

One might also say that viruses and bacteria are the only creatures left that we haven't been able to dominate over. If anything that can dominate over us, it's viruses and bacteria.

Ancient peoples were primitive, not retarded. If you or I can understand the difference between a fish and a marine invertebrate without being zoologists, so can a Hebrew goatherd.

Perhaps, but again you are trying to use YOUR understanding of the matter and try to apply that to ancient people.Here is an example of how a primitive language can resemble so-called retardedness.In the Vietnamese language, there is only 1 word for "green" and "blue". Wait a second, were the Vietnamese in ancient times all colorblind? Were they all retarded enough to not notice the difference between something that is green and something that is blue?

---

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

Ancient people who were not retards. Honestly how long do you think it would take to explain to someone that not everything that lives in the sea was a fish? Especially if you're God?"Hey, Lebish, been meaning to tell you something. Not everything that lives in the sea is a "fish". That word pretty much just means those fleshy creatures with the white meat and the bones in 'em.""Whatever you say, God." Well, we don't have a word for the color of oranges, we have to refer to the fruit to describe it. What is the difference, exactly? Is it possible that people in English-speaking cultures are percieving a difference that isn't necessarily there simply because we have words for the difference?You don't have to have a concept of the wavelength of light to understand that not everything in the sea is built the same way, and that fish are built differently than things that are not fish. You might quibble with the definition of the word "fish", at that point; but if you're speaking to the God of the Universe don't you think you'd take his word on what words mean?

Bingo!

---

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

You haven't really addressed my point.

I could say the same thing about blue and green, and that there is a distinct difference between the two color (plants and the sky). Yet, people chose not to use two different words for the two colors.I am stating that it might have been the case that to the people back then it wasn't important to distinguish between different creatures of the sea and that they were all "fish"- sea dwelling creatures. I seem to recall stating before that a loving God would have not spoon feed every single detail of the natural world to his children. Otherwise, what's the point of human endevor?Adam: Hey God, what's light made of?God: I ain't doing your homework for you. Figure it out yourself!

But God would have known that it was important, since he did create them in different kinds and all. So don't you think he would have insisted on the right nomenclature? And don't you think his people would have taken his word for it? And I agree, of course. But that's not the kind of God that would expect Genesis to be taken as a literal science textbook.

Depends on what you mean by the right nomenclature... whatever that word means.The problem here is we are second guessing what God ought to have done. Not how it works. Remember that you can poke holes in anything if you nitpick it hard enough. Well, you've taken the YEC crackpots' words too seriously. See this post.

---

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

A lot of English-speaking people don`t understand the meaning of the word 'no'.
Esp. car salesmen.

Without consulting a dictionary for the precise definition, it means something like "words chosen to reflect organization into categories." Given a proposed nature of God, we can see if that god's actions reflect that nature. And we're able to determine if actions reflect a certain nature in God because we're able to do it for humans, and humans are made in God's image.I don't accept that God can have the X nature and then do things that are contrary to that nature. Well, hell, I hope you're not taking me seriously. I don't really believe any of this. But if we assume that God is the literal author of an inerrant Genesis, that each word in Genesis is there because he said so (which I presumed we were doing for purposes of argument), that has certain consequences.

I’d forgotten all about this thread. Glad to see there’s some interest, so I thought I’d return and get back to what I do best nit picking!Crashfrog -- I think you’ve summed up my original basic point quite well. Despite the average Ancient Hebrew lack of distinction between different sea creatures, God would have known so why didn’t he say something? I’ll try to expand my thoughts on that.Jacen -- yeah, viewing the bible with a modern way of thinking is silly in a way, but the very fact that it is silly makes the bible appear even less credible to me. If the bible was Gods true word to his people, which are supposed to be followed as the very basis for living, then it should be perfectly normal to look at the bible with a modern way of thinking, or any way for that matter. This is because, according to the bible, all of us are supposedly of God’s creation, but the way we think is simply the way we think in today’s world. Yes, the bible has been translated several times from the original, but why didn’t God ensure accurate translation(s) that’s true to his word? Would God have left the translation in the imperfect hands of men, thus prone to error and misinterpretation? This would bugger things up for people of future generations and of different languages, as they wouldn’t know God’s TRUE word, or the correct way to worship. Not a particularly clever way to have a world full of faithful followers that are true to what he wants! Does God have no commonsense?To me, it’s not a matter of poking holes in the bible, It’s more a case of a gaping hole that was already there ‘jumping out’ at me when I read it.Basically the way I see it, what has happened is that the ancient Hebrew term that likely meant every creature in the sea (God would have known all about them all if he created them, so surely he must have meant to include them) has been translated to say fish, which in English has a specific meaning for a specific type of creature.I can only make a couple of conclusions here:1. That if God exists, He had no involvement with the Bible translations, which suggests he didn’t care about the quality of information carried over to people of other languages and culture. Were only people who understood ancient Hebrew to understand the true meaning? Sounds a little like racism to me, or at best, snobbery. Either way, it doesn’t sound like what a just, loving God is supposed to be about.2. That God does not exist, the bible is purely the work of men, and is a work of mythology and fiction, blended with exaggerated stories of actual historical figures. Basically, it’s a load of piffle.

Yep. Definitely. I agree. But ... Remember what Jesus said to the Samarian (non Jewish) woman? John 4:22 RSV

quote:

---

"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews."

---

There you have it from the horse's mouth!db

I think Thor has a valid point hidden in his post. Not at such a low level perhaps, but even deeper than that. The point being that if god had given "breath" to the biblical writers, you would think that he would have made his "supreme" knowledge unequivocal. He doesn't seem to have had much foresight. It should have been so easy for him to put some actual knowledge in the bible. He could have described the structure of DNA in an unambiguous way, described the structure of benzene, made a poem about the structure of atoms, or the nuclear reactions in the sun. He would have known, if he was omnipresent, that people would have understood these things later or would have gotten insights into the universe that would have made it unequivocal that he was in fact who he said he was.
Instead, what was written was in the language of people ignorant of the future and ignorant of the underlying nature of their world. So either god was an ignorant dunce or it was all written by ignorant humans. What makes more sense? I don't think they would have questioned a god who told them to write what he told them to write. Quick way to get in the belly of a whale, imho. Besides, there wasn't any questioning if the bible was "god-breathed", eh?IF he gave the speed of light and the exact acceleration due to gravity for the earth I think there'd be a lot more believers and isn't that what he wants?My point being that he could have put science in there to make a case for his supreme-ness a lot stronger.

Well, here is something to think about.I am a starcraft player, a damn good one, too! You know what us sc players do beside playing against one another? We would try to find every bug there is and use it to our advantage. I'm proud to say that I was one of the first to figure out how to "float a drone", for those of you that are sc literate. We have also invented tactics that the original creators of sc never intended. We have given names to countless strategies that were never thought of by the original creators. We have created literally thousands and thousands of different scenarios that were never intended by the programers.For example, I took part in designing a scenario called WW2. In it, there are 7 players and a computer. Players would control Spain, France, Germany, England, USSR, Italy, and Norway. The comp controls all the neutral nations in the world.We have also created a world wide war. In this, we have USA, USSR, Germany, Italy, France, England, and Japan. The comp controls every nation in the world. It took us a long time to create all the triggers (like d-day, battle of the bulge, pearl harbor attack, battle of midway, etc) and give everyone the man power and resources that resembles the real war.Was any of this intended when they created SC? Hell, no.Actually, I know some people that have beaten some original programers at their own game.The point is the designer would design stuff but then how to classify, use, or whatever is left to the users. Sometimes, we even name and do things that was never intended by the designer.Perhaps the bible is as vague as it is because God wanted us to be creative.I seriously doubt that I would be as good as I am in starcraft if I was spoon fed every strategy from the beginning. Look, I could have put in permanent marker on my forehead the words "I'm gay" just so it would be easier for other gays to recognize, but I, as an intelligent and sentient being, chose not to. After all, have you any idea how hard it is to find other gay guys outside of clubs and stuff? And no, contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a gay-dar.This message has been edited by Jacen, 02-13-2005 23:45 AM

---

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.