|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5037 days) Posts: 23 From: Ottawa ON, Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is the Bible acceptable? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
autumnman writes: As a Heb. clause nepesh chayah is only used to describe "mortal creatures." It is never used to describe a mythical immortal being. Can you document that? And could it be because as of now all "nepesh chayah" are mortal creatures.
So, according to you, when did "Adam" become mortal? When he ate from the tree.
If "Adam" became mortal after "The Fall", then when did God "bless them,and say 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it'."? He said that in Gen 1, but the timing of it was after they left the garden. Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
I'll go check out that other thread now. Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Larni writes: No 100 virtual for you. Darn. I was really counting on that. Can I try again?
So to claim you 100 virtual you need to identify these hypothesised distinct ancesteral gene pools aloowing us to identify kinds in a systematic way. I hypothesize that these distinct ancestrial gene pools are what we call species today. Now how far back can we trace them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
iano: You wrote
I'm not sure I understand. Mortality involves dying. Death coming in through disobedience is not the same as life coming in through reproduction. Man bringing about one through sin and the other through sex is not a contradiction. To say that the human species brought mortality into the world is to suggest that man, not God, created the mortal world in which we live. There is absolutely no empirical evidence to support such an idea. To say that man's disobedience caused death to come into the world is to suggest that at some time in the past mankind was once immortal. Therefore, biblically speaking, God blessed mankind and said "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it" after mankind was disobedient. That does not make any sense. God does not say, "Fill the garden and subdue it." You wrote:
I also don't see what un-reason has to do with talking snakes. According to the Biblical Heb. written script, the only instances when a nachash=snake of the field {Gen. 3:1} may be depicted as speaking {any language} is when it is depicted mythically or allegorically{i.e. in proverb). In reality, the reality which God is said to have created, "hanachash=the serpent" of "hasadeh=the field" has never had the physical ability to form oral discourse. Therefore, it is irrational to suggest that a serpent of the field was talking to humans at some time in the distant past. The term "reasoning" means "to form conclusions from facts." Regard;Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
I also don't see what un-reason has to do with talking snakes. Are you arguing from incredulity or have you something reasoned to say about this being unreasonable. I have seen rather a lot of snakes in my time and none of them tried to strike up a conversation with me.To suggest that disbelief in talking snakes relies on an argument from incredulity is absurd. Snakes don't talk. They simply don't have the equipment (language centres in brain, vocal chords, etc.). There is ample evidence to suppose that snakes do not, indeed cannot speak. I know there are no snakes in Ireland, but I'm sure that you are well aware of all this. The point is that all the evidence says that snakes can't talk, in much the same way that the evidence suggests that elephants are rubbish at tap dancing. If you want to suggest that they can/could, the onus is upon you to demonstrate this with some kind of evidence. Let the special pleading commence! Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
autumnman writes: To say that the human species brought mortality into the world is to suggest that man, not God, created the mortal world in which we live. There is absolutely no empirical evidence to support such an idea. Your objection wasn't dealing with empirical evidence, it was attempting to find contradiction in the account in Genesis. Between creation account 1 & 2. The one dealt with Gods instruction to multiply. The other to do with disobedience leading to death. Two completely separate issues - unless you can find a connection that is My question: where is the contradiction you suggest exists in this area?
To say that man's disobedience caused death to come into the world is to suggest that at some time in the past mankind was once immortal. Therefore, biblically speaking, God blessed mankind and said "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it" after mankind was disobedient. That does not make any sense. God does not say, "Fill the garden and subdue it." How do you figure the instruction to be fruitful and multiply was issued after the disobedience?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
autumnman writes: According to the Biblical Heb. written script, the only instances when a nachash=snake of the field {Gen. 3:1} may be depicted as speaking {any language} is when it is depicted mythically or allegorically{i.e. in proverb). If you wanted to describe an actual serpent of the field speaking to humans, which words would you use in biblical Hebrew?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
iano asks:
Your objection wasn't dealing with empirical evidence, it was attempting to find contradiction in the account in Genesis. Between creation account 1 & 2. The one dealt with Gods instruction to multiply. The other to do with disobedience leading to death. Two completely separate issues - unless you can find a connection that is My question: where is the contradiction you suggest exists in this area? Somewhere in Gen. 2:4 -- 3:24 Eden creation account the sixth day of creation from Gen. 1:24 -- 1:31 must come to a conclusion. At some point God must rest from his creative efforts on the seventh day. Cursing serpents and expelling unruly humans does not amount to "rest." This suggests that if we are going to attempt to say that the Gen. 1 sixth day of creation concluded at the end of Gen. chapter 2, then the seventh day of rest never occured. Gen. 3:1 does not even slightly alluded to any time passing between Gen. 2:25 and 3:1. Furthermore, the seventh day of rest, as important to the Israelites as it is, would have at least been mentioned if indeed God had rested after Gen. 2:25. It is also important to mention that "the human archetype" is brought into being {Gen. 2:7} prior to the Garden in Eden being established {Gen.2:8). This means {because the Text states it} that "the human archetype" was initially made manifest "from the dust of the ground of the field" outside the Garden in Eden. Gen. 3:23 states that God sends the human archetype from the Garden of Eden "to till the ground from which he was taken." Gen. 2:5 clearly states that humans, when fully created, were "to till the ground." The question is, At what point in the Eden Narrative does Gen. 1:28 come into play; "God blessed them"! "and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it'." God does not say, 'fill the garden and subdue it.' You tell me 'where the contradiction exists.' Regards;Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Well I'm sorry that you tend to the "indulge in meaningless rhetoric to deny evolution" extreme. Selection by the way is a guiding force and not related to creating information. I would add that there is excellent evidence for speciation - including evidence that interfertility is not necessarily retained (Ring species, for instance).
quote: Since beneficial mutations are known to occur, your position has been proven false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
iano asks:
If you wanted to describe an actual serpent of the field speaking to humans, which words would you use in biblical Hebrew? I would use the biblical Hebrew the author of the Eden Narrative employed. By doing so a savvy reader or student would realize that the "talking serpent" occurred while the human archetype was under the influence of the tardemah=deep sleep which began in Gen. 2:21 and ends in Gen. 3:21. The author is employing the language of proverbs, allegories, metaphors. The author of the Eden Narrative is not describing "an actual serpent of the field speaking to humans." For example: an actual bear has never said, "Only you can prevent forest fires." Only an allegorical/proverbial bear can speak English. Do you see what I am driving at? Regards;Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
iano writes: If you wanted to describe an actual serpent of the field speaking to humans, which words would you use in biblical Hebrew?
autumnman writes: I would use the biblical Hebrew the author of the Eden Narrative employed. Fair enough. We can't decide real or allegorical "talking snake" based on the Hebrew for talking snake.
By doing so a savvy reader or student would realize that the "talking serpent" occurred while the human archetype was under the influence of the tardemah=deep sleep which began in Gen. 2:21 and ends in Gen. 3:21. I don't follow. The words use for talking snake don't indicate real/allegorical (if I am understanding you correctly). The savvy reader must use other means to infer allegorical rather than actual talking snake thus. These means are not supplied by this...
The author is employing the language of proverbs, allegories, metaphors. The author of the Eden Narrative is not describing "an actual serpent of the field speaking to humans." - finally..
For example: an actual bear has never said, "Only you can prevent forest fires." Only an allegorical/proverbial bear can speak English. Do you see what I am driving at? I mean no disrespect but you seem to be invoking an argument from incredulity. If CGI can have a snake talk on screen, who is to say God cannot permit a snake to talk in real life. Should one care that the snake has no vocal chords suitable for the practice? I say not at all. Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
If CGI can have a snake talk on screen, who is to say God cannot permit a snake to talk in real life. Should one care that the snake has no vocal chords suitable for the practice? I say not at all. So it was a magic snake! As I said, special pleading. The question is not "How can you prove it false?", but rather, how you show evidence that it is true. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Its hardly special pleading to suppose the spiritual realm to operate through the physical realm when one is talking with one who is apparently believing of the spiritual realm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
So you are saying that your argument depends upon one already believing that "Goddidit" is a sufficient answer to any objection? If so, I have no issue with that.
Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
My argument of Godddidit is addressed to one who seems to hold that Goddidlotsbutnotthis. The issue is whatGoddidanddidnot
You have no issue with us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
iano writes:
The words use for talking snake don't indicate real/allegorical (if I am understanding you correctly). The savvy reader must use other means to infer allegorical rather than actual talking snake thus. These means are not supplied by this... iano, you are not understanding correctly. "a talking serpent of the field" indicates that the author is writing allegorically/in proverb. The ancient author of the Eden Narrative lived in "the field" with "the serpent." The ancient author of the Eden Text knew more about "serpents" than we can imagine. Why? Because his life depended upon it. The wilderness, the steppe, is not a place where fools survive very long. In reality there is no such thing as a "talking snake." I don't know how to make that any clearer.
I mean no disrespect but you seem to be invoking an argument from incredulity. If CGI can have a snake talk on screen, who is to say God cannot permit a snake to talk in real life. If the author of a creation account is conveying the Deity creating the real world, then why would the author inject into that creation account unreal, fanciful, mythical characters or subjects. The ancient Hebrew authors of wisdom often employ maletzah=metaphor and chiydah=riddle, but never the naturally absurd. The focus of the Eden Narrative is "plants, herbs, the ground, fields, trees, rivers, etc." The human archetype begins as a part of reality, and ends as a part of reality. Read the Text very carefully and you will notice what I am trying to share with you. Belief has nothing to do with the Heb. Eden Text. The author is trying to help us understand something that is very important to us. Do you see what I am conveying?Ger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024