Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 5:11 PM
22 online now:
1.61803, CosmicChimp, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Theodoric (6 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,789 Year: 4,826/19,786 Month: 948/873 Week: 304/376 Day: 97/57 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Author Topic:   The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1
rakaz
Junior Member (Idle past 4217 days)
Posts: 15
From: The Netherlands
Joined: 01-24-2006


Message 256 of 302 (408578)
07-03-2007 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 2:00 PM


quote:
quote:
I did not argue from the translation. Although 37 would seem rather old to be called a "young man".

Not at this particular spacetime. Isaac was not yet married, and the texts allocate very long lifespans for almost all figures at this time.


This does not help your argument. If Jacob was both 37 and still a boy, you cannot argue that the story is less cruel because Jacob was already 37 years old. It's still as cruel as before because Jacob was a boy at the time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 2:00 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14801
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 257 of 302 (408579)
07-03-2007 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 2:00 PM


quote:

True, it is not said explicitly, but it is alluded to, and the oral law expands on it.

So please produce these alleged allusions.

quote:

The calendar was used upon entering canaan. The Israelites were told the laws won't apply in the desert but will become law when in Canaan.

Or so you say. However if the calendar was in the law the Jews would still be using it. But they don't use the calendar you were talking about. In fact we've yet to see any indivation that this calendar actually exists. All you say is that it's somewhere in Genesis. If it was there you should have been able to find it by now. All you have to do is look.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 2:00 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 3246 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 258 of 302 (408580)
07-03-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 1:49 PM


IAJ wrote:
The scrolls are regarded the same as today, with no variation in its narratives from the Septuagint or the current OT. I have many links which say this. The discrepencies are allocated to alphabet styles and some differences of sylables, and writings style of scribes, etc. If there were any real differences, there would have been a major consequence.

OK, it looks like I was wrong – or he’s decided to keep pretending to be really this misled.

IJ, there are of course tons of links that say that – I’ve seen them too. They are part of this whole “fundamentalist Christianity” scam that is so effective in getting people to keep paying their tithe. Look, I have the DSS on my desk – I’ve looked over them, and the translators themselves comment on the removed verses, added verses, reworded verses, and on and on. For the book of psalms by itself – the scrolls have added a half dozen “new” psalms, have significantly reworded others, and even beyond that have rearranged them to be in a new order. Other books are like that too. If you don’t believe me, you don’t have to take my word for it, you can just get them yourself and have them to compare whenever you like.

The upshot is that you’ve been lied to (repeatedly it seems), and now are repeating all kinds of stuff that is just plain silly, and only makes you look like an idiot. It really makes me mad to see a person so deluded – you didn’t deserve to be so messed up, what they’ve done to you is, in my book, simply child abuse. It’s amazing, reading your posts, to think that some people deny that religion hurts people.

You can start your escape by checking the DSS yourself. Here they are:

http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Sea-Scrolls-Bible-Translated...

Good luck, you are in my thoughts-

Edited by AdminAsgara, : Do you think we can all learn to shorten our long URLs?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 1:49 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 259 of 302 (408581)
07-03-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 9:58 AM


Re: A little advice for the Creationist's posting
LOL - my sympathies. Its amazing how distorted the impression of the OT is. They even forget proper grammar in concluding two creation stories!

I am too old to remember proper grammer.

I actually called it The Literal Genesis acccount of creation. I used the KJV Bible only.

And I stand corrected there is only one creation and then the seven days of Moses or the re-creation of certain things (or whatever you would prefer to call it), in Genesis 1:2-Genesis 2:3.


"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 240 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 9:58 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1772 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 260 of 302 (408582)
07-03-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Chiroptera
07-03-2007 1:54 PM


Re: Ah. Here is the problem.
quote:
chiro

How about actual scholarly works by people who are experts in the field?


There's only one kind.

quote:

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?
A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance

Until science can show otherwise, there is no alternative to Creationism. And thread carefully - the OT has never been disproven to date, and over 50% of all its narratives have been proven. Any alternative considered, must be at least greater than the result, and at least Genesis satisfies with an accurate description of a Creator who is greater than his creation. The latter premise is non-negotiable - so let's see what those scientists in white come up with, and lets hope they have good imaginations.

You have to start being objective. Genesis, a 3,500 year old ancient document, containing 100s of 1000s of stats throughout its passages - is proving to be one tough cooky. And you have'nt begun to consider the extent of vindication, as opposed very few stand out items. Consider this, because in its own way it does align with science:
All the laws the world follows is from the OT - exclusively; not a single law comes from any other religion, philosophy or advancement. Think about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Chiroptera, posted 07-03-2007 1:54 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Vacate, posted 07-03-2007 2:43 PM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 262 by Coragyps, posted 07-03-2007 3:21 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 265 by rakaz, posted 07-03-2007 3:37 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 268 by Chiroptera, posted 07-03-2007 4:08 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2704 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 261 of 302 (408583)
07-03-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 2:26 PM


Re: Ah. Here is the problem.
IamJoseph writes:

the OT has never been disproven to date, and over 50% of all its narratives have been proven.

so let's see what those scientists in white come up with, and lets hope they have good imaginations.

So how would you decide what to believe regarding the results of the scientists? Who was it that proved 50% of the OT narratives? The same people who you reject; believing that their evidence as imagination.

You have to start being objective.

I am still trying to figure out how you get proof without science, yet reject any and all science that differs from the biblical interpretations that you insist science has proven.

not a single law comes from any other religion, philosophy or advancement. Think about it.

In Baltimore, Maryland, it is not legal to take a lion to the movies

In Greene, New York, During a concert, it is illegal to eat peanuts and walk backwards on the sidewalks

*copy/pasted from here*
http://tjshome.com/dumblaws.php

Edited by Vacate, : Added Link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 2:26 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 10:42 PM Vacate has not yet responded
 Message 276 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 10:44 PM Vacate has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5380
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 262 of 302 (408585)
07-03-2007 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 2:26 PM


All the laws the world follows is from the OT - exclusively; not a single law comes from any other religion, philosophy or advancement. Think about it.

You might pause for a second and think about it yourself. Like the next time you exceed 25 mph in a school zone, or drive with glasspacks instead of standard mufflers. Or quote from a website without attribution. Or possess cocaine.

Wow. Just freakin' wow.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 2:26 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12589
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 263 of 302 (408586)
07-03-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 9:47 AM


Hi IamJoseph!

When you get a chance could you give the Forum Guidelines a look? Particularly this one:

  1. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

If you think it would be helpful I'd be glad to explain the rationale behind this rule. Thanks for participating at EvC Forum!


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 9:47 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 264 of 302 (408587)
07-03-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by rakaz
07-03-2007 1:30 PM


Re: Re Evidence
Like I said before; it is nonsensical to talk about proving or disproving the existence of God. Science cannot prove it either way, because science is about observations and something that cannot be observed by definition falls outside of the realm of science. Personally I also feel it falls outside of the realm of common sense, but that is a different story altogether.

You addressed what Genesis 1:1 says. Fine

You totally ignored what science says about the same subject.

What you believe happened is just as preposterous to me an is Genesis 1:1 to you.

I believe God did it.

You believe it just happened, and you know for a fact it did because we are here presenting different views about what happened.

I believe Genesis 1:1, Genesis 2:4-Genesis 4:26 gives a complete and accurate account of the day the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.


"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 248 by rakaz, posted 07-03-2007 1:30 PM rakaz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by rakaz, posted 07-03-2007 3:51 PM ICANT has responded

  
rakaz
Junior Member (Idle past 4217 days)
Posts: 15
From: The Netherlands
Joined: 01-24-2006


Message 265 of 302 (408589)
07-03-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 2:26 PM


Re: Ah. Here is the problem.
quote:
All the laws the world follows is from the OT - exclusively; not a single law comes from any other religion, philosophy or advancement. Think about it.

In The Netherlands we have laws that permit abortion and euthanasia. Please open up your Bible and specify the name of the book and the numbers of the verses that these laws are based on. Or alternatively retract your claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 2:26 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

rakaz
Junior Member (Idle past 4217 days)
Posts: 15
From: The Netherlands
Joined: 01-24-2006


Message 266 of 302 (408590)
07-03-2007 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by ICANT
07-03-2007 3:25 PM


Re: Re Evidence
quote:
You addressed what Genesis 1:1 says. Fine
You totally ignored what science says about the same subject.
What you believe happened is just as preposterous to me an is Genesis 1:1 to you.
I believe God did it.

First of all, I do not believe Genesis 1:1 is preposterous. I think it is highly unlikely and that it defies common sense to believe in something so unlikely. Even though I am very sceptical I am willing to keep an open mind and will change my position if somebody will present real proof that a God exists and created life. It would be preposterous of me to hold to a believe that is proven to be false.

Secondly I did not ignore what science says about the subject. It is simply irrelevant to the discussion. Science is by definition based on evidence. Faith lacks evidence by definition. The logical conclusion is that the theory proposed by science is more likely, simply because any evidence is better than no evidence at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2007 3:25 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2007 9:13 PM rakaz has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 267 of 302 (408593)
07-03-2007 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 1:49 PM


You guys are building towers of babel in mid air. The scrolls are regarded the same as today, with no variation in its narratives from the Septuagint or the current OT. I have many links which say this. The discrepencies are allocated to alphabet styles and some differences of sylables, and writings style of scribes, etc. If there were any real differences, there would have been a major consequence.

* sigh *

There was.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 1:49 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 268 of 302 (408594)
07-03-2007 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 2:26 PM


Re: Ah. Here is the problem.
Until science can show otherwise, there is no alternative to Creationism.

First, science has shown otherwise; literal Genesis creationism has been pretty much disproven and isn't even an alternative anymore.

-

And thread carefully - the OT has never been disproven to date, and over 50% of all its narratives have been proven.

I doubt that. The literal Genesis creation account and the literal account of the Flood has been disproven by geology; the account of the Exodus has been disproven by archeaology. The other accounts concerning famous patriarchs, judges, and kings may or may not have occurred, but they certainly have not been proven, either.

-

You have to start being objective. Genesis, a 3,500 year old ancient document, containing 100s of 1000s of stats throughout its passages - is proving to be one tough cooky.

Actually, it's the stubborness of the creationists and literalists that are proving to be tough cookies. But that is up to them -- people will believe what they will believe -- nothing I can do about it. All I can do is point out their errors -- if they don't want to listen, then there's nothing much else I can do.

-

not a single law comes from any other religion, philosophy or advancement.

Heh. Of course, the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Aztecs, Incas, and so forth had laws long before they ever heard of Moses (and, in some of these cases, long before even Abraham was even born, assuming there even was an Abraham).


Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?

A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 2:26 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2704 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 269 of 302 (408596)
07-03-2007 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 5:05 AM


Re: the question posed
IamJoseph writes:

*snip* according to genesis and my understandinging of it, neanderthal or any other life form, and human derivitive from them, has no impact here. Whether neaderthal constitutes a prototype of modern humans, or of another life form (a certain ape?), does not negate or impact, because genesis, which is minimilist *snip*

*emphasis is mine

This is just a dodge of the issue. You claim that the definition of "Kind" has no impact merely because genesis is minimilist. Yet you use it as a method of disproving evolution?

Whether neaderthal falls with animal and humans, or mammals and animals - is a separate issue.

One that you brought up, (nighttrain asked for clarification in message 216) and I requested that you create another thread to specifically address. What is the IamJoseph definition of "kind", in such that it shows the Theory of Evolution to be incorrect?

But genesis is correct in that it is speaking of a life form with speech - it is correct from this point and premise.

But not from any other. Do you often select what information to include in your beliefs? How do you decide what information to deny/ignore/misrepresent?

In message 214 you said:

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

So your position regarding "kind" is that it could mean all of biology, kingdom, class, species or {speaks/does not speak}. Depending on what one you decide to choose at any given moment you can immediatly conclue that Darwin is incorrect. This is hardly a strong case against Evolution, and I ask again if you would be willing to create a new thread to clarify your definition of "kind" so you can once and for all put this silly Theory of Evolution to rest?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 5:05 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 11:13 PM Vacate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 270 of 302 (408597)
07-03-2007 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by IamJoseph
07-02-2007 11:03 PM


Re: because the question posed was really stupid
it is possible that all animals are one specie (or 'kind') according to genesis, but not so with darwin.

In a perverse way, I find myself enjoying this.

Do go on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 11:03 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019