Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Origin of Gods word
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 106 of 200 (146661)
10-01-2004 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Trump won
10-01-2004 10:30 PM


THere must be a conclusion to how and why they left Egypt. The best evidence there is to what happened is the written text.
There's nothing wrong with you taking that position but its not the position that the textbook is taking. Read it again. The text is saying that this is what the Torah claims, its not making any statements towards the veracity of this claim. So once again your statement in message 52 is false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Trump won, posted 10-01-2004 10:30 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Trump won, posted 10-02-2004 12:55 AM DrJones* has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 107 of 200 (146666)
10-01-2004 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Trump won
10-01-2004 10:48 PM


CHRIS PORTEUS jr writes:
I think the oldest civilization would have good authority to speak of creation.
I imagine everyone in the ancient middle east felt that way. At any rate, they all accepted the opinion of the earliest civilization: that of Sumeria.
The Hebrew version differs somewhat from the Sumerian, but then science, even bad science, evolves. Genesis was written during the Babylonian captivity, circa 600 BC. At about the same time, in Greece, new theories threatened to undo the older (middle eastern) way of seeing things.
Perhaps Genesis was written in an effort to resist the 'godless' heliocentric theory; much as Luther's Bible was published, in part, to defy the revival of that godless theory by Copernicus.
Even the Bible (Job 38:4) suggests that nobody really knows how it all began. The Sumerians, and the Hebrews, were just theorizing. We are theorizing too but our theories have brought forth fruit.
The ancients imagined a universe made from and surrounded by infinite water (1 Peter 3:5). In our universe, on the other hand water is rare, and surrounded by infinite space.
Genesis is old science. Once validated and virtually irrefutable, the science of Genesis is now little more than an historical novelty.
db
This message has been edited by doctrbill, 10-01-2004 10:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Trump won, posted 10-01-2004 10:48 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Trump won, posted 10-02-2004 12:53 AM doctrbill has replied
 Message 112 by arachnophilia, posted 10-02-2004 2:08 AM doctrbill has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 108 of 200 (146672)
10-02-2004 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by doctrbill
10-01-2004 11:50 PM


quote:
Genesis is old science. Once validated and virtually irrefutable, the science of Genesis is now little more than an historical novelty.
If God's methods can be defined by science

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by doctrbill, posted 10-01-2004 11:50 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by doctrbill, posted 10-02-2004 2:08 AM Trump won has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 109 of 200 (146673)
10-02-2004 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by DrJones*
10-01-2004 11:16 PM


They however use it to describe Israelite beginnings for no other better explanation exists. I feel the exodus has been accepted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by DrJones*, posted 10-01-2004 11:16 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by DrJones*, posted 10-02-2004 2:08 AM Trump won has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 110 of 200 (146681)
10-02-2004 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Trump won
10-02-2004 12:53 AM


CHRIS PORTEUS jr writes:
If God's methods can be defined by science
Not sure I understand what you are trying to say but I take it that you don't accept Genesis as an accurate description of the universe. Yes? Most Christians don't, or won't if they actually read and understand it.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Trump won, posted 10-02-2004 12:53 AM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Trump won, posted 10-02-2004 5:03 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 111 of 200 (146682)
10-02-2004 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Trump won
10-02-2004 12:55 AM


I feel the exodus has been accepted.
Accepted by who? Certainly not by the textbook authors as they are clearly presenting the exodus myth as an origin story from the culture in question. You can tell this by the way in which its phrased "According to the Torah" and "The Book of Genesis tells"
Does the text describe any other cultures' origin myths? Do you feel that it is presenting those as fact? Are those myths now accepted?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Trump won, posted 10-02-2004 12:55 AM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Trump won, posted 10-02-2004 5:04 PM DrJones* has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 112 of 200 (146683)
10-02-2004 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by doctrbill
10-01-2004 11:50 PM


Genesis was written during the Babylonian captivity, circa 600 BC.
genesis does not bear the same style of writing seen in books that had to have been written during babylonian captivity, like kings.
if i had to place money on it, i'd say portions (though not all) of genesis is much older, though it may have only existed as oral tradition. some of genesis does appear to have been written during captivity.
Genesis is old science. Once validated and virtually irrefutable, the science of Genesis is now little more than an historical novelty.
genesis is NOT science. genesis was NEVER science. it does not give us an analytical way of viewing the world, or divulge any methodology or logic to creation. if you have to pick a sacred hebrew text to be called science, try the qabala's take on creation. it at least tells us how exactly god created man.
instead of tell us how things happen, genesis tells us why things are the way they are. stories in the book often end in "and that is why... " etc. it also seeks to provide a moral framework, based in a traditional mythical history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by doctrbill, posted 10-01-2004 11:50 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by almeyda, posted 10-02-2004 5:43 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 117 by doctrbill, posted 10-02-2004 10:37 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 118 by doctrbill, posted 10-02-2004 2:16 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 131 by ramoss, posted 10-03-2004 10:38 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 113 of 200 (146684)
10-02-2004 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Trump won
10-01-2004 10:48 PM


Two civilizations can't view creation the same way? I would tend to think that would give accuracy to genesis. I think the oldest civilization would have good authority to speak of creation.
the argument is not accuracy. we know that neither is accurate. i'm not arguing that; this is not the place for it.
the argument is the story is borrowed from another culture, with a decidedly hebrew spin. the authors did this a lot. they'd re-write their neighbors' traditions to reflect their own views, often to make fun of them. they often even took the foreign names, and transliterated them into ancient hebrew and then made a pun about them. like the tower of balal. in babylonian, it's name meant
"gateway of the god," but it sounds like the "confused." the humor of these things have obviously been lost, but they're good a show that they borrow and re-write legends.
the story is liek this with noah, and like this genesis one. only the babylonian myth involved seven gods, not seven days. big difference, wouldn't you say?
Do any of these links on this site have a case?
probably not, but i'll look. most of the stuff i see is from individuals with a need to validate their faith. personally, i think it'd be really cool to find evidence of the exodus, but it's not seeming very likely from what i've seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Trump won, posted 10-01-2004 10:48 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Trump won, posted 10-02-2004 5:11 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 200 (146701)
10-02-2004 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by arachnophilia
10-02-2004 2:08 AM


quote:
genesis is NOT science. genesis was NEVER science
Although i disagree with you and think that the entire genesis creation is fact and consistent with science. For your benefit ill pretend that its not science. However, you mention that there is no science in genesis. Well surely the 7-day week is science and not consistent with scientific knowledge known at the time. Ill explain...Well first off, the 7-day weeks origin is from the Bible, even more astonishingly is how it fits with astronomical observations on the earths pattern. The 24hr day time is based on how long it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis, the months are based on the earths relationship with the faces off the moon, the year is based on how long it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. So the day, month, year are all based on scientific observations. The fact that God took 6 days and rested on the 7th is the basis for our 7-day week.
Moreover in Exodus 20:11, the passage denounces any form off evolution in that God tells us that the basis of the work 6 days and 1 day rest is based on that God created in 6 days and rested on the 7th.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by arachnophilia, posted 10-02-2004 2:08 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by arachnophilia, posted 10-02-2004 6:26 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 116 by jar, posted 10-02-2004 10:11 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 132 by ramoss, posted 10-03-2004 10:39 AM almeyda has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 115 of 200 (146703)
10-02-2004 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by almeyda
10-02-2004 5:43 AM


Well surely the 7-day week is science and not consistent with scientific knowledge known at the time.
i don't agree. you go on to say that no natural cycle is seven days, and aknowledge that the seven-day week probably comes from the bible.
i don't see how that's science. the periods of 7's don't line up right with anything except the lunar month, and the average female menstrual cycle, which both happen to be divisible by seven at 28 days.
genesis is simply not a science textbook. it tells us there were plants before the sun. now, it maybe be arguable that mythology, as an attempt to explain the natural world, was the first step toward science.
Moreover in Exodus 20:11, the passage denounces any form off evolution in that God tells us that the basis of the work 6 days and 1 day rest is based on that God created in 6 days and rested on the 7th.
you're putting the emphasis on the wrong part of the verse. the other half, about keeping the sabbath, is the point of the verse. not creation bit. if i wanna read about creation, i have two different accounts in genesis, neither or which say anything about evolution. (although the first hints at it)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by almeyda, posted 10-02-2004 5:43 AM almeyda has not replied

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


Message 116 of 200 (146722)
10-02-2004 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by almeyda
10-02-2004 5:43 AM


Well surely the 7-day week is science and not consistent with scientific knowledge known at the time.
Why do you think a 7 day week is science? Calendars are only an arbitrary division, an accounting artifact. Why is a seven day week more scientific than a 14 day week, or a 10 day week,or a 4 day week?
It is true that a 4 day, 7 day or 14 day week lines up better with a lunar calendar, but what possible scientific basis is there to pick one of those over another?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by almeyda, posted 10-02-2004 5:43 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by almeyda, posted 10-02-2004 2:37 PM jar has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 117 of 200 (146729)
10-02-2004 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by arachnophilia
10-02-2004 2:08 AM


Arachnophilia writes:
... genesis was NEVER science. it does not give us an analytical way of viewing the world, or divulge any methodology or logic to creation.
Perhaps I should have said: 'science'.
Genesis was once accepted as a valid 'theory' of orgins and was consistent with Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Greek 'science' prior to about 600 BC.
As to methodology and logic:
God separates the waters into upper and lower regions by inserting a solid dome into the middle of the water; which dome provides an air space in which to created the sun, moon and stars.
It is simple, primitive and erroneous, but certainly sounds like methodology to me. And, as you have pointed out, the first chapter does present a sort of 'evolutionary' logic. These are the beginnings of reason. It is what the ancients took for science, although it seems primitive to us. But then, so do our own early models of the atom.
There is no reason to despise the literature. It is a window on ancient thinking. It once stood side by side with the major 'theoretical' models of its day.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by arachnophilia, posted 10-02-2004 2:08 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by arachnophilia, posted 10-03-2004 5:19 AM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 118 of 200 (146752)
10-02-2004 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by arachnophilia
10-02-2004 2:08 AM


Arachnophilia writes:
... portions (though not all) of genesis is much older, though it may have only existed as oral tradition.
Indeed, there is plentiful evidence that Genesis is comprised of oral traditions, sometimes several different traditions, as in the story of Abraham, and contradictory traditions, such as the legends of the Flood.
I would agree that Genesis may, in part, have been committed to writing prior to the Babylonian captivity although I have no evidence for that at present. Like any document, Genesis probably underwent many changes prior to achieving the form in which we find it today. When I say that it was written during the captivity, I am relying on the opinion of scholars who are much closer to the facts than I am.
As for the first chapter, the Hebrew creation myth is very like the Babylonian in a number of ways, including the order of events and the structure of the cosmos.
Before we discount the value of Babylonian 'science,' we should remember that these guys led the world in intellectual pursuits including 'science' and conquered the world with superior technology. The much touted Greek philosophers owed a great deal to the 'science' they inherited from Babylon. The pythagorean theorum for example, was expressed by Babylonian mathematicians nearly a thousand years before Pythagoras was born.
Primitive and ignorant as these fellows may seem to us today, without the foundation laid by their efforts, the foundation upon which we built our intellectual edifice, we might still be banging rocks together.
The point is, Genesis 'science' is merely OLD 'science' and should be recognized and respected for what it is: an immensely interesting window onto the past.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by arachnophilia, posted 10-02-2004 2:08 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 200 (146759)
10-02-2004 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by jar
10-02-2004 10:11 AM


I understand what your saying. If it was a evolutionary world where things just happen, then yes it wouldnt matter whens day, whens night, what calender we use. But again, why is our world so consistent, & orderly. A rational God as described in the Bible is a rational answer to why this world is orderly. And no matter what calender 'could have been used', we have a calender that fits the facts of reality. And of science. You can either call it a big coincedence. That our premeval homosapien ape-men where geniuses or that God gave man a time-dimension/framework. Based upon consistent astronomical observations not known at the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by jar, posted 10-02-2004 10:11 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 10-02-2004 2:45 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 121 by NosyNed, posted 10-02-2004 3:12 PM almeyda has not replied

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


Message 120 of 200 (146762)
10-02-2004 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by almeyda
10-02-2004 2:37 PM


That our premeval homosapien ape-men where geniuses or that God gave man a time-dimension/framework. Based upon consistent astronomical observations not known at the time.
Are you saying that early man couldn't see the moon? And what factor of a 7 day week corresponds to science or the universe better than any other choice?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by almeyda, posted 10-02-2004 2:37 PM almeyda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024