|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Origin of Gods word | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2765 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
quote: If God's methods can be defined by science
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
They however use it to describe Israelite beginnings for no other better explanation exists. I feel the exodus has been accepted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2765 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2765 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2765 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024