Missing sea creatures

Maybe the author didn't intend for man to rule everything in the sea!According to Richard Elliott Friedman in his book "Who Wrote The Bible?", the first chapter of Genesis is considered to be written by the same priestly author that wrote Leviticus. He states that they were probably written after the fall of the northern kingdom.This verse shows that the writer understood that there were various creatures in the water. Now we have the verse in question: Notice we don't have rule over the sea, but we supposedly do over all the earth and all the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air.Since the writer did not give man rule over the sea, he understood that humans couldn't rule where they couldn't survive.Now look at what the writer says God allows the Hebrews to eat. IMO, the priestly author gave man rule over where he felt they could survive and over creatures that were necessary to their survival.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This reminds us that the author of Genesis imagined Earth and Sea as separate realities;To him, the Sea was not a part of Earth.According to him, Earth is in the Sea and surrounded by it.Neither the author of Genesis nor any other biblical writer imagined Earth to be a planet.I know it is difficult to imagine this but the text could not be clearer on the subject. If we can imagine this Bronze Age 'science,' then maybe we can figure out the rest of the story.db

quote:

---

This reminds us that the author of Genesis imagined Earth and Sea as separate realities;

---

Do you have any idea when humans realized they were on a planet?I never took the words "earth" and "world" used by the authors of the Bible to refer to an entire planet as we view it today, but instead they refered to land, territories, or cities; known to them.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Isn't your point that the designers could have told you everything and you would have still found creative ways around. It seems you are giving human ingenuity the short-shrift. People can design things creatively and get around designs by knowing details of the design. Hackers for example. The best hackers know the design of the system they are trying to circumvent, otherwise they may run into more problems. It gives them an advantage. Are you saying that if God were to make his supremeness unequivocal that all us humans would suddenly becomse stupid? he needn't explain every detail or all details, but he could have given some clue.The only logical/rational conclusion is that it was infalliable/unknowledgable humans who wrote the book.

http://img206.exs.cx/img206/9412/seamoster8id.jpg

400 to 600 BC, according to these sources: I like to think the truth was suspected by some even before the Pythagoreans published.db

You synthesized,

quote:

---

It gives them an advantage. Are you saying that if God were to make his supremeness unequivocal that all us humans would suddenly becomse stupid?

---

. I dont see how there can be much of a difference between "unequivocableness" and "undecidability".I think this IS what Kant meant with, "On the contrary, with all our knowledge of nature it remains undecided whether that supreme cause is its original ground, accoriding to a final purpose, or not rather, by means of an understanding, determined by the mere necessity of its nature to produce certian forms (according to the analogy of what we call art instinct in animals), without it being necessary to ascribe to it even wisdom, much less the highest wisdom combined with all other properties requisite for the perfection of its product."

quote:

---

I like to think the truth was suspected by some even before the Pythagoreans published.

---

Realistically, how quickly would it really spread? Even today, with all the media available, there are a lot of scientific breakthroughs that don't make it through to the masses.The duties of the priests didn't really include keeping up on discoveries.Always interesting to think of how the past might have been.Thanks for talking with me.

god is coming!

jesus is coming soon!

What here? But I haven't got my best china out! Rushes off to Hoover Admins - guys, I doubt this guy is interested in anything like debate.

quote:

---

Do you have any idea when humans realized they were on a planet?

---

I guess I'm with you a bit CK, I dont understand the double posting next to me and PurpleDawn as PD had in thread 33 the above quote and mine IS restricted to man no matter what kind of god is idolized.

mitt, you have not posted a single message since you joined EvC that has anything to do with the topic it'sposted in. One more nonsense post like these and your posting privileges will be restricted.

---

ahh but having "unequivocabalness" can make "undecidability" less of a problem. Decidability still exists, but the existence of a God or a God-like entity woould be unequivocal.As they say...
Go hang a salami; I'm a lasagna hog!

That's correct and that is why Kant had "on the contrary" if I understood him correctly. He had wanted to use this to assert that "physciotheology is a misunderstood physical teleology, only serviceable as a preperation(propaeduetic) for theology, and it is only adequate to this design by the aid of a foreign principle on which it can rely, and not in itself, as its name seems to indicate." but I took it that that IS NOT what you had intended in response to Lam. Kant had said immediately prior, "Physical teleology impels us, it is true, to seek a theology, but it cannot produce one, however far we may investigate nature by means of experience and , in reference to the purposive combination apparent in it, call in the ideas of reason (which must be theoretical for physical problems). What is the use, one might well complain, of placing at the basis of all these arrangements a great understanding incommensurable by us and supposing it to govern the world according to design if nature does not and cannot tell us anything of the final desgin? For without this we cannot refer all these natural purposes to any common point...I should thus have an artistic understanding for scattered purposes, but no wisdom for a final purpose...If this is to be done theoretically, it would presuppose omniscience in me in order to see into the purposes of nature in their whole connection, and in addition the power of conceiveing all possible plans, in comparison with which the present plan would be with justice as the best. For without this complete knowledge of the effect I can arrive at no determinate concept of an intelligence ...Hence, with every possible extension of physcial teleology, according to the propositions above laid down we may say: By the constitution and priciples of our cognitive faculty, we can think of nature,...in no other way than as the product of an understaind to which it is subject. But the theoretical investigation of nature can never reveal to us whether this understading may not also, with the whole of nature and her production, have had a final design (which would not lie in the nature of the sensible world). ON THE CONTRARY, WITH ALL OUR KNOWLEDGE OF NATURE IT REMAINS UNDECIDED..."I only assumed either you or both you and Lam are intelligent. Thanks for helping me to decide. I either have a bit more wisdom in me or else I have become a bit stupider in the process.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-17-2005 21:10 AM