My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

These stories were not written down until centuries later. There was no alphabets in the 5th millinium BCE. The storytellers knew of locusts. Locusts and other winged creatures appeared in the carboniferous, millions of years before the storytellers. is a large conglomeration of a particular thing and a swarm of swarms ids simply a swarm of swarms of other things. What allies? The destroyer of the Temple was the Chaldean Empire, who had overthrown the Assyrians. The Babylonians hadn't been in power for nearly 1000 years prior to the destruction of the temple. Rakefet:Thesophical Society in Pasadena http://www.theosociety.org
Thesophical Society in Israel http://www.theospphia.co.il

It looks like their unusual interpretation of this and other words is necessary to reinforce for their beliefs in the bible's accuracy.If the words don't make sense the way everyone interprets them, why, just change the meaning of the words! Because of course the bible can't be in error.We see this same nonsense in other threads as well. No matter what the evidence the bible can't be wrong, so they twist and manipulate words and concepts, and ignore what they have to, until everything works out the way they want.This is the exact opposite of science, where we do our best to make our terms and concepts clear and to follow the data where it leads.

I am not being dishonest, specially not compared to the thrash you post.IMO, swarms can be any size when seen as identical similar things concentrated together and moving in a singular path - like locusts. However, it is also related to small and specially so when this is emphasized as 'swarms of smarms' and when airborn life cannot be allocated at this phase.Where is the equivalent list of life forms in Egypt or any other writings?

We keep going around and around.Can you cite ANY other examples in ANY other texts that use the word "swarm" to mean "something small"?Remember, we aren't looking for the use of the word "swarm" where it's used to mean "lots of" something and the thing happens to be small.A "swarm" of ants mentioned in some other book is not evidence that swarm means small. It still means "lots".Your entire argument has been that the use of the word "swarm" in the Bible is evidence that the Bible recorded microscopic life prior to its discovery by people.But you ALONE are the only one using the word "swarm" in this way. Biblical scholars in the past, certainly didn't use the term this way. Modern day Rabbinical scholars certainly don't use the word this way. All these people are certain about their use of the word.So, we're left with the impression that you will bend over backwards to redefine (read: make shit up) words to pretend they mean something they don't and then declare that as evidence.Deep down, you know you are being dishonest.That is our greatest victory. The fact that you are lying to yourself.

quote:

---

These stories were not written down until centuries later. There was no alphabets in the 5th millinium BCE.

---

How do such statements pass w/o any response! Hebrew alphabets have been found dated 1000 BCE; king David has been proven, even where he wrote different psalms - all in alphabetical prose which have not dated any today. David is a mere 250 years from Moses. You should post your evidence when making such statements.

quote:

---

Also, locusts are winged creatures - these were yet not emerged till airborne life emerged. Nor can this be related to 'creepy crawly creatures.

​

The storytellers knew of locusts. Locusts and other winged creatures appeared in the carboniferous, millions of years before the storytellers. is a large conglomeration of a particular thing and a swarm of swarms ids simply a swarm of swarms of other things.

---

Even allowing your premise, it still marks an advanced view placing winged creatures before water borne creatures. How did those ancient people determine such stuff - wiki!?

quote:

---

As I said before, the war which destroyed the temple was by Babylon and its allies; the exile was to Babylon:

​

What allies? The destroyer of the Temple was the Chaldean Empire, who had overthrown the Assyrians. The Babylonians hadn't been in power for nearly 1000 years prior to the destruction of the temple.

---

My understanding is the Babylonian empire was at its peak at this time, as was Rome later. Babylon was conquered by Persia, which allowed the Jews to return from Babylon [Mesopotamia; Iraq] and rebuild the destroyed temple - this event 'proves' the Hebrew bible predates 586 BCE by centuries. It is also where the re-Islamic peoples learnt of Monotheism and Judaism.

I used the term nano life loosely. Its a diversion to focus on this. The point is about transit life forms between species, and this is well catered to in the Genesis texts, including swarms of swarms, creepy crawlies and 'every creature that lives.'

quote:

---

Can you cite ANY other examples in ANY other texts that use the word "swarm" to mean "something small"?

---

Swarms can refer to bacteria - I posted such a rendering. Swarms of swarms' do refer to size.

IamJoseph responds to bluescat48:

quote:

---

quote:

---

These stories were not written down until centuries later. There was no alphabets in the 5th millinium BCE.

---

​

How do such statements pass w/o any response! Hebrew alphabets have been found dated 1000 BCE

---

You act like there's a contradiction. You do know what "millennium" means, yes? You do understand that the 5th millennium was before 1000 BCE, yes? Thus, if there were no alphabets in the 5th millennium, how is that a problem when Hebrew alphabets show up four thousand years later?

quote:

---

king David has been proven

---

No, not really.

quote:

---

You should post your evidence when making such statements.

---

Indeed. You should. You're the one saying he existed. It's your burden of proof.

quote:

---

it still marks an advanced view placing winged creatures before water borne creatures.

---

Which is completely backwards from what actually happened. Ergo, the Bible got it wrong.

quote:

---

How did those ancient people determine such stuff - wiki!?

---

You know of no ways in which stories are created? The only two ways are to witness it directly and to reference what someone else said?

quote:

---

this event 'proves' the Hebrew bible predates 586 BCE by centuries.

---

Except it doesn't. Too many references to events that happened after then (such as cities that didn't exist until the first or second century BCE) as well as linguistic constructs that wouldn't come into play until hundreds of years after what you claim.There is history to be found in the Bible. However, it is not the history you want to learn.

As we pointed out earlier, swarms refer to a number of individuals in a group.Swarms of bacteria is not a reference to the size of bacteria. It's a reference to their number.You need to find a place where the word "swarm" is used in the singular as a description of the size of an object."The puppy was a swarm" would be a good example.

quote:

---

As we pointed out earlier, swarms refer to a number of individuals in a group

---

Swarms can refer to bacteria. And how come you never picked up this all encompasing statement listed prior to air borne creatures emerging:

quote:

---

and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed

---

quote:

---

You do know what "millennium" means, yes? You do understand that the 5th millennium was before 1000 BCE, yes?

---

Yes, that is my error. I read as 5th C. There was no alphabetical writings then, but I believe the pyramids are older than 5000 years and these contain earlier writing modes.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
king David has been proven
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

No, not really.

---

He is mentioned in a relic 100 years after his death. Even 'House of David' is mentioned, which is a biblical term, as well as a war listed in the book of Kings. Are you saying David is a myth?

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it still marks an advanced view placing winged creatures before water borne creatures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Which is completely backwards from what actually happened. Ergo, the Bible got it wrong.

---

Life started in water; next up is air borne life. This is correct, nor is the premise of making such a claim anything less than astounding for its time.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did those ancient people determine such stuff - wiki!?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

You know of no ways in which stories are created? The only two ways are to witness it directly and to reference what someone else said?

---

You have no proof of your claim, which says it is without any merit and made only to reject as a predisposition, which is a wiodespread syndrome but not a legitimate one.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this event 'proves' the Hebrew bible predates 586 BCE by centuries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Except it doesn't. Too many references to events that happened after then (such as cities that didn't exist until the first or second century BCE) as well as linguistic constructs that wouldn't come into play until hundreds of years after what you claim.

---

Does this apply also to a temple which was destroyed, listed in numerous books made before this date!?

quote:

---

There is history to be found in the Bible. However, it is not the history you want to learn.

---

We do need to learn it - it is indispensible: a host of primodial factors depend on it, and these are not found anywhere else. The origins of three religions depend on Abraham and Moses being credible entities else they fall in a heap, and this is derived exclusively from the Hebrew bible. Genesis stands in the face of all notions of human history as a yard stick - significantly, we have no 'name' older than Adam; the first 'king' is listed here as well as the first human cencus. Ancient names listed in the geneologies in Genesis are today used by archeology to verifiy dates. There is no other writings more important or offers more to learn from: name one?

IamJoseph, here's a little tip for debating.Repeating the EXACT SAME sentence as a response to a post in which I explain why you are wrong is NOT an effective way to win a debate.Yes, swarms can refer to bacteria. And also comets.A swarm of bacteria would be a whole lot of bacteria moving around in a relatively high density.
A swarm of comets would be a whole lot of comets moving around in a relatively high density.Bacteria are very small.
Comets are very large.Since "swarm" refers to both bacteria and comets equally, "swarm" can not mean "small".I'm still waiting for you to find "swarm" used to refer to a single small individual.

Life started in the water, yes, then land life, Arachnids (spiders & scorpions) & Amphibians, then the first airborne, flying insects, the ancestors of the modern day Dragonflies, Mayflies, locusts & Cockroaches. One finds Arachnid & Amphibian fossils in Devonian layers whereas there are no winged creatures found below the Carboniferous. Writing modes, yes, hieroglyphics and 5000 years would place them in 4th to 3rd Millenia BCE.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

I believe the pyramids are older than 5000 years and these contain earlier writing modes.

---

Well, no, they're not, but that's beside the point (and if they are, there goes the global flood...there's no flood damage to the pyramids.) Hebrew is alphabetic.

quote:

---

He is mentioned in a relic 100 years after his death.

---

No, he's not.Hint: This is where you mention the item you are referring to. I'm pretty sure I know which one you mean, but you have to go first. You're the one making the claim.

quote:

---

Are you saying David is a myth?

---

I'm saying we have no real evidence for his existence. That doesn't mean he didn't exist, but he certainly didn't the way you think he did.

quote:

---

Life started in water; next up is air borne life.

---

But the Bible has it the other way around: Airborne life is described as coming first when it was the other way around. It also describes terrestrial plants coming first and that's even more ass backwards.

quote:

---

You have no proof of your claim

---

Nice try, but you're the one with the burden of proof. I don't have to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to show that they don't equal 5. It would certainly be nice, but it isn't a requirement.Since the Bible's description of the order of creation is not in agreement with the way life actually progressed, it is your burden to describe how they can be reconciled since you are the one claiming they can.

quote:

---

Does this apply also to a temple which was destroyed, listed in numerous books made before this date!?

---

Except there aren't any such references. This would be where you lay your cards on the table. You're the one making the claim. You're the one who needs to prove it.

quote:

---

We do need to learn it - it is indispensible: a host of primodial factors depend on it, and these are not found anywhere else.

---

The identical case exists for the Iliad and the Odyssey. Why do you accept the divine claims of one set of books and not another?

quote:

---

The origins of three religions depend on Abraham and Moses being credible entities else they fall in a heap

---

Why does that matter? Are you saying that if a lot of people believe in a dumb thing, that makes it not a dumb thing?

quote:

---

Genesis stands in the face of all notions of human history as a yard stick

---

Indeed.And it fails to measure up. This would be where you provide your evidence that it does as you're the one making the claim.

quote:

---

significantly, we have no 'name' older than Adam

---

The Hindu would have something to say about that, seeing as how it's older than Judaism and its writings predate the Bible.And by the way: "Adam" isn't a name.

quote:

---

the first 'king' is listed here as well as the first human cencus.

---

Except they're not.

quote:

---

Ancient names listed in the geneologies in Genesis are today used by archeology to verifiy dates.

---

No, not really. A couple, but only because we were able to validate their existence outside of the Bible.

quote:

---

There is no other writings more important or offers more to learn from: name one?

---

I've named two and hinted at a third source. Have you read them?

The Empire at Babylon, in 586BCE, was not Babylonian. Babylonians were the Mesopotamian people who occupied that area from ~the latter part of the 3rd Millemim BCE to the middle of the 2d millenium BCE. They were wiped out or absorbed into the Assyrian empire which had overthrown the Babylonians. The Assyrians took control of the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and made the Southern Kingdom (Judah) pay tribute ~722BCE. The Chaldeans overthrew tw the Assyrians in the 6th Century BCE and took control of Judah ~586BCE. They are the ones who destroyed the Temple and Took the leaders of Judah to Babylon. The Empire at Babylon in the 6th Century BCE was not Babylonian, as I have stated. Cyrus with his Persian/Median Army overthrew the Chaldeans and allowed the people of Judah to return and rebuild the temple. Cyrus equated his God, Marduk with the Judaic God, Yahweh.