Summations Only

You don't need a Bible passage specifically condemning biologists and their theories. The description of special creation of the various kinds of animals in one week is completely inconsistent with the history of species of plants and animals on this planet based on either paleontology or the theory of evolution.

quote:

---

Yes, I must confess I favor the scholars who support Biblical tradition and reject those who reinvented it all in the last couple hundred years, which of course, contrary to your statement, shows I distinguish between good and bad scholarship rather than favoring it wholesale in one case aqnd rejecting it in another.

---

The fact that your evaluation of the scholarship is based almost entirely on whether you find their conclusions agreeable is quite sufficient to establish that you do not distinguish between good and bad scholarship. And the fact that your conclusions based on your extreme prejudice agree with your extreme prejudice is not in any way a validation of your judgement.Indeed given the number of hopelessly bad arguments you've made and tried to tout as good it's rather clear that you are not in any position to judge anybody's scholarship.The fact that you use lies and slander to reject expert opinions if they contradict you while insisting that expert opinions that support you should be unquestioningly accepted demonstrates not only hypocrisy but a complete disregard for truth and honesty.

Jar has not been meeting with success, and when I've merely alluded to it I've drawn responses like this: Golffly mentioned two writers and copying from earlier mythologies and got this: In the absence of any hint of willingness by Faith to discuss rather than lashing out, and since it would take some considerable time to refamiliarize myself with the details of textual criticism, it doesn't seem a wise investment of time.--Percy

There is an earlier Babylonian account ( Enuma Elish)
It is quite similar to Genesis. Like the Noah myth is a copy of older myth. so too it seems with Genesis.The Babylonian Genesis ( Heidel) has direct comparison side by side from the older Babylonian creation epic and bible Genesis. There are striking similarities that can not be coincidence. There are shown 8 points of striking similarity to Gen1.
Another author ( Copan) has noted the same.I have no particular interest in re- researching this to give more detail. Percy has indicated the lack of value in doing that. Faith has no particular interest in truth or history but rather making both fit her fantasy and getting upset at those pointing to obvious problems.Jar has shown the significant difference between the two Genesis accounts.So there is virtually no where to hide with a bogus Genesis . It's a copy of earlier myth, the two accounts are different. Science disproves it.
It's hard to get a more obvious example of bunk.

It is only bunk if you think the goal was to describe facts about creation instead of creation simply being a plot device.The former position seems really unlikely since both versions including the mutually exclusive parts were included.The folk that decided what to include (and remember this is a decision made repeatedly over hundreds of years) were not stupid or unlearned. They could see the contradictions and problems as easily as any honest reader yet they included both and even placed the newer, younger story before the older.A reasonable explanation is that they did not see the Creation as factual but rather a plot device to present other and more important issues. Remember that they were not trying to write science texts.

They were not stupid. But they were scientifically illiterate and superstitious and trying to understand often with imagination because they didn't have much evidence to go on. I don't see any particular reason to believe they didn't think it was factual. The OT is full of things no knowledgeable person today believes. I think they likely believed it with no problem at all. It's only because of modern knowledge, do we see it as absurd. With the ancients demonstrated ability to believe a lot of superstition, multiple, varying gods, made up explanations for why things occurred....I think saying they didn't see it as factual is a stretch.

Think.Are the two creation accounts found in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 mutually exclusive? Not based on current scientific knowledge but just on the content itself.

I believe you give them more credit than what is demonstrated. The content is significantly different in specific things. I believe it is noticeably different to some at that time. But I don't know what their motivations were and how much religious delusion factored in.
The delusion factor is huge. We see people with modern knowledge subjected to cult thinking, can say, apparently seriously..that the accounts are not different.
So with little ability to assess the amount of ladling of bunk they received and without the ability to determine their motivations...it's hard for me to well think as they might have.I should add, I am certainly willing to learn and am very interested in your thoughtsEdited by Golffly, : No reason given.

I think the whole idea of "factual" is pretty new. It's closely related to science (which is pretty new): something "factual" has evidence to support it.Ancient peoples were not that interested in evidence. They didn't have the means to collect evidence even if they wanted to. Their thinking tended to be pretty figurative.

No he hasn't had much success. Jar provides some textual analysis, but quite frankly, I don't find what he provides all that compelling.I would take Faith's exhortation as an invitation to refer to some primary source material, just as you would in any other thread. I'm sure I've seen that done before, and I suppose I could do it myself. I read Faith's statement as daring you to put up the information, because she seen it and believes she can debunk it. Again, it's way past time for a serious citation. That's your call, of course. But I indicated that I was willing to discuss it, and I'm not getting any better response from you. Sigh. Don't bring that weak stuff into the paint. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You might be right. I have a very difficult time relating to things figuratively. Or even imagining how to do that.
So jar likely has a very good point, and my inability to think outside my norm doesn't allow me to relate to it.

Sure, but plenty of Christians accept evolution as scientifically correct, so they don't need a specific passage either.I know Faith doesn't consider them 'Christians' on this particular side of this site, but she sure does love to include them in her numbers when she's debating how overwhelmingly Christian the US is.I still would like her to reconcile this conundrum for me.

If you were able to direct me to one time citations or indeed facts, that were contrary to Faith's opinion, resulted in her changing her opinion or acknowledging the validity...I would go through both the textual issue of the two creation accounts and the early copying of the creation myth issues, in depth.
Barring that, the effort involved would not seem to be an endeavor of a worthwhile nature.

I'm not sure what could be a more serious citation than the text itself but I also provided a quote from the then Bishop of the Atlanta Diocese of the Episcopal Church which said the same thing. When talking about multiple voices in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 or that there are two mutually exclusive food stories we are talking about stuff that is as patently obvious as day is brighter than night.

It seems that Percy does know exactly what evidence I am asking him to provide and that he feels the work required is not worth the effort.