Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,510 Year: 6,767/9,624 Month: 107/238 Week: 24/83 Day: 3/4 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Missing sea creatures
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3716 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 31 of 85 (185053)
02-14-2005 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Thor
01-10-2005 9:36 PM


Limited Rule
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.
Genesis 1:20-21
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures...
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds...
Now we have the verse in question:
Genesis 1:26
Then God said...and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
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.
Leviticus 11:9-10
Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales--whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water--you are to detest.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Thor, posted 01-10-2005 9:36 PM Thor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by doctrbill, posted 02-14-2005 6:06 PM purpledawn has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 3023 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 32 of 85 (185264)
02-14-2005 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by purpledawn
02-14-2005 7:39 AM


Re: Limited Rule
purpledawn writes:
Notice we don't have rule over the sea, but we supposedly do over all the earth ...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by purpledawn, posted 02-14-2005 7:39 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by purpledawn, posted 02-17-2005 1:34 PM doctrbill has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3716 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 33 of 85 (186217)
02-17-2005 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by doctrbill
02-14-2005 6:06 PM


Re: Limited Rule
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by doctrbill, posted 02-14-2005 6:06 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by doctrbill, posted 02-17-2005 6:11 PM purpledawn has replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 34 of 85 (186262)
02-17-2005 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by coffee_addict
02-13-2005 11:41 PM


Perhaps the bible is as vague as it is because God wanted us to be creative.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by coffee_addict, posted 02-13-2005 11:41 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2005 6:36 PM DBlevins has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1763 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 35 of 85 (186263)
02-17-2005 3:15 PM


missing sea creature found!!!!

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 3023 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 36 of 85 (186340)
02-17-2005 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by purpledawn
02-17-2005 1:34 PM


Re: Limited Rule
400 to 600 BC, according to these sources:
In the sixth century before our era, Pythagoras, and after him Philolaus, had suggested the movement of the earth and planets about a central fire; http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitec02.html
... a heliocentric theory was suggested at least as early as the 4th century BC- In chapter 13 of book two of his On the Heavens (http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/...eavens/heavens2.html), Aristotle wrote that "At the centre, they [the Pythagoreans] say, is fire, and the earth is one of the stars, creating night and day by its circular motion about the centre." Heliocentrism - Wikipedia
I like to think the truth was suspected by some even before the Pythagoreans published.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by purpledawn, posted 02-17-2005 1:34 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 02-17-2005 6:43 PM doctrbill has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5291 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 37 of 85 (186347)
02-17-2005 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by DBlevins
02-17-2005 2:58 PM


Crtitique of teleological judgement
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by DBlevins, posted 02-17-2005 2:58 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by tardygm2, posted 02-17-2005 7:08 PM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 44 by DBlevins, posted 02-17-2005 8:08 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3716 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 38 of 85 (186349)
02-17-2005 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by doctrbill
02-17-2005 6:11 PM


Re: Limited Rule
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by doctrbill, posted 02-17-2005 6:11 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by tardygm2, posted 02-17-2005 7:07 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 46 by doctrbill, posted 02-17-2005 9:43 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
tardygm2 
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 85 (186356)
02-17-2005 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by purpledawn
02-17-2005 6:43 PM


Re: Limited Rule
god is coming!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 02-17-2005 6:43 PM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by CK, posted 02-17-2005 7:09 PM tardygm2 has not replied
 Message 43 by AdminJar, posted 02-17-2005 7:20 PM tardygm2 has not replied

  
tardygm2 
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 85 (186359)
02-17-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Brad McFall
02-17-2005 6:36 PM


Re: Crtitique of teleological judgement
jesus is coming soon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2005 6:36 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4386 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 41 of 85 (186360)
02-17-2005 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by tardygm2
02-17-2005 7:07 PM


Admin Attention please
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by tardygm2, posted 02-17-2005 7:07 PM tardygm2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2005 7:14 PM CK has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5291 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 42 of 85 (186361)
02-17-2005 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by CK
02-17-2005 7:09 PM


Re: Admin Attention please
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by CK, posted 02-17-2005 7:09 PM CK has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 85 (186362)
02-17-2005 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by tardygm2
02-17-2005 7:07 PM


An Official Warning.
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.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by tardygm2, posted 02-17-2005 7:07 PM tardygm2 has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 44 of 85 (186387)
02-17-2005 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Brad McFall
02-17-2005 6:36 PM


Re: Crtitique of teleological judgement
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2005 6:36 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2005 9:07 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5291 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 45 of 85 (186402)
02-17-2005 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by DBlevins
02-17-2005 8:08 PM


Re: Crtitique of teleological judgement
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by DBlevins, posted 02-17-2005 8:08 PM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by coffee_addict, posted 02-17-2005 11:10 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024