Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists acknowledge evolution makes sense
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 47 of 63 (10125)
05-21-2002 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Mister Pamboli
05-21-2002 12:42 PM


[QUOTE] Of course, the passages have absolutely no significance for the redemption of man from sin or the acceptance of Jesus, and him crucified. It's difficult to believe anyone would find this error a a barrier or challenge to their faith, compared to say, the problem of evil, unless that faith happened to be in a linguistically unsustainable literalism.[/B][/QUOTE]
And this is my point precisely.
If one's faith is based upon taking some parts of the Bible as literally true, then why not all parts of the Bible? How does one know which parts are to be taken as literal and which are to be figurative or allegorical?
If you want to believe that the Flood occurred, sans evidence, then you must also be willing to believe that rabbits chew their cud, just like ruminants do. You must be willing to believe that the stars are literally "set" into something like a firmament, and there is water above this firmament.
The reality of the situation is that there is no such thing as a person who believes the Bible 100% literally. Everyone interprets the Bible, and once you start to interpret, then it's simply a matter of who's interpretation you like.
I mean, Creationism based upon the Bible anyway, not evidence found in nature. Why else would there still be such a thing as a YEC and a OEC? The evidence found in nature rules what is accepted in science, not what a particular interpretation of a certain religious book says is true.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-21-2002 12:42 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-21-2002 2:37 PM nator has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 48 of 63 (10126)
05-21-2002 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by nator
05-21-2002 1:29 PM


I agree with most of what you say, except for one minor quibble. Just as it is untenable to expect the bible to literally true in its every utterance, so one shouldn't go to the other extreme and deny that there is nothing in the bible that is literally true! Yet sometimes it seems that this is what those who oppose literalism are accused of. It most certainly is not an all-or-nothing choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nator, posted 05-21-2002 1:29 PM nator has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 63 (10134)
05-21-2002 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Joe Meert
05-21-2002 10:49 AM


Joe, I don't have a problem with there being incorrect translations portions of scripture. But I can tell you categorically that this does not grossly affect ony major doctrine including creaiton/flood that I can think of.
Name a doctrine of any bible believing chiurch - eg the Baptists (I'm not a Baptist BTW) - that you think hinges on only one verse that may (or may not) be mistranslated or ambiguous.
My point was that the phrase/word transalted as 'chewing the cud' may simply mean grass eating in Hebrew.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Joe Meert, posted 05-21-2002 10:49 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by TrueCreation, posted 05-21-2002 9:19 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 52 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-21-2002 9:26 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 55 by octipice, posted 05-21-2002 10:52 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 63 (10136)
05-21-2002 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tranquility Base
05-21-2002 9:08 PM


"My point was that the phrase/word transalted as 'chewing the cud' may simply mean grass eating in Hebrew."
--I can also recall when reading something (might have been encarta?) on some of the hares. Maybe this was a usage for itterating digestion (turn around and take bite if you know what I mean).
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-21-2002 9:08 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 63 (10137)
05-21-2002 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Mister Pamboli
05-21-2002 12:42 PM


Although rabbits are not ruminants they do eat their own pellets as pointed out by AIG and we would hence suspect that this was categrized as the Hebrew 'alah'.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3725.asp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-21-2002 12:42 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Joe Meert, posted 05-21-2002 10:39 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 57 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-21-2002 11:32 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 52 of 63 (10140)
05-21-2002 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tranquility Base
05-21-2002 9:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
My point was that the phrase/word transalted as 'chewing the cud' may simply mean grass eating in Hebrew.
It doesn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-21-2002 9:08 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-21-2002 10:16 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 63 (10149)
05-21-2002 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Mister Pamboli
05-21-2002 9:26 PM


^ I agree now - See #51.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-21-2002 9:26 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 54 of 63 (10152)
05-21-2002 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tranquility Base
05-21-2002 9:22 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Although rabbits are not ruminants they do eat their own pellets as pointed out by AIG and we would hence suspect that this was categrized as the Hebrew 'alah'. [/QUOTE]
JM: I thought you were a "phded' scientist (biology part of your emphasis no doubt) and you can't distinguish between 'cud' and 'feces'
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-21-2002 9:22 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-21-2002 11:07 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
octipice
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 63 (10154)
05-21-2002 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tranquility Base
05-21-2002 9:08 PM


For a very long time there has been one particular verse that has divided christians on the issue of creation. It goes like this: "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day...". The idea that everything was created in only a few of what we consider to be "days" is a verse that divides many christians on the subject of creation. As you can see, an ambiguous phrase such as this can really effect the subject of creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-21-2002 9:08 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 63 (10156)
05-21-2002 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Joe Meert
05-21-2002 10:39 PM


You obviuously haven't ahd a close look at rabbit feces joe - it's basically grass. And that's obviously the opinion of the rabbits!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Joe Meert, posted 05-21-2002 10:39 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 57 of 63 (10159)
05-21-2002 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tranquility Base
05-21-2002 9:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Although rabbits are not ruminants they do eat their own pellets as pointed out by AIG and we would hence suspect that this was categrized as the Hebrew 'alah'.
No it wouldn't be categorized as alah - if the Hebrews knew that rabbits ate their own fecal matter I suspect their scrupulous hygienic laws would have rather more to say about it!
They use exactly the same phrase as they use for chewing the cud - and the word is the same word as is commonly used for cud in semitic languages today (pastoral terms are amongst the most entrenched usages in linguistics). The only argument you could use to render another meaning is that the Bible cannot be wrong, so we must extend the meaning of chewing the cud to encompass this.
Note a few things - the word alah is used for bringing up the cud. They were aware of the difference between this and vomiting - for which they use the cognate words Qayah, Qow and Qe. Remember that they do not actually say the Hebrew "chewing" the cud, but "bringing up" the cud. There is actually no mention of chewing - they had special words for that too: araq and G'ram
There is no reason to suppose they would not have made a similar distinction for the very distinctive behaviour of rabbits - or the digestive complexities of the hyrax for that matter.
So the passages do not mean that Hebrew's were aware that bunnies munch their grassy poo - it means they thought they chewed the cud just like ruminants. And they were wrong. Which is ok, if the author was an ancient Hebrew and only a problem if you believe he was some sort of stenographer for the Almighty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-21-2002 9:22 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Joe Meert, posted 05-21-2002 11:53 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 59 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-22-2002 12:02 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 58 of 63 (10163)
05-21-2002 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Mister Pamboli
05-21-2002 11:32 PM


Thanks for the info MP!
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-21-2002 11:32 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 63 (10166)
05-22-2002 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Mister Pamboli
05-21-2002 11:32 PM


What you're saying is very compelling but it's not absolute proof that the term wasnt use to indicate that, either way, these animals redigested their food! Your 'meaning of the words' comes from usage of course - or do you have an ancient Hebrew dictionary written back then? Common usage dictates meaning and now it may be actual cud regurgitation, at an earlier point it may have been more incusive regardless of the sub-meanings of parts of the word.
Words become definitions that are only as useful as their common usage.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-21-2002 11:32 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Joe Meert, posted 05-22-2002 12:05 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 60 of 63 (10168)
05-22-2002 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Tranquility Base
05-22-2002 12:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What you're saying is very compelling but it's not absolute proof that the term wasnt use to indicate that, either way, these animals redigested their food! Your 'meaning of the words' comes from usage of course - or do you have an ancient Hebrew dictionary written back then? Common usage dictates meaning and now it may be actual cud regurgitation, at an earlier point it may have been more incusive regardless of the sub-meanings of parts of the word.
Words become definitions that are only as useful as their common usage.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

JM: Fine, the same could be said about the words in Genesis 1 and 2. The same could be said about the words used in the Noachian flood story. I think you should have held back before posting this one
. Or are you gonna give the 'it's only true for some parts of the bible' defense?
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-22-2002 12:02 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Joe Meert, posted 05-22-2002 12:09 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 61 of 63 (10170)
05-22-2002 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Joe Meert
05-22-2002 12:05 AM


You have a thread going on the GC sedimentary rocks. Stick with it. Focus man!
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Joe Meert, posted 05-22-2002 12:05 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-22-2002 12:14 AM Joe Meert 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