Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Creation Enigma
date
newest »
newest »
you seem to read the NY times a lot, no wonder you think the way you do.with regards to the characters I was referring to El, Baal and Ashteroth in the Ebal tablets, however I assume you are looking for reference to a person, like this.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/da...
by the way feel free to discuss your creation myth with the others, I prefer facts.I've just been waiting for you to put forward some solid evidence that the Jewish priests wrote Genesis as myth. That would be step one from my perspective. evidence zero.
Last thought from me.. Memories of the exodus are found late in the Egyptian 12th dynasty (dating issues remain) and the Armana tablets. A little more history for you.
Joshua wrote: "you seem to read the NY times a lot, no wonder you think the way you do.
with regards to the characters I was referring to El, Baal and Ashteroth in the Ebal tablets, however I assume you are look..."
The New York Times has turned my mind away from Jesus ...?
I just Googled the point and that's what came up.
Yes, I was looking for a real person from Genesis. But thought you'd checkmate me with a wild goose chase after some Phoenician deities in a longwinded article, because you couldn't find verification for the existence of a single person named in Genesis.
I guess my rabbis are still right.
But I do think that was a bit, not entirely honest of you, Joshua. And it's not just me whose watching you.
with regards to the characters I was referring to El, Baal and Ashteroth in the Ebal tablets, however I assume you are look..."
The New York Times has turned my mind away from Jesus ...?
I just Googled the point and that's what came up.
Yes, I was looking for a real person from Genesis. But thought you'd checkmate me with a wild goose chase after some Phoenician deities in a longwinded article, because you couldn't find verification for the existence of a single person named in Genesis.
I guess my rabbis are still right.
But I do think that was a bit, not entirely honest of you, Joshua. And it's not just me whose watching you.
Joshua wrote: "by the way feel free to discuss your creation myth with the others, I prefer facts.
I've just been waiting for you to put forward some solid evidence that the Jewish priests wrote Genesis as myth...."
I've said I hypothesised that the Jewish priests allegorised well-know myths.
And rather than spoon feed you everything at once, which can be conveniently dismissed by putting CAPS LOCK ON AND DECLARING "UTTER STUPIDITY" - with a sweeping gesture that get's you out of actually thinking outside your comfort zone, and defeating detail with detail. Which is what I'm looking for.
I have been slowly and gradually offering you an insight into how it's done - so you can give it a shot yourself. But so far you've only managed to laugh at the snakes in the libraries.
But I guess you've been too busy telling Chinese geology students of their biblical origins to notice - oh, and you could also tell them Robert has concluded the divinely sanctioned study of why their eyes are the way they are.
Here's a thought, if you and Robert put together some if those facts you prefer - in a format they can independently verify the content of - I'll send them off to a number of Chinese students I know. Zuochen still has contacts in the history department at Shanghai University, and I'm sure they'd be happy to pass the work on to the biologists.
http://www.life.shu.edu.cn/Default.as...
I've just been waiting for you to put forward some solid evidence that the Jewish priests wrote Genesis as myth...."
I've said I hypothesised that the Jewish priests allegorised well-know myths.
And rather than spoon feed you everything at once, which can be conveniently dismissed by putting CAPS LOCK ON AND DECLARING "UTTER STUPIDITY" - with a sweeping gesture that get's you out of actually thinking outside your comfort zone, and defeating detail with detail. Which is what I'm looking for.
I have been slowly and gradually offering you an insight into how it's done - so you can give it a shot yourself. But so far you've only managed to laugh at the snakes in the libraries.
But I guess you've been too busy telling Chinese geology students of their biblical origins to notice - oh, and you could also tell them Robert has concluded the divinely sanctioned study of why their eyes are the way they are.
Here's a thought, if you and Robert put together some if those facts you prefer - in a format they can independently verify the content of - I'll send them off to a number of Chinese students I know. Zuochen still has contacts in the history department at Shanghai University, and I'm sure they'd be happy to pass the work on to the biologists.
http://www.life.shu.edu.cn/Default.as...
Yes, I was looking for a real person from Genesis. But thought you'd checkmate me with a wild goose chase after some Phoenician deities in a longwinded article, because you couldn't find verification for the existence of a single person named in Genesis.I guess my rabbis are still right.
But I do think that was a bit, not entirely honest of you, Joshua. And it's not just me whose watching you.
Seriously do you take a second to even look at what I propose or do you just spout your opinions. In my post I referenced another article that contains a tablet speaking of the "house of David"
So you still need to buy that book of Roberts, here's another
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_All...
Apparently Balaam of Beor was quite a popular mystic.
And I must thank you for pointing me to the Chinese. I didn't realise they have the great flood recorded in their history. In their records it happened around 2500 BC. stunning.Maybe Robert is right about them being Cain's decendants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fl...
If you want to talk origins, then we must talk origins.Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Science observes an expanding universe, hence the big bang theory. The fruit of Einstein's work the theory is that the universe began with a massive explosion of energy from an unknown source. Indeed the discovery of atomic energy has confirmed that all matter is made of energy. The source of this energy that universe is made from is unknown to science. God describes himself as fire when He reveals himself to Israel (fire is synonymous with energy)
The source of the energy of the big bang is God. Now it doesn't really matter if you believe it's the biblical God at this stage, but there was a unknown source of energy. This is a scientific fact and there are no words for it. The bible calls it Elohiym.
Jesus said God is Spirit, i.e. He exists outside the natural realm. Hence the sudden appearance of energy, the scientific community would estimate billions of years ago.
As a note the scripture records an unknown time period between the creation of the "heavens and the earth" and the six days of creation on earth. It records a period where the earth was without form and covered in water. This explains to me the layering in the earth's crust below the cambrian layer. In case you don't know the Cambrian layer is when there is a sudden unexplained explosion of life forms in the accepted geological timeline.
"The source of the energy of the big bang is God."
Your evidence for this outside a Jewish pamphlet from 200 BCE is ...?
"In the beginning" of what? We've already got biblical water right here. Water came after the Big Bang.
"Created" we've got right here. Not just pushing the button on the Big Bang and leaving the water-filled universe to itself, but hands-on right up to the rib-woman.
It's the "Heaven" singular in Creation 1 - the Heavens contradiction does not come until Yahweh's re-creation day. "Heaven" was the name of the dome of air opened up in the water. No evidence outside the pamphlet for that claim that I know of.
"The Earth" was created before the sun, moon and stars. That only works on a mythological or allegorical level.
Dates: downright fundamentalists are quite honest about this. Others are conveniently slippery, when it suits them, in trying to show how scientifically accurate the pamphlet is. The first 5 and a bit days can be as long as they need to be to fit with whatever the godless scientists come up with, but you can only do that until you get to the mud-man, because we can all count the begats and put the instantaneous arrival of Homo sapiens on the planet 4004 BCE and you can wiggle away from that date.
And isn't it convenient how a "day" isn't a literal day unless you want it to be, and then it is. And how for centuries it was God's own truth that the world was flat and at the centre of the universe and Jesus really did live above the clouds and Satan really did live below the ground, and now you backsliders are siding with those scientists to deny the bits you don't like anymore because none of those things are true anymore - but they once were. Christianity moves with fashion - it's just behind the rest of the world until it's obliged to sweep something else under the altar.
Let's stay with what you're doing for a moment, and give me your extra-biblical evidence for;
"The source of the energy of the big bang is God."
I've offered up for discussion my suggestions for the allegorical possibilities (you know, like how days aren't days when you don't want them to be) they're up there amongst your noise somewhere. I'm not offering them as facts, as offering them up from discussion from people who want to perhaps take the "days aren't days" consideration to the next level.
Unless you do have some independently verifiable evidence from outside Genesis 1 (other than opportunistically latching on to random bits of shiny scientific stuff that appeal to your confirmation bias, and conveniently leaving things like the uninterrupted cultures of Egypt, India, China and elsewhere unmentioned) then it won't be necessary to trouble yourself with only taking Genesis 1 as partly literal as you now do, and watery universe and the light (from your favourite version of the Christian versions of God) and the dome of Heaven will be filled with grass and trees, and birds won't need to evolve from dinosaurs because they really were created a day ahead of dinosaurs - but what's a day in the never-changing flexibility of biblical creation science ....
Oh, about that evidence outside the pamphlet for the energy to set off the Big Bang throughout the watery whatever it was that was there before the Big Bang and the light ...?
P.S. We true Bible scholars know that Cambrian explosion was when Yahweh was trying to create a good servant for Adam and he switched the pottery production line back on again and turned more mud into all the creatures in a not-so-omnipotent attempt to try and make a suitable sex partner for his mud man. Fortunately, the world's very first Homo sapiens had been created with a sophisticated pre-Hebrew language with which he could name all the potential brides in a Cambrian zoological taxonomy.
Your evidence for this outside a Jewish pamphlet from 200 BCE is ...?
"In the beginning" of what? We've already got biblical water right here. Water came after the Big Bang.
"Created" we've got right here. Not just pushing the button on the Big Bang and leaving the water-filled universe to itself, but hands-on right up to the rib-woman.
It's the "Heaven" singular in Creation 1 - the Heavens contradiction does not come until Yahweh's re-creation day. "Heaven" was the name of the dome of air opened up in the water. No evidence outside the pamphlet for that claim that I know of.
"The Earth" was created before the sun, moon and stars. That only works on a mythological or allegorical level.
Dates: downright fundamentalists are quite honest about this. Others are conveniently slippery, when it suits them, in trying to show how scientifically accurate the pamphlet is. The first 5 and a bit days can be as long as they need to be to fit with whatever the godless scientists come up with, but you can only do that until you get to the mud-man, because we can all count the begats and put the instantaneous arrival of Homo sapiens on the planet 4004 BCE and you can wiggle away from that date.
And isn't it convenient how a "day" isn't a literal day unless you want it to be, and then it is. And how for centuries it was God's own truth that the world was flat and at the centre of the universe and Jesus really did live above the clouds and Satan really did live below the ground, and now you backsliders are siding with those scientists to deny the bits you don't like anymore because none of those things are true anymore - but they once were. Christianity moves with fashion - it's just behind the rest of the world until it's obliged to sweep something else under the altar.
Let's stay with what you're doing for a moment, and give me your extra-biblical evidence for;
"The source of the energy of the big bang is God."
I've offered up for discussion my suggestions for the allegorical possibilities (you know, like how days aren't days when you don't want them to be) they're up there amongst your noise somewhere. I'm not offering them as facts, as offering them up from discussion from people who want to perhaps take the "days aren't days" consideration to the next level.
Unless you do have some independently verifiable evidence from outside Genesis 1 (other than opportunistically latching on to random bits of shiny scientific stuff that appeal to your confirmation bias, and conveniently leaving things like the uninterrupted cultures of Egypt, India, China and elsewhere unmentioned) then it won't be necessary to trouble yourself with only taking Genesis 1 as partly literal as you now do, and watery universe and the light (from your favourite version of the Christian versions of God) and the dome of Heaven will be filled with grass and trees, and birds won't need to evolve from dinosaurs because they really were created a day ahead of dinosaurs - but what's a day in the never-changing flexibility of biblical creation science ....
Oh, about that evidence outside the pamphlet for the energy to set off the Big Bang throughout the watery whatever it was that was there before the Big Bang and the light ...?
P.S. We true Bible scholars know that Cambrian explosion was when Yahweh was trying to create a good servant for Adam and he switched the pottery production line back on again and turned more mud into all the creatures in a not-so-omnipotent attempt to try and make a suitable sex partner for his mud man. Fortunately, the world's very first Homo sapiens had been created with a sophisticated pre-Hebrew language with which he could name all the potential brides in a Cambrian zoological taxonomy.
BTW, for "proper" believers there was none of this Big Bang business you've been science-facting about when you say: The source of the energy of the big bang is God. Now it doesn't really matter if you believe it's the biblical God at this stage, but there was a unknown source of energy. This is a scientific fact and there are no words for it. The bible calls it Elohiym.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/02/10/w...
When you've finished writing those preferred facts for my Chinese students about their biblical origins, you might need to call Glenn and tell him he's not a proper Christian.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/02/10/w...
When you've finished writing those preferred facts for my Chinese students about their biblical origins, you might need to call Glenn and tell him he's not a proper Christian.
Stuart - if you are indeed a child of God, I'm not going to question what you deem as God's imprimatur as long as it appears your task is in accordance with His will. Yes, Satan, is a cagey imposter, but I'm well aware of his influence so, if I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, I'd appreciate the same.I'm not sure what you are asking me. If God says he fashioned man and woman starting with mud and rib then so be it. The extent of His power is unknowable so, as a puny mortal, I'm merely left in awe at the majesty of the little I know of His universe.
You seem to have a whole lot that makes you angry. Maybe if you condensed it to one specific outburst at a time, people could respond better to your rants.
conveniently leaving things like the uninterrupted cultures of Egypt, India, China and elsewhere unmentionedwhy do I feel like I'm talking to an automated supermarket checkout.
Can I comment that the Jews are also discussing the six days. An interesting point is that since the sun was not created till the fourth day and is designated as being for "times and seasons" the six days of creation cannot be a literal day as we understand it. The chronological measurement didn't exist yet.I understand the Hebrew term means a period of time and can apply to different time frames. Perhaps someone can confirm this. Therefore it must be either some kind of cosmic measurement or some kind of allegory is what I am thinking
The way I understand it is this:An hour is 1/24 of a day, which is the relative motion of the sun and earth - either a full orbit of the sun or a full rotation of the earth (I am speaking of motion and not gravity, of course). Without a sun for the earth to move with, there is no 1/24th - no hours. To my mind this makes a literal, 24-hour creation impossible - and to me it seems to be something of a mark that the passage is not meant to be a physical history.
Philo of Alexandria seemed to think as much, he wrote:
"It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time; because all time is only the space of days and nights, and these things the motion of the sun as he passes over the earth and under the earth does necessarily make. But the sun is a portion of heaven, so that one must confess that time is a thing posterior to the world. Therefore it would be correctly said that the world was not created in time, but that time had its existence in consequence of the world. For it is the motion of the heaven that has displayed the nature of time."
Isn't it far easier to just discount primitive cosmology entirely? How on earth could people 2-3000 years ago know what we know today? It seems like some of us have unrealistic expectations of ancient writers.
Joshua that was a great article. Thanks.Quote by Dr. Clifford Wilson "That’s what happens from time to time. My own experience is that if the Bible says something is accurate, well, be very slow to suggest otherwise, because it does have a habit of proving to be right after all."
Bit of a side thought...Lee quote:
" How on earth could people 2-3000 years ago know what we know today?"
It's always fascinating when people claim the Bible was written by a bunch of sheepherders and desert vagrants. And yet I meet atheist language scholars who are endlessly attempting to catch up with the deep meaning of these historical language accounts.
Lee does the Bible ever impress you with it's amazing psychology and understanding of the human condition?
Rod - psychology and the human condition are a long way from cosmology.
Rod wrote: "It's always fascinating when people claim the Bible was written by a bunch of sheepherders and desert vagrants."haha...it's equally amusing when people claim the New Testament was written by a bunch of uneducated peasant itinerants.
Lee are we agreeing on something? Wow!Basically that the Bible is some impressive historical language and structure (regardless of its content)?
But if you lob in making lots and lots of hollow noise about anything other than the subject in hand - especially as a distraction to people who may actually be giving it some thought - and with veiled threats that you may be dropping the Cross if you engage too much ... and you would not want to be seen to be doing that ... would you ...? I won't use words like "obtuse" or "lightweight" or "gasbag" or put the CAPS LOCK ON AND SAY "UTTER STUPIDITY", but I will lampoon you mercilessly. Perhaps it's a character flaw, but I love the opportunity to do it, and it usually provides wonderful entertainment for those who've paid me the courtesy of listening.