Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: Evolution or Creation Science?
Source:
Orthodox Church in America
URL Source: https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-law ... /evolution-or-creation-science
Published: May 30, 2012
Author: Fr. Lawrence Farley
Post Date: 2018-02-14 09:59:32 by A Pole
Keywords: orthodox, creation, evolution
Views: 24551
Comments: 211
In my years as a priest and of sharing the Gospel, I have heard many reasons offered for not becoming a Christian: scandals associated with clergy, the wealth of the Church, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. etc. I thought I had more or less heard it all, and so was unprepared for a reason one young man offered to justify his rejection of Orthodoxy—namely, that dinosaurs were not in the Bible. I blinked a few times, and was left temporarily speechless (something of a rarity with me, to which those who know me well can attest). His idea was that since dinosaurs obviously existed (their skeletons adorn our museums), then if the Bible was God’s Word, he should be able to read about dinosaurs in the Bible. Since he could not find them there (I refrained from mentioning certain fundamentalist interpretations of Leviathan and Behemoth in the Book of Job), then obviously the Bible could not be God’s Word and he could not remain Orthodox. He was referring of course to the old supposed conflict between Science and Religion, and in this arm-wrestling match, it was clear to him that Science had won. No Biblical dinosaurs, no more church-going. So, what’s the deal about dinosaurs? Why aren’t they in the creation stories in Genesis? Apart from the absurdity of supposing they’re not there because they aren’t mentioned by name (the duck-billed platypus isn’t mentioned by name either), it’s a valid question, and one that leads us headlong into the question of how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. Interpretation of the creation stories too often degenerates into an argument between the theory of evolution vs. what is sometimes called “creation science”. By “evolution” the average non-scientific person means the notion that Man descended from the apes, or from a common ancestor of apes and men. The name “Darwin” is usually thrown about, regardless of how the ideas in his On the Origin of Species have fared in the scientific community since Darwin wrote it in 1859, and most people’s knowledge of evolution is confined to looking at the famous evolutionary chart in National Geographic, showing how smaller hominids kept walking until they became human beings like us. By “creation science” is meant the view that the Genesis stories are to be taken as scientifically or historically factual, so that the earth (often considered to be comparatively young) was created by God in six twenty-four hour days. Since the time of the “Scopes monkey trial”, the argument between “evolutionists” and “creationists” has been going strong, and is often fought in the nation’s courts and departments of education. Arm-wrestling indeed. Happily for people with weak arms like myself, the Church does not call us to take part in this arm-wrestling match. The creation stories in Genesis were not written, I suggest, to give us a blow-by-blow account of how we got here. Rather, they were written to reveal something fundamental about the God of Israel and the privileged status of the people who worshipped Him. We assume today that the ancients wanted to know how we got here, and how we were created. In fact, they were mostly uninterested in such cosmic questions, and the creation myths that existed in the ancient near east spoke to other issues. Most people back then, if they thought of the question of cosmic origins at all, assumed that the world had always existed, and the various gods they worshipped were simply part of that eternal backdrop. That is where the creation stories were truly revolutionary. Their main point was not merely that God created the world; it was that the tribal God of the Jewish people was sovereign over the world. We take monotheism for granted, and spell “god” with a capital “G”. For us, God is singular and unique by definition. It was otherwise in the ancient near east. That age was populated by different gods, each with his or her own power, agenda, and career. And this is the point: in the Genesis stories, none of these gods are there. In the opening verses we read, “In the beginning God (Hebrew Elohim, a Jewish name for their God) created the heavens and the earth” and “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made earth and heaven.” The creating deity is called “Elohim” and “Yahweh”—the names for the Jewish God. Other rival deities are simply not there. It is as if they do not exist. They had been dethroned and demoted by their omission from the story. The opening verse of Genesis is a salvo fired into the world of polytheism, a ringing declaration that their gods were nobodies. We keep reading and discover that this Jewish God made everything that existed by His simple word of command. He simply said, “Light—exist!” (two words in the original Hebrew), and light sprang into existence. In the creation myths of the pagan cultures of that time, the gods created by lots of huffing and puffing (in an Old Babylonian myth, the god Enlil uses a hoe), but not so the God of the Jews. He is above all that. For Him, a simple sovereign word suffices. In fact, in the first chapter of Genesis, all the cosmos was brought into being by Him uttering ten simple commands (yep, it does foreshadow the Ten Commandments, given later). And Man is portrayed in these stories as the sum and crown of creation, giving the human person a dignity never before known. Man is said to have been made “in the image of God”—a revolutionary statement, since in those days, only kings were thought to be in the divine image. Despite this, Genesis invests the common man with this royal dignity. And even more: it says that woman shares this image and rule with him. In the ancient near east, women were chattel; in Genesis, she is a co-ruler of creation with the man. The stories of Genesis cannot be read apart from their original cultural context, and when we read them as they were meant to be read, we see that the creation story was a gauntlet thrown down before the prevailing culture of its time. The creation stories affirmed that the Jewish God, the tribal deity of a small and internationally unimportant people, alone made the whole cosmos. That meant that He was able to protect His People. It meant that, properly speaking, all the pagan nations should abandon their old gods and worship Him. These stories affirm that the Jewish God is powerful enough to have created everything by a few simple orders. They affirm that Man is not the mere tool and slave of the gods, whose job it is to feed the deities and care for their temples. Rather, Man is a co-ruler with God, His own image and viceroy on earth. And Woman is not a thing to be sold, inferior to Man. Rather, she shares Man’s calling and dignity. These are the real lessons of Genesis. It has nothing to say, for or against, the theory of evolution. Its true lessons are located elsewhere. So what about dinosaurs? I happily leave them in the museums, to the makers of movies (I love “Jurassic Park”), and the writers of National Geographic. The creation stories of Genesis give me lots to ponder and to live up to without multiplying mysteries. As Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me; it’s the parts I do understand.” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A Pole (#0)
Anyone who thinks we decended from apes should demonstrate they really mean it. By eating a banana and fucking a gorilla.
Are you a paleontologist?
Do you fuck monkeys?
This is a thoughtful, candid write-up on the issue that is indeed very much in line with the sentiments of many, though not all, Christians. Namely that it doesn't matter how we got here, but that God is real regardless of the method. That is certainly my own sentiment. For that reason, I'm a bit surprised to see you post it Stone. It in no way makes any case for Creationism over Evolution.
Resorting to vulgarities does undermine your case pretty severely, Stone. While they are mere phonetics and words that we have been indoctrinated to take as offensive as part of our culture, they are nonetheless offensive to many, and I know of no self-proclaiming Christians who do that. And that is completely aside from the point of it being an unfair attack on those who believe in evolution.
It doesn't matter to you because you're not a Christian. It does matter though. Very much. Also if Genesis is false there is no reason for Jesus to come and save us. If it doesn't matter why do biased scientists try to prove something that happened in the past by making stuff up with their fervid imagination? Have a good day sir. I might add that I respect you as a person and a poster. You handle yourself well and are always courteous and kind. Unlike me sometimes.
ATheists Through savanT spiriTualiTy can validaTe Their deformiTy ObliviaTe realiTy Over Trivia nonsense STill convincing Themselves Of inTellecTual superioriTy The flaT head earthers Ignoring The obvious Love ps MounTains of Turd hills If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
It is not funfair. If they think that is where we came from they should still have sex with them since we are the same family line. It s crude but it makes the point.
To be exact I do not "believe in evolution", I consider it as a very plausible theory, with many facts supporting it.
That troglodites are still among us?
How would one ever prove evolution is "falsifiable?" That means there are circumstances under which evolution could not possibly be true. That is the current definition of what is science. Evolution is a religion.
This is a complex question. First I do not respect much Popper's falsification/verification theory. Putting this aside, there are several evolution theories like Lamarck, Darwin, popular Neodarwinism as taught in American high schools and Jurassic Park movies, and they are still evolving [pun intended] rapidly. Certainly for many it is , especially for those who do not know biology very well.
First I do not respect much Popper's falsification/verification theory. I can't say I do either, but that is modern science. You don't need to know evolution to be a biologist. In fact, creationists believe in everything an evolutionist believes except that a sparrow could evolve into a lizard.
Human beings are soulless zombies Homo sapiens Means wisdom Soul Awareness of life ExisTence of God CreaTion Love Ps God will sorT ouT The Trash If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Then you don't understand modern scientific principles. Falsification is an absolute requirement in science. We must be able to test our theories and we must discard those whose experimental results cannot be replicated. Without this, there is no science worthy of the name.
That sounds more like verification than falsification. Verification relies on empirical evidence that shows an assumption to be true. It's not to be discounted: it was solely relied on for centuries. Falsification starts with the assumption itself. What would show this assumption not to be true? If there is no condition that could occur that would show an assumption not to be true, then it is not science. There is no condition in which evolution could be shown not to be true. Yeah, I've heard some arguments such as fossil layers, but when it is shown there are numerous instances where the layers don't match evolutionary expectations, it is rationalized away.
Falsification requires, among other things, a theory unambiguous enough to be tested and then replicated by other qualified peers. Theories are a dime a dozen. Positing a theory and finding a way to determine if it is true or not is what makes it science. Falsifiability applies in other ways. It also means there is no such thing as a final answer in science. No theory or scientific principle is ever so truly established that a new theory with adequate demonstrative proof and replication cannot overturn it. This has happened many many times in the history of science. It is how we progress. It's what the greatest Nobel Prizes were awarded for. It is in some ways a philosophy-of-science kind of question. So I think the terms and the debate just rubs some people the wrong way. I am myself pretty suspicious of any philosophic propositions. But I do think Popper was right. Dead right. 1,000% right. But I could be wrong. : ) It does sound to me like you agree with Popper. You're mostly just quibbling over the terms of the discussion. IMO.
Then you don't understand modern scientific principles. I know his theory well. I just think it is shallow and flaky. Burn me on the stake! And I am not the only one, if it is an argument for you. Here is an initial fragment of sample text: Debunking Popper: A Critique of Karl Popper's Critical Rationalism, by Nicholas Dykes [...] Critical Rationalism has also been referred to, by Popper himself and by others, as the theory of falsification, or falsificationism, and as fallibilism. It would be tempting, for the sake of brevity, to employ 'fallibilism' throughout, but the term is also associated with the founder of Pragmatism, C.S. Peirce, who actually coined it long before Popper began his career.4 This paper therefore follows the lead of later Popperians such as W.W. Bartley III5 and David Miller6 in employing Critical Rationalism, which in any case better encompasses Popper's thought. The Critical Rationalism of Karl Popper [henceforth CR] begins by rejecting induction as a scientific method. The actual method of science, Popper maintained, is a continuous process of conjecture and refutation: "The way in which knowledge progresses, and especially our scientific knowledge, is by unjustified (and unjustifiable) anticipations, by guesses, by tentative solutions to our problems, by conjectures. These conjectures are controlled by criticism; that is, by attempted refutations, which include severely critical tests. They may survive these tests; but they can never be positively justified: they can be established neither as certainly true nor even as 'probable'..." [C&R vii]. [...] Popper built his philosophy on foundations borrowed from Hume and Kant. His first premise was wholehearted acceptance of Hume's attack on induction. The second, to be addressed in the next section, was agreement with Kant's view that it is our ideas which give form to reality, not reality which gives form to our ideas. Hume, whom Popper called "one of the most rational minds of all ages" [PKP2 1019], is renowned for elaborating the 'problem of induction' - a supposedly logical proof that generalisations from observation are invalid. Most later philosophers have accepted Hume's arguments, and libraries have been filled with attempts to solve his 'problem.' Popper thought he had the answer. "I believed I had solved the problem of induction by the simple discovery that induction by repetition did not exist" [UNQ 52; c.f. OKN 1ff & PKP2 1115]. What really took place, according to Popper, was CR, knowledge advancing by means of conjecture and refutation: "... in my view here is no such thing as induction" [LSCD 40]; "what characterises the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested" [LSCD 42]. Hume, said Popper, had shown that: "there is no argument of reason which permits an inference from one case to another... and I completely agree" [OKN 96]. Elsewhere he referred to induction as "a myth" which had been "exploded" by Hume [UNQ 80]. He further asserted that "There is no rule of inductive inference - inference leading to theories or universal laws - ever proposed which can be taken seriously even for a minute" [UNQ 146-7; see also RASC 31]. The Problem with 'The Problem' Popper's solution was certainly correct in one respect. The problem of induction would indeed vanish if there were no such thing as induction. However, the issue would be resolved much more positively were it to turn out that Hume had been wrong, and that there never had been any problem with induction in the first place. And, in point of fact, this is the case. Despite his great skill as a thinker and writer, Hume missed the point. Induction does not depend for its validity on observation, but on the Law of Identity. Hume stated, in essence, that since all ideas are derived from experience we cannot have any valid ideas about future events - which have yet to be experienced. He therefore denied that the past can give us any information about the future. He further denied that there is any necessary connection between cause and effect. We experience only repeated instances, we cannot experience any "power" that actually causes events to take place. Events are entirely "loose and separate.... conjoined but never connected."8 According to Hume, then, one has no guarantee that the hawthorn in an English hedge will not bear grapes next autumn, nor that the thistles in a nearby field won't produce figs. The expectation that the thorn will produce red berries, and the thistles purple flowers, is merely the result of "regular conjunction" which induces an "inference of the understanding."9 In Hume's view, there is no such thing as objective identity, there is only subjective "custom" or "habit." However, Hume also wrote: "When any opinion leads to absurdities, it is certainly false"10 and the idea that one might gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles is surely absurd enough to qualify. And false is what Hume's opinions most certainly are. Left standing, they lead to what he himself called "the flattest of all contradictions, viz. that it is possible for the same thing both to be and not to be."11 The crux of the case against Hume was stated in 1916 by H.W.B. Joseph in An Introduction to Logic: "A thing, to be at all, must be something, and can only be what it is. To assert a causal connexion between a and x implies that a acts as it does because it is what it is; because, in fact, it is a. So long therefore as it is a, it must act thus; and to assert that it may act otherwise on a subsequent occasion is to assert that what is a is something else than the a which it is declared to be."12 Hume's whole argument - persuasive though it may be - is, to borrow Joseph's words, "in flat conflict with the Law of Identity."13 Existence implies identity. It is not possible to exist without being something, and a thing can only be what it is: A is A. Any actions of that thing form part of its identity: "the way in which it acts must be regarded as a partial expression of what it is."14 Thus to deny any connection between a thing, its actions, and their consequences, is to assert that the thing is not what it is; it is to defy the Law of Identity. It is not necessary to prolong this discussion. Entities exist. They possess identity. By careful observation - free from preconception - we are able to discover the identities of the entities we observe. Thereafter, we are fully entitled to assume that like entities will cause like events, the form of inference we call induction. And, because it rests on the axiom of the Law of Identity, correct induction - free from contradiction - is a valid route to knowledge. The first premise of CR is therefore false. [...]
I can't say I do either, but that is modern science. Funny thing, one could say "but that is modern science" in every century. And each time it would be very compelling argument for the serious people. Still, "putting this aside, there are several evolution theories like Lamarck, Darwin, popular Neodarwinism as taught in American high schools and Jurassic Park movies, and they are still evolving [pun intended] rapidly." For example to falsify popular Neodarwinism, would be enough to prove that acquired traits can be inherited, or that mutations are not random, etc ... Is it what you asked for?
I'm not sure what that has to do with evolution. Creationists believe in mutations (just that almost all of them are harmful and destructive) and inherited traits. They also believe believe in speciation and natural selection. They just don't believe a reptile can evolve into a bird. In fact, there is no scientific reason to believe that.
I did not mentioned "inherited traits", I wrote about "acquired traits to be inherited". Do you see the difference? They have right to believe almost in everything they want. You mean, there is no proof that such change took place. True, but the absence of proof is not a proof that it did not take place or that it could not take place. Besides the main issue is whether life was created in exactly six days or whether evolution could play role in Creation. I happen to be Creationist who believes that God could create in the ways it pleases Him. Could be literal simple six days, could be through a complex and long process. I tend to think that the second way was used, but I do not see it as critical faith issue. More important is not be arrogant and presumptuous. ======== "Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone— while the morning stars sang together and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?
Popper did go too far in his philosophizing about the nature of knowledge and how he believed it progressed, the entire thought process and other philosophical implications of theorizing. However, he was dead right about how he applied the principles of falsification to hard science. And that is why he is still a titan as a philosopher of science. We do not, after all, dismiss all of Newton's ideas about physics because he wasted much of his life pursuing alchemy.
That is true. They do admit generally to micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Their critics will say that the only real difference is the time span and how many favorable mutations will evolve in sequence. Then you get to things like this new spread of crayfish to the lakes of Europe from a single female specimen in Germany. This species has suddenly evolved in the last 25 years to no longer require males to reproduce. The females can produce female clones of themselves. Europe is pretty unhappy about them and they are posing a menace to ecosystems around the world. The evolutionists aren't much more comfortable with this than the creationists are. It's hard to explain for everybody. Independent.co.uk: All-female mutant crayfish that clone themselves are taking over rivers and lakes around world
Not only do do creationists admit it, they embrace it far more robustly than evolutionists do. It explains many worldwide species of animals that came to be after the flood.
You might overstate it a little here. I think it is major mutation that makes them all uncomfortable. The implications are unsettling, even for the human race. But not unexpected by Darwin. So many people can spend years sitting in a science class and never understand that devolution of a species is just as common or, likely, far more common than the evolution of a species. This is why so many species have disappeared from the fossil record. We have their skeletons or fossils but they are long gone and not coming back. And only rarely is this our fault. Real science is a little scary when you understand the implications.
Sorry, for some reason I thought A K A Stone posted this article, which he obviously didn't. Don't know why or how I got confused on that.
Those two paintings could be much improved if someone would add a few dinosaurs to them.
Not being a great scientist nor philosopher. I have problem with recalling any significant scientific discovery made by Popper or thanks to him. Can you help me? Unless we count his doctrine of Open Society.
Obviously, you hate Popper. Fine.
Ridiculous. I just see his ideas as lame and ideological. Same way I could say that you are in a passionate love with Popper, and it is blinding you. But I am not letting you get of the hook, so easily. My question still stands: "I have problem with recalling any significant scientific discovery made by Popper or thanks to him. Can you help me? "
You do understand that Popper was not a scientist? He was primarily a philosopher of science, an intellectual. He also did work in social philosophy and other areas of philosophy, none of which interest me at all but which seems to be most of what you know about him. He is routinely considered the greatest philosopher of science in the twentieth century and, to some people, of all time. Questions like "how do we know what we know?", "how can we prove to others what we think we know?", "what is the proper metric for formulating and testing a hypothesis?", these are typical of the matters he dealt with.
What facts. I'd like to know if you would please.
Certainly for many it is , especially for those who do not know biology very well. Tell us -- which lessons or teachings OR discoveries have been made in the field of Biology have proven in any way shape or form "Evolution"? I mean of ANY LIFE? The Science of Biology proves OTHERWISE. Unless you can answer the challenge. Tick-tick...
What facts. I'd like to know if you would please. Yes, which "facts" support evolution? I'm also all ears....
Indeed. Nail hit on the head. There is an ENTIRE movement of Rebellion/Bogus Revolution-Evolution/Conspiracy to dismiss, disregard, or otherwise discredit Genesis as a "Fairy Tale". Genesis is directly hinged to Jesus Christ, His Deity (as God-in-the-Flesh), Adam's/man's original sin...and God's Plan of Redemption through the death of a sin-less Jesus. It's both a simple but convoluted if one can't wrap their head around Genesis as truth and the idea that Adam): a) Was CREATED BY GOD, sinless (all men as a result are revealed as "sinners.") It is obvious that Believers should take Jesus at His word -- that no one will come into the Presence of the Father but by through belief in the Son, of His Blood and Redemption...
Frankly, I considered it a cop-out from a wishy-washy flabby "Christian" who is too cowardly to stand on the Word.
I agree, Pilate asked Jesus what is truth and then killed him to sate his own ego and position. Evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing, they don't want to know the truth, even though it is staring them in the face. The improbability of Earth being what it is, is an astronomically huge number. I cling to particular truth, firstly; I do not have an opposable thumb on my foot, secondly; I am created for a higher purpose and am able to contemplate God. Thirdly; I am an heir to all that God created. Fourthly I am saved by grace through belief in Jesus Christ
The good father means well (or does he?) He seems confused. Genesis indeed DOES have everything "to say for or against, the theory of evolution." "Creation(ism)" is explained in Genesis as a supernatural event. Within its text we are told that ALL life is created within SIX Days by God. That nullifies any attempted notion that any "Evolution" -- a totally unproven, un-scientific, bogus substitute version "Creation" -- is to be taken seriously on ANY level. ESPECIALLY by Christians. And especially as well by any serious "scientist" or researcher.
We should not be fazed by mere improbability. For instance, each of us is the result of thousands of generations of horny dudes persuading a woman to have sex (or raping her) during her period of fertility with a particular egg that could only be fertilized during a few days of one month in her life. And that one egg could be randomly fertilized by one of the ~200 million sperm that the man ejaculated into her while he was getting his jollies. Try to calculate the "probability" of that. I sometimes think I could almost prove that we don't exist because we ourselves are so insanely improbable. Yet we do seem to exist. So extreme improbability isn't all that...improbable. Annoying, eh? Science can be such a bitch.
Yes -- and as a couple of other posters also suggested, "Evolution" is more of a "Religion" than "Science." The basis of "truth" according to strict Evolutionists is un-proven Theory and Wishful Thinking they hope exonerates them from a Creator-God laws, Gospel, and His Judgement Day. I am created for a higher purpose and am able to contemplate God. Thirdly; I am an heir to all that God created. Fourthly I am saved by grace through belief in Jesus Christ Amen and Amen! We understand that as material beings we dwell in a physical world; But we are spiritual beings as well beneath our shell. We must feed our phsyical shell, but importantly, our spirit and soul. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. ~ Matthew 4:4
Can't see your YT content, Willie.
I see it (Firefox browser). It's a cheerful little song about always looking on the bright side of life. It's also kinda blasphemous.
Those who cling to religion are often confused, thus Catholics are allowed to believe in evolution but with God's intervention. You can't have it both ways, either, God is who he says he is, or he is not.
Some people, in a Christian context, take Genesis not as a complete fabrication per se, but as something that, while not literally true, is still metaphorically true. For example, the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil being representative of a time when evolving man became aware of the concept of morality concerning the well being of his fellow man. While you certainly disagree, others who have no less claim to being Christian would nonetheless defend their understanding/perception on this point.
Your choice to use the adjective "astronomically" is a curious one, as the universe is filled with many trillions of worlds. The odds of any single planet having all the attributes of earth is indeed "astronomically" small, but the odds can become far more favorable in the context of asking if any one of these many trillions might have all needed characteristics.
Exactly. What they are saying is that either God is a liar or only partially tells the truth. The third alternative is that detractors don't believe that God has spoken through man (i.e. Moses and the Prophets.) So what some are trying to do is compromise and hedge their bet. God will NOT accept bet-hedging. This same folks are making an eternal choice -- they'd rather reject the Word of God and fall prey to unproven evo-theories and propaganda rather than become ostracized.
Yes, your characterization is valid. "Some" people, true. Still many others disregard it as a "Fairy Tale." Within those ranks, "Believers." That said, Genesis isn't intended to be a metaphor, but literal. God created by merely speaking the Word. For example, the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil being representative of a time when evolving man became aware of the concept of morality concerning the well being of his fellow man. True. Yes, this was indeed the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. But in this case it was specifically Adam AND Eve partaking. The two of them were the first of God's human creatures to "become aware of the concept of morality" -- but more than that, they'd become aware of committing their first sin. Disobeying God led to THAT mortality as God had implicitly warned them not to eat the fruit, "Or you shall surely die." The rest of mankind obviously followed suit, leading to the necessity of Redemption and Redeemer. The "First Death" die has already been cast; It's the SECOND (and Final Life/Death) that we must concern ourselves with and be absolutely certain about resolving.
NOT surprised at his disdain.
You can see the vid at YouBoob. It's from Python's Life of Brian, the closing show tune with a mass crucifixion.
At the risk of entering into more of a debate than I have time or inclination to pursue, by "rest of mankind" you are no doubt referring to the descendants of Adam and Eve, and that brings up a common question: Did Cain marry his own sister? The Bible is silent on her identity, but if taken literally, that is of course the only explanation one could infer. What's your take?
Right now I am in a pub, my smartphone is tiny and I have a company.
Not by me.
The odds of any single planet having all the attributes of earth is indeed "astronomically" small, but the odds can become far more favorable in the context of asking if any one of these many trillions might have all needed characteristics. It is a matter of "context." IF I'd thought beyond the realm or context of Scripture (Genesis, Revelation speaking of "new Heaven and Earth")...and that man is special and unique to God's Creation... then, yes, maybe I'd be apt to ascribe to that mathematical equation of planetary "possibilities." I am obviously unable to do so.
Ok, you get a milligan ;-) *gulp-gulp-gulp...*
A flick I NEVER found humorous in the least.
The Bible is silent on her identity, but if taken literally, that is of course the only explanation one could infer. What's your take? YES, absolutely. By necessity. Both "The Beginning" and post-Noah's Flood occurred at an obviously different time and social context.
Orthodox do not need permission, they are free to believe without Pope telling them what to think.
Genesis is a mystical book with hidden meaning visible to the elect
As a further aside (though related), is the contemplative issue or question of DNA at Man's/Life's inception. We and all material life as well as the Universe are devolving and growing weaker. This in accordance with The Second Law of Thermodynamics (alone dismissing the notion of EVO-lution)... Contemplate THIS: If our DNA is a copy of a copy of a copy etc down through the generations, much like the copy machine copy after thousands of copies, it pales with the originals. The age of respective people mentioned during pre-Flood days are crazy-old; anywhere from 350+-900 years old. AFTER the Flood, man's age was downgrades by God to be "120 years." I'd just posted links to "Giant" skeletons that have been discovered and documented in the New York Times in the early 1900s; There are also recent discoveries of giant skeletons on the island of Sardinia. These skeletal remains are also found in many other places. (Yes, the evidence being hidden/eliminated from public viewing.) The Bible speak OF "Giants." Goliath was a giant. The Great Flood left its evidence of a giant world embedded and sealed in its fossils and bone -- ferns, insects, dinosaurs, etc. Did that Great Flood event and all that went with it (change of magnetic field, elements, atmosphere, air pressure, shield from destructive radiation) alter man's DNA that adversely? (as well as the rest of life?) Just food for thought.
I respectfully disagree; It is clear as day. The only things "mysterious" are the details. It is stated that there WILL be "mysteries," i.e, things mankind will never know, or not intended to know (either because they are un-important OR because they possibly detract or distract from what is actually important: THE GOSPEL.) The meat of the matter -- what God wants ALL to "see" and understand is what is transparent.
I stand corrected to some degree -- You are right on this count; The Word does become more apparent or transparent to Believers as the Holy Spirit is embraced.
Your comment is silly, Liberator. Genesis did not predict Christ's GOSPEL.
You aren't understanding the context of my post, Buck.
Genesis was only written about 1000 BCE. It was written after the Babylon expulsion of the Jews. You will never find a record that suggests "Genesis" was written before.
You do realize that King Herod never met Jesus although that song pretends he did. However, the general mocking of Jesus by the Sandhedrin and priests and mobs is pretty accurate. The Monty Python clip is probably more blasphemous, though much of it is just cheeky Brit humor since Life Of Brian is a comedy about someone who is mistaken for a Jewish messiah. It's not about Jesus directly.
Probably not the final version. However, the records that were preserved were definitely written before that. They didn't exactly have word processors or even printing presses in Moses' time.
I guess it did. But stated plainly, it was incest. Permitted at one time, but, if I'm not mistaken, specifically prohibited at another, and with Genesis avoiding any explicit mention of Cain's marrying his sister, as though it's something that was better off not mentioned. I would criticize it being regarded as a matter of "social context" however. That makes it sound like whether incest was acceptable or not is purely a cultural determination. Wasn't it prohibited in one of the myriad of laws established in the OT? (I don't remember).
Back your statement with facts based on scientific research and discovery. You will never see an authentic Biblical record more recent than 1000 BCE. Why? Because there aren't any. The Jews acquired their writing skills by the Babylonians, it was cultural tradition within that empire to write. There are records going back before even 1000 BCE, but for the Jews, there is nothing. Why? They were nomadic in nature before the Babylonians taught them otherwise.
This is your theory, which of course runs counter to evolutionary theory. No, not necessarily. For example, a rock rolling up hill might be viewed as violating the laws of thermodynamics. But what if that hill was beside a much taller mountain that had a land slide? Rocks falling from that mountain gain speed, and their momentum carries them up the smaller hill. End result: rocks roll uphill without any violation of the law of thermal dynamics. Evolution of life into more complex life forms could similarly be the outplay of a much greater dissipation of energy. While the perspective of Genesis being a literal book is one people take, I do not see how it's origin as merely a collection of stories created and refined in times of old, purely as the work of man created out of a need to explain man's origins and give satisfaction to the natural distress of people who otherwise saw themselves as perishable as any animal, could be so easily dismissed. So **why** should someone believe Genesis is anything other than that? I would suggest it's for the same reason it was believed long ago -- out of a desperate need to believe we are more than human and that our existence does not end with death. That is quite understandable. Like you, I believe we ARE more than human. In fact, I believe we are far more than human than even Christianity teaches, which seems to be that the soul is sort of a that minor part is left over after a person dies. But Genesis is simply not the only explanation available to reach the conclusion that we are more than human. The soul is our primary identity, our human nature only secondary. In my view, it is not inaccurate to say we are, in fact, angels living in human bodies for a short time, and our origin, as angels, is not earthly. Only our human bodies originated from earth, not us as souls or, perhaps, angels. Stated another way in contemporary terms, human bodies are mere rental units for souls, and not something that is created as a result of human conception, which is an idea that is quite illogical, frankly. But because of the natural assumption that our physical bodies define all there is about us, our tendency, and the tendency of the ancients who composed Genesis, is/was to bring God down to man's level, and that's what Genesis largely does. Everything just works under this model. Including evolution, which becomes completely inconsequential in this context. It also explains why God would care about us more than animals.
The Mosaic books, being the first five books of the Old Testament i.e. the Torah, were all undoubtedly the result of oral tradition. Even as late as the time of Jesus, oral tradition still had a strong hold. Some other Jewish groups, like the Yemeni Jews, kept their oral tradition alive into modern times. Not dissimilar to old-time Catholics some of us can recall that could recite extensive portions of Latin rites and phrases from memory. An oral tradition can be a powerful thing, very personal. You don't just read it; you affirm it positively by saying it in unison, adding a social communitarian element to the recital of traditional beliefs. Due to Jews traveling and trading widely across the old Greek empire, Greek became more important and knowledge of Hebrew was less common. So the Greek version of the Old Testament was produced around 300 B.C., albeit not officially endorsed properly by the relevant Jewish authorities. Yet it spread across the Greek world, even across Israel. We see in scripture that Jesus and his disciples were familiar with it and they quoted it, along with Hebraicisms, when they disputed with Pharisees or discussed traditional Jewish beliefs of the era. That version of the Old Testament was the Septuagint. Today, only the Catholics really advocate for it. The Jews use the Masoretic text. Protestants do too. But you can't really deny that Jesus and the disciples knew the text of the Septuagint.
Not even this scene, classic Python humor? C'mon, I know you think that's funny.
everyone is free to think what they like, it doesn't make them right. The world is full of senseless disputes over interpretation. It all comes down to what is it you actually believe? I know what God has shown me personally and it confirms Scripture, so there is no debate
Hebrew was being used long before and after that: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language_history.html
I have no doubt about the verbal memory. However, there were some things written down as well. Do you think they memorized the lineage? This is a funny example from back when The Simpsons was actually good:
Absolutely. Look at the various recitations of lineage, generally of the house of David. Many of these are eminently easy to memorize, probably more so in the ancient tongue. An interesting feature of lineage in Genesis is comparing Genesis 4 to Genesis 5. In Genesis 4, Adam and Even had sons Cain and Abel, Cain murdered Abel and was driven from the garden, Cain's children became various tent-dwellers and keepers of cattle and musicians and blacksmiths. But they all dwelt outside Eden. Back in Eden, Adam and Eve had another son named Seth. But in Genesis 5, we see a different pattern: 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth: 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. 6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: 7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: 8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died. . . . Here, we see the name of each male sire, the age he was when his firstborn son was born, whether he had additional sons and daughters, and how many more years he lived after the birth of his firstborn son. It is striking and I think it was probably easily recited recited in ancient Hebrew, possibly with what they would consider poetic meter (a huge aid to memorization). I find it striking that it seems to have been written by an entirely different writer and in a different style. And while Genesis 4 prominently features Cain and Abel and finally barely mentions the birth of Seth, in Genesis 5 we see that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born and no mention of Cain and Abel is made. None. And Eve is not named: Adam in Genesis 5 signifies both Adam and his wife as a pair. That is striking, as though Moses combined another account. In truth (and fairness to Moses), the story of Cain and Abel and the later careers of Cain's offspring simply cannot be as important as the birth of Seth, the ancestor of Noah. Anyway, these are commonly remarked upon features of Genesis. Many many others have noticed the striking difference between these two accounts of the family of Adam and Eve. So, via a longwinded route, yes, absolutely, I think that lineages was among the most important parts of the Oral History. Not the central teaching but an essential requirement. The fact that we seem to have two accounts of Adam's family merged together (IMO) would indicate the great importance attached to it.
Even Jesus announced that Moses wrote (not spoke) of him. It was obvious there were written texts: "If you really believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me. But since you don’t believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”
Sure, Moses wrote. But Moses came along a very long time after the time of Adam and Eve and Seth and Noah. In between, there was an Oral Tradition in Judaism. And that is exactly what we should expect to find in that era. I wasn't disputing that Moses wrote. I was suggesting that much or all of what Moses wrote was previously in the Oral History. Perhaps I wandered too far into a comparison of the actual accounts produced in Genesis.
Orthodox consider Septuagint as the inspired text, not the thousand years later Masoretic text
I wasn't suggesting that we debate the merits of the modern Masoretic OT to the LXX. Like that would be useful anyway. I thought I indicated the more ancient pedigree of the LXX clearly enough as well as listing a merit or demerit or two. It wasn't really unfair IMO. You are right though that I mentioned the Catholics but didn't include the EO as its fiercest adherents. When it comes to preserving tradition and texts, the EO have no rivals in Christendom.
Luberator finds that erotic, actually.
Congratulations on your recent success with the Parole Board. That Trump University diploma finally paid off!
It reminded me a lot of something Mel Brooks did in a movie. Just slapstick comedy.
Same way Latin was still the language of the European people, even into the eighteenth century AD. "Latin was also supreme as an international language of diplomatic correspondence, used in negotiations between nations and the writing of treaties, e.g. the peace treaties of Osnabrück and Münster (1648). As an auxiliary language to the local vernaculars, New Latin appeared in a wide variety of documents, ecclesiastical, legal, diplomatic, academic, and scientific. While a text written in English, French, or Spanish at this time might be understood by a significant cross section of the learned, only a Latin text could be certain of finding someone to interpret it anywhere between Lisbon and Helsinki. As late as the 1720s, Latin was still used conversationally, and was serviceable as an international auxiliary language between people of different countries who had no other language in common. For instance, the Hanoverian king George I of Great Britain (reigned 1714–1727), who had no command of spoken English, communicated in Latin with his Prime Minister Robert Walpole, who knew neither German nor French."
Biggus Vicus!
What Herod's "women" really looked like...
You will never see an authentic Biblical record more recent than 1000 BCE. Why? Because there aren't any. The Jews acquired their writing skills by the Babylonians, it was cultural tradition within that empire to write. There are records going back before even 1000 BCE, but for the Jews, there is nothing. So are you telling us that Hebrews, Jews, or their ancestors would not nor could not have learned ANOTHER or different language and written history?
They were pretty much at war between themselves and others such as Syria and Mesopotamia to perform anything constructive other than goat herding before 1000 BCE. Once the Babylonians crushed them, and educated them to the maximum extent possible, they were expelled and created the foundations for the Torah. Of course, the information was taken from the Oral Torah which was briefly mentioned, although not identified. With a little social structure by the Babylonians, the Hebrews stepped away from just being goat herders. Pretty remarkable!
You're full of shit.
It's pretty obvious they did.
Where are there documented records of the Torah prior to the Babylonians? If you use the Dead Sea Scrolls as a first guess, you will be way off base because of carbon dating methods for historical records.
How do you verify carbon dating?
You are probably ignorant of the fact that lava formations from Mount saint Helen's that were formed in 1986 were dated at 350,000 years old. So take your carbon dating theory to the trash can. Only a person with a lying agenda would bring up bullshit claims about carbon dating being science.
I think the Bible pretty much covers what will happen when you fall away from him. They were stuck in a foreign land for a long time. They were going to learn new things. That doesn't mean they ever abandoned who they were:
Simply said, there is a known and precise "half life" of the carbon element of the material being sampled. A great example is Carbon-14 with a known decaying activity.
I would criticize it being regarded as a matter of "social context" however. That makes it sound like whether incest was acceptable or not is purely a cultural determination. Wasn't it prohibited in one of the myriad of laws established in the OT? (I don't remember). There's quite a bit not explicitly mentioned in Genesis; We must cobble together a lot through dot-connecting of ancient texts and historian accounts, oral accounts and tradition, common sense and...educated speculation. Yes, you are correct; Incest in Scripture was "permitted at one time, bu...specifically prohibited at another." I can understand why you have an immediate visceral objection to incest. We ALL do, frankly. But the "social context" facet is totally legit. The "culture" At The Beginning" was in its infancy, obviously. As to the question about Cain and the nature of his marriage to obviously a sister begotten from parents Adam and Eve (and subsequent children of theirs), of course I understand the discomforting feeling. BECAUSE we are considering it through our lens of contemporary society. Yes, when we think of "Incest," we think of deformities and Hillbillies. Perversions. OR even Muzzies. :-) Again, his comparison is not fair, and doesn't/can't even be applied within the same context. BACK to what this is about: The onset of man AT THE Beginning, and how man became "fruitful and multiplied." what does the Bible record tell us? Or oral/written tradition? (it's all we have as reference): According to Genesis 5:4, we are told Adam and Eve "begat sons and daughters." Jewish historian Josephus helps out -- he stated that "The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters." Adam and Eve obviously had a bunch of children, essential to "being "fruitful and multiplying." Cain obviously had to find his wife -- among them, a sister, one of Adam & Eve's off-spring. (Even Abraham married his half-sister. At that time the law hadn't yet forbidden incestual marriage, and no, God didn't condemn that union.) Even if we discount Josephus account, what of the "Incest" issue and the law? The law against close intermarriage was not given until the time of Moses, when the law changed. By that time apparently God felt that the earth had been populated sufficiently, preceded by, "none of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him" as stated in Leviticus 18:6). So...There was nothing wrong with brother/sister marriages, originally. How could there be? It was the only way to populate the planet. Moreover, Human DNA of Adam and Eve was as perfect it was ever going to be as the first of many millions of "copies," so defects were not going to affect the early descendants.
Simply stated someone told you what to think and you obeyed. Why don't you go find something to cut and paste about Mount saint Helen's false readings on carbon dating. Because don't know what you are talking about.
Again how do they verify? Oh you don't have a clue. You are about informative as a parrot.
OK, you say, "I AM full of SHIT." So, beyond the Dead Sea Scrolls, what documented evidence for and about the Torah exists? None. The coincidence in time of the Babylonian influence over the Hebrews is remarkable with respect to Carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls! You should perform some independent research, yourself besides listening to, "HELL FIRE & BRIMSTONE" sermons. Using your own intellectual capacity can be a good activity and strengthen your critical thinking approach to all of life around you.
Bla bla bullshit.
I can't identify the significance of Carbon dating for hot, molten lava with respect to well preserved organic material used for the Scrolls that I touched on. You are off on a tangent.
YOU: This is your theory, which of course runs counter to evolutionary theory. No, it's not actually MY theory; It's a scientific theory that has yet to be disproven. No, not necessarily. For example, a rock rolling up hill might be viewed as violating the laws of thermodynamics. But what if that hill was beside a much taller mountain that had a land slide? Rocks falling from that mountain gain speed, and their momentum carries them up the smaller hill. End result: rocks roll uphill without any violation of the law of thermal dynamics. Evolution of life into more complex life forms could similarly be the outplay of a much greater dissipation of energy. I'm not a scientist, but firstly, my impression was that may be a case involving the Law of Gravity. And whatever natural "law" that considers the ramification of momentum. In your case the momentum and energy was temporary while the original energy source was as you pointed out, a dissipated energy. I don't believe either the Second Law of Thermodynamics applied, nor in your example did the simple mechanism apply to a living creature. If you are citing this example to suggest a catalyst for "evolution" may be a case of biological "momentum" (or perhaps, "acceleration" of DNA change), the dynamic of THAT much change -- as billions of molecular, cellular perfectly executed and aligned FOR THE BETTER...are astronomical odds. A virtual impossibility. (we're just riffing here, Ping -- exchanging thoughts/opinions.) Like you, I believe we ARE more than human. In fact, I believe we are far more than human than even Christianity teaches, which seems to be that the soul is sort of a that minor part is left over after a person dies. Yes, we are on the same page more than anyone might think. You mean we are far "more" than just our physical shell -- to which we do both concur. It is amazing how few people can actually understand and embrace this simple idea. True, this perspective concept is not taught, embraced or contemplated by some sects of "Christianity." But generally, Christianity DOES teach and concede the notion of a physical body, spirit AND soul. You really do get this aspect of our identity. FAR more than many Christians I know -- never mind people in general. But Genesis is simply not the only explanation available to reach the conclusion that we are more than human. The soul is our primary identity, our human nature only secondary. In my view, it is not inaccurate to say we are, in fact, angels living in human bodies for a short time, and our origin, as angels, is not earthly. Only our human bodies originated from earth, not us as souls or, perhaps, angels. Heavy stuff... Our soul is who we are ultimately. Still and all, we possess spirits AND a physical mortal flesh (or "bio-shell.") Your POV regard -- that man is an angel who dwells in a flesh & blood bioshell "for a short time" is an interesting perspective. God said he "knew us" before we were born. Our bodies may have been conceived on earth, but how about our spirit and soul? For that matter, once the egg is fertilized, what of THEM? /rhetorical. Ultimately, can it be said that our bodies were born/created in the flesh "in the image of God," as extension of our individual soul -- created by God in Heaven? It's my understanding that Angels dwell in Heaven with God. Demons are exiled Angels who rebelled, and who act as an agent of Satan, who led the very first "Rebellion/"Resistance" as "provocateurs-of-sin." (tangential related aside: Saul Alinsky dedicated his Rules For Radicals book to "Satan.") All that said, I understand your Angel = Man concept and correlation. Stated another way in contemporary terms, human bodies are mere rental units for souls, and not something that is created as a result of human conception, which is an idea that is quite illogical, frankly. THAT is a uniquely wild concept. NOT as out-there as one might at first impression think. A "RENTAL-UNIT." (For a soul whose Final Destination is not yet determined.) "LANDLORD": Almighty God. Yes! "FINAL PAYMENT" due on Judgment Day. That leads me to bringing up the next logical question: WHAT is the "currency" for paying off our "debt," aka "sins"? For Christians, the answer or solution lies simply and directly in the Gospel and through Jesus Christ. But because of the natural assumption that our physical bodies define all there is about us, our tendency, and the tendency of the ancients who composed Genesis, is/was to bring God down to man's level, and that's what Genesis largely does. Everything just works under this model. Including evolution, which becomes completely inconsequential in this context. It also explains why God would care about us more than animals. Moses composed Genesis. The Ancients either retained some oral tradition or texts, passing them on. But remember -- Moses SPOKE DIRECTLY TO GOD (Burning-Bush). I don't think ancient man was monolithic about "bringing God down to man's level." In some cases that may have been true -- those who challenged his Deity; Or that this was the purpose of writing Genesis. The ancients -- true logical, faithful men who innately knew of a Creator-God or being much Greater-Than-Himself -- were worshipful and in awe of Him. The "rebel" Ancients chose instead to worship "gods" and representative of them: Statues, other beings, the sun, the earth, etc. THE overall purpose of Genesis is as a historically accurate account of The Beginning, guaranteed by the One who divinely inspired the writing of it, as well as the entire Bible. AS WRITTEN, literally. Why Genesis was also written was because it was vital to "knowing" God as holy, one who created WITH PURPOSE, WITH LAWS, and who loves man, creating us in HIS "Image." Genesis sets the plate for the REST of His Word. Remove it or dilute it and the rest of the Bible matters not.
LOL I think you know that isn't how science works.
I don't understand you. Can you be more specific?
Why? Because there aren't any. The Jews acquired their writing skills by the Babylonians... Moses lived in the 1400s BC. Are you claiming any events that occurred BEFORE 1400-1000 BC and been documented/validated by Moses (yes, like Genesis) and the Prophets CAN'T be true or factual?
You should perform some independent research, yourself besides listening to, "HELL FIRE & BRIMSTONE" sermons. Again, what is your primary contention here? To invalidate ANY Scripture or non-Hebrew-Jewish history and accounts that pre-dated Babylonian documentation?
Are you claiming any events that occurred BEFORE 1400-1000 BC and been documented/validated by Moses (yes, like Genesis) and the Prophets CAN'T be true or factual? Yes, i know. I think there were written records before that ( too conservative says they were all verbal). I can't show evidence of the written records, though.
Absolutely. Bucky is in Strawman-Mode today.
I think he has been watching the History Channel too much.
According to the Old Testament, he lived for what ... one thousand years? That is quite a lifespan, don't you think? But with a range of one thousand years, why have you limited him to just 1400 BCE?
You think, too much. Take an aspirin to subdue the pain.
Facts, figures, places, people, dates, events -- ALL validated. Whether CNN or the Babylonians were there to record it. Some folks also forget that Moses consulted with The Almighty directly. But again, TC might dismiss that as a source for Moses' Ten Commandments tablet and Genesis because rumor has it that Christiane Amanpour or a New York Times reporterette wasn't standing there to interview Moses at the base of Mt Sinai.
As I said a few posts ago on this thread, you nor anyone will ever find earlier records than 1000 BCE; even then I give allowance for error. The first records are coincident in time based on the Babylonians educating the Hebrews about methods of communications beyond just simple verbiage. The time domain is about 500 BCE for the Dead Sea Scrolls. Why can't you find any? Because there aren't any. The Hebrews were uneducated goat herders except for the invasions by Syria and Mesopotamia, wherein the Hebrews fought tooth and nail for their very own sand.
Jesus spoke of Moses written records.
But with a range of one thousand years, why have you limited him to just 1400 BCE? Not nearly one thousand years (According to Deuteronomy 34:7, Moses died at age 120 -- still pretty long, eh?), but yes, the ancients did exceed our current life span by quite a bit. Hundreds of years. Especially Pre-Flood man. Scripture tells us Moses was 40 when as an Eygptian struck the slave: (Acts 7:22-29)... According to Exodus 7:7, Moses was 80 years old when he made his demands to Pharaoh. Quite a resume, don't you think? The Pre-Flood people as well as ALL life on earth -- possessed DNA that evaded eventual damage of the post-Flood planet when all life got smaller, weaker, and died much sooner. Many species as you well know went extinct. According to Genesis, man routinely live to between 400-900 years. We can tell by the fossil record and bones embedded within the rock strata that very LARGE and different flora and fauna were completely wiped out, became extinct during the world wide cataclysim or the Ice Age, never to return after the Great Flood. But with a range of one thousand years, why have you limited him to just 1400 BCE? That's the approximate documented date at which Moses writings are said to have been transcribed.
That's one reason I NEVER watch those PBS or "History" Channel shows. It should be called, The Historical Revisionism Channel. They run these programs under the guise of "history" in order to bait and mislead the confused, the ignorant, or the ill-informed. It's pure political propaganda, lies, half-truths, and revisionism from both PBS or the History Channel. With respect to any subject -- "Science," The Civil War," especially ANY THING "Biblical," you're bound to mutter to yourself, "BS!" or "CHYEAH, RIGHT."
The contents of the Old Testament are largely fictional about anyone's longevity. Why? These folks lived a difficult life (day to day struggle actually) with little nourishing food or adequate health care. So of course they placed their trust in a God, or hope in a God or faith from day to day in a God. Thy had little recourse but to make up faerie tales of all sorts about themselves or the world around themselves. Take Joseph and Sarah as an example. Sarah gave birth to a baby @90 years old! Do you believe that?
Are you referring to the Pre-Flood days? Or the post-Flood from Abraham till Moses... and beyond? There are at least three different eras to reference. The Planet was far different Pre-Flood. So of course they placed their trust in a God, or hope in a God or faith from day to day in a God. Thy had little recourse but to make up faerie tales of all sorts about themselves or the world around themselves. Your lens is seeing things and people through recent eyes and logic. I get it. But you need to examine history fat more than a cursory look that you give it. The more and closer you examine things, the more fascinating and logical it all becomes. You might surprise yourself. Take Joseph and Sarah as an example. Sarah gave birth to a baby @90 years old! Do you believe that? You mean Abraham and Sarah? Yes, of course. In your defense even Sarah doubt God's promise to give birth at her age. considering it through contemporary eyes -- of course its impossible. One factor to consider -- the genetics and DNA at Abraham/Sarah's time wasn't quite as damaged as it would eventually become. Here is a fascinating Chart that illustrates the Great Flood's affect on an increasingly reduce age-span on various Biblical Patriarchs as the quality of genetics devolve over generations. There are further notes on aging below: Biblical Patriarch Age when first son born Age at death Biblical Patriarch Age when first son born Age at death In his book about the history of the Jews, the first century historian Josephus stated the following regarding the advanced ages of the pre-flood patriarchs. "But let no one, upon comparing the lives of the ancients with our lives, and with the few years which we now live, think that what we have said of them is false . . . " (Antiquities (History) of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 3). Josephus also states that the reason for the very long lifespans of the pre-flood people was that God decided to be merciful to them and that the food they ate was much better for their bodies than the food eaten post-deluge. The average life span before the flood (ten generations) was 857 years. After the flood, however, the average life span (for the ten generations from Shem to Abraham) was only 317 years! In 2008, the average life expectancy of a person living in the United States was 78 years. The word Patriarch is applied in the New Testament to Abraham (Hebrews 7:4), to the sons of Jacob (Acts 7:8 - 9), and to David (Acts 2:29). Adam lived long enough to see EIGHT generations of his family born! Adam died when his great, great, great, great, great, great grandson Lamech was 46 years old! The Biblical patriarch Abraham had eight children through three women. Abraham's son Isaac lived 180 years, longer than he did (175 years) or Isaac's son Jacob (147 years). Abraham's wife Sarah holds the distinction of being the ONLY woman in the entire Bible where her age at death is recorded. http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/large-chart-life-span-patriarchs-from-adam-to-noah.html
Just to make it clear. I get a little tired tutoring contrary, overgrown and disorderly students, without being paid. I see it as a inane quarrel between liberal dumb high school teachers from New York or San Francisco with snake handling hillbillies. Neither of them has a clue what they are talking about. To understand what is the real meaning of a scientific theory one needs to spend a few years in the research in a quality school or institution. In the religious aspect both "Creationist" and "Evolutionists" are right, in scientific aspect many of them know as much as 5th generation city dwellers about farming.
All contained in "Genesis." And to answer your question, yes, and beyond. What was the day to day life of People all about during those times when there wasn't any free food or health care or mass production of a plentiful bounty as in contemporary times? Miracles handed down by God? In a sense, yes as these faerie tales gave hope to those dealing with the day to day struggle of life. Of course, they believed in a God. Why? To promote their lives as there was no other way for "hope" in the future. There is nothing more important to men and woman to believe in something, often anything, when challenged under forces of great oppression whether man-made or any other natural causes. Do you think the issues of day to day living was confined to just the Hebrews creating myths over 2500 years ago?
You either forgot your sarcasm tag, or are delusional. You're posting to Liberty's Flame, NOT to your empty cyber-"classroom" down your basement or at the pub in between darts. Let's make THIS clear; To be considered a "tutor," one must be hired. You would have to pay ME to instruct YOU. Secondly, the source of "quality school or institution" is relative to the beholder or behold-ee. Stuff that Cert or Diploma from Commie U. THEN, he/she/it must be teaching subject matter based on legit, relevant FACTS and KNOWLEDGE based on legit qualifications from a legit authority or source. (A Bible will do in this case.) (Btw, WHAT are you supposed to be lecturing, and to WHOM?) Are you insisting that Author: Fr. Lawrence Farley in his cop-out essay is the be all, end all answer to the question, "Evolution or Creation Science?"
At the risk of wading in... The oldest fragment we have of Hebrew scripture is the Nash Papyrus. It dates to around 100 BC to 150 BC, or so we're told. Some (but not all) of the papyrus' substitutions from Deuteronomy are also found in the version of Exodus in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Pentateuch from the 3rd-2nd centuries BC, made in Alexandria. The Septuagint also interpolates before Deuteronomy 6:4 the preamble to the Shema found in the papyrus, and the Septuagint also agrees with a couple of the other variant readings where the papyrus departs from the standard Hebrew Masoretic text. The ordering of the later commandments in the papyrus (Adultery-Murder-Steal, rather than Murder-Adultery-Steal) is also that found in most texts of the Septuagint. The papyrus preamble before Shema Yisrael, also found in the Septuagint, is taken from Deuteronomy Ch. 4:45 which is the only time the recurring formula “This is the commandment(s) and rules and teachings...” mentions the Exodus from Egypt. The Nash preamble correctly cites Moses as the speaker rather than God as in the Septuagint. The insertion of Deuteronomy Ch.4:45 before Shema Ysrael in the papyrus and especially the Septuagint, which has two preambles in the same section: Ch. 6:1 and the interpolation to Ch. 6:3, was probably done to distance the central Shema Yisrael prayer from it context: sections dealing with the entry to the Promised Land of Canaan. According to the Talmud it was once customary to read the Ten Commandments before saying the Shema. As Burkitt put it, "it is therefore reasonable to conjecture that this Papyrus contains the daily worship of a pious Egyptian Jew, who lived before the custom came to an end".[2] It is thus believed that the papyrus probably consisted of a liturgical document, specifically the constituents of a Phylactery,[1] which may have purposely synthesised the two versions of the Commandments, rather than directly from Scripture. However, the papyrus' similarities with the Septuagint, support a possibility that a Hebrew text of the Pentateuch was in circulation in Egypt in the 2nd century BC, and served both the Nash papyrus and the Septuagint translation as source, but which differs significantly from the modern Jewish Masoretic Text. So the Nash papyrus throws rocks at everyone's modern ideas about the era. It doesn't agree with the Masoretic text of the Torah (dating from 900 AD and the official Hebrew of Israel). It doesn't agree with the (offically unauthorized) Greek translation of the Torah called the Septuagint, circa 300 BC. And it mixes together phrasing of the Ten Commandments from both Exodus and Deuteronomy but differs from both of them. Well, that's a fine mess. I included the long quote from Wiki to indicate the limits of what we know or can know at present about many manuscripts and tablets from this era. There was a lot of stuff floating around and, obviously, much of it was not officially approved translations. These text variant could be the result of being part of a mezuzah or a liturgical text, not an officially approved copy of the Torah (by Temple standards). This is a good site by a Jewish scholar of high standing in Israel on these ancient texts. TheTorah.com: The Oldest Known Copy Of The Decalogue If we want to look for older examples of what we call Hebrew, there are just a few. The oldest is dated to around 1000 BC and is a pottery fragment. One thing that is pretty annoying with this stuff is the wide variety of names given to these ancient dialects. Here's some that I can recall: proto-Hebrew, paleo-Hebrew, Old Hebrew, proto-Canaanite, proto-Samaritan, proto-Masoretic, proto-Phoenician, Early Alphabetic and at least as many others I can't recall or never heard of. Quite often, the type of alphabet used and the style of writing (elongated traditional type or the little square Babylonian text type) indicates what flavor of proto-whatever it is considered to be or the spellings of individual words indicate their dating and relation to other ancient texts. This is a technical area that only the experts understand at all. And they constantly argue over all their research and results. Wiki: Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription Dating to 1000 BC, this is a faded portion of text on a clay tablet. It is in the most ancient known Judaean city. BiblicalArchaeology.org: Qeiyafa Ostracon Relates the Birth of the Kingdom of Israel According to Puech, this translation of the Qeiyafa Ostracon “contained all of the essential” components of the Biblical tale on the transition from Judges to the selection of Saul as the leader of a new Kingdom of Israel. In the Bible, Samuel’s sons do not follow his moral ways, and the elders ask Samuel to appoint a king to lead Israel. Despite his initial resistance to the idea, Samuel is guided to Saul, whom he appoints as the first monarch of the Kingdom of Israel. If one follows Puech’s translation, the text from Khirbet Qeiyafa is the first artifact to reference Israel’s first king. Gerard Leval gives a list of narrative parallels between the Qeiyafa Ostracon the Biblical text on Saul: the need for judges who will not oppress the foreigner and those less fortunate; the need for those who will protect them from annihilation; the installation of a king; the existence of servants who serve the king; the injunction not to oppress but to serve God; most importantly, the designation of a new monarch. The excavators at Khirbet Qeiyafa identify the site with Biblical Shaarayim. After David slays Goliath, the Israelites pursue the Philistines “on the way to Shaarayim” (1 Samuel 17:52). According to the Bible, Shaarayim must have existed during Saul’s reign, and finds from Khirbet Qeiyafa corroborate the chronology. Gerard Leval writes “for Puech, the text announces the installation of a centralized royal administration and it makes this announcement to a distant frontier province. He concedes that it is difficult to establish with certainty whether the new royal administration is that of Saul or David… most likely, the ostracon refers to Saul’s accession.” The inscription focuses on the transition from the period of the judges to the monarchy rather than from one king to another. If Puech is correct, the Qeiyafa Ostracon is the only known artifact to reference the first king of the Kingdom of Israel. Its tone suggests that it refers to a recentl event, making it stand out as the oldest account of Saul and the formation of the Kingdom of Israel.
I hadn't even noticed that you were tutoring us. So I don't know why you think anyone would pay you. You've really posted very little since you started this thread. We've somehow managed to keep it going despite your lack of interest.
To get paid by A Pole, you probably have to submit an itemized bill of services rendered.
Life and finding sustenance was probably much easier before the Great Flood. Afterward, likely a best a challenge; at worst a struggle, but do-able. We ALL struggle to certain degrees. As to "Miracles," yes, some have received them and still do. (Don't ask me how God adjudicates this, but yes prayer is involved.) In a sense, yes as these faerie tales gave hope to those dealing with the day to day struggle of life. Ok, I get it. Look -- no one is forcing their view and beliefs. Yes, someone like me will share my faith (and it IS faith, but yes, a faith in God and His promises that must be fed like any plant or person.) People of faith also struggle, sometimes mightily. Very few don't. The very same consumption of the Word and Promises from God has been passed down for thousand of years, BEFORE the written word as you'd noted could only be the case. Oral traditional handed down generation by generation helped inspire all people. Without the circuses, distractions and narcissism of modern man. Ever read Proverbs? (Wisdom) Ecclesiastes? (reminder that life without God is mostly fulfilling and empty) Psalms? (Praise AND complaints to God) Song of Solomon? (In praise of married love) Best "Self-Help" books in wisdom and advice on living ever written. Buck, it's all there for the taking. All the answers you'll ever need. All you have to do is ask God to help you turn just the first page. This Mortal Coil/Bio-Shell has an Expiration Date as you know. Yes, we all struggle. This is the thing -- we are all ultimately responsible for the destination of our respective soul. It survives our bio-shell/flesh. Q: Would you rather live every one of your days and 90 years on this earth as an absolute and joyous King? But at the same time...being unsure of your Final Destination? (perhaps passing on to a dark or silent Eternity)... OR... Q2: Endure both good and bad times during your time here on earth; Struggle in many ways. BUT...invest in the key to a life beyond our bio-shell, and KNOW your reservation for Eternity is set and will be bathed in light and love. Only you control your own steering wheel, direction and place you wind up. Once it's over IT'S OVER.
That was an impressive overview and historical tidbit of the extent of surviving tangible written text. Talk about fragile. It's amazing how long papyrus has endured. One has to be flabbergasted that so much ancient scriptural text has and had been preserved -- enough so to survive throughout the centuries of war, climate, confiscation, and...TIME. Talk about miracles. If God has NOT wanted what *was* preserved preserved it simply would not. Gerard Leval writes “for Puech, the text announces the installation of a centralized royal administration and it makes this announcement to a distant frontier province. He concedes that it is difficult to establish with certainty whether the new royal administration is that of Saul or David… ... If Puech is correct, the Qeiyafa Ostracon is the only known artifact to reference the first king of the Kingdom of Israel... So that is a nice little sample of what we know about the oldest examples of Hebrew and OT scripture. And it indicates how tentative our knowledge is. It is clear that we cannot draw strong conclusions from such evidence. The entire field of higher textual criticism in ancient texts has this problem. A lot of it is just highly educated guesswork, a working explanation until someone digs up something more comprehensive. That's a trip. Imagine the rush for a biblical archaeologist of discovering this? Then translating the text? At this point, I'm not sure if further survival of newly found text even matters. From an archaeological point, anything more is just a bonus. Related to that, my speculation about the giant skeleton findings is that they are being hidden because there are those who may fear having to explain them as well as tangents that just won't increase faith, but instead undermine it. Sufficient OT and NT texts survived -- more than enough to understand OT underpinnings of history and wisdom, the Patriarchs, more than enough to understand a continuum in the NT, the Gospels as written -- along with Romans and Revelation etc. New discoveries are always exciting. IF real and not a hoax -- which is what I would fear.
Heh... Which is why I'd assumed that maybe he just forgot a sarcasm tag...OR, maybe WE don't grasp his sense of humor. He's like the server who brings the mints and check, and claims credit for preparing the meal. Ok Pole -- you got us!
I'd like to see HIS invoice...
So basically you are saying is that you are not a real American and the Declaration of Independence was a load of shit.
I have told you before that I am a Deist, assuming you understand. I am probably closer to the founders of the USA than you will ever be. Let me put it bluntly: the creator left everything to human folly after the Beginning of time. He doesn't meddle at all and there is no indication that he ever will.
At this point, I'm not sure if further survival of newly found text even matters. From an archaeological point, anything more is just a bonus. You need to understand that ancient manuscripts undergo intense processes for deciphering far beyond a slap on the back based on a chit-chat channel. I is through "codecs" which are used to maintain a method of consistent interpretation of the manuscripts which are often small pieces or fragments of documents. The Dead Sea Scrolls are some of the best interpreted documents ever found and lead to some of the more advanced "codecs" which have been used for other documents.
How cute buckeroo. Do you talk to the Easter bunny?
We are endowed with free will; that is to say, to exercise reason based on all information and other evidence to understand the world around ourselves and take action to improve our own lives and family and friends beyond the giving of a tithe to a church; as you say, the Easter Bunny. We have no church in the natural world around ourselves other than what our senses transmit to our reason which is tempered by education. It is self evident. Don't you rely on your own senses to determine your own reason for survival? Or do you go to a church and beg to be forgiven because you feel powerless about your own circumstances whether real or imagined? There's a lot to consider about survival and I have yet to see anyone SURVIVE based on someone's prayers or belief in a Holy Book.
Yes, quite like a Mel Brooks nonsense comedy. Funnier than hell and some well deserved jabs at the church. Of course, those with a stick up there ass will miss all that.
Well you couldn't see George Washington but you obviously think he was a liar.
Hi Biff nice to see you around. I hope life is treating you well.
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and even Benjamin Franklin are just a few founders of America that fought for the making of the USA. They maintained relevance to Christianity as Christianity was a fundamental weekly meeting in local communities. But, they were Deists. Why do you say I am a liar?
You don't seem to answer many of my posts on this thread other than calling me "Full of SHIT." I refute your nasty posts. Deists were not liars or not now. There is an important separation of any religious doctrine from everyday experience that Deist's often choose. As an example: are you aware that Thomas Jefferson created the Jefferson Bible? Are you aware that George Washington created the first national day of "Thanksgiving" not for some ceremonial issue to eat a turkey and some savory goodies on the side but to ensure that REVOLUTIONS don't occur again? Just a few, of course. As I write, I wonder about your understanding of Thomas Paine's, "Common Sense"? Have you ever read any of these documents? Have you ever looked for any outside material beyond your Sunday School Pulpit of HELLFIRE & DAMNATION? I am just asking, of course.
Deism was far different at that time, than what we see today. As an example, they beloved the Lord controlled nature. Today Deism is similar to atheism. God maintains a delicate balance between keeping his existence sufficiently evident so people will know he's there and yet hiding his presence enough so that people who want to choose to ignore him can do it. This way, their choice of destiny is really free. - J.P. Morelad www.evidenceforjesuschrist.org
As I have told you before, you know little. You just don't seem to understand that organized religions are full of silly traditions and impractical ideas and ideals that do not respect or understand TRUTH about the world around us. To do so requires individualistic effort of reason, not the belief of dogma: we should question everything; established churches are the anti-thesis of our creator's intent for individual being and free spirit.
If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
God maintains a delicate balance between keeping his existence sufficiently evident so people will know he's there and yet hiding his presence enough so that people who want to choose to ignore him can do it. This way, their choice of destiny is really free. - J.P. Morelad www.evidenceforjesuschrist.org
I have NEVER suggested or hinted in any post stated on LF or elsewhere, "there is no GOD." Go see any of my posts on LF for verification purposes and you will be scrutinizing thousands as I have been here for a long, long tyme. I suggest otherwise and always have. There is a creator. He is unknowable and immediately following the creation of TIME, the creator has never intervened in anything, especially in human affairs.
And YOUR evidence for an unknowable God is what? God maintains a delicate balance between keeping his existence sufficiently evident so people will know he's there and yet hiding his presence enough so that people who want to choose to ignore him can do it. This way, their choice of destiny is really free. - J.P. Morelad www.evidenceforjesuschrist.org
Actually you have my perspective back-asswards. I say organized religions are contemptuous instruments towards mankind, no matter their affiliation. You can't find any other than through our senses an being planted here to include the creator's intervention in any human endeavour through thousands of years of human history beyond hearsay, innuendo, gossip and hand-me-down information from dogmatic approaches of mesmerizing mind control.
Good to see you posting. I hope you've been well, or at least well enough. I recall pinging you recently to red's thread on that first-century fragment of Mark a month or so back but Vic kinda hijacked that one into weird topics. Supposedly, we may finally see a final assessment of the fragment from mummy wrappings this year. I hope so.
The Progressives within academia, politics, and the left-leaning media are concerned that religious ideas may receive too much attention or acceptance within the general culture. As William F. Buckley said "...what we're up against, and though the Academy and the judiciary, is a felt disappointment that the American Revolution was not the French Revolution, and a consequent attempt to Jacobinize the Constitution into religion and its influence are wholly vanished from our public life." This attempt to marginalize religion, or even exclude it from the public sphere is an unstated recognition that religious ideology has profound influence on the minds of people, ideas that might run counter to contemporary Progressive elitism. William F. Buckley
God maintains a delicate balance between keeping his existence sufficiently evident so people will know he's there and yet hiding his presence enough so that people who want to choose to ignore him can do it. This way, their choice of destiny is really free. - J.P. Morelad www.evidenceforjesuschrist.org
This is an age old issue between those of a establishment culture and those espousing religious doctrine. Both are dogmatic and unprincipled to the core. Their diametrically opposed goals are conflict for some sort of "upsmanship" value beyond mere survival where most of us are positioned in life. There are some understatements in Buckley's quote. For me and those around me, I want no part of a government that is controlled by religious or any other institutions; this includes a political party called the GOP/DEM Party. The continuous and unnecessary circus act reveals an inefficient and certainly an ineffective system.
Good to see you, Brutha!
Today Deism is similar to atheism. Pretty spot-on on both counts. Although I would also add that today's "Deist" appears to straddle the fence more as more "Agnostic."
Now hold on thar, Baba-Looey... You've leaped into a few fires here. 1) The crux of Christianity -- a simple belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- requires NO "organized religion." 2) Without "Ideals" you have NO basis of morality or standard of "Good" vs Evil." Are you saying YOU possess no "ideals"? 3) As Pilate asked Jesus Christ, I'd ask you: "What is THE 'Truth'"?)
If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else. Excellent examples that demonstrate Purpose and Reason of a personal Creator-God vs. Random Chance of a Chemical-Reaction "god". I do not believe however that Buck has committed to an "Atheism." He's just anti-organize religion, which admittedly has NOT helped many develop their faith.
You back again and feeling better? It's good to "see" you. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Oldest before Qumran discoveries. The article even says that. There's no telling if Nash is a Torah fragment or a teaching document as commanded in Deuteronomy 6:8. Nash could just be that a Torah teaching document like we see in the deutercanonical works like Ben Sira. What's interesting is we still don't have the Qumran discoveries fully analyzed and examined. I'm currently in a discussion on another site on the book of Daniel which Qumran caves 1-4 sheds a bit more light on: What's interesting is the discovery provides evidence Daniel was in fact considered canonical in the 2nd century BC. It also provides evidence of wider circulation which evokes a call for an earlier date of the autograph than what 19th and 20th century scholars previously determined. Lastly the Qumran Daniel fragments follow the later Masoretic Text (MT) and does not contain the apocryphal chapters seen in the Greek.
Ping to above. Great to see you here.
The Bible is historically ACCURATE. Whether "hand-me-down" oral history, written on scrap papyrus, or through Moses who spoke directly to God or the prophets who also spoke to God, or transcribed His thoughts TO them on our behalf. DATES. PEOPLE. PLACES. EVENTS. All documented to be absolutely correct. Many have tried to discredit any and all of it, un-successfully. The numerous prophesies are also ALL come true. How can you explain this degree of accuracy from "hearsay, innuendo, gossip, and hand-me-down info"? Q: If you believe in God as you state, it isn't because you've been "mind-controlled" to any degree. Or is it? What are the qualities of this universe, this life and our human existence that compel you to possess any faith at all?
That's what I believe. I also believe Hebrew was the oldest language. I also think there were written records that go far further back than 1000 years BC.
Yeah, I thought I kinda covered that. Unless you have something else in mind.
Which Bible are you referring to? There are a lot of them, with major and minor variations, so please be ACCURATE, yourself. In fact, there are as many Christian churches as variations of the Bible ... with some Christian churches renouncing some Bibles "as the seeds of the Devil." When observing the world around myself, I question the entire experience process. Some entity created all of the Universe; that being is unknowable. I call that being the creator.
I have always believed in any faith that saw Jesus as the son of God. I have attended many Christian churches. I see no churches (legitimate) that saw any Christian as a seed of the devil.
So you bring up a valid point. What is a "legitimate" church?
The Koine Greek for church is ekklesia. It literally means “a called-out assembly or congregation.” The church is the people and not a building or organization.
So give me an example of a "legitimate" vs. an "illegitimate" church. Who makes such a determination? Who has the authority to enforce such a judgement? This is a fundamental problem with any organized religion. It is all dogma and when I suggest this, it is not limited to any religion anywhere. This is the reason for continuous conflict, for example: Islam vs. Christianity.
A legitimate church would be one that accepts God's word as found in the Bible as truth. An example of an illegitimate church would be one who claims to follow God's word as found in the Bible, but they ignore scriptures. Don't trust it as truth. Or they add thing's to try and make an excuse for something they don't have faith in. An example of an illegitimate church would be Methodists as they pretend to marry faggots.
The organized religion quote. Liberals and commies like saying they are against organized religion. The alternative is unorganized religion which is chaos. There is never any truth because it is chaotic and everyone says they have truth, except it contradicts what someone else thinks is true. So that is just chaotic tickling your ear to feel good.
OK. So lets say you have an established rule for interdenominational differentiation of legitimacy vs. illegitimacy and we all accept it. How is it applied to religions outside of Christianity such as the example I cited in my earlier post?
I am neither a "liberal or a commie" and I abhor organized religion. So, you will have to redefine your statement. Why is that a problem?
"You will know them by their fruits"
+100
Let's just go with the King James Version for the moment. When observing the world around myself, I question the entire experience process. Some entity created all of the Universe; that being is unknowable. I call that being the creator. Thanks for answering the questions, honestly.
Is that why there are so many Christian denominations? Is it because there are "so many fruits?"
So, I purchased a variation of the Bible called, "Modern English Version" a few years ago which attempts to use contemporary English as a way of describing the scripture based on King James Version. My wife took the Bible to the local minister for evaluation and he said, "it was of the Devil." How did he get that authority? My wife wanted a book burning party which I did not permit.
How did he get that authority? There are many Bibles that attempt to "modernize" the language of Olde English" KJV. The problem with many of these "modern" translations or interpretations -- crucial meanings are lost, changed, and lest I say it -- subverted. FWIW, I myself use both the KJV as well as the New King James Version -- with help from supplemental King James Bible Study manuals and Commentary, matching up key verses. Buck, I did a quick check up on the "Modern English Version" -- at this particular website link, they seem to concur with your wife's Minister (you are blessed to have a wife who seeks the truth from the Word.) They compare and contrast some verse examples, gauging interpretational changes in meaning that do matter. (I haven't time to examine it at the moment; Perhaps Red can also weigh in on this issue.) http://www.jesusisprecious.org/bible/mev/satanic_counterfeit.htm
His discernment of authority comes from The Holy Spirit which will NOT compromise on The Word of God.
Isn't that act "non-objective?" Isn't it called "revelation?"
One can never erase human conceptions. Even the Bible goes into discussions of this. If a church genuinely believes in Jesus Christ and promotes the good will that Christ proposed, I can accept it.
no gnu taxes: One can never erase human conceptions. Even the Bible goes into discussions of this. If a church genuinely believes in Jesus Christ and promotes the good will that Christ proposed, I can accept it. You didn't answer any my questions with any capability of direct information or discussion. You glossed over my questions as though I am a student of yours awaiting a paddle board for not adhering to your dogma, which I am not. I will give you one more try: Is that why there are so many Christian denominations? Is it because there are "so many fruits?" Answer the question in a direct way.
Because a lot of people have a lot of different ideas and want their own spin on it but does not make t them legitimate just because they say they are Christian. By their fruits you'll know them. As in if they follow the actual teachings. You'll have to discern that yourself.
I did answer your question in a direct way. People will have differences in the details about how Christianity should be practiced, but that doesn't change what Christianity is.
Sure it does. According to Liberator, the Holy Ghost ensures an appropriate interpretation of the Word of God. How? There are what, 500+ Christian faiths all practicing different rites & rituals across the planet with variations of "God's Word?"
How? Through a local snake handler that claims to have the power of the Lord or by adhering to Tammy Faye that claims the same dialogue?
Most differences are about methods of worship, about what you should or should not eat, and other minutiae. The core belief remains the same.
From Christian dogma, irrespective of the religious sects, and when we strip away rites and traditions exactly what is it? Where is the discernment to learn or understand what that core belief is all about? Moreover, I need to understand the reasons for even learning about all this stuff. You see the light or sumthin?
the belief that Christ is the the son of God and defines what is right, and that the holy spirit guides us about this.
Most of the world doesn't adhere do your definition of what is "right." In fact, Judaism abhors your idea. Also, Islam does, as well. Including Christianity and the hundreds of variations, thereof, these three major religions form the Abraham religious followers composed of BILLIONS of followers would reject your opinion in a heartbeat. Within internal Christian concepts and denominations varying about standards of THEIR interpretations has little to do with me. Your opinion is subjective and there is NO objective evidence at all.
The MEV isn't a bad bible at all. It uses modern vernacular, follows generally the text of the KJV, uses formal equivalence to translate just as the KJV did. As a modern version of KJV, it's not bad at all. I can't imagine how anyone calls it "of the Devil". The Elizabethan English of the KJV is not for everyone. And reading the Bible in stilted English from hundreds of years ago does not contribute to understanding what you are reading.
http://www.jesusisprecious.org/bible/mev/satanic_counterfeit.htm I inspected that page and consider it over the top. They spend a lot of time complaining about the nuances of copyright law (which apply even more to copyrights being renewed for versions like NIV and others than to the MEV). MEV was only complete in 2013. So they don't need to worry much about renewing a copyright to create a new derivative copyright to protect their profits for some years yet. Again, NIV and other big publishers routinely make rather shocking revisions to their current versions just to keep getting new derivative copyrights issued. As to the samples of text comparisons between KJV and MEV, their complaints seem pretty minor if that is the extent of how much the MEV has wandered, ever so slightly, away from the KJV's intended meanings. buckeroo, don't dump your MEV. It's fine. So are a handful of other similar modern KJV paraphrases that are similar to it. Nothing seriously wrong with any of them even if you can find a verse or two to quibble over. The vast majority of text renderings are accurate enough.
Most of the world The path is straight and narrow, not crooked and wide. In fact, Judaism abhors your idea. Really, since when? Most don't even really practice Judaism. Most are are just secularists who call themselves Jews. OTOH, Christians accept and embrace Jews with the hope they will come to Christ. Islam does, as well. They hate everybody. And they are not shy about showing it.
Thanks TC. I need to finish that earlier post concerning the preacher suggesting ... "it [MEV] was of the Devil." A few weeks later, I reached for the MEV and notice the cover was completely changed. Instead, I have this book called, START!:
no gnu taxes: Really, since when? Most don't even really practice Judaism. Most are are just secularists who call themselves Jews. OTOH, Christians accept and embrace Jews with the hope they will come to Christ. You need help, no gnu taxes ... here is a recommendation: get off the Internet and go to a local chapter of the AA. What a STUPID comment you posted.
You should tell your wife to return your bible. Remind her that stealing bibles is not a godly activity even if you prefer to see someone reading a version you like better. The START! bible is a plain-jane NKJV (New King James Version). Some churches buy these for $6-$8 for pew bibles. Don't be fooled by the name of it though or its implied claim to be a modernized KVJ because it is far from it. This is not a bible that was translated according to the translation principles of the KJV translators and it was not translated from the Masoretic Text in the Old Testament and using Textus Receptus Greek translations in the New Testament. It relies for scholarship on the Alexandrian manuscripts, primarily Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Not on the Textus Receptus which we know were used from an early period throughout the Roman empire and faithfully preserved by the Eastern Orthodox (who never modernize anything and seem to think the very idea is suspect). I'd say you were better off with the MEV. Certainly, I would take that one over an NKJV. The funny thing is that, while the NKJV does take liberties with certain phrases in various passages, when you get down to those old verses that the lifelong bible students quote from memory, the NKJV copies the exact phrasing of the KJV. Even if those phrases contradict what is found in their preferred translation from the Alexandrian texts. They know people want those KJV text renderings and so they just use them so they can "KJV up" their Alexandrian Trojan horse bible. An interesting little fact is that the KJV actually echoed the commonly used phrases of key verses according to the older Bishops Bible and the Geneva Bible and was not completely faithful to their manuscript sources either, just as I am complaining that NKJV did it. Kind humorous but I can't say that it changes the entire meaning of the bible. We're mostly quibbling over some very minor changes overall. But in some verses, you do see differences, like calling Jesus "the servant of God" instead of calling him "the Son of God". That's a very big difference. This guy Laurie is just a successful evangelical preacher of no particular scholarly ability. He helped write the study notes of the START! NKJV bible and a few other similar bibles as well. BTW, buck, you could produce the Buckeroo Bible the same way. Contact the NKJV publishers (Nelson, I think) and get a quote for how much they will charge you to license their NKJV text from them. Then you just download the text from them, insert notes and comments wherever you like, upload it to a publisher like Amazon for publishing small quantities of books. You could probably produce nice bibles of your own for under $40 in a decent binding. Maybe under $25. Think of it: The King Buckeroo Authorized Version. KBAV. It would be epic. And it isn't just the NKJV that is a bible-for-rent. NIV and others will do the same. OTOH, the KJV was protected only by royal patent and it has never been enforced even in England so you could produce your own Buckeroo KJV bible and no one could say a word about it legally. Those bibles do not use the same manuscripts to translate from, even if NKJV uses phrasing to try to fool people about what they've done. And what does your website that posts against the MEV have to say about the NKJV? They hate it much more than they hate the MEV. JesusIsPrecious: Beware: The New King James Bible is Translated From the Corrupted Alexandrian Manuscripts!, 2014, updated 2016
Thanks. But I already have a TJ Bible. I don't need any competition. [and my wife knows about it.]
A bit more to clarify: According to the preface of the NKJV, the NKJV uses the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica for the Old Testament, with frequent comparisons made to the Ben Hayyim edition of the Mikraot Gedolot published by Bomberg in 1524–25, which was used for the King James Version. Both the Old Testament text of the NKJV and that of the KJV come from the ben Chayyim text. However, the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica used by the NKJV uses an earlier manuscript (the Leningrad Manuscript B19a) than that of the KJV. The New King James Version also uses the Textus Receptus ("Received Text") for the New Testament, just as the original King James Version had used. As explained in the preface, notes in the center column acknowledge variations from Novum Testamentum Graece (designated NU after Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies) and the Majority Text (designated M). The TR is used for the NT but there are footnotes where the NU or M (Majority Text) are not in agreement or omitted. The Majority Text (M) is a variant of the Byzantine text. Interesting the Eastern Orthodox used the M text for years for their English speaking and reading churches. There is only one Bible out there (if you don't count Greek interlinear version) and it is a non copywrite version called the World English Bible (WEB). I've used it for quotes at other sites which are kind of skiddish on using quotes from the copyrighted Bibles online. The EOs used this version as a base for their 2013 Orthodox New Testament in English. However, heavily introduced their Patriarchal Text of 1904. As English translations go for the NT this one is clearly the most Byzantine of them all. TR had gaps or very few manuscripts to work off of for the KJV. The Eastern Greek Orthodox New Testament: Based on the Official Text of the Greek Orthodox Church is not to be confused with the Eastern Orthodox Study Bible which is just another NKJV rip off (legally of course) with a few subtle insults in the footnotes about the TR. This is the cover of the Patriarchal edition: Site: As you can see I had to use Wikipedia to get a good explanation. None of the Orthodox sites have info. Amazon sells it. I guess the Orthodox are lousy at Bible sales like us Protestant snake handlers. If you go to Orthodox blogs it seems their faithful don't even know this NT version exists. Loads of compliments though for the EOB Study Bible which as mentioned is just the NKJV with some fancy icons on the cover. Well I have a copy and when Pentecostals start arguing over English words I break out the lexicon and this Bible for NT passages.
What are you looking for in a Bible? There are literal word for word Bibles, and easier to read (flow of the text) type Bibles. Concept for concept as opposed to word for word. You can look at various versions and compare side by side by using Biblegateway.com When I first went through the Bible I used an easy to read version. Today that version is called the New Living Translation. I use this version for family Bible Study. The two approaches to Bible translations are formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. There are different translation methodologies for how to best render the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English. Some Bible versions translate as literally (word-for-word) as possible, commonly known as formal equivalence. Some Bible versions translate less literally, in more of a thought-for-thought method, commonly known as dynamic equivalence. All of the different English Bible versions are at different points of the formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence spectrum. The New American Standard Bible and the King James Version would be to the far end of the formal equivalence side, while paraphrases such as The Living Bible and The Message would be to the far end of the dynamic equivalence side. The advantage of formal equivalence is that it minimizes the translator inserting his/her own interpretations into the passages. The disadvantage of formal equivalence is that it often produces a translation so woodenly literal that it is not easily readable/understandable. The advantage of dynamic equivalence is that it usually produces a more readable/understandable Bible version. The disadvantage of dynamic equivalence is that it sometimes results in “this is what I think it means” instead of “this is what it says.” Neither method is right or wrong. The best Bible version is likely produced through a balance of the two methodologies. Within the two categories there are variations. For example some dynamic equivalence versions are paraphrasing entire passages. More detailed explanation here:
Do you really think most people who call themselves Jews actually practice Judaism? If you do, maybe you are the one who needs to be in detox. It has been estimated that up to 70 per cent of Jews in Israel are "secular Jews", which is generally understood to mean that they do not practice Judaism. http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_Jews_do_not_practice_Judaism
This is also good: Almost 40 years ago, when I started working in the Jewish community as a 19 year-old college sophomore, I could never have imagined that Christians, with whom I was surrounded growing up, would support Israel with the same passion that I have supported Israel since I was a teenager. I would never have imagined speaking at Christian events to honor Israel, traveling to Israel with Christians or learning that there are “Christian Zionists”. So, when I first encountered Christians who loved Israel and the Jewish people, I was taken aback until the conversation began. Then and now, they said to me we love Israel and the Jewish people because in the first book of the Bible, it says: I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. https://blog.chron.com/aroundthejewishworld/2012/07/why-do-christians-support-israel-2/
https://blog.chron.com/aroundthejewishworld/2012/07/why-do-christians-support-israel-2/ Yes indeed, all nations have been blessed through the Jews when Jesus Christ came, as He said: "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you - I am he.”
If they prefer the Alexandrian text type, then stick with it. Why promote the Alexandrian text type constantly via all the footnotes if you don't believe it is superior? As for sales of modern EO bibles in English, I think you might miss the point. The EO priests and most knowledgable laypersons will resort to reading the accepted Greek text themselves. They won't just run to English translation the way the rest of us do. This would be as odd as some Roman Catholics disputing Thomas of Aquinas or other Scholastics without reading the Latin version of their writings. The textual variants of all these various manuscripts really is too large a topic to sort through on some chat board.
No. However there are several major variations of Judaism similar to Christianity. Similar to Christianity but not so much as Islam.
The priests perhaps. The laity may memorize the liturgy or portions of it in the Greek but a far cry from fluency to read other texts not memorized. People spend years in schools to become fluent in Greek.
My only exposure to Greeks in America is in Greek restaurants (where Greek was spoken openly and where the owner and wait staff were obviously Greek as were many customers) or to seeing Greek-Americans in other public settings. I was surprised how many of them spoke Greek at the drop of a hat. Or as their preferred language for conversation with other Greeks. Your experience with Grecian-Americans (to paraphrase Dumbya) may be different from mine. But we can't pretend there are the same cultural and language barriers for Greek-Americans to read the NT in Greek as there are for non-Greek Christians. Greeks may, for instance, be more inclined to cultivate some knowledge of ancient Greek to preserve their heritage, whether Greek Orthodox or just the Homeric classics or the Greek philosophers. It is quite a cultural heritage for Greeks, one not easily matched by any other people whose descendants have survived into the modern era.
This one... ?
Since Israel's biggest defenders are 'murikan Jews,I think Israel should be pressured to adopt an AA plan for Muslim immigrants. HEY!If it's good for the US,it should be good for Israel too,right? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Same experience. Grew up in metropolitan NY area. Greek diners on each corner and I worked for a Greek businessman and his family while in HS and college. Most Eastern Orthodox churches in the US today are populated by mainly English speakers. I'm sure they learn specific liturgy in either Russian, Greek or Latvian or others, but this is not fluency. Much like Roman Catholics used to recite the mass pre Vat2 in Latin did not make them fluent in Latin or able to comprehend the Latin Vulgate. Considering in the USA Eastern Orthodox churches are taking on American converts from all national origins, having a Bible in English approved by the EO church makes sense. Not all of their converts are Hank the Bible answer man who knows Koine Greek.
They seem to like to forget/pretend they're not the only Semites on the peninsula. ================
Hi AKA, I am doing well. Far better than I deserve! Hope you are too.
Well done, Red... That's a keeper.
What are the qualities of this universe, this life and our human existence that compel you to possess any faith at all? After examing the Bible carefully and in detail, it was obvious to me I had been rejecting the Truth that Jesus is God. God maintains a delicate balance between keeping his existence sufficiently evident so people will know he's there and yet hiding his presence enough so that people who want to choose to ignore him can do it. This way, their choice of destiny is really free. - J.P. Morelad www.evidenceforjesuschrist.org
Honestly I have always been confused about the Godhead -- God, the Son, and the holy spirit. But you have to believe in Jesus before God can accept you. And you have to trust the holy spirit to guide you. At least, that's what I believe. But I think you have already known that for quite a while.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Anyone who thinks we decended from apes should demonstrate they really mean it. By eating a banana and fucking a gorilla.
#3. To: A Pole (#2)
#4. To: A Pole (#0)
#5. To: A K A Stone (#3)
#6. To: Pinguinite (#4)
Namely that it doesn't matter how we got here,
#7. To: Pinguinite (#5)
(Edited)
boris
#8. To: Pinguinite (#5)
And that is completely aside from the point of it being an unfair attack on those who believe in evolution.
#9. To: Pinguinite (#5)
(Edited)
unfair attack on those who believe in evolution.
#10. To: A K A Stone (#8)
It s crude but it makes the point
#11. To: A Pole (#0)
#12. To: no gnu taxes (#11)
(Edited)
How would one ever prove evolution is "falsifiable?"
Evolution is a religion.
#13. To: A Pole (#12)
#14. To: All (#7)
boris
#15. To: BorisY (#14)
Human beings are soulless zombies
#16. To: A Pole (#12)
First I do not respect much Popper's falsification/verification theory.
#17. To: Tooconservative (#16)
We must be able to test our theories and we must discard those whose experimental results cannot be replicated.
#18. To: no gnu taxes (#17)
(Edited)
That sounds more like verification than falsification.
Falsification starts with the assumption itself. What would show this assumption not to be true? If there is no condition that could occur that would show an assumption not to be true, then it is not science.
#19. To: Tooconservative (#16)
First I do not respect much Popper's falsification/verification theory.
#20. To: no gnu taxes (#13)
First I do not respect much Popper's falsification/verification theory.
How would one ever prove evolution is "falsifiable?"
#21. To: A Pole (#20)
For example to falsify popular Neodarwinism, would be enough to prove that acquired traits can be inherited, or that mutations are not random, etc ...
#22. To: no gnu taxes (#21)
Creationists believe in mutations (just that almost all of them are harmful and destructive) and inherited traits.
They just don't believe a reptile can evolve into a bird.
In fact, there is no scientific reason to believe that.
#23. To: A Pole (#19)
Debunking Popper: A Critique of Karl Popper's Critical Rationalism
#24. To: no gnu taxes (#21)
They just don't believe a reptile can evolve into a bird. In fact, there is no scientific reason to believe that.
#25. To: Tooconservative (#24)
They do admit generally to micro-evolution
#26. To: no gnu taxes (#25)
Not only do do creationists admit it, they embrace it far more robustly than evolutionists do.
#27. To: A Pole (#9)
#28. To: A Pole (#0)
#29. To: Tooconservative (#23)
Popper did go too far in his philosophizing ... However, he was dead right about how he applied the principles of falsification to hard science ... And that is why he is still a titan as a philosopher of science.
#30. To: A Pole (#29)
#31. To: Tooconservative (#30)
Obviously, you hate Popper. Fine.
#32. To: A Pole (#31)
"I have problem with recalling any significant scientific discovery made by Popper or thanks to him. Can you help me? "
#33. To: A Pole (#9)
consider it as a very plausible theory, with many facts supporting it.
#34. To: A Pole, no gnu taxes (#12)
(Edited)
Evolution is a religion.
#35. To: A K A Stone, A Pole (#33)
consider it as a very plausible theory, with many facts supporting it [EVOLUTION].
#36. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter, Vicomte13, no gnu taxes, Pinguinite (#6)
...If Genesis is false there is no reason for Jesus to come and save us.
b) ALL Sinners must be mortal and die (along with ALL life and matter) within this Material Realm as a result
c) Can not nor will NOT enter the holy presence and spiritual Realm of God- the-Creator as a Sinner
d) As a result, a substitute/proxy "sinless" man (Jesus, God-in-the-flesh) is required to "pay" for the sin-debt. Only the sin-less can be in the presence of God
Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me. ~ John 14:6, (KJV 2000)
#37. To: Pinguinite (#4)
This is a thoughtful, candid write-up on the issue that is indeed very much in line with the sentiments of many, though not all, Christians.
#38. To: Liberator (#37)
#39. To: Liberator (#36)
Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me. ~ John 14:6, (KJV 2000) It is obvious that Believers should take Jesus at His word -- that no one will come into the Presence of the Father but by through belief in the Son, of His Blood and Redemption...
#40. To: A Pole (#0)
"[Genesis] has nothing to say, for or against, the theory of evolution."
#41. To: paraclete (#39)
(Edited)
Evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing, they don't want to know the truth, even though it is staring them in the face. The improbability of Earth being what it is, is an astronomically huge number.
#42. To: paraclete (#39)
Evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing, they don't want to know the truth, even though it is staring them in the face. The improbability of Earth being what it is, is an astronomically huge number.
#43. To: Willie Green (#38)
#44. To: Liberator (#43)
Can't see your YT content, Willie.
#45. To: Liberator (#40)
#46. To: Liberator (#36)
...If Genesis is false there is no reason for Jesus to come and save us.
Indeed. Nail hit on the head.
There is an ENTIRE movement of Rebellion/Bogus Revolution-Evolution/Conspiracy to dismiss, disregard, or otherwise discredit Genesis as a "Fairy Tale". Genesis is directly hinged to Jesus Christ, His Deity (as God-in-the-Flesh), Adam's/man's original sin...and God's Plan of Redemption through the death of a sin-less Jesus.
It's both a simple but convoluted if one can't wrap their head around Genesis as truth and the idea that Adam):
#47. To: Tooconservative (#44)
#48. To: Liberator, paraclete (#42)
Evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing, they don't want to know the truth, even though it is staring them in the face. The improbability of Earth being what it is, is an astronomically huge number.
#49. To: paraclete (#45)
You can't have it both ways, either, God is who he says he is, or he is not.
#50. To: Pinguinite (#46)
Some people, in a Christian context, take Genesis not as a complete fabrication per se, but as something that, while not literally true, is still metaphorically true.
#51. To: Tooconservative (#44)
It's a cheerful little song about always looking on the bright side of life. It's also kinda blasphemous.
#52. To: Liberator (#51)
#53. To: Liberator (#50)
(Edited)
The rest of mankind obviously followed suit,
#54. To: Liberator (#34)
Tick-tick
#55. To: Tooconservative (#32)
He is routinely considered the greatest philosopher of science in the twentieth century and, to some people, of all time.
#56. To: Pinguinite, paraclete (#48)
...The universe is filled with many trillions of worlds.
#57. To: A Pole (#54)
#58. To: Tooconservative (#52)
It's from Python's Life of Brian, the closing show tune with a mass crucifixion.
#59. To: Pinguinite (#53)
...that brings up a common question: Did Cain marry his own sister?
#60. To: paraclete (#45)
Those who cling to religion are often confused, thus Catholics are allowed to believe in evolution but with God's intervention.
#61. To: Liberator (#50)
Genesis isn't intended to be a metaphor, but literal
#62. To: Pinguinite (#53)
#63. To: A Pole (#61)
(Edited)
Genesis is a mystical book with hidden meaning visible to the elect
#64. To: A Pole (#61)
...visible to the elect
#65. To: Liberator (#63)
The only things "mysterious" are the details. It is stated that there WILL be "mysteries," i.e, things mankind will never know, or not intended to know (either because they are un-important OR because they possibly detract or distract from what is actually important: THE GOSPEL.)
#66. To: buckeroo (#65)
#67. To: Liberator (#66)
#68. To: Willie Green (#47)
(Edited)
Brian Cohen is born in a stable next door to the one in which Jesus is born, which initially confuses the three wise men who come to praise the future King of the Jews. Brian grows up an idealistic young man who resents the continuing Roman occupation of Judea. While attending Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, Brian becomes infatuated with an attractive young rebel, Judith. His desire for her and hatred for the Romans lead him to join the "People's Front of Judea", one of many fractious and bickering independence movements, who spend more time fighting each other than the Romans.
#69. To: buckeroo (#67)
You will never find a record that suggests "Genesis" was written before.
#70. To: Liberator (#59)
Both "The Beginning" and post-Noah's Flood occurred at an obviously different time and social context.
#71. To: no gnu taxes (#69)
However, the records that were preserved were definitely written before that.
#72. To: Liberator (#62)
We and all material life as well as the Universe are devolving and growing weaker.
This in accordance with The Second Law of Thermodynamics (alone dismissing the notion of EVO-lution)...
#73. To: no gnu taxes (#69)
Probably not the final version. However, the records that were preserved were definitely written before that. They didn't exactly have word processors or even printing presses in Moses' time.
#74. To: Liberator (#58)
A flick I NEVER found humorous in the least.
#75. To: A Pole (#60)
Orthodox do not need permission, they are free to believe without Pope telling them what to think.
#76. To: buckeroo (#71)
#77. To: Tooconservative (#73)
#78. To: no gnu taxes, Liberator, redleghunter (#77)
I have no doubt about the verbal memory. However, there were some things written down as well. Do you think they memorized the lineage?
BibleGateway: Genesis 5 KJV 5 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
#79. To: Tooconservative (#78)
#80. To: no gnu taxes (#79)
(Edited)
Even Jesus announced that Moses wrote (not spoke) of him. It was obvious there were written texts:
#81. To: Tooconservative (#73)
That version of the Old Testament was the Septuagint. Today, only the Catholics really advocate for it. The Jews use the Masoretic text. Protestants do too.
#82. To: A Pole (#81)
(Edited)
Orthodox consider Septuagint as the inspired text, not the thousand years later Masoretic text
#83. To: Tooconservative (#74)
#84. To: Biff Tannen (#83)
#85. To: Biff Tannen (#83)
Luberator finds that erotic, actually.
#86. To: no gnu taxes, Vicomte13 (#76)
One of the most compelling evidences for the continued use of Hebrew into the 2nd Century A.D. is a letter from the Jewish General Simon Bar Kockba (Shimon ben Kosva, as the first line of the letter states in the above picture), which is dated at 135 A.D., which he wrote during the second Jewish revolt against Rome. This letter, along with many others, was written in Hebrew, establishing the fact that Hebrew was still the language of the Jewish people, even into the second century AD.
#87. To: Tooconservative, Vicomte13 (#74)
#88. To: Willie Green (#47)
#89. To: buckeroo, no gnu taxes (#71)
Back your statement with facts based on scientific research and discovery.
#90. To: Liberator (#89)
#91. To: buckeroo (#90)
#92. To: Liberator (#89)
So are you telling us that Hebrews, Jews, or their ancestors would not nor could not have learned ANOTHER or different language and written history?
#93. To: A K A Stone (#91)
#94. To: buckeroo (#93)
#95. To: buckeroo (#93)
#96. To: buckeroo (#90)
They were pretty much at war between themselves
#97. To: A K A Stone (#94)
#98. To: Pinguinite (#70)
But stated plainly, it was incest. Permitted at one time, but, if I'm not mistaken, specifically prohibited at another, and with Genesis avoiding any explicit mention of Cain's marrying his sister, as though it's something that was better off not mentioned.
#99. To: buckeroo (#97)
#100. To: buckeroo (#97)
#101. To: A K A Stone (#99)
#102. To: buckeroo (#101)
#103. To: A K A Stone (#100)
Oh you don't have a clue.
#104. To: Pinguinite (#72)
ME: "We and all material life as well as the Universe are devolving and growing weaker."
This in accordance with The Second Law of Thermodynamics (alone dismissing the notion of EVO-lution)...
#105. To: Liberator (#104)
No, it's not actually MY theory; It's a scientific theory that has yet to be disproven.
#106. To: Tooconservative (#105)
#107. To: buckeroo, no gnu taxes (#90)
You will never see an authentic Biblical record more recent than 1000 BCE.
#108. To: buckeroo, A K A Stone (#101)
The coincidence in time of the Babylonian influence over the Hebrews is remarkable with respect to Carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls!
#109. To: Liberator (#107)
Moses lived in the 1400s BC.
#110. To: no gnu taxes, Buckeroo (#92)
It's pretty obvious they [Hebrews/Jews] did [learn ANOTHER or different language and written history.]
#111. To: Liberator (#110)
#112. To: Liberator (#107)
Moses lived in the 1400s BC.
#113. To: no gnu taxes (#111)
#114. To: no gnu taxes, Tooconservative (#109)
Yes, i know. I think there were written records before that ( too conservative says they were all verbal).
#115. To: no gnu taxes, Tooconservative, Liberator (#109)
I think there were written records before that ( too conservative says they were all verbal). I can't show evidence of the written records, though.
#116. To: buckeroo (#115)
#117. To: buckeroo (#112)
(Edited)
[Moses] lived for what ... one thousand years? That is quite a lifespan, don't you think?
#118. To: no gnu taxes, Buckeroo, redleghunter (#111)
I think he has been watching the History Channel too much.
#119. To: Liberator (#117)
#120. To: buckeroo, no gnu taxes, pinguinite, redleghunter, A K A Stone (#119)
(Edited)
The contents of the Old Testament are largely fictional about anyone's longevity. Why? These folks lived a difficult life (day to day struggle actually) with little nourishing food or adequate health care.
Lifespans before the Flood
Adam ? 930 Seth 105 912 Enosh 90 905 Cainan 70 910 Mahalealel 65 895 Jared 162 962 Enoch 65 365 Methuselah 187 969 Lamech 182 777 Noah 500 950 Lifespans after the Flood
Shem 100 600 Arphaxad 35 438 Salah 30 433 Eber 34 464 Peleg 30 239 Reu 32 239 Serug 30 230 Nahor 29 148 Terah 70 205 Abraham 100 175 Isaac 60 180 Did you know about the Patriarchs . . . ?
#121. To: All (#0)
#122. To: Liberator (#120)
Are you referring to the Pre-Flood days? Or the post-Flood from Abraham till Moses... and beyond?
The story of Ireland in the 1800s is apropos here, during the Great Potatoe Famine. They lost everything with Great Britain ignoring the plight. And, all of a sudden, Leprechauns sprung up with Pots o' Gold!
#123. To: A Pole (#121)
Just to make it clear. I get a little tired tutoring contrary, overgrown and disorderly students, without being paid.
#124. To: buckeroo, no gnu taxes, Liberator, A Pole, redleghunter (#115)
Twenty four lines long, with a few letters missing at each edge, the papyrus contains the Ten Commandments in Hebrew, a short middle text, followed by the start of the Shema Yisrael prayer. The text of the Ten Commandments combines parts of the version from Exodus 20:2-17 with parts from Deuteronomy 5:6-21. A curiosity is its omission of the phrase "house of bondage", used in both versions, about Egypt — perhaps a reflection of where the papyrus was composed. 
So that is a nice little sample of what we know about the oldest examples of Hebrew and OT scripture. And it indicates how tentative our knowledge is. It is clear that we cannot draw strong conclusions from such evidence. The entire field of higher textual criticism in ancient texts has this problem. A lot of it is just highly educated guesswork, a working explanation until someone digs up something more comprehensive.
In the May/June 2012 BAR, Gerard Leval adds to the discussion on the heavily debated Qeiyafa Ostracon by reviewing Émile Puech’s translation and analysis for the first time in English. (In the same issue of BAR, Christopher Rollston discusses the non-Hebrew script on the Qeiyafa Ostracon in a search for the oldest purely Hebrew inscription.)** Puech translates the incomplete text on the Qeiyafa Ostracon as:
Do not oppress, and serve God…despoiled him/her
The judge and the widow wept; he had the power
Over the resident alien and the child, he eliminated them together
The men and chiefs/officers have established a king
He marked 60 [?] servants among the communities/habitations/generation.
#125. To: A Pole (#121)
Just to make it clear. I get a little tired tutoring contrary, overgrown and disorderly students, without being paid.
#126. To: Liberator (#123)
Let's make THIS clear; To be considered a "tutor," one must be hired. You would have to pay ME to instruct YOU.
#127. To: buckeroo (#122)
What was the day to day life of People all about during those times when there wasn't any free food or health care or mass production of a plentiful bounty as in contemporary times? Miracles handed down by God?
#128. To: Tooconservative (#124)
The excavators at Khirbet Qeiyafa identify the site with Biblical Shaarayim. After David slays Goliath, the Israelites pursue the Philistines “on the way to Shaarayim” (1 Samuel 17:52). According to the Bible, Shaarayim must have existed during Saul’s reign, and finds from Khirbet Qeiyafa corroborate the chronology.
#129. To: Tooconservative, A Pole (#125)
I hadn't even noticed that you were tutoring us. So I don't know why you think anyone would pay you. You've really posted very little since you started this thread. We've somehow managed to keep it going despite your lack of interest.
#130. To: Tooconservative, A Pole (#126)
To get paid by A Pole, you probably have to submit an itemized bill of services rendered.
#131. To: buckeroo (#122)
#132. To: A K A Stone (#131)
So basically you are saying is that you are not a real American and the Declaration of Independence was a load of shit.
#133. To: Liberator, Tooconservative (#128)
Then translating the text?
#134. To: buckeroo (#132)
#135. To: A K A Stone (#134)
#136. To: Tooconservative (#85)
It reminded me a lot of something Mel Brooks did in a movie. Just slapstick comedy.
#137. To: buckeroo (#135)
There's a lot to consider about survival and I have yet to see anyone SURVIVE based on someone's prayers or belief in a Holy Book.
#138. To: Biff Tannen (#136)
#139. To: A K A Stone (#137)
#140. To: A K A Stone (#137)
(Edited)
#141. To: buckeroo (#139)
((I have told you before that I am a Deist, assuming you understand. I am probably closer to the founders of the USA than you will ever be.))
#142. To: GarySpFC (#141)
#143. To: buckeroo (#142)
#144. To: GarySpFC (#143)
#145. To: buckeroo (#144)
((I suggest otherwise and always have. There is a creator. He is unknowable and immediately following the creation of TIME, the creator has never intervened in anything, especially in human affairs.))
#146. To: GarySpFC (#145)
And YOUR evidence for an unknowable God is what?
And YOUR evidence for an unknowable God is what?
#147. To: GarySpFC, redleghunter (#141)
#148. To: buckeroo (#146)
#149. To: GarySpFC (#148)
The Progressives within academia, politics, and the left-leaning media are concerned that religious ideas may receive too much attention or acceptance within the general culture.
As William F. Buckley said "...what we're up against, and though the Academy and the judiciary, is a felt disappointment that the American Revolution was not the French Revolution, and a consequent attempt to Jacobinize the Constitution into religion and its influence are wholly vanished from our public life." This attempt to marginalize religion, or even exclude it from the public sphere is an unstated recognition that religious ideology has profound influence on the minds of people, ideas that might run counter to contemporary Progressive elitism. William F. Buckley
#150. To: GarySpFC (#141)
#151. To: GarySpFC (#141)
Deism was far different at that time, than what we see today. As an example, they [believed] the Lord controlled nature.
#152. To: buckeroo, GarySpFC (#142)
You just don't seem to understand that organized religions are full of silly traditions and impractical ideas and ideals that do not respect or understand TRUTH about the world around us.
#153. To: GarySpFC, buckeroo (#143)
If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter.
#154. To: GarySpFC (#141)
#155. To: Tooconservative (#124)
(Edited)
The oldest fragment we have of Hebrew scripture is the Nash Papyrus. It dates to around 100 BC to 150 BC, or so we're told.
#156. To: GarySpFc (#155)
#157. To: buckeroo, GarySpFC (#146)
...Thousands of years of human history beyond hearsay, innuendo, gossip and hand-me-down information from dogmatic approaches of mesmerizing mind control.
#158. To: Liberator (#157)
The Bible is historically ACCURATE. Whether "hand-me-down" oral history, written on scrap papyrus, or through Moses who spoke directly to God or the prophets who also spoke to God, or transcribed His thoughts TO them on our behalf.
#159. To: redleghunter (#155)
Oldest before Qumran discoveries. The article even says that. There's no telling if Nash is a Torah fragment or a teaching document as commanded in Deuteronomy 6:8. Nash could just be that a Torah teaching document like we see in the deutercanonical works like Ben Sira.
#160. To: Liberator (#157)
The Bible is historically ACCURATE. Whether "hand-me-down" oral history, written on scrap papyrus, or through Moses who spoke directly to God or the prophets who also spoke to God, or transcribed His thoughts TO them on our behalf.
Q: If you believe in God as you state, it isn't because you've been "mind-controlled" to any degree. Or is it? What are the qualities of this universe, this life and our human existence that compel you to possess any faith at all?
#161. To: buckeroo (#160)
Which Bible are you referring to? There are a lot of them, with major and minor variations, so please be ACCURATE, yourself. In fact, there are as many Christian churches as variations of the Bible ... with some Christian churches renouncing some Bibles "as the seeds of the Devil."
#162. To: no gnu taxes (#161)
I see no churches (legitimate) that saw any Christian as a seed of the devil.
#163. To: buckeroo (#162)
What is a "legitimate" church?
#164. To: redleghunter (#163)
#165. To: buckeroo (#164)
(Edited)
So give me an example of a "legitimate" vs. an "illegitimate" church. Who makes such a determination?
#166. To: buckeroo (#164)
This is a fundamental problem with any organized religion.
#167. To: A K A Stone (#165)
#168. To: A K A Stone (#166)
Liberals and commies like saying they are against organized religion.
The alternative is unorganized religion which is chaos.
#169. To: buckeroo (#162)
#170. To: no gnu taxes (#169)
"You will know them by their fruits"
#171. To: buckeroo (#160)
Which Bible are you referring to?
#172. To: no gnu taxes (#169)
"You will know them by their fruits"
#173. To: Liberator (#171)
Let's just go with the King James Version for the moment.
#174. To: buckeroo, redleghunter (#173)
So, I purchased a variation of the Bible called, "Modern English Version" a few years ago which attempts to use contemporary English as a way of describing the scripture based on King James Version. My wife took the Bible to the local minister for evaluation and he said, "it was of the Devil."
#175. To: buckeroo (#173)
How did he [the Minister] get that authority?
#176. To: Liberator (#175)
His discernment of authority comes from The Holy Spirit which will NOT compromise on The Word of God.
#177. To: buckeroo (#172)
Is that why there are so many Christian denominations? Is it because there are "so many fruits?"
#178. To: buckeroo (#167)
(Edited)
#179. To: no gnu taxes (#177)
buckeroo: Is that why there are so many Christian denominations? Is it because there are "so many fruits?"
#180. To: buckeroo (#179)
#181. To: buckeroo (#179)
#182. To: no gnu taxes, Liberator (#181)
I did answer your question in a direct way. People will have differences in the details about how Christianity should be practiced, but that doesn't change what Christianity is.
#183. To: A K A Stone (#180)
(Edited)
You'll have to discern that yourself.
#184. To: buckeroo (#182)
#185. To: no gnu taxes (#184)
The core belief remains the same.
#186. To: buckeroo (#185)
From Christian dogma, irrespective of the religious sects, and when we strip away rites and traditions exactly what is it?
#187. To: no gnu taxes (#186)
the belief that Christ is the the son of God and defines what is right, and that the holy spirit guides us about this.
#188. To: buckeroo, Liberator (#173)
#189. To: Liberator, buckeroo (#174)
Buck, I did a quick check up on the "Modern English Version" -- at this particular website link, they seem to concur with your wife's Minister (you are blessed to have a wife who seeks the truth from the Word.) They compare and contrast some verse examples, gauging interpretational changes in meaning that do matter. (I haven't time to examine it at the moment; Perhaps Red can also weigh in on this issue.)
#190. To: buckeroo (#187)
#191. To: Tooconservative, Liberator (#189)
... don't dump your MEV. It's fine. So are a handful of other similar modern KJV paraphrases that are similar to it. Nothing seriously wrong with any of them even if you can find a verse or two to quibble over. The vast majority of text renderings are accurate enough.
#192. To: no gnu taxes (#190)
buckeroo: In fact, Judaism abhors your idea [following Christ]
#193. To: buckeroo, Liberator, redleghunter (#191)
(Edited)
I need to finish that earlier post concerning the preacher suggesting ... "it [MEV] was of the Devil." A few weeks later, I reached for the MEV and notice the cover was completely changed. Instead, I have this book called, START!:
It is too late for me to act on your recommendation as I have a new version. My wife's minister is Greg Laurie, the guy who is shown in the video, just above. This world is often very weird; if you catch my drift, about salespeople.
Liberator: FWIW, I myself use both the KJV as well as the New King James Version -- with help from supplemental King James Bible Study manuals and Commentary, matching up key verses.
#194. To: Tooconservative (#193)
(Edited)
Think of it: The King Buckeroo Authorized Version. KBAV. It would be epic.
#195. To: Tooconservative, buckeroo, Liberator (#193)
#196. To: buckeroo, Too Conservative, Liberator (#194)
(Edited)
#197. To: buckeroo (#192)
#198. To: buckeroo (#192)
#199. To: no gnu taxes, VxH, Vicomte13, Tooconservative, sneakypete (#198)
I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.
#200. To: redleghunter (#195)
The TR is used for the NT but there are footnotes where the NU or M (Majority Text) are not in agreement or omitted.
#201. To: no gnu taxes (#197)
Do you really think most people who call themselves Jews actually practice Judaism?
It has been estimated that up to 70 per cent of Jews in Israel are "secular Jews", which is generally understood to mean that they do not practice Judaism.
#202. To: Tooconservative (#200)
The EO priests and most knowledgable laypersons will resort to reading the accepted Greek text themselves. They won't just run to English translation the way the rest of us do.
#203. To: redleghunter (#202)
People spend years in schools to become fluent in Greek.
#204. To: no gnu taxes, Tooconservative, sneakypete, redleghunter (#198)
(Edited)
the Jewish community
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Israel are the most advanced in the Middle East, and one of the most advanced in Asia.[1] Although same-sex sexual activity was legalized in 1988, the former law against sodomy had not been enforced since a court decision of 1963.[2]
en.wikipedia.org/w iki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel
#205. To: VxH (#204)
#206. To: Tooconservative (#203)
Your experience with Grecian-Americans (to paraphrase Dumbya) may be different from mine. But we can't pretend there are the same cultural and language barriers for Greek-Americans to read the NT in Greek as there are for non-Greek Christians. Greeks may, for instance, be more inclined to cultivate some knowledge of ancient Greek to preserve their heritage, whether Greek Orthodox or just the Homeric classics or the Greek philosophers. It is quite a cultural heritage for Greeks, one not easily matched by any other people whose descendants have survived into the modern era.
#207. To: sneakypete (#205)
(Edited)
,I think Israel should be pressured to adopt an AA plan for Muslim immigrants.
Sem·ite
noun plural noun: Semites
a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.
#208. To: A K A Stone (#138)
#209. To: redleghunter (#196)
#210. To: Liberator (#157)
: If you believe in God as you state, it isn't because you've been "mind-controlled" to any degree. Or is it?
#211. To: GarySpFC (#210)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]