RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] >   
  Topic: How is the Bible consistent with science?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,09:06   

I've only just read the last two pages of this thread, but if you go through Genesis you will see that most of the pre-flood patriarchs lived in the 900-year range, and that the life span began a steady generational decline after it. Noah's immediate descendents lived 4-600 years, then dropped to 200+. Abraham lived something like 140, his father lived about 160, and his grandfather lived about 200. It would appear that there was a great change in conditions due to the flood.  The atmosphere, the weather, maybe radiation...

Quote
Futher, the studies suggest the JAHWE is a form of ENKI.
 Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Both were misanthropists.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,09:32   

Quote
Rilke,

Dummy - your ignorance is actually beginning to astound me. Either get an education first, then come here an argue, or shut up and you just might learn something.
Classic response from someone who is 'thick-skinned'.

Do you actually have an response to my points?  How can I 'learn' anything unless you 'say' something?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,09:44   

Carol,

If the Biblical flood was only a local event; Why did Noah need an Arc? Could he not have just moved? Would not the animals have re-populated the area after the waters receded?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,09:46   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 15 2006,15:44)
Carol,

If the Biblical flood was only a local event; Why did Noah need an Arc? Could he not have just moved? Would not the animals have re-populated the area after the waters receded?

Moreover, if it was just a local event, why should we care whether it happened at all?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,12:55   

Stephen,

Great question. The short answer is that God told him to.
The long answer is related to the lessons to be derived from the entire event, its causes and aftermath.

Just to tickle your imagination, for starters: A disaster is about to strike a particular area of some significant size, and you propose that the humans flee for their lives and leave the animals to their fate. God says, "no! You need to make every effort to save ALL the animals and creatures in the area to be stricken. They cannot be abandoned to their fate. I have given you dominion over the animals and with dominion comes responsibility."

Consruction of the ark provided Noah with 120 years of discussion time with his evil doing contemporaries, to get them to mend their ways. They would ask him what he was doing building an ark, and one thing led to another. Do you discern any lessons in that?

The Bible is referred to as "torah" in Hebrew. That word means "teaching". It is all there to teach us, if only we would harken.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,13:03   

Sure, but does it teach us better if it actually happened?

Myths are myths.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,13:36   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Feb. 15 2006,19<!--emo&:0)
Sure, but does it teach us better if it actually happened?

Myths are myths.

Indeed: if it didn't happen and I'm not Jewish, why should I 'harken'?

I have a whole volume of Native American creation legends in translation on my bookshelf; why are they any less worthy of 'harkening'? They're certainly far more interesting, if it comes to that...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,17:06   

Quote
The Bible is referred to as "torah" in Hebrew. That word means "teaching". It is all there to teach us, if only we would harken.
Crikey.  Carol, while you throw around accusations of 'dumb' etc. with great abandon, I recommend to you the Biblical tale of the Mote and the Beam.

The Bible is NOT referred to as "torah" in Hebrew.  Perhaps you'd like a little lesson in terminology?  I thought you would.  
Quote
Torah (úÌåÉøÈä) is a Hebrew word meaning "teaching," "instruction," or "law." It is the central and most important document of Judaism revered by Jews through the ages. It is also called the Law of Moses (Torat Moshe úÌåÉøÇúÎîÉùÑÆä) . Torah primarily refers to the first section of the Tanakh–the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, but the term is sometimes also used in the general sense to also include both of Judaism's written law and oral law, encompassing the entire spectrum of authoritative Jewish religious teachings throughout history, including the Mishnah, the Talmud, the midrash, and more. (emphasis added)
from wikipedia (I thought I'd best use a source you can actually find.)

Or if you'd like a less neutral source, let's try the Jewish Encyclopedia:
Quote
Name applied to the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.


The tanakh is the Hebrew Bible; and the Christian Bible (which you might, in your tremendous ignorance of things Hebrew have been referring to) has no name, since the Jews don't accept the "New Testament."

From someone who claims to know about this, this is a shockingly ignorant error.  It appears that Mr. Emba is right: this isn't your field.

And are you seriously advancing the argument that God slaughtered the entire population of the world so that Noah could tell them how evil they were being?  Folks who were going to die in any event?

Tell me, do you actually have a coherent argument?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,17:36   

like i said, coherence has never been Carol's strong suit.

she claims to have been a science advisor at one time, but her glaring misconstruals of scientific method have convinced me that can't be her strong suit either.

hmm.  now that i think about it, i have yet to see exactly what Carol's strong suit is.

maybe her strong suit is argument for the sake of hearing herself speak?

If she would only come off as a little less of an authority figure than she does, she might actually be able to generate legitimate conversation.

Somehow, she thinks because she spends time with Landa, that makes her an authority.  

Can't figure out why that is, really.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,02:39   

I would just like to point out that the Sumerians had a Flood story/myth. These people predated good 'ol Abram by many moons. Now, Carol, is it possible that Abraham might have been influenced bu this much older religion, and therefore based the new religion that he started on the old Sumarian religion. This would explain the flood myth.
Quote
Pinches on Ea possibly being a prototype of the Hebrew God  Yah (note: Pir-napishtim is now rendered Utnapishtim, he is the "Mesopotamian Noah"), and that the Flood was a flooding Euphrates river (Note :Microscopic inspection of the flood sediments at Shuruppak where the Flood-Hero lived at the time he was warned of the pending flood, revealed freshwater laid silts and clays, suggesting a river flood)


Quote
"The reason of the coming of the Flood seems to have been seems to have been regarded by the Babylonians as two-fold. In the first place, as Pir-napishtim is made to say "Always the river rises and brings a flood" -in other words it was a natural phenomenon. But in the course of the narrative which he relates to Gilgamesh, the true reason is implied, though it does not seem to be stated in words. And this reason is the same as that of the Old Testament, namely, the wickedness of the world...Pir-napishtim was himself a worshipper of Ae, and on account of that circumstance, he is represented in the story as being under the special protection of that god...It has been more than once suggested, and Professor Hommel has stated the matter as his opinion, that the name of the god Ae or Ea, another possible reading of which is Aa, may be in some way connected with, and perhaps originated the Assyro-Babylonian divine name Ya'u "god," which is cognate with the Hebrew Yah or, as it is generally written, Jah...There is one thing that is certain, and that is, that the Chaldean Noah, Pir-napishtim, was faithful in the worship of the older god, who therefore warned him, saving his life." (pp.112-114. "The Flood." Theophilus G. Pinches. The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia. London.1908)


and from Abram to Moses


Quote
Abraham according to the biblical chronology compiled by some scholars was born circa 2100 BCE and lived at Ur of the Chaldees (modern Tell al Muqayyar in Sumer according to some). If Kramer is correct in identifying certain motifs associated with Enki as later ascribed to the Hebrew God Yahweh-Elohim, it is possible that Abraham would have known Enki as Ea, as this name change occured approximately some 400 years before his birth. Did the Aramaic "ear" at Haran where Terah and Abraham later settled, via "assonance" transform Ea (pronounced Ay-a according to Leick) into Ehyeh who allegedly spoke to Moses at the burning bush (Ex 3:14)


Though I do not take the above as evidence (just as I do not take Carol's word as evidence), it does seem to be more plausable and simple than the Jewish version of what happened.

Quote
In Sumerian myths En-ki is associated with warning the Babylonian Noah, called variously Ziusudra, Atrahasis or Utnapishtim of an impending Flood which will destroy the world and all mankind, telling him to save himself and animals by building a boat. In the Hebrew re-working En-ki becomes Yahweh-Elohim and Utnapishtim becomes Noah.


Sounds plausable? It sure does to me. It seems like the Isrealites, decendents of Abraham got their Mythology from the older civilisation.

Quote
One tends to forget that Yahweh's FIRST appearance to Abraham was NOT in the Sinai, but at the city called Ur of the Chaldees in Lower Mesopotamia.


So why then, do we HAVE to believe that Carol's version of the flood is the correct one? Is there ANY power of persuation in her arguments? If not, then let's repect Carol opinion and request she keeps it to herself, since it has no weight.

One more thing:
Quote
Scholars have identified some of the motifs and concepts found in Genesis as existing in Sumerian works of the 3rd millennium BCE (but said motifs and concepts perhaps being of the 4th millennium).  Genesis explains how man in the form of Adam, came to lose out on a chance to obtain immortality. His God denies him access to the Tree of Life, whose fruit, if consumed, confers   immortality. This is apparently a later Hebrew reworking of the "Adapa and the South Wind myth." Adapa, symbolizing man, has an opportunity to obtain immortality. All he has to do is eat and drink the food of the gods offered him by Tammuz and Nin-gish-zida on behalf of Anu. Adapa refuses both on the prior advice of his god En-ki (en meaning "lord" and ki meaning "earth"), who forewarned him he would surely die if he consumed anything. So, Mankind lost out on obtaining immortality because HE OBEYED HIS GOD. En-ki did not want "his servant" Adapa to possess immortality, he was willing though to give great "wisdom or knowledge" to Adapa


Anyone see the garden of Eden story in the above quote, based on a much older pagan source? Abraham would have known these myths, so why then is his retold version claimed to be the "origional"?

Quote
"The literature created by the Sumerians left its deep impress on the Hebrews, and one of the thrilling aspects of reconstructing and translating Sumerian belles-lettres consists in tracing resemblances and parallels between Sumerian and Biblical literary motifs. To be sure, the Sumerians could not have influenced the Hebrews directly, for they ceased to exist long before the Hebrew people came into existence. But there is little doubt that the Sumerians had deeply influenced the Canaanites, who preceeded the Hebrews in the land that later came to be known as Palestine, and their neighbors, such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Hurrians, and Arameans." (pp.143-144. "The First Biblical Parallels." Samuel Noah Kramer. History Begins at Sumer, Twenty-seven 'Firsts' in Man's Recorded History. Garden City, New York. Doubleday Anchor Books. [1956] 1959)


and, wrapping up with the parallels between the ancient sumerian myth and the hebrew :

Quote
"Sumerian literature contained a number of literary forms and themes found much later in the Bible...Some of the more conspicuous themes involve creation of the universe, creation of humankind, techniques of creation (in two ways, by word and by 'making' or 'fashioning';), paradise, the 'Cain-abel' motif, the 'Tower of Babel' motif, the earth and its organization, a personal god, divine retribution and natural catastrophe, the plague, the 'Job' motif, death and the nether world, and concerns with law, ethics and morality. The most conspicuous of all, the story that has the closest connection with biblical literature, is the story of the flood. There are a few twists to the flood story that will be taken up later." (pp.154-155. "Traces of the Fugitive God." Samuel Noah Kramer and John Maier. Myths of Enki, the Crafty God. New York and Oxford. Oxford University Press. 1989)


Any argument that the other "tribes" got the comparitive Mythology from the Hebrews and not the other way around would of course be... dishonest, since the Sumarian civilisation no longer existed when Abraham started his own religion. That settles it for me.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,04:37   

Quote (Renier @ Feb. 16 2006,08:39)
I would just like to point out that the Sumerians had a Flood story/myth. These people predated good 'ol Abram by many moons. Now, Carol, is it possible that Abraham might have been influenced bu this much older religion, and therefore based the new religion that he started on the old Sumarian religion. This would explain the flood myth.

I've also heard there's good reason to believe that the Abrahamic religions originally got the whole concepts of monotheism and satan from Zoroastrianism.

A lot of naive theologians work off the assumption that Judaism was somehow the 'first religion', or at least that it owed nothing to other religions that came before it. That ain't the way these things happen....

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,04:46   

Quote
A lot off naive theologians work off the assumption that Judaism was somehow the 'first religion', or at least that it owed nothing to other religions that came before it. That ain't the way these things happen....


It's also intriguing that the Ten Commandments include "thou shalt have no other Gods before me".  That almost looks like an acknowledgement that they accepted that other Gods existed... they were just being very exclusive about it.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,08:33   

The ancient Hewbrews were Henotheists.

Lots of Egyptian influence.

Abraham was from the area close to the Sumerian civilization. His mythology was probably from them. His father was a priest.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,08:37   

,quote]The ancient Hewbrews were Henotheists.[/quote]Hewknew?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,04:25   

Over at PT, Inoculated Mind wrote:
Quote
There are some folks running around claiming that genetics support the ark myth, notably Reasons to Believe, but they never pony up the data, while there’s tons of stuff that gives evidence to the contrary.
It never occurred to me that the Heddles and Clousers of the world might actually think the entire human gene pool is derived from the 10 haploid human genomes supposed to have been aboard that boat. I don't want to derail another thread over there, so I thought I'd revive this one. I know Heddle is a  Reasons to Believe believer. If you're reading this, David or Carol, I'm curious. Is this one of those situations where the bible is "inerrant" but but not "literal"?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,08:33   

Quote
I don't want to derail another thread over there, so I thought I'd revive this one


well, it IS almost Easter.

  
  165 replies since Jan. 04 2006,06:03 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]