If Jesus said that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17), why do most Christians view much of Leviticus as no longer valid. How are things like no tattoos (or even observing the sabbath) ignored while certain other things are adhered to.
Further, why are the rather minimal penalties for rape (marrying her if she's a virgin plus 50 silver pieces to the dad, Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and abortion (payment to the husband, rather than death as for a murder of a human, Exodus 21:22 vs Exodus 21:12) ignored in modern times -- noting, of course, that I do not argue that our criminal code is in any way related to the bible. Just giving another example of no longer adhering to biblical literalism.
Note, I don't want to get into the argument that the bible condones rape or abortion... I don't believe anyone would argue that. That said, a literal reading of the bible does indicate that rape and the killing of a fetus are essentially property crimes against the father of the maiden / fetus.
Let's ignore that and I'll agree that that interpretation is not taught by anyone. I don't want to make that the argument here. The issue is why some bible passages are:
a) taken literally while others are read metaphorically or as allegories; and b) commandments that are deemed to no longer apply while others beside them are felt to be sacrosanct.
As with the discussion on Jesus addressing homosexuality, drug addiction, etc., I'm not looking for an argument on the merits of the arguments, I'm just asking for you to lay out the various intellectual arguments as to why A and B happen.
Posted on 1/25 11:11 PM | IP: Logged
Great question! I'll be back with my initial response later in the day I've got a little sermon prep to do. As a preview I can almost assure folks NYD will not be satisfied and the fundamentalists on the board will be ticked off with me. But seriously I think this is a question those outside the faith have a right to have answered and fundamentalists need to answer in an intellectually satisfying way.
However, not shaving has a certain appeal frankly. :-)
Posted on 1/26 7:54 AM | IP: Logged
What about the entire omission of the Book of Enoch from the Holy Bible?
Posted on 1/26 8:59 AM | IP: Logged
NYD, i often have some of the same questions you do: Don't Xtians just pick and choose what we want to believe and what we want to consider "contextual" or "Old Testament law" and not in force?
This book helped me a lot, though i'm not done with the journey. Frankly it's shameful that more evangelical churches don't feel obligated to address questions of Biblical interpretation. My own fairly liberal Vineyard church here did a series on Biblical interpretation, but it was pretty thin gruel and effectively ended up at, "Follow your heart."
I'm hung up here at work and haven't been able to get at this question but this book by Fee is one of the really good ones out there. Nice recommendation Philip. Probably my second choice of books dealing with the issue of hermeneutics.
Posted on 1/26 3:50 PM | IP: Logged
Thanks, what's first? I could do with some good reading on this topic.
Posted on 1/26 4:32 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: OK, my question of the week is as follows:
If Jesus said that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17), why do most Christians view much of Leviticus as no longer valid. How are things like no tattoos (or even observing the sabbath) ignored while certain other things are adhered to.
Further, why are the rather minimal penalties for rape (marrying her if she's a virgin plus 50 silver pieces to the dad, Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and abortion (payment to the husband, rather than death as for a murder of a human, Exodus 21:22 vs Exodus 21:12) ignored in modern times -- noting, of course, that I do not argue that our criminal code is in any way related to the bible. Just giving another example of no longer adhering to biblical literalism.
Note, I don't want to get into the argument that the bible condones rape or abortion... I don't believe anyone would argue that. That said, a literal reading of the bible does indicate that rape and the killing of a fetus are essentially property crimes against the father of the maiden / fetus.
Let's ignore that and I'll agree that that interpretation is not taught by anyone. I don't want to make that the argument here. The issue is why some bible passages are:
a) taken literally while others are read metaphorically or as allegories; and b) commandments that are deemed to no longer apply while others beside them are felt to be sacrosanct.
As with the discussion on Jesus addressing homosexuality, drug addiction, etc., I'm not looking for an argument on the merits of the arguments, I'm just asking for you to lay out the various intellectual arguments as to why A and B happen.
Here we go with one of the most controversial topics in evangelical Christianity. How to read the Bible and what to apply. Most of these thoughts can be found in my favorite book on hermeneutics because it is the most honest book I've ever come across regarding hermeneutics--The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read The Bible by Scot McKnight. Most of the thoughts are Scot's but I'm in agreement with the ones I'll put forward.
First, I really like NYD's chalkboard it gets to the heart of the issue quickly and visually. So let me throw out a test McKnight gives his students. Christians only on this one.
Which of these commands SHOULD WE OBSERVE TODAY? By the way they're all from non-believers and atheists favorite book Leviticus.
1) Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy (19: 2) 2) You must observe my Sabbaths. I am the Lord your God (19:3) 3) When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. (19:9-10) 4) Do no go about spreading slander among your people. (19: 16) 5) Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of materials. (19:19) 6) Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. (19: 26) 7) Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard (19:27) 8) Do not...put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord. (19:28) 9) Stand up in the presence of the aged (19:32) 10) Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the Lord (19:37)
Now truth be told most Christians don't follow but maybe two. #1 and #4. Why? Well some would attempt long convoluted arguments about the holiness code but that's not really it. What it is is that God's people change, culture changes, and we have learned from the New Testament patterns of DISCERNMENT especially as relates to the patterns set forward by Jesus. Fact of the matter we adopt and adapt the Bible. But hopefully we do so on the clear patterns of scripture, consistent with the gospel, i.e. the life of Jesus Christ, and the leadings of the Holy Spirit.
One of the reasons I'm no longer a Southern Baptist is that dropped from the SBC's 2000 Faith and Message was the proviso that scripture should be interpreted in light of the person of Jesus Christ. Fundamentalists said that led to liberalism but since Christians have always adapted and adopted it really meant now discernment would be made by a self-chosen few. Therefore, women would be relegated to second class status though the trajectory of scripture and Jesus' interactions with women portrayed only equality. This is a long argument but one that is taking hold in more and more churches and especially among young evangelicals even some more conservative ones.
But this all goes back to what spurred NYD to ask his question. Whereas the Levitical law would have called for the stoning of the woman in John 8 Jesus instead acknowledged the sin, challenged the woman to sin no more, and offered forgiveness. Even Jesus adapted and adopted and his interactions, especially the one with the adulterous woman, he portrays a pattern of grace that is a way forward from the harsher aspects of the OT law.
This is very simplistic but it's a good starting point for a wonderful and rollicking debate from all sides. Game on!
This post was edited on 1/26 6:08 PM by vadore
Posted on 1/26 6:02 PM | IP: Logged
Two follow on questions for this to maybe guide the continuation (and I appreciate both book recs):
a) How does one address the difference between "this is a sin but the OT penalty doesn't apply anymore" and "this is no longer a sin one has to worry about". Perhaps the "cast the first stone" example is good here in re: the adulterous woman and Jesus saying "don't punish her; just don't do it again woman". On the converse side, why is it no longer bad to be around a menstruating woman? I'm sure Jesus didn't address that issue. Or the crop issues.
b) While I can perhaps understand ignoring 1 Timothy 2:12 based on saying that Jesus treated women equally, you acknowledge that this is almost entirely interpretive and that in many areas it would also be derivative as Jesus does not address something directly. What then is the difference between letting society determine mores and values and letting society determine how they think Jesus would address mores and values?
Posted on 1/26 6:39 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by force10jc: What about the entire omission of the Book of Enoch from the Holy Bible?
Enoch is not the writer of the “Book of Enoch.” This is an uninspired, apocryphal book written many centuries later, probably sometime during the second and first centuries?B.C.E.]
If it would have been and inspired writing would it not make sense that it would have been included in the original Hebrew cannon? It was not and does not belong.
Posted on 1/26 7:59 PM | IP: Logged
My one athiest friend tells me she could care less what and why people of faith do or not do, especially when it comes to anything associated with the bible, as that is the joy of being an athiest she told me once. I see her point, why worry about what christians choose to believe or not believe, follow or not follow, just stay away from them and the sun will shine that much brighter
We also dated for 3 years, very interesting time in my life
This post was edited on 1/26 9:19 PM by Bear8000
Posted on 1/26 9:11 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by InGold:
Originally posted by force10jc: What about the entire omission of the Book of Enoch from the Holy Bible?
Enoch is not the writer of the “Book of Enoch.” This is an uninspired, apocryphal book written many centuries later, probably sometime during the second and first centuries?B.C.E.]
If it would have been and inspired writing would it not make sense that it would have been included in the original Hebrew cannon? It was not and does not belong.
Actually, very little about ancient history or religion make much sense to me. Some have theorized the Book of Enoch to be far older than that.
Posted on 1/26 9:16 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: OK, my question of the week is as follows:
If Jesus said that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17), why do most Christians view much of Leviticus as no longer valid.
your question turned into lots of questions.
I believe that all deserve an answer.
Would you really like an answer? Or in other words will it matter to you if there is a good, scriptural answer that is both reasonable and logical?
That is where I am. The scriptures must make sense as they come from the one who made "sense" possible.
Why do mist Christians view Leviticus as invalid?
Well, I believe that to be an excellent question, and as there are several things at work here so.....
Is there a difference in the things written being "invalid" as if they are false or invalid as in no longer required? It does a person well to understand the purpose of the "law" given only to the Jews. It had a purpose and that purpose was served....but that the law was for the Jews....this scripture helps us to be sure of that.
Pslam147:19?He is telling his word to Jacob, His regulations and his judicial decisions to Israel. 20?He has not done that way to any other nation; And as for [his] judicial decisions, they have not known them.
Now why the law code, the why is vital in understanding your question as it relates to its being "valid", the Law was “holy,” “good,” “fine” (Ro 7:12,?16), and anyone who could fully live up to this perfect Law would prove himself a perfect man, worthy of life. (Le 18:5; Ro 10:5; Ga 3:12) For this very reason the Law brought condemnation, rather than life, not because the Law was not good but because of the imperfect, sinful nature of those under it. (Ro 7:13-16; Ga 3:10-12, 19-22) The perfect Law made their imperfection and sinfulness especially evident. (Ro 3:19,?20; Ga 3:19,?22) The Law in this respect also served to identify Jesus as the Messiah, for he alone was able to keep the Law in every respect, proving himself a perfect man.?Joh 8:46; 2Co 5:21; Heb 7:26. That is why the religious leaders of his day tried to discredit him, but they failed to really find any fault in him.
Like Paul said at Galatians 3:19, 19?Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive....under the law there was no hope as year after year they failed to do the law and sacrificed to the end of their life.
The Law was called a curse as it exposed their sinful nature: Galatians 3:10?For all those who depend upon works of law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is every one that does not continue in all the things written in the scroll of the Law in order to do them.” 11?Moreover, that by law no one is declared righteous with God is evident, because “the righteous one will live by reason of faith.” 12?Now the Law does not adhere to faith, but “he that does them shall live by means of them.” 13?Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake.”
Also the law was called a tutor or teacher. It should have taught the Jews that they needed something to get out from under the law covenant becasue in their sinful condition could not do the law and prove themselves righteous. By the time Jesus the messiah arrived the leaders were so far off the path they thought that they were righteous and totally missed the point and had their brother and savior executed and that is what provided the sacrifice that was needed, the perfect man Jesus ( never broke the law) and was necessary to replace the man that orphaned all his descendants, Adam who forfeit his perfect life.
1 Corinthians 15:20?However, now Christ has been raised up from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep [in death]. 21?For since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. 22?For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive
and
1 Corinthians 15:45?It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46?Nevertheless, the first is, not that which is spiritual, but that which is physical, afterward that which is spiritual. 47?The first man is out of the earth and made of dust; the second man is out of heaven.
So the Law in reality was "perfect" and exposed every man but one. So when Jesus died sinless the law died with him.
Colossians2:13?Furthermore, though YOU were dead in YOUR trespasses and in the uncircumcised state of YOUR flesh, [God] made YOU alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14?and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.
So, unless we (you and I) are Jewish, we would have never been under the law in the first place. But it is invalid and that is not so unusual as there are many laws of men that have come and gone that were enforced at one time. Because those laws were not good they just do not apply today and they cant, part of the law dealt with hygene...pooping in the ground away from living quarters. And sacrifices that had to be doem that the temple that God allowed to be destroyed.... there is no way possible to keep the law now with no temple and no one can claim to be the messiah as all those records were destroyed by Cestius Gallus and the Roman Army in the 1st century just as Jesus said they would.
Now that does not make the law worthless or untrue as many so called Christians claim as the law provides much we can learn about how God views things and the purpose in some of the requirements. If a Christian were to claim that the book of Leviticus is "invalid" they might just need to read 2 tim 3:16?All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17?that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. It says "all" and that includes Leviticus.
As for keeping the Sabath, dietary restrictions, and other things in the "law covenant". There is no one under the "law of Moses" and that includes the 10 commands as anyone that claims to keep any part of the "law" is in effect saying that they want to prove their righteousness to God and in effect are saying that Jesus sacrifice was in vein. Does that mean it is okay to murder? Never. Was not okay before the law and is not now, can a man be forgiven of such a bad thing....yes he can, but that does not mean he will not have to face the consequences.
Not so complicated as it is made out to be....
and the question about Deut 22:28,29. 28? “In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out, 29?the man who lay down with her must also give the girl’s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.
they.........they......both of them as in consensual....he had to step up and do the right thing and they was the "bride" price it was paid to the father of the girl not the "husband" "girl’s father fifty silver shekels"
No as for rape?
death
Deut 22:25?“If, however, it is in the field that the man found the girl who was engaged, and the man grabbed hold of her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her must also die by himself, 26?and to the girl you must do nothing. The girl has no sin deserving of death, because just as when a man rises up against his fellowman and indeed murders him, even a soul, so it is with this case. 27?For it was in the field that he found her. The girl who was engaged screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.
____________
a) taken literally while others are read metaphorically or as allegories; and b) commandments that are deemed to no longer apply while others beside them are felt to be sacrosanct.
------------------
with that I would need specifics.
I know I do not speak for "Christians" so anyone else that bothers to read and feels like you have a scripture that shows where this line of thinking and connecting is inaccurate I encourage discussion becasue if I am wrong I want to know it. What I do not want is the stuff the religious leaders of Jesus day in quoting other men...dead men at that....that is why Jesus said "you heard it was said"....
their oral law was bogus and there is alot of that today too.
NYD
I appreciate the questions and hope that at least you can see that with me anyway it is not a pick and choose but it is the bible itself that explains itself....let me know if any of what I say needs further explanation.
This post was edited on 1/26 9:46 PM by InGold
Posted on 1/26 9:43 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by force10jc:
Originally posted by InGold:
Originally posted by force10jc: What about the entire omission of the Book of Enoch from the Holy Bible?
Enoch is not the writer of the “Book of Enoch.” This is an uninspired, apocryphal book written many centuries later, probably sometime during the second and first centuries?B.C.E.]
If it would have been and inspired writing would it not make sense that it would have been included in the original Hebrew cannon? It was not and does not belong.
Actually, very little about ancient history or religion make much sense to me. Some have theorized the Book of Enoch to be far older than that.
sure some do, but that is even worse as the older it gets the bigger the question comes up as to why the Jews did not make it part of the Bible? And if there were a book written by Enoch it would be the oldest book as he was the grandson of Cain and was raised in the "land of fugitiveness"
That in its self means it would have had to survive the flood and Babylon....just does not make sense.
Posted on 1/26 9:50 PM | IP: Logged
That was certainly a lot right there. Thanks.
Questions, if the old laws were only for Jews/Israelites, should the new laws only be for Christians?
With respect to the open item of examples of things no longer adhered to, I'm speaking specifically to the issue of Christian folk citing abominations of the "Law" today, vs. your notation that the Law was for Israel and no longer is applicable. Is this a fault in the application of of use of the law as a tool for learning how god things? You mention that scripture should never be deemed invalid, even if inapplicable. I get that. But if God presented a law before and chooses to remove it from application, why does he not impose a new law in his series of revelations? Be leaving it open, does he not create a vacuum in which the laws of man emerge?
As to the Deut verses you reference, I believe you are using a version which does not cite the act as rape. There are obviously various versions and each version appears to use a varying degree of language relating to forcefulness. The primary distinction between 22-28 appears to be the marital status of the woman (married, unmarried betrothed, unmarried unpledged). I do agree that the language in the version you use is a lot less volatile. I can ask my dad (who speaks koine greek) to look into it sometime :) .
Posted on 1/26 11:33 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by Bear8000: My one athiest friend tells me she could care less what and why people of faith do or not do, especially when it comes to anything associated with the bible, as that is the joy of being an athiest she told me once. I see her point, why worry about what christians choose to believe or not believe, follow or not follow, just stay away from them and the sun will shine that much brighter
We also dated for 3 years, very interesting time in my life
This post was edited on 1/26 9:19 PM by Bear8000
Though I doubt I'd spend much time around fundamentalists of any religion, it sure would be a shame to write off all religious folk (or for a Christian to not associate with atheists or members of other religions). There are far too many people in the world with different beliefs to do that.
As for why discuss it, in a civil, educational setting as we have here, it really can be a fun exercise. I reckon that folks like Stu and Chris (with whom I usually discuss stuff via email), and VAD and ING enjoy these exercises as much as I do.
Further, trying to understand why Christians (as the majority in this nation) think what they think is very important. While our government is decidedly not Christian and "in no way founded on the Christian religion", our society (with the numbers of Christian adherents) is most certainly influenced more by Christianity than any other similar belief set. I may not love that fact, but it's not going to change.
Posted on 1/26 11:38 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by InGold:
Originally posted by force10jc:
Originally posted by InGold:
Originally posted by force10jc: What about the entire omission of the Book of Enoch from the Holy Bible?
Enoch is not the writer of the “Book of Enoch.” This is an uninspired, apocryphal book written many centuries later, probably sometime during the second and first centuries?B.C.E.]
If it would have been and inspired writing would it not make sense that it would have been included in the original Hebrew cannon? It was not and does not belong.
Actually, very little about ancient history or religion make much sense to me. Some have theorized the Book of Enoch to be far older than that.
sure some do, but that is even worse as the older it gets the bigger the question comes up as to why the Jews did not make it part of the Bible? And if there were a book written by Enoch it would be the oldest book as he was the grandson of Cain and was raised in the "land of fugitiveness"
That in its self means it would have had to survive the flood and Babylon....just does not make sense.
Not THAT Enoch. My memory is bad but I am pretty sure there were two Enochs and the grandson of Cain is not the one I'm talking about.
Posted on 1/27 3:52 PM | IP: Logged
"That in its self means it would have had to survive the flood and Babylon....just does not make sense."
Just as a point of order as to this, there is zero evidence of any global flood in the last 10,000 years. The last comparable thing to a global flood would be the last Snowball Earth, which I believe dates about 600-700 million years ago (and then the water was ice).
To the extent someone posits a global flood as a factual occurrence, they must also account for the lack of physical evidence that would be expected to be seen.
That does not mean localized "great" floods did not occur. But let's not posit a worldwide flood for which evidence has constantly been sought without any verifiable success to which I am aware.
Posted on 1/27 4:15 PM | IP: Logged
noshade="noshade">Not THAT Enoch. My memory is bad but I am pretty sure there were two Enochs and the grandson of Cain is not the one I'm talking about.
still no chance and they both lived at the same time
Then the son born to Jared at the age of 162; the seventh man in the genealogical line from Adam. In addition to Methuselah, who was born to him when he was 65 years old, Enoch had other sons and daughters. Enoch was one of the “so great a cloud of witnesses” who were outstanding examples of faith in ancient times. “Enoch kept walking with the true God.” (Ge 5:18, 21-24; Heb 11:5; 12:1)
there is no way this man wrote an inspired book that was excluded. Even the idea that God would have someone pen a book worthy of being included, but was left out would mean that either God did not have the power to influence the men that put the Bible together or he inspired him to write it for no real reason and neither of those fit.
Posted on 1/27 8:59 PM | IP: Logged
NYD
Explain why almost every culture has a global flood account somewhere in its makeup? The oldest culture that has even a slight similarity in culture and government is Asian.
It is interesting that the Chinese character for “ship” is derived from the idea of “eight persons in a vessel.” This bears a striking resemblance to the Bible account about Noah and his family, eight persons, who survived the Flood in an ark (1Pe 3:20)
Then there is just massive amounts of evidence from the scientific world too. Seems like men who do not believe in God and the Bible try to find ways for things to not fit, like they have this predetermined idea that that ant be right so they "invent" ways to make it not true. It is like climbing a tree to make up stuff instead of just lying in the shade and enjoying them.
Next you will explain away the sea shells I found on the top of the Matterhorn 3 years ago. They were not imbedded in rock nor fossilized. Massive amounts of evidence.
Funny thing is people tend to believe what they want and I do agree that it works both ways, I just happen to believe that in his wisdom allows men to choose what they want to believe and that allows him the advantage and always will.
From a more simplistic standpoint, I always break it down this way:
The Old Testament folks in Leviticus had specific laws and required sacrifices to atone for their sins.
Once Christ came and died, he atoned for all sins....thus throwing out the need to have a specific set of rules or sacrifices to follow.
Posted on 1/30 10:19 AM | IP: Logged
I don't even know how to talk to someone who thinks evidence weighs in favor of the Noah's Ark myth. It is literally less believable than a talking snake. I'll try my best though.
Originally posted by InGold: NYD
Explain why almost every culture has a global flood account somewhere in its makeup?
Because "great" floods happen all the time. Almost all societies have constructed their villages and towns along rivers and oceanfronts. Rivers and oceanfronts all experience devastating floods for a variety of reasons over time. Furthermore, great storms occur periodically in all parts of the globe. They are more common in certain parts than in others and certain areas are subject to risks that others are not, but great storms happen everywhere when you look at meteorology over the course of centuries and millennia.
Particularly when discussing the oral traditions of prehistoric cultures, the concept of "global" is foreign. The world that is seen and known is what is traveled and quite local. A "great" flood that submerges the "world" of prehistoric village would be expected to be recorded in oral history as an apocalyptic event. That most cultures would have a record in their oral history of a great flood is evidence neither of a) concurrent great floods or b) a worldwide great flood. It is merely anecdotal evidence that these cultures thought about (and probably experienced) floods that decimated their villages.
For example, would you not expect the 2004 tsunami to enter oral history had they occurred 2500 years ago?
Originally posted by InGold: It is interesting that the Chinese character for “ship” is derived from the idea of “eight persons in a vessel.” This bears a striking resemblance to the Bible account about Noah and his family, eight persons, who survived the Flood in an ark (1Pe 3:20)
Arguendo that this coincidence was something more than a coincidence, I find it remarkable that you feel the most distinguishing element of Noah's Ark was that it housed 8 people (as opposed to the millions of species).
Originally posted by InGold: Then there is just massive amounts of evidence from the scientific world too.
Where. You also do understand that you have to explain away the LACK of evidence of a flood too (those things that would be expected to happen if enough water were placed on earth to flood the globe -- which water simply does not and never has existed).
Originally posted by InGold: Next you will explain away the sea shells I found on the top of the Matterhorn 3 years ago. They were not imbedded in rock nor fossilized.
Amazing, I didn't realize you were a geologist. When you carbon dated the seashells what results did you get. Did you find erosion of the calcium carbonate due to heat or exposure to C02 rich water? Did you or all of the other people who have found your amazingly non fossilized and 6,000 year old seashells actually document your findings or publish anywhere?
No, because the only seashells that have been documented to have been found on mountains got there in the manner that science eventually explained. This was a great argument for something that science couldn't explain... until plate tectonics were understood (a relatively new phenomenon).
But I don't mean to offend your personal scientific experiments in favor of a great flood. (PS. Arguendo again, even if your seashells were legitimate, that does not prove a flood. There are, quite simply, too many things that would be expected to occur and be a consequence of a great flood that are counter to observation).
Posted on 1/31 12:07 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: I don't even know how to talk to someone who thinks evidence weighs in favor of the Noah's Ark myth. .
OKay look.
Because I have studied the Bible. The prophecy alone is proof enough much less the practical wisdom for the best way of life, but stop the "evidence weighs in favor"....I never said there was any favor good or bad, but for someone to write off the fact that there is plenty of evidence of a global flood that happened within much less time than ten thousand year period is there.
As far as talking snakes.... tell me you have never seen a ventriloquist? I do know this.....there has never been something come from nothing nor life come from non living matter and the myth that man came from the dirt with no help is more far fetched than a talking snake....talk about myth.
It is only men that think they are smart in themselves to answer such things are fooling themselves. I will read the rest of your attempt to make me look stupid now, but really I would appreciate it if you would not make claims for me.
Posted on 1/31 10:33 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: phenomenon).
But I don't mean to offend your personal scientific experiments in favor of a great flood. (PS. Arguendo again, even if your seashells were legitimate, that does not prove a flood. There are, quite simply, too many things that would be expected to occur and be a consequence of a great flood that are counter to observation).
Look pal, you think you know more than you do and if you believe for a second that carbon dating is proof you have been totally duped. It has been known since the mid 1950s that carbon dating is unreliable but scientist continue to use them as "fact" when there is no way to be sure.
And just because some egg head that is bent on explaining away the bible comes up with some "theory on why there are oceanic substrates on mountain ranges that is not in the sub layers....IS NOT PROOF OF JACK, and I do not want to offend you either but again I did not make the finding of sea shells on the Matterhorn as "proof" but they sure did not get there at 17, 000 feet above sea level easily.
There is lots of evidence that a global flood happened and fairly recently and you just do not want to believe it. That is your prerogative sir, but to attempt to make yourself look like that all smart one here explain why you would rely on carbon dating?
The radiocarbon clock looked very simple and straightforward when it was first demonstrated, but it is now known to be prone to all kinds of error. After some 20 years’ use with the method, a conference on radiocarbon chronology and other related methods of dating was held in Uppsala, Sweden, in 1969. The discussions between chemists who practice the method and archaeologists and geologists who use the results brought to light a dozen flaws that might invalidate the dates. In the 33 years since then, little has been accomplished to remedy these shortcomings. One nagging problem has always been to ensure that the sample tested has not been contaminated, either with modern (live) carbon or with ancient (dead) carbon. A bit of wood, for example, from the heart of an old tree might contain live sap. Or if that has been extracted with an organic solvent (made from dead petroleum), a trace of the solvent might be left in the portion analyzed. Old buried charcoal might be penetrated by rootlets from living plants. Or it might be contaminated with much older bitumen, difficult to remove. Live shellfish have been found with carbonate from minerals long buried or from seawater upwelling from the deep ocean where it had been for thousands of years. Such things can make a specimen appear either older or younger than it really is. The most SERIOUS FAULT in radiocarbon-dating theory is in the assumption that the level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is now. That level depends, in the first instance, on the rate at which it is produced by ultra violet rays. "Cosmic rays" vary greatly in intensity at times, being largely affected by changes in the earth’s magnetic field. Magnetic storms on the sun sometimes increase the cosmic rays a......... thousandfold......... for a few hours. The earth’s magnetic field has been both stronger and weaker in past millenniums. And since the explosion of nuclear bombs, the worldwide level of carbon 14 has increased substantially. On the other hand, the proportion is affected by the quantity of stable carbon in the air. Volcanic eruptions add measurably to the stable carbon-dioxide reservoir, thus DILUTING the radiocarbon. In the past century, man’s burning of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil, at an unprecedented rate has permanently increased the quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide and that has corrupted the half life.....Faced with all these fundamental weaknesses, the radiocarbon people have turned to standardizing their dates with the help of wood samples dated by counting tree rings, notably those of bristlecone pines, which live hundreds and even thousands of years in the southwestern United States. This field of study is called dendrochronology. So the radiocarbon clock is no longer regarded as yielding an absolute chronology but one which measures only relative dates. To get the true date, the radiocarbon date has to be corrected by the tree-ring chronology. Accordingly, the result of a measurement of radiocarbon is referred to as a “radiocarbon date.” By referring this to a calibration curve based on tree rings, the absolute date is inferred. This is sound for as far back as the bristlecone ring count is reliable. The problem now comes up that the oldest living tree whose age is known goes back only to 800?C.E. In order to extend the scale, scientists try to match overlapping patterns of thin and thick rings in pieces of dead wood found lying nearby. By patching together 17 remnants of fallen trees, they claim to go back over 7,000 years. But the tree-ring standard does not stand alone either. Sometimes they are not sure just where to put one of the dead pieces, so what do they do? They ask for a radiocarbon measurement on it and use that as a guide in fitting it in.
That reminds me of two lame men with only one crutch between them, who take turns using it, one leaning for a while on his partner, then helping to hold him up.
One must wonder at the miraculous preservation of loose bits of wood lying so long in the open. It would seem they might have been washed away by heavy rainfall or picked up by passersby for firewood or some other use. What has prevented rot or insect attack? It is credible that a living tree might withstand the ravages of time and weather, an occasional one surviving for a thousand years or more. But dead wood? For six thousand years? It strains credibility. Yet this is what the older radiocarbon dates are based on. Nevertheless, the radiocarbon experts and the dendrochronologists have managed to put aside such doubts and smooth over the gaps and inconsistencies, and both feel satisfied with their compromise. But how about their customers, the archaeologists? They are not always happy with the dates they get back on the samples they send in. One expressed himself this way at the Uppsala conference: “If a carbon-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date,’ we just drop it.” Some of them still feel that way. One wrote recently concerning a radiocarbon date that was supposed to mark the earliest domestication of animals: “Archeologists [are coming] to have second thoughts about the immediate usefulness of radiocarbon age determinations simply because they come out of ‘scientific’ laboratories. The more that confusion mounts in regard to which method, which laboratory, which half-life value, and which calibration is most reliable, the less we archeologists will feel slavishly bound to accept any ‘date’ offered to us without question.” The radiochemist who had supplied the date retorted: “We prefer to deal with facts based on sound measurements?not with fashionable nor emotional archeology.” If scientists disagree so sharply about the validity of these dates reaching back into man’s antiquity, is it not understandable that laymen might be skeptical about news reports based on scientific “authority,” such as those quoted at the head of this series of articles?
Known science is good, this guessing and outsmarting each other is bologna.
If you would like to know the truth about the flood I can help but as far as all this proof you seem to want. It is not there. People think as say....why didn't God do this or that so people would have proof. Well seeing is not believing.
and talk about unreliable method for dating artifacts....ever hear of Amino-Acid Racemization....
Ask and I will explain it...it will take some serious time but a fun exercise if you are not familiar with it.
As far as oral history.
There was plenty of tsunami in the past, they did not make it into the "global society's" flood list. Really? There is a global flood account in the Myan culture and talk about disconnected from the rest of the world, but somewhere in their past they brought this same story with them, do I offer this as proof as you say....I do, but then you do not want to listen to it. As far as the history and genetic makeup of the 4 major races today.....interestingly enough they happen to match the amount of sons Noah had and the areas they were said to have gone.....there is no way that was "written after the fact". Lots of things that at the very least should make a man go hummmm.
Carbon dating, sophisticated....... and to the average man it can be intimidating but it is not trustworthy.
Posted on 1/31 11:41 PM | IP: Logged
The Bible is proof of the Bible is just not good enough for me. Others feel differently, but I always find it remarkable that some believers are so skeptical of the science boogeyman and yet are flowing with credulity when it comes to biblical myth.
A few particular points:
a) is the talking snake not in Genesis? Is that not an account of the Lord rather than a testament of a disciple? As such, if the Lord says that a snake talked, then that snake talked. If a gospel says that Jesus' cross spoke, then OK maybe that's ventriloquism. In any respect, if someone thinks every animal in the world sang cumbaya on a boat for a month or so, I don't imagine they'd have a problem with snakes talking.
b) Actually, physics has established that something can come from nothing. One example of this are virtual particles that were theorized by Paul Dirac early in the 20th century. They have been studied and indirectly observed. Quite simply, they are evidence that something can and does emerge from nothing.
c) I don't know how life formed for the first time. Nor does anyone else. I highly doubt any scientist will ever be able to prove how life actually arose, though it is possible (but not yet accomplished) to establish a manner in which it might have arisen (there were actually two quite big steps in that direction in the last month as MIT and NASA scientists announced minor breakthroughs on cell membrane and sugar formation, respectively). Just because something cannot be explained doesn't mean you jump right to "god did it."
d) On whether people who rely on science consider themselves smart know-it-alls, I'd actually argue the opposite. It is biblical literalists who accept the collective wisdom of a nomadic, bronze age culture as ultimate fact who claim to know everything. The entire premise of science is that there are questions that we don't know the answer to and we try to find out what they are. Furthermore, that which we think we know is constantly questioned and tested, particularly when new data becomes available.
e) I'm not trying to make you look stupid any more than you are me. In fact, we're expressing collective shock at each other's position. While some may not like the fact that blind faith gets questioned, it is my firm opinion that belief in biblical literalism is, to any reasonable thinking person, quite preposterous. Your opinion clearly is a bit different.
f) As to your questioning of carbon dating and the other means of radioactive dating, I would question your sources. While it is most certainly true that not all dating methods are accurate for all subject matters, it is entirely accurate to say that "carbon dating" (the commonly use lay term to describe all radioactive dating) as a family of processes is a highly effective tool with entirely acceptable margins for error. It's also a set of methods that has gone through the ringer. I'll trust scientific literature on that over Answers in Genesis.
Posted on 2/1 12:18 PM | IP: Logged
But NYD, since it cannot be proven or disproven that there indeed was a deluge that many refer to as the Great Flood, how would you know what kind of evidence would be lying around? I am no believer in religions but I do feel like there is plenty of documentation in multiple ancient cultures around the world to suggest that one did indeed occur more than 12,000 years ago. I realize from earlier discussions about this that you feel that these cultures were all referring to a flood that was localized and over dramatized in their accounts. The problem I have with this is that they all have eerily similar descriptions including the people involved. I feel that the accounts are so similar that I cannot discount it as coincidence.
Posted on 2/1 12:25 PM | IP: Logged
you would be amazed to find out that the bible never conflicts with known science, but it is not a science text book.
Posted on 2/1 12:31 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: The Bible is proof of the Bible is just not good enough for me. Others feel differently, but I always find it remarkable that some believers are so skeptical of the science boogeyman and yet are flowing with credulity when it comes to biblical myth.
A few particular points:
a) is the talking snake not in Genesis? Is that not an account of the Lord rather than a testament of a disciple? As such, if the Lord says that a snake talked, then that snake talked. If a gospel says that Jesus' cross spoke, then OK maybe that's ventriloquism. In any respect, if someone thinks every animal in the world sang cumbaya on a boat for a month or so, I don't imagine they'd have a problem with snakes talking.
b) Actually, physics has established that something can come from nothing. One example of this are virtual particles that were theorized by Paul Dirac early in the 20th century. They have been studied and indirectly observed. Quite simply, they are evidence that something can and does emerge from nothing.
c) I don't know how life formed for the first time. Nor does anyone else. I highly doubt any scientist will ever be able to prove how life actually arose, though it is possible (but not yet accomplished) to establish a manner in which it might have arisen (there were actually two quite big steps in that direction in the last month as MIT and NASA scientists announced minor breakthroughs on cell membrane and sugar formation, respectively). Just because something cannot be explained doesn't mean you jump right to "god did it."
d) On whether people who rely on science consider themselves smart know-it-alls, I'd actually argue the opposite. It is biblical literalists who accept the collective wisdom of a nomadic, bronze age culture as ultimate fact who claim to know everything. The entire premise of science is that there are questions that we don't know the answer to and we try to find out what they are. Furthermore, that which we think we know is constantly questioned and tested, particularly when new data becomes available.
e) I'm not trying to make you look stupid any more than you are me. In fact, we're expressing collective shock at each other's position. While some may not like the fact that blind faith gets questioned, it is my firm opinion that belief in biblical literalism is, to any reasonable thinking person, quite preposterous. Your opinion clearly is a bit different.
f) As to your questioning of carbon dating and the other means of radioactive dating, I would question your sources. While it is most certainly true that not all dating methods are accurate for all subject matters, it is entirely accurate to say that "carbon dating" (the commonly use lay term to describe all radioactive dating) as a family of processes is a highly effective tool with entirely acceptable margins for error. It's also a set of methods that has gone through the ringer. I'll trust scientific literature on that over Answers in Genesis.
b. talk about a grasping for anything. Justg becasue they have not found where they came from does not mean that they did not come from something. In fact all matter is converted energy and that is something.
nice try.
Posted on 2/1 12:34 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: The Bible is proof of the Bible is just not good enough for me. Others feel differently, but I always find it remarkable that some believers are so skeptical of the science boogeyman and yet are flowing with credulity when it comes to biblical myth.
A few particular points:
a) is the talking snake not in Genesis? Is that not an account of the Lord rather than a testament of a disciple? As such, if the Lord says that a snake talked, then that snake talked. If a gospel says that Jesus' cross spoke, then OK maybe that's ventriloquism. In any respect, if someone thinks every animal in the world sang cumbaya on a boat for a month or so, I don't imagine they'd have a problem with snakes talking.
b) Actually, physics has established that something can come from nothing. One example of this are virtual particles that were theorized by Paul Dirac early in the 20th century. They have been studied and indirectly observed. Quite simply, they are evidence that something can and does emerge from nothing.
c) I don't know how life formed for the first time. Nor does anyone else. I highly doubt any scientist will ever be able to prove how life actually arose, though it is possible (but not yet accomplished) to establish a manner in which it might have arisen (there were actually two quite big steps in that direction in the last month as MIT and NASA scientists announced minor breakthroughs on cell membrane and sugar formation, respectively). Just because something cannot be explained doesn't mean you jump right to "god did it."
d) On whether people who rely on science consider themselves smart know-it-alls, I'd actually argue the opposite. It is biblical literalists who accept the collective wisdom of a nomadic, bronze age culture as ultimate fact who claim to know everything. The entire premise of science is that there are questions that we don't know the answer to and we try to find out what they are. Furthermore, that which we think we know is constantly questioned and tested, particularly when new data becomes available.
e) I'm not trying to make you look stupid any more than you are me. In fact, we're expressing collective shock at each other's position. While some may not like the fact that blind faith gets questioned, it is my firm opinion that belief in biblical literalism is, to any reasonable thinking person, quite preposterous. Your opinion clearly is a bit different.
f) As to your questioning of carbon dating and the other means of radioactive dating, I would question your sources. While it is most certainly true that not all dating methods are accurate for all subject matters, it is entirely accurate to say that "carbon dating" (the commonly use lay term to describe all radioactive dating) as a family of processes is a highly effective tool with entirely acceptable margins for error. It's also a set of methods that has gone through the ringer. I'll trust scientific literature on that over Answers in Genesis.
c) I don't know how life formed for the first time. Nor does anyone else. I highly doubt any scientist will ever be able to prove how life actually arose, though it is possible (but not yet accomplished) to establish a manner in which it might have arisen (there were actually two quite big steps in that direction in the last month as MIT and NASA scientists announced minor breakthroughs on cell membrane and sugar formation, respectively). Just because something cannot be explained doesn't mean you jump right to "god did it."
but it does not mean that it didnt either....and you assume the latter pretty easily and so do all people who have a pre-made idea that it was all by chance.
If we took you computer and blew it up what are the chances it would ever come back together on its own. zero....for that matter do the same experiment with something as simple as a chair and put it in a controlled environment and when would it ever come to anything substantial....never.
There is no way from the obsevable universe that intelligent people should ever come up with the idea that order comes from disorder. It is not logical. The laws that govern physics just happened? Seems to me that every there is a law there is a law giver....laws need intelligence and design....they do not hand have not' Just happened so while critics climb the tree to hear the misinformation, some will simple lay in the shade and get the truth.
Posted on 2/1 12:41 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: The Bible is proof of the Bible is just not good enough for me. Others feel differently, but I always find it remarkable that some believers are so skeptical of the science boogeyman and yet are flowing with credulity when it comes to biblical myth.
A few particular points:
a) is the talking snake not in Genesis? Is that not an account of the Lord rather than a testament of a disciple? As such, if the Lord says that a snake talked, then that snake talked. If a gospel says that Jesus' cross spoke, then OK maybe that's ventriloquism. In any respect, if someone thinks every animal in the world sang cumbaya on a boat for a month or so, I don't imagine they'd have a problem with snakes talking.
b) Actually, physics has established that something can come from nothing. One example of this are virtual particles that were theorized by Paul Dirac early in the 20th century. They have been studied and indirectly observed. Quite simply, they are evidence that something can and does emerge from nothing.
c) I don't know how life formed for the first time. Nor does anyone else. I highly doubt any scientist will ever be able to prove how life actually arose, though it is possible (but not yet accomplished) to establish a manner in which it might have arisen (there were actually two quite big steps in that direction in the last month as MIT and NASA scientists announced minor breakthroughs on cell membrane and sugar formation, respectively). Just because something cannot be explained doesn't mean you jump right to "god did it."
d) On whether people who rely on science consider themselves smart know-it-alls, I'd actually argue the opposite. It is biblical literalists who accept the collective wisdom of a nomadic, bronze age culture as ultimate fact who claim to know everything. The entire premise of science is that there are questions that we don't know the answer to and we try to find out what they are. Furthermore, that which we think we know is constantly questioned and tested, particularly when new data becomes available.
e) I'm not trying to make you look stupid any more than you are me. In fact, we're expressing collective shock at each other's position. While some may not like the fact that blind faith gets questioned, it is my firm opinion that belief in biblical literalism is, to any reasonable thinking person, quite preposterous. Your opinion clearly is a bit different.
f) As to your questioning of carbon dating and the other means of radioactive dating, I would question your sources. While it is most certainly true that not all dating methods are accurate for all subject matters, it is entirely accurate to say that "carbon dating" (the commonly use lay term to describe all radioactive dating) as a family of processes is a highly effective tool with entirely acceptable margins for error. It's also a set of methods that has gone through the ringer. I'll trust scientific literature on that over Answers in Genesis.
a) I believe the talking serpent was meant to be figurative and was a "god" of ancient times but not the one true God that we think of today.
b) I believe that this established theory of something from nothing refers to particles we have yet to discover or understand.
c) In general I agree with this statement but I also believe that while if something cannot be explained you don't jump right into "God did it", I also do not believe that you can necessarily explain away some theories that may seem outlandish just because we can't prove them with today's technology. Today's science fiction has on many occasions become tomorrow's science.
d) Agree with the general premise of this but I also feel like there are scientists that hold on to some theories as fact out of arrogance making them no better than biblical literalists.
e) I have to agree with this 100%.
f) I do feel that carbon dating as we understand it is accurate within 500 to 1000 year anyway. In many cases this is close enough. The problem usually arises when bones or ashes that can be carbon dated are found within a stone structure. An example would be carbon dating dates the bones and ashes to a couple of thousand years ago so it is assumed that the stone structure is the same age. Since stone cannot be carbon dated, there is really no way of knowing how old the structure really is. Baalbek in Lebanon might have gone down as a Roman structure forever had someone not realized the Roman architecture was built upon a much older structure. How did they move those giant stone slabs anyway?
This post was edited on 2/1 12:45 PM by force10jc
Posted on 2/1 12:42 PM | IP: Logged
one at a time, please.
a) is the talking snake not in Genesis? Is that not an account of the Lord rather than a testament of a disciple? As such, if the Lord says that a snake talked, then that snake talked. If a gospel says that Jesus' cross spoke, then OK maybe that's ventriloquism. In any respect, if someone thinks every animal in the world sang cumbaya on a boat for a month or so, I don't imagine they'd have a problem with snakes talking.
1) Yes the talking snake is in Genesis.... but the one who made it talk is identified in the book of Revelation ( reference to this below), if an Angel can manufacture a human body why would making a snake talk or....never thought of this but....manufacture a snake for that matter and occupy it and talk up a storm. If there are spirit creatures that as the bible says are superior to humans in intelligence and in the order of things...this is not hard to get, unless one just does not want to. And yes Jesus even quotes from this account as do other bible writers (under inspiration 2 tim 3:16) to this account as not being some cute story but is vital to understanding the plight of man and his fall into sin, the problem is few understand the account and the clergy of Christendom has reduced it to a myth....cowering to intellectuals....and not being able to defend the account or its significance....fall back on the cute story idea because they do not get it. The bible is without a doubt able to defend itself but obviously there is the need for two things for this to take place....someone who can show how these things connect and a willing participant ( not a gullible or blind one, but one with an open mind and an open heart...so yes, I do....as Jesus did...... believe that this account is factual.
"the lord".....'if the Lord says.......
Who are you saying that you think this is..."the lord" Jesus or someone else?
reference
Revelation 12:7?And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8?but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9?So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.
I would be happy to explain further as to why this account is not a "story" and central to why I believe the Bibles prediction about a great change will come one day....soon, I hope.
Posted on 2/2 5:05 PM | IP: Logged
Sorry I haven't had the chance to respond earlier. Gonna go short shrift on some of these. First to Force.
Originally posted by force10jc: But NYD, since it cannot be proven or disproven that there indeed was a deluge that many refer to as the Great Flood, how would you know what kind of evidence would be lying around?
I've stated in the past that my position is that you can never ever truly prove something occurred. Even if you have what most would consider impeccable evidence of something, it is possible that that you have data errors or are imperfectly interpreting the data. To prove something, you accumulate reliable evidence in favor of that and subject that evidence to rigorous testing (e.g., is this actually evidence this happened) and you do your best to test for evidence against what you are attempting to establish or disprove. You must consider alternate explanations for all data. It's worth noting that eyewitness accounts and anecdotal evidence are, by nature, considered extraordinarily unreliable.
One of the evidences that confounded science for a long time was, in fact, seashells and marine fossils on mountaintops. There was no understanding of how that could happen until plate tectonics and the entire premise of subduction was, for lack of a better term, discovered and established to be true by near uniform consensus in the scientific community. The interaction of tectonics with the development of mountain ranges and the reverse have been tested and affirmed with observation. It simply is fact that the existence of remnants of marine life on mountaintops is a result of millions of years of continental changes from plate tectonics. Note that this does *not* disprove a global flood, but it most certainly *does* remove seashells on mountaintops as a *proof* or evidence of a global deluge. Finding seashells that could be dated using radioactive dating or some other method to a period of less that the time needed for a mountain to have risen, that would be a different story. Despite InGold's contention, that simply has not ever been shown to be the case.
But that's not to your point. Your point is some of the evidence you would expect to have seen: a) evidence of a worldwide mass extinction event in the last 20,000 years. There is no evidence of this. b) a fossil layer dating within the last 20,000 years which has a disproportionate number of fossils (fossil formation is extraordinarily difficult and only occurs under limited conditions... but is far more likely where i) aquatic conditions are present allowing sedimentary burial and ii) a mass die-out prevents scavenging and oceanic conditions remove certain bacteria from access to corpses). c) evidence in oceanic cores showing sedimentary shifts caused by a deluge. d) evidence in ice cores (which date back more than 40,000 years) of any sort of deluge. e) biodiversity patterns resulting from a mass die-out and (with respect to the Noah myth) repopulation from a particular starting point.
Quite simply, the lack of the above is sufficient to place enormous doubt on the existence of a global deluge. But none of that even remotely comes close to the biggest lack of evidence: f) where did the water needed for a global flood come from and where did it go. You simply cannot claim evidence of a global flood without answering F above all others.
Originally posted by force10jc: I am no believer in religions but I do feel like there is plenty of documentation in multiple ancient cultures around the world to suggest that one did indeed occur more than 12,000 years ago. I realize from earlier discussions about this that you feel that these cultures were all referring to a flood that was localized and over dramatized in their accounts. The problem I have with this is that they all have eerily similar descriptions including the people involved. I feel that the accounts are so similar that I cannot discount it as coincidence.
Now to my answer regarding anecdotal evidence, I look at cultural existences of such tales as resulting from one of three things: a) a story related to an actual global deluge, b) a story related to a great localized flood and c) a story that is purely fictitious. While c) is possible, I don't think it is likely largely because we can say with great certainty that cultures settled on bodies of water will experience "great floods" over the course of time. These events such as b) are something that is almost certain to have occurred throughout the world in localized events over the course of millenia. a) could also be the answer, but I would note that cultures would, quite literally, have zero knowledge of the events occurring outside of their local region. For all intents and purposes, they *can only speak to localized conditions.* Because they can only speak to local conditions, even if you could verify a localized great flood as being accurate, you cannot take anecdotal tales as evidence of a global flood.
Finally, I note that one of the few quotes of Richard Dawkins that is pretty non-controversial is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Claiming a global flood, particularly within the last 20,000 years, is a tremendously extraordinary claim and there is a distinct lack of any evidence, much less extraordinary evidence.
Posted on 2/2 6:34 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by InGold: you would be amazed to find out that the bible never conflicts with known science, but it is not a science text book.
You're right, I would be amazed to learn that a book which documents miracles (which are, by definition, events that occur outside of the rules of and in conflict with science) does not conflict with science. In fact, I would call that a miracle.
Posted on 2/2 6:36 PM | IP: Logged
With respect to both InGold and Force's comments regarding b) and my comment about something from nothing.
To InGold, I suggest you read Lawrence Krause's "A Universe From Nothing" which was just released last month. It is a very easily accessible summary of the current understanding of science in this matter.
To Force, virtual particles are one form of particles that pop into existence from nothing. Dirac's example is of positron-electron pairs that pop into existence but have a combined energy = 0. While they usually only appear for periods which are not directly observable, they can be indirectly observed and it has been established that the particles can be separated and thereby exist for longer than insubstantial periods. This is not new scientific principles, though the "proofs" of it are relatively recent. The point is that these particles are not particles that we do not know exist. This isn't stuff like the Higgs Boson which are still hypothetical.
Point being is that the scientific consensus is that something can come from nothing and that it regularly does.
Posted on 2/2 6:42 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by force10jc: c) In general I agree with this statement but I also believe that while if something cannot be explained you don't jump right into "God did it", I also do not believe that you can necessarily explain away some theories that may seem outlandish just because we can't prove them with today's technology. Today's science fiction has on many occasions become tomorrow's science.
This post was edited on 2/1 12:45 PM by force10jc
I do not claim that I know that God does not exist nor that I know that biblical accounts are false. That said, under modern understandings of science and history, many biblical accounts are either inconsistent with the accepted consensus or not considered to be possible under the scientific understanding of the universe that is currently the consensus. While scientific changes as new data arises and future discoveries could prove it to be true, if you assert something that is counter the the way humanity best understands the universe, I will argue that you have to present compelling evidence. For extraordinary claims, you require extraordinary evidence.
Originally posted by force10jc: d) Agree with the general premise of this but I also feel like there are scientists that hold on to some theories as fact out of arrogance making them no better than biblical literalists.
Science is not determined by the opinions or career aspirations of singular groups. Science utilizes the scientific process (particularly peer review and the requirements of replication and independent verification) to weed out error. Even beyond that, the scientific community requires consensus before theories are considered accepted. Part of this process also includes a natural counterbalance to the desire to prove something to further oneself. Disproving something has equal standing in the scientific community as proving something. A good example of this would be Hawking, one of the more "proud" physicists who was harangued over his claims that black holes violated the laws of conservation of energy. He was b&tch slapped in the community until he finally admitted he was wrong.
Originally posted by force10jc: f) I do feel that carbon dating as we understand it is accurate within 500 to 1000 year anyway. In many cases this is close enough. The problem usually arises when bones or ashes that can be carbon dated are found within a stone structure. An example would be carbon dating dates the bones and ashes to a couple of thousand years ago so it is assumed that the stone structure is the same age. Since stone cannot be carbon dated, there is really no way of knowing how old the structure really is. Baalbek in Lebanon might have gone down as a Roman structure forever had someone not realized the Roman architecture was built upon a much older structure. How did they move those giant stone slabs anyway?
Carbon dating is one of only a few types of radioactive dating methods that rely on half lives and known rates of decay between pairs of isotopes. C14 dating is used only for certain living organisms and can only date out to between 30K and 40K years on the high end because data must be controlled for, among other things, the amount of carbon in the air. This control is done through ice cores from which carbon parts per million can be determined (with ice cores providing the necessary record for up to 40K years). C14 dating can not be done on certain subjects, such as, as it turns out, shellfish because of the impact of a filtration consumption cycle. The accuracy of carbon dating varies between the methods. People commonly use the term "carbon dating" in the lay community to cover all types of radioactive dating methods. Folks (myself included) we be better off using more accurate terms when we can. That said, I'm not an expert in this field.
Posted on 2/2 6:58 PM | IP: Logged
InGold, I'm going to try to find a good text for you to address the issue you believe exists with entropy and order from disorder.
In the meantime, I suggest you pick of A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It's a fascinating and easily accessible survey of scientific knowledge. Beyond that, it's a great read. It can probably help you out with some misconceptions you have about what scientific consensus actually is. I think it could help to address some of your questions (notably the magical creation of a computer out of its broken parts).
As for the talking snake, I think we're talking past each other on one key point. You believe in miracles. I do not believe there is any reason to believe that miracles actually occur -- note that this does not mean highly improbable (even seemingly impossible probabilities) do not occur. Just that that which has occurred can, with access to data, eventually be understood. If something goes against all understanding, unless you have extraordinary evidence for it occurring, I will say it did not occur.
As a side note, although there's a lot we don't agree on, I do appreciate our conversations when they are civil. I'm sorry for the few times I've been snippy.
Posted on 2/2 7:09 PM | IP: Logged
I really enjoy hearing all sides of this debate from atheist and Christians. I have to agree with Sinatra once Jesus came the rules of the game changed. Whether you believe or not there is no denying that one person from from a tiny town changed the world forever with one message, Love and forgiveness.
Posted on 2/2 9:40 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: As a side note, although there's a lot we don't agree on, I do appreciate our conversations when they are civil. I'm sorry for the few times I've been snippy.
It's all good. I understand where your arguments come from and I don't necessarily disagree 100% with them. I just feel there is room to question them and explore alternate theories. Science and history are always a work in progress. Today's absolutes have often times been revised. Sometimes drastically.
Posted on 2/2 9:41 PM | IP: Logged
InGold, I just now saw this response on Enoch. I will respond to you within a few days when I have a chance to review whether what I thought I recollected was correct.
This post was edited on 2/2 9:49 PM by force10jc
Posted on 2/2 9:45 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by force10jc: I just feel there is room to question them and explore alternate theories. Science and history are always a work in progress. Today's absolutes have often times been revised. Sometimes drastically.
There is an obligation to question and challenge what you think you know. That's the basis of science. Further, only math deals in absolutes. A big problem with this is the inability of the masses to understand the concept that a scientific theory, when achieving consensus, is at the highest level of reliability under the then current human knowledge. Some folks have taken to calling them "scientific facts" to give it a bit more umph; however, all people who understand science know that new data can change the consensus over time and science is always searching for that new data. Science doesn't rest on laurels and people would do well to examine their beliefs with the same critical eye that scientists examine the collective knowledge of humanity.
Posted on 2/2 11:01 PM | IP: Logged
I'd further note that I blame you guys and the whole BYX scandal at VU for me not being able to write my baseball previews in a timely manner.
Posted on 2/2 11:07 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: I'd further note that I blame you guys and the whole BYX scandal at VU for me not being able to write my baseball previews in a timely manner.
who are "you guys"?
if it people of faith then lets go ahead and expose it,
Religion has no place being in some of the places it chooses to go.....and like Jesus said....his true followers would be "No part of the world", not recluse as some have taken it but like him not part of the political world....(political is just one of the worldly aspects life his followers avoid.
If the link below does not take us directly to image setting for the search just click the image setting.....like they say a picture is worth a thousand words.
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: With respect to both InGold and Force's comments regarding b) and my comment about something from nothing.
... virtual particles are one form of particles that pop into existence from nothing. Dirac's example is of positron-electron pairs that pop into existence but have a combined energy = 0...
NYD, I know you don't want to talk to me again after our previous round, but I'd just like to ask a question here about these "spontaneous" particles: aren't they more of an indicator of a creator than the other way around? No evolution or random chance involved here, right? Just because they appear to arise from nothing doesn't mean they arise from "nobody."
Another point I was about to make when we abruptly ended our conversation back when: have you ever considered that you can't find understanding of a spiritual God --or lack of one-- through the natural sciences? The Bible says that God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit.
Your scientific interest, which I admire, is a pursuit of knowledge. What about a pursuit of wisdom, which, IMO, is a spiritual thing. As it's written: "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."
Posted on 2/4 11:26 AM | IP: Logged
InGold... that was a joking post. I've been spending too much time in here and on the BYX issue and not enough time writing the previews. Using the term "You guys" was in no way associating you with that. Further, it was not meant to be accusatory to you guys. If you haven't been in the War Room, VADore, others and I have been heartily trying to get to the bottom of the issue.
Posted on 2/5 1:46 AM | IP: Logged
4Vandy, yes, any rational person will tell you that everything could be the result of a creator; however, if there is no evidence of it, you do not assert is as fact. You will never hear me say "There is no creator."
You will hear me say "There is no evidence of a creator" and that the biblical story of creation (or, for example, Noah's ark) is at odds with evidence.
You will also hear me say that new evidence is found all the time and that new methods of collecting or analyzing evidence changes all the time.
But the point here is one of the pursuit of knowledge. Neil De Grasse Tyson put it well:
Originally said by NdGT: What would bother me is if you were so content in your answer that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stop looking because you are content that God did it, I don’t need you in the lab. You are useless…
There have been countless times where things were so inconceivable to human knowledge that they were attributed to the hand of a deity. If we stopped asking questions, where would this world be today?
Saying there is no evidence of something is not saying it is not true. At that point you look for evidence and you examine the issue. Perhaps my biggest beef with the bible is that it viewed the Tree of Knowledge as a bad thing.
In my opinion, saying a deity lacks evidence of existence because he cannot be known through evidence is pretty weak when it comes to trying to actually pursue knowledge. I know some people have religious experiences that convince them in their certainty, but to be offended by the fact that some with to live in the empirical world and ensure that science is taught in our classrooms based on evidence is, in and of itself, offensive.
Folks are more than welcome to live as they please and I don't begrudge them their choices, but when leaders in this country try to impose those values in classrooms and in our governments, it impacts all of us and needs to be combated.
Posted on 2/5 1:59 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: InGold... that was a joking post. I've been spending too much time in here and on the BYX issue and not enough time writing the previews. Using the term "You guys" was in no way associating you with that. Further, it was not meant to be accusatory to you guys. If you haven't been in the War Room, VADore, others and I have been heartily trying to get to the bottom of the issue.
me too....time....jest.....
I was just pointing out that religion has played a major roll in places it should not. I find it easy to distinguish what Jesus pointed to as "false profits" and he indicated that they would be plentiful and they are thick...very thick.
MAtt7:15?“Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16?By their fruits YOU will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17?Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; 18?a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. 19?Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire. 20?Really, then, by their fruits YOU will recognize those [men].
Posted on 2/5 9:06 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: BR> ...But the point here is one of the pursuit of knowledge...If we stopped asking questions, where would this world be today? Perhaps my biggest beef with the bible is that it viewed the Tree of Knowledge as a bad thing...<<
--------------
I totally agree about the pursuit of knowlege. From my perspective, whenever science has a new breakthrough, my response is "oh, that's how God did it!" I should admit, however, that I'm woefully uneducated in the sciences.
As for the Tree of Knowlege, keep in mind that it was The Tree of Knowlege of Good and Evil. Until the command of God not to partake of it was violated, evil didn't exist in the world. Eden was a "heaven on Earth." Maybe that thought would possibly lessen your objection a bit.
Finally, I just want to re-emphasize my reasons for intruding here:
--the spontaneous particles seem to me to be more a case of nothing from something than something from nothing. They have an energy factor of zero, you said. They play no discernible role in anything, right? Nothing from something.
--wisdom vs knowledge. You go to books, seminars, etc to find knowledge. Where do you go to find wisdom? Is knowledge much good without the needed wisdom to interpret it and use it? Seems to me in some cases it might even be a dangerous thing.
I'll try to bow out now and leave you to your discussions with Vadore, InGold and Force. No iron-clad promise, though. :)
Posted on 2/6 12:32 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by 4VANDY: Finally, I just want to re-emphasize my reasons for intruding here:
--the spontaneous particles seem to me to be more a case of nothing from something than something from nothing. They have an energy factor of zero, you said. They play no discernible role in anything, right? Nothing from something.
An eloquent point and a nice turn on things. In reality though, the virtual particles, including positron-electron pairs, do have an impact on two levels: a) they can be separated under extreme circumstances, rather than self-annihilating, whereby they exist on a long form basis, rather than for a virtually imperceptible flash and b) they are believed to cause vacuum energy (which is thought to have a role in inflation. That said, I really do like the subtle turn of nothing out of something.
As to another point made, I think "Oh, that's how God did it!" is a million times better than "Science must be wrong because it conflicts with my interpretation of religious scripture."
On the Tree of Knowledge, I am aware that it was knowledge of sin that was discovered and that it brought death, carnivores and disease into the world. It remains the ultimate symbol of celebrating ignorance.
As for wisdom, I would argue that religion is not the sole province of wisdom (and more particularly of morality). I agree that there is a distinction between data and wisdom, with knowledge floating somewhere in the middle. And for all the moral hazards that are warned of about knowledge without wisdom, there is an equally grand risk of denying knowledge in the name of ancient wisdom.
This post was edited on 2/6 1:48 PM by NewYorkDore
Posted on 2/6 1:48 PM | IP: Logged
I've scanned through the thread and would have one point to add regarding some of the Old Testament Laws that were mentioned in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
As has been mentioned already, Jesus' life and teachings put the Old Law to rest so to speak. I think the bottom line of the Old Testament is that over and over again God's people turned their back on him and he continues to accept them back.
Anyways, back to my point, many Biblical scholars will point out that many of the Old Testament Laws would have also been seen as sanitary precautions for the Jewish people. These weren't just "spiritual laws" but laws that governed a nation, much like we have speed limits, etc today.
Think about a couple of these things: - Would tattoos have been a sanitary thing at that point for the Jewish nation? (I'm not always convinced that tattoo parlors are safe today). - Would eating red meat have been a good idea without proper cooking procedures?
Posted on 2/13 5:04 PM | IP: Logged
TPC13, so you're saying the rules were logical, temporally based rules that were mandated in order to keep people healthy....
Yahoo! Sports
