by Brummie 183 Replies latest members adult
Abaddon:I agree with every point raised in your last post - Yayy!!!
LOL
Edited to add that we posted at the same time, and I actually meant the post before. But I agree with the post immediately above this, too.
My, you are erudite and articulate, this morning
Well you know what abbandon : I PAT YOU IN THE BACK !!!
you too little too : Thanks for being honest
Frankies : What can I say ? Hum ... (certainly not what I've just said to abbandon and little tooe) I guess You have a clue
Finally it's all about "YOUR" point of view and it is interesting to read that you keep on saying it is all about "OUR" point of view
YOU NO FACT - NO EVIDENCE - EVERYTHING IS CONTRADICTORY in what you are saying. Geeezzz What are you stiking too ??? ... Again ... Your choice
Abbadon,
I think your Bible exergesis is a tad worse than the Fundies. Joel 2: 30-31 "and I will give porents in the heavens and on the Earth blood and fire and columns of smoke the sun itself will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the coming up the great fear inspiriing day of Jehovah. How does that show the Israelites knew what volcanoes were??? would you please explain?
I shouldn't have to explain as it's in the links I provided. Thanks for taking the time to read them, it really fills me with confidence about how seriously you are taking this discussion. Would you like I show you the same level of respect (i.e. none) when you cite evidence to support your arguments (which you ain't so far, not to me)?
But, as you need it feeding to you;
"The plinian column during the initial phase of the eruption was about 23 miles (36 km) high."
"Ash fell over a large area in the eastern Mediterranean and Turkey"
From the links in the above post.
It even says column... I suppose a pillar of smoke and a column of smoke are different things? Or that it's a coincidence the descrition of an eruption and that in Joel match so well? I know one thing for certain, if a theory of your relied upon asserting that Joel was talking about volcanic eruptions, you'd accept it on the nod frankie; tell me if you wouldn't and EXPLAIN why not.
First, a volcano erupting in Santorini, Greece in 1,650 B.C. would not have been seen, in Egypt, Mesopotamia, or the promised land. So while they would feel the effects, they would have no idea that a volcano is causing it.
Do you remember the Mount St. Helens eruption? That was small in comparison, yet that darkened the sky. The Krakatoa eruption of the 19th C was smaller than Santorini too, and that pushed so much dust into the atmosphere that sunsets were far more brilliantly colured for some time afterwards; the moon is similaly effected by atmospheric debris. An active volcano can also spew dust for ages before going boom. Oh, the boom of Krakatoa was heard 2500 miles away; people really HEARD Santorini go up.
Thus the descrition "columns of smoke the sun itself will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood" perfectly describes the visual effects of a volcanic eruption.
Of course, you can persist in your claim that israelites didn't know what volcanos were, but the plain fact the evidence supports is they did. Snide comments do not make your case. Rebutt my argument with evidence. Or don't you have any?
While it is true, that the events described in Joel could be caused by a volcanic activity, it could hardly be used to support your claim that the Israelites knew what volcanoes were. Tell me Abbadon, where do you think the Israelites would learn about volcanoes? On the 6 oclock news? Or read about them in an encyclopedia? Or perhaps during their geography lessons? Or maybe their science classes? I think you forget how much different times were when the Israelites were entering into a covenant with Yahweh, and our modern 20th-century. Also I think you forget that what you described in Joel is a prophecy, and not a description of some past event.
Can you see a pattern here? You assert something, I show the evidence shows that what you have asserted is unlikely, and you, despite the reasons for believing something have been shown to be false, carry on believing it.
Likewise I find you response to the next bit perplexing;
I think you're making plenty of assertions, that require your strict interpretation, in order for them to be considered as you put it as "evidence".
You, for example admit that Genesis doesn't prove God inspired it, and assert that it wasn't meant for that, but that it was meant to establish a law covenant. You do not deal with the illogicity of god putting something in his Holy Book that would turn people away from the Bible. You also need to answer the question of if Genesis doesn't prove inspiration in the Bible, as you admit, what does?
Of course, if you want to say that you believe the Bible is just one way god reached mankind and that god used naturalistic processes in creation, I have no argument with you. But I don't think you want to say that, I think you are looking to claim a special purpose in the Bible. I am looking for you to back that up with some facts.
I have my reasons for excepting the Bible as God's word, reasons that you'll not agree with. My purpose in posting is not to prove that the Bible is God's word, and for there is nothing that I could say to "prove" it is God's word, one either excepts it as God's word, or one doesn't. My purpose for posting here on this thread, was to bring out the purpose or intent for the creation account in Genesis, namely that it is part of a contractorial document and that its purpose is not to teach science, it's purpose is to convey "status", to a specific group of people namely, the Israelites.
So as not to get sidetracked let me make this one statement perfectly clear "The Bible on the subject of science remains silent".
While many try to used different passages of Scripture as prove that the Bible is speaking scientifically, they are erroneous. The Bible deals exclusively, with relationship and status, namely our relationship as the "Creation" with the "Creator". Since this is the purpose of Scripture, we should not expect it to correct erroneous worldviews of those too whom it is addressed. Instead we need to realize that its main purpose is on relationship for that is its primary purpose,,, to expect the Bible to give a scientifically accurate world view so as to prove its divine authorship will cause one be met with disappointment after disappointment. Doing so has led many a fundamentalist to stubbornly hold to rediculous interpretations of the Bible, in an effort to prove its scientifically accurate(hog wash).
I also hold, that the creator in His abundant wisdom, chooses not to speak on matters science. What His reasons are, I feel I can only offer my opinions, based on my own research, of which I relied heavily on scholars more intelligent than myself. I do see however, the wisdom inherent in such an approach by our Creator, for the understanding of what the universe is, has been in a constant state of flux, with more and more knowledge being uncovered as man continues to probe the material universe.
I also see it as the Creator working in harmony with His the divine purpose of man. The Genesis account in "story form" lets us know God made man to take care of the earth, and all its creature life, this BTW would require tremendous knowledge. Evolution teaches us that everything is evolving, men's comprehension of the cosmos is evolving as well. The creator, has gifted man with a mind to explore the cosmos. He put in man a tremendous curiosity, which accounts for the explosion of knowledge that we currently see, therefore "I think," my "opinion" is that the Creator wishes not to feed us such knowledge about the cosmos through supernatural means, or namely revelation through His scriptures but wishes man to dig on his own and find out with his God-given curiosity as the driving force to accomplish the divine mandate to take care of the Earth.
Frankies : So as not to get sidetracked let me make this one statement perfectly clear "The Bible on the subject of science remains silent".
I'm gonna make it short here : Well Too BAD (God should have known that)
I actually like Frankie's hypothesis of the whole of Genesis being simply a "contract".
Knowing how the Israelite people were about history, etc., as seen by Stephen's last speech in Acts, it does kinda make sense. Give a long historical account, then catch them off-guard with the punchline...
A similar thing happens here in Scotland, as we are notoriously a storytelling people. We love our fables and ghost stories.
The problem with this "contract" theory is that under reasonable contract law, if one party to a contract deliberately deceives the other, the contract is null and void. 'Tis a pity God doesn't understand this.
AlanF
Well SAID !!! AlanF
"No good, No fool"
~sigh~ here we go again...
What deception, Alan?
LittleToe said:
: What deception, Alan?
Read frankiespeakin's posts again. He claims that God put a lot of untrue statements about the physical world in Genesis, and that it doesn't matter because the purpose of Genesis is like the preamble of a contract. You're missing the point that it's not me who is making this claim, but our good Christian friend frankiespeakin.
AlanF
frankie, you said Israelites would not know what volcanos were.
You seem to have a very stratified concept of the Ancient World - there was trading going on all over the Mediterranean;
The relative peace brought by the Egyptians encouraged international trade, especially with the Mediterranean and Aegean. Pottery from Mycenaean Greece and Cyprus is found throughout Palestine and Jordan. Originally it probably contained fine oils and perfumes, but it was also used as elegant tableware or buried with the dead. In this relatively optimistic and prosperous period, a large number of new towns and temples were constructed
Just because they didn't have flushing toilets didn't mean there were not active trade routes. Trade routes spread knowledge. Your refusal to accept this point seems more and more like trying to maintain a defendable position for your argument than a stance based on facts; I've shown there were active volcanos in the region and that there existed travel and trade throughout the region. Oh, and look at this, for example;
There are many more questions, mainly about the sojourn of the 40 years in the wilderness. Hebrew tradition claims that Moses received from God the two tablets with the Ten Commandments on top of a mountain in the Sinai Peninsula. According to experts on religions, the Midianite Jahweh who was accepted by the Hebrews as their God, was a volcano-god. However, there were no volcanos on the Sinai peninsula.11 It is possible that in their wanderings, the Hebrews passed Sinai, entered the Arabian Peninsula where there were volcanos and from there reached the east bank of the Jordan, from where they entered the Promised Land. The importance of the story is in the result and not the road to it.
You say;
I have my reasons for excepting the Bible as God's word, reasons that you'll not agree with.
That's the entire problem, I don't see your reasons, let alone accept them. Your faith in the Bible seems to be presuppositionalism; there is nothing distinguishing the Bible from the Quaran, for example, as regards selecting which one is more likely to be divinely inspired; they both fail equally, your selection of the Bible is just an accident of birth. Presuppositions are NOT reasons.
For example, you claiming that despite the fact the scripture in Joel gives a very good description of a volcanic eruption it couldn't be reffering to Santorini or another actual eruption BECAUSE IT's A PROHPECY is presuppositionalitic! You assume it's a divine prohecy rather than a man writing about a scarey event in a religous mode using his knowledge of similar scarey event he has been told of to add spice to it.
You have failed to show why the Bible doesn't prove there is a god. Such a failure contradicts the character of god as interpreted by most Bible believers. It just leaves the Bible in a heap with other Sacred Books, as there is nothing factual to distinguish it as inspired.
Your entire argument is to excuse god for not proving he exists, when the failure to do so is actually the heart of the matter.
And if it was a contract, God broke the contract at Babel; Genesis 11:6-7 to be precidse;
6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
He interfered with man because he was afraid they would be succesful without him.
So your contract theory really makes god look BAD; he cheated. You want to worship that? Or accept the Bible is man made and god, if it exists, is far beyond the puny, jealous and flawed human conceptions we see in the Bible?
