|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 12/13/2003 : 23:04:28 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote (way back on page 1):quote:
As to the passage you brought up: I believe that Jesus is speaking in hyperbole, i.e. using extremes to stress the importance of not sinning, not actually commanding self-torture. The reason why I don't interperet this literally is that cutting off your hand won't keep you from sinning. Therefore the point is not self-mutilation, the point is not sinning.
If I'm not mistaken, elsewhere in the NT, Jesus says that just looking at a married woman with lust is a form of adultery. In such a case, would not plucking out one's eyes prevent the sin? Hacking off one's hands would certainly help prevent from one being a thief, as well - it wouldn't completely prohibit the act, but would make it that much more difficult (hard to pickpocket someone with your teeth).
If sinning is about intent rather than deeds, then of course self-mutilation isn't going to make much of a difference. A blind person who hears about a beautiful lady and thinks impure thoughts about her is still sinning. A person who thinks about murdering a rival would still be up the creek, salvation-wise.
I would prefer a deity to not be a "thought cop," however, since thoughts don't always lead to acts. But that's just my preference, and not necessarily your interpretation of Biblical teachings. What do you think?
Oh, I would still like to find out if your interpretation of the Bible leads you to believe that rainbows did not exist prior to God's covenant with Noah after the Flood.
And while we're speaking of covenants, did or did not Jesus teach that the Old Testament laws could be ignored, since He brought with Him a brand new "deal" with God for the people? In other words, can Leviticus be largely ignored, or do the pious still need to sacrifice animals to please God? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2003 : 12:54:34 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Good questions. "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matt 5:29. Yes, the sin is not looking at a woman, but lusting after her. Yes, sin is not about deeds, but intents. Of course, in most cases, when someone steals they intend to steal, and one would have a hard time convincing anyone that they didn't mean to steal.
As for thoughts not always leading to acts, we have to differentiate between a man's soul and his flesh. The Bible teaches that the Flesh of a man is the enemy of the man's Spirit. To put it into terms that the common man would understand, people sometimes are in a situation where you want to hit someone, and you have to restrain yourself from doing so, for whatever reason you like. Ideally, if I were in such a situation, I might get the urge to hit the person, but I would resist it, and not desire to fight. Getting an urge to do something wrong is simply the Flesh. Acting on that urge or wishing that the urge could be carried out would be sin. I would say that this is just because it will be our spirits that will be judged, and if my spirit wanted to hit the guy, then I would have commited the act if I could have gotten away with it. But getting the urge in the first place is not sin.
As for rainbows, the passage speaking of that event does not seem to indicate that the rainbow was a new thing that he was creating, simply that the rainbow will be designated as a sign to us.
The change between Old and New Covenants is also a much-debated doctrine. On the one hand, "verily I say unto you till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." I believe that it is better translated "verily I say unto you, Till the heavens and the earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all occurs." The difference is that some would say that Jesus fulfilled the law by dying on the cross. However, the Greek word leads me to believe that the law will not pass until the creation of new heaven and new earth(Rev.).
On the other hand, there are several times in the very same passage where Jesus says "You have heard it said...but I say to you." Here is how I harmonize it. The Old Covenant still applies to those who wish to be held accountable under it, namely, Orthodox Judaism. To those who accept Jesus, the parts of the Old Covenant that He did away with no longer apply to them. So "eye for an eye" has become "turn the other cheek," for disciples of Jesus. Jesus became our sin sacrifice, so we no longer need to sacrifice. Indeed, even in the Old Testament David proclaimed that Yahweh took no joy sacrifices.
There are several other changes as well, however, much of the Law still applies to Christians. I believe that we can't just say that all of the Law no longer applies to us. Whatever was changed in the New Testament no longer applies, everything still holds true.
Les, I'll check on your site and comment later.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2003 : 22:18:20 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
Good questions.
Thanks!quote:
...Getting an urge to do something wrong is simply the Flesh. Acting on that urge or wishing that the urge could be carried out would be sin...
So I suppose the line is drawn somewhere between thinking:- Wow, that girl is hot! Okay, how much buttermilk do I put in these pancakes?
and- Wow, that girl is hot! Gotta get me some of that! Hubba-hubba! What pancakes?
Am I on the right track?quote:
As for rainbows, the passage speaking of that event does not seem to indicate that the rainbow was a new thing that he was creating, simply that the rainbow will be designated as a sign to us.
Well, there appear to be plenty of people using the rainbow Covenant as an indication that there wasn't as much waper vapor in the air pre-Flood, to bolster the failed "vapor canopy" hypothesis for the origin of the Flood waters. But that's another thread, in a different folder...quote:
The change between Old and New Covenants is also a much-debated doctrine.
I don't doubt it.quote:
On the one hand, "verily I say unto you till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." I believe that it is better translated "verily I say unto you, Till the heavens and the earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all occurs." The difference is that some would say that Jesus fulfilled the law by dying on the cross. However, the Greek word leads me to believe that the law will not pass until the creation of new heaven and new earth(Rev.).
Given my meager grasp of even translated Biblical English, how does one "fulfill" a law, especially when the law is often a prohibition? For example, how could Jesus' sacrifice fulfill "Thou shalt not commit adultery?"quote:
On the other hand, there are several times in the very same passage where Jesus says "You have heard it said...but I say to you." Here is how I harmonize it. The Old Covenant still applies to those who wish to be held accountable under it, namely, Orthodox Judaism.
This would appear to me to be pretty obvious, since Jews don't believe that Jesus was the messiah, much less the Son of God.quote:
To those who accept Jesus, the parts of the Old Covenant that He did away with no longer apply to them. So "eye for an eye" has become "turn the other cheek," for disciples of Jesus. Jesus became our sin sacrifice, so we no longer need to sacrifice. Indeed, even in the Old Testament David proclaimed that Yahweh took no joy sacrifices.
Okay, which specific parts of OT law were overturned by Jesus, and how can we know? Did He list them?quote:
There are several other changes as well, however, much of the Law still applies to Christians. I believe that we can't just say that all of the Law no longer applies to us. Whatever was changed in the New Testament no longer applies, everything still holds true.
I know of at least one "liberal Fundamentalist" who would claim that Jesus eliminated all laws but two: (1) Love God/Jesus, and (2) Love your neighbor as you love God. I think (though I can't be certain - I don't know this guy personally) that he would consider any other laws (especially many from the OT) to be laws "of the flesh" - in terms of the distinction between flesh and spirit you make, above - and thus of little consequence for the spirit.
I'm really not trying to start a debate on any of these points, just trying to comprehend your interpretation of the Bible as compared to and contrasted with the interpretation(s) I am aware of and think I understand already. Again, thanks for spending time on this. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2003 : 13:15:46 [Permalink]
|
Well, I'll probably not get too involved in this thread, but I might as well try to help hippy clear some things up.
quote:
Dave W. wrote:
So I suppose the line is drawn somewhere between thinking:
Wow, that girl is hot! Okay, how much buttermilk do I put in these pancakes?
and
Wow, that girl is hot! Gotta get me some of that! Hubba-hubba! What pancakes?
Am I on the right track?
Pretty much. God expects us to get thoughts like that (heck, he wired our brains so we would)...what he doesn't want is for us to dwell on them under impure circumstances (ie, if that "girl" is your wife, go for it....otherwise, get back to those pancakes!)
quote:
Well, there appear to be plenty of people using the rainbow Covenant as an indication that there wasn't as much waper vapor in the air pre-Flood, to bolster the failed "vapor canopy" hypothesis for the origin of the Flood waters. But that's another thread, in a different folder...
People who try to advocate that idea are trying a little too hard to come up with apologetic arguments to prove everything they believe about the Bible. I personally believe that there would have been rainbows before the flood...it's just that they wouldn't have yet symbolized anything (as hippy said)
quote:
Given my meager grasp of even translated Biblical English, how does one "fulfill" a law, especially when the law is often a prohibition? For example, how could Jesus' sacrifice fulfill "Thou shalt not commit adultery?"
Jesus didn't directly fullfill any specific laws, he simply fullfilled their purpose. Before Jesus came, obeying the ten commandments, as well as sacrificing animals were the only two ways a regular person could come close to God (along with prayer). When Jesus came, he became a new way to get to God (ie, by accepting him as your saviour you can go to heaven...you know the story). Therefore, he fullfilled and took over the purpose of the old commandments (as well as the hundreds of others listed in leviticus...which is the reason Christians don't have to grow out their sideburns etc ).
So, by fullfilling the old law, it simply means that he took their place and role (ie, now you need Jesus to go to heaven instead)
I can expand on the above further, but I think that sums up the premise.
quote:
The Old Covenant still applies to those who wish to be held accountable under it, namely, Orthodox Judaism.
I disagree. The bible doesn't say "[Jesus] is the way the truth and the life, NO ONE comes to the father but by [him]" for no reason. According to the Bible, any person (including orthodox jews who follow the old testament word for word) who does not accept Jesus as their saviour will not make it to Heaven or be able to be with God.
Btw...Don't get me wrong with that last line though, I'm not here to preach to Jewish people because their beliefs are their own...I'm just trying to clear up misconceptions about the teachings of the Bible :)
Gotta jet, so that's all for now! |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2003 : 13:30:11 [Permalink]
|
Dave,
Your welcome, I enjoy this as well. How do I make quotes?
Yeah, you pretty much have the division of thought right.
As to fulfilling the law, when I once suscribed to that point of view, I was thinking more in terms of fulfilling the prophecies that had been made of Him. Because He said that the law would be until all had been fulfilled, I thought that meant that part of the law was abolished when He died on the cross, thus fulfilling the prophecies about Him. The errors in this line of thinking is 1) the error of the word fulfill. As I said, the word is better translated 'until all occurs.' And 2) there were still some prophecies He hadn't yet fulfilled by the time of His death, concerning His Second Coming.
As to which parts of the OT were overturned, there are several. I believe that unless one can show Scripture why an OT Scripture doesn't apply to Christians, Christians should obey what was in the OT. Some of the changes are express changes, some are implied. In the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew 5, Jesus specifically overturns or modifies several commandments. Among them changed were retribution, "turn the other cheek," thoughts as sin, "whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her," oaths, "swear not at all."
An example of an implied overturning was Jesus as a sin sacrifice. I don't know if He ever specifecally said, 'thou need not perform sin sacrifices.' But the Scripture does say that Jesus has become our sin sacrifice, and it also says that Yahweh would rather have obediance than sacrifice, and that He takes no pleasure in sacrifice. My opinion is that His point in telling them to sacrifice is that they would be so grossed out that they wouldn't sin. Another important thing to note is circumcision. I don't think that Jesus or anyone before Him spoke of undoing the doctrine of circumcision, but Paul declared that circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant, and not of faith, which is of the New Covenant. That debate rages over several of His letters, but I'll side with Paul.
I know of said liberal Fundamentalists. I think that their main verse that they use was that "the law was nailed to the cross." I don't remember where in the Scripture that is, but it's in there somewhere, and it's grossly out of context. The surrounding verses speak of the salvation of the law being done with (which never actually saved anyone.) Keeping the Law is not what saves someone, but a saved person keeps the Law. People often confuse the two. The book of Galatians talks a lot about the law. Here is a very clear verse:
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid." Galatians 2:16-17.
A further note on those two primary laws, it was said that on those two laws hung the law and the prophets. Well, then the law and prophets are still there.
A word about the Flood. I think that earlier I read someone saying that the amount of water needed to cover even the mountains of the Earth would strip away the topsoil. I beleive that before the flood the land was much flatter because the continents didn't separate until after the Flood.
"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided;" Genesis 10:25.
Les: The computer here doesn't do audio, so I don't know what your site was about.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 12/17/2003 13:31:59 |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2003 : 20:20:28 [Permalink]
|
Hippy,
It was just a silly parody of Charlton Heston's video series about the Bible. You didn't miss much!
Les |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 12:42:37 [Permalink]
|
Hello
Les: Ah, ha ha ha.
Ivan: I wasn't trying to say that the Jews would be saved by the Old Covenant, only that I believe that Yahweh will judge them according to the Old Covenant if they wish to be so judged. "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith." Galatians 3:11.
And while we're on the subject, let me open another topic that I haven't seen much in the churches. That is who will be present in the Thousand Year Reign. For some background, the Reign is after the Return of Christ and before the end of this world.
"And I saw an angel...And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, ... That he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season."
Rev. 20:1-3
"When the Son of man shall come in his glory...before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come,...inherit the kingdom ... For I was Hungered, and ye gave me meat:...Then shall the righteous answer him, saying Lord, when saw we thee an hungered,... And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, depart from me ye cursed,... For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and did not minister unto thee? then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me." Matt. 25:31-46
That passage was significantly pared down, but that's the basic gist of it. Now, the significance is that there are three groups of people: the sheep, the goats, and the King's brethren. Most of Christianity says that the sheep are the King's brethren, that they are Christians, but that doesn't make sense gramatically. Also, if they were Christians, then they wouldn't have said, "when saw we thee an hungered." If they were Christians, they would have known what He was talking about. The sheep and the goats are the nations, in Greek, ethnos, Gentiles. They are the people that didn't know about or understand Christ, and perhaps among them are those who understood Him and rejected Him. These people will be judged according to what they did, and those who did well will be allowed into the Thousand Year Reign. That doesn't neccesarily mean that they're saved yet, because they hadn't yet heard of the Gospel of Christ, but because they weren't given a chance before, they'll be given a chance then. I find that this eases many people's concern about Christ destroying people who never accepted Him because they never heard of Him.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2003 : 15:38:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
A word about the Flood. I think that earlier I read someone saying that the amount of water needed to cover even the mountains of the Earth would strip away the topsoil. I beleive that before the flood the land was much flatter because the continents didn't separate until after the Flood.
"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided;" Genesis 10:25.
Shall I interpret your statement like this: that you believe the super-continent of Pangea existed less than 6000 years ago, and that the continental drift that separates the American continents from Europe and Africa happened in just a few thousand years? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2003 : 15:29:06 [Permalink]
|
Hello,
Dr. Mabuse: My idea on the timeframe of continental separation is not something that I hold doctrinally, merely an idea that I entertain. I knew when I first contemplated it that objections would be made along the grounds of such a mass movement of land would make giant tremors and huge waves. I once made a calculation that, to move 1,500 miles (1,500 miles x 2 = 3,000 miles, the distance between North America and Europe, both continents moving away from each other) in 100 years would mean a movement of approximately 0.053 inches a second, or 3.18 inches a minute (sorry about using standard, I'm not used to metric yet). Or, if we're working with a time frame of 500 years, it would be 0.636 inches a minute. Or 0.318 inches a minute it's moving over 1,000 years. I haven't studied this idea in depth, it's just something that I toss around. But the Bible does mention the event of the breakup of Pangea, and that's... very interesting.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2003 : 22:01:48 [Permalink]
|
Hippy asked:quote:
How do I make quotes?
There are a couple of ways. One is to use the "Reply with Quote" button on a person's post (the piece of paper with a curved arrow on it). I've never used that one. I tend to do a lot of my post writing in Notepad, anyway, so I've learned a bunch of the forum code, and type it in by hand. The way I make quotes is to type something like this: [quote]This is a test.[/quote], which would appear as:quote:
This is a test.
I just cut-and-paste the text I want to quote from the web browser into Notepad, and then put the "quote tags" around it. Make sure to preview your posts if you choose to do it this way. Many times I've missed a slash or two, making the quoting or other features (like italics or bold) go whacky.
Later, you wrote:quote:
A word about the Flood. I think that earlier I read someone saying that the amount of water needed to cover even the mountains of the Earth would strip away the topsoil. I beleive that before the flood the land was much flatter because the continents didn't separate until after the Flood.
"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided;" Genesis 10:25.
And you further clarified that in your answer to Dr. Mabuse.
Well, the following is intended to try to flesh out some more details, and offer additional thoughts on the matter of the Biblical Flood. It is, as should be obvious, not meant to simply be a refutation of anything you've written to date. The first part is a little tedious, so bear with me. All references are to chapters and verses in Genesis:- Adam to Seth = 130 years (5:3)
- Seth to Enos = 105 years (5:6)
- Enos to Cainan = 90 years (5:9)
- Cainan to Mahalaleel = 70 years (5:12)
- Mahalaleel to Jared = 65 years (5:15)
- Jared to Enoch = 162 years (5:18)
- Enoch to Methuselah = 65 years (5:21)
- Methuselah to Lamech = 187 years (5:25)
- Lamech to Noah = 182 years (5:28,29)
Now we know, from Genesis 9:28,29quote:
And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.
So Noah was 600 years old when the Flood occured (give or take a year).- Flood to Arphaxad = 2 years (11:10)
- Arphaxad to Salah = 35 years (11:12)
- Salah to Eber = 30 years (11:14)
- Eber to Peleg = 34 years (11:16)
Add all these up, and the time between Adam and Peleg's birth works out to 1,757 years. If Adam was created in 4,004 BC (as according to Archbishop Ussher), then Peleg was born in 2,247 BC, at the earliest.
People were living in Portugal, and all the rest of Nothern and Western Europe, before this time. This section of land (along with parts of Northern Asia) was mashed up against what would become North America when Pangea existed. Why is it then, that Native Americans appear to be of Asian descent? Why don't they have lots of European genes, as well?
Aside from that, the earliest writing predates Peleg's birth by at least 900 years. Wouldn't you think that mountains growing in a very short period of time would have been noticed and recorded by someone?
Obviously, if the Flood occured, then the only people around were sons and daughters of Noah. All arguments about who was living in Portugal or when writing was invented would be moot. The answers to my questions would be, respectively, that nobody lived in Portugal shortly after the Flood (they'd all drowned), and the only people who might have written about the breakup of Pangea and the rising mountains knew it was all caused by the Flood, and so didn't think it remarkable enough to write down.
This ignores, however, the fact that we have largely unbroken histories of people living in the Far East, Egypt, and elsewhere - histories which span the year 2,348 BC, the year of the Flood by my calculations. This leads one to an uncomfortable (to say the least) conclusion: that after the Flood, Noah's family spread out over thousands of miles, and picked up the customs (and writing) of the people who had - before the Flood - lived in various areas of the Earth, all within 101 years. Just four generations. That's a lot of "being fruitful," especially starting with just four guys.
If, of course, our sciences are all wrong, and none of these histories spans the Flood, then actually there's no reason whatsoever to claim that Pangea broke up after the Flood, or that the world was flatter pre-Flood. Those sciences which tell us such things are probably simply wrong, as well. In other words, if you're going to deny that carbon dating is valid, that dendrochronology is useful, and/or that armies of geologists, linguists, and historians are accurate, then attempting to match the Bible with any scientifically-derived fact at all is a waste of time.
It makes more sense (to me) to deny all scientific findings about prehistoric times as unreliable or just plain wrong than it does to try to manhandle either the Bible or science to fit one to the other. Doctrine is actually more coherent if you say (for example), "God held all the topsoil down," since the massive geological changes which have occured between Pangea and now don't make scientific sense if they're crammed into the last 4,293 years, either. God could easily have changed the world from Pangea to more-or-less its current configuration in the blink of an eye, and then started up plate tectonics about 100 years ago. From a scientific point-of-view, such a hypothesis is no more outlandish than the idea of a global flood is to begin with.
Trying to force the Bible to match a part of what science tells us (that Pangea existed) also forces you to deny other parts of the same science (that Pangea split up about 250 million years ago). One of the pieces of evidence that Pangea existed is magnetic patterns left behind in rocks. If you accept those to be true, it makes more sense to accept that magnetic patterns in rocks also tell us that the Atlantic Ocean has taken millions of years to grow to its current size. If you deny the magnetic "striping" of the ocean floor, why not also deny Pangea?
For another take on this, I might suggest the Christian Geology Ministry. I didn't read much past this:quote:
No doubt this Peleg was so named because of an event of great significance to the people living at the time he was born.
. . .
Some Creationists have interpreted this event to be the division of the North and South American continents fr |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Stargirl
Skeptic Friend
USA
94 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2003 : 23:17:51 [Permalink]
|
Dave W's post listing the ages of the generations of the bible got me to thinking about an essay I read by Isaac Asimov way, way back in the 60's. In the essay he put fourth the idea that the extreme ages in the bible were actually Lunar months and not years. As I recall he presented a very convincing argument. For example assuming the ages were indeed lunar months and converting them to years brought the biblical ages more in line with archeological evidence for average life spans at the time the individuals were living. It didn't work with all the ages given suggesting a mix of years and lunar months, but in general IIRC most ages over a 100 fit reasonably well.
Dave, Asimov was clearly trying to reconcile the bible with scientific knowledge but having read a lot of his non-fiction books he did that in many areas. And remember he devoted two books solely to the bible, Asimov's guides to the old and new testaments. I read both books concurrently with the bible and found them very informative. Unfortunately they, along with over 200 other books got lost in a move.
Anyway I was thinking that if Asimov was right this would play havoc with the young earth creationists. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the calculation's ala Bishop Usher but have no doubt this would significantly reduce the claimed 6000 year age of the earth by perhaps another 1000-2000 years.
Of course I can't imagine young earth creationist accepting Asimov's hypothesis. After all as logical as the idea is it is unprovable. And these people usually believe in a literal interpretation of the bible so anything Asimov or archeologists say that runs contrary to their view would simply be dismissed.
|
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him - Voltaire |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2003 : 04:19:21 [Permalink]
|
| You might find Ruminations of a Reluctant OEC of interest. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2003 : 13:57:01 [Permalink]
|
Stargirl wrote:quote:
Dave W's post listing the ages of the generations of the bible got me to thinking about an essay I read by Isaac Asimov way, way back in the 60's. In the essay he put fourth the idea that the extreme ages in the bible were actually Lunar months and not years.
This only makes sense in four cases within those geneologies. Using calendar months, for ease on my brain:
Jared could have begotten Enoch at 13-and-a-half. Methuselah would have become a father at 15 years, 7 months. Noah could have been born when Lamech was 15 years, 2 months old. And Noah himself could have been 50 years old, instead of 600, at the time of the Flood.
Although it is feasible, I very much doubt that Seth was born when Adam was just 10 years, 10 months old. Ages younger than that stretch believability even farther (and switching to the shorter lunar months just exacerbates the problem).
However, taking just the above-mentioned four as months instead of years pushes the date of Genesis 1 forward by 1,038 years, to 2,966 BC, a time we know even more about (scientifically) than 4,004 BC. This makes a comparison between the Bible and science even more slipshod.
quote:
Dave, Asimov was clearly trying to reconcile the bible with scientific knowledge...
Clearly. But even the very intelligent can fall victim to bad ideas now and then. I would assume that people have been trying to reconcile the Bible with science for as long as they've both been around, but that doesn't mean it's a wise thing to do.
By the way, I met Asimov once, and ever since then, I haven't been able to read his work. I've found it very difficult to squelch my distaste for his personality long enough to pay attention to his words.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2003 : 13:37:50 [Permalink]
|
Good Morning Dave
Sorry, I've always wanted to say that. Aah, Hal, I loved that character.
Anyway, I'd be pleased in seeing any documentation of unbroken ancient histories, but as I said back on the 'magnetic field' thread, I'd have to know what documents they are speaking of. I've heard, for instance, that the Hindu have geneologies of kings dating back to thousands of years before the Biblical creation, but the actual documents themselves were written in 1500 AD, and that gives me cause to wonder.
Has anyone ever compared American Indian genes with other's genes? If so, show me. I'd also have to see that different races genes are dissimilar enough to be told apart.
And I'm also interested in seeing the studies that determined the paleomagnetic data of the Earth, and carbon dating, and all that stuff. I'd have to have it explained to me to the point where I could at least understand what they did and why it's supposed to work. And then I would want the data that they received when they made their first conclusion on a particular subject.
I have a question: which method of dating was first employed to discover the age of the Earth?
quote:
the massive geological changes which have occured between Pangea and now don't make scientic sense if they're crammed into the last 4,293 years
I've heard (but can't document yet) that when Mount Saint Helen erupted it created a canyon 1/7 the size of the Grand Canyon. And that since then erosion has worn away so much of it that it looks ancient. I plan to cruise National Geographic for this info, so don't hold me accountable yet.
I know that I sound like I'm biting of more than I can chew, but if I believe in something I really want to know it. About the only reason why I believe in the Bible is because it is easier for me to understand life coming from life, instead of life coming from no life. And I don't have sufficient knowledge to say scientifically which one is correct. Not that I want to scientifically prove Christianity, but if I scientifically prove Intelligent design, then I can go on to theologically prove the Bible.
C.A. Thanks, that site is interesting, it'll take me a while to read.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 12/24/2003 13:39:18 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
