Since "rain" isn't a thing but an attribute of a thing...



Some of us believe that rain didn't exist before Noah.

I believe that the world with all its rules was created in those 6 yamim. I do not agree that we can necessarily translate the word "yom" as "day" though. But that's a more complicated issue. The simple fact is that however long those 6 "days" took, water and rain and rainbows existed on the 7th "day".




We don't really have to find evidence for the obvious in Genesis. G-d gave us brains to think, not just eyes to read.



True.



I find it consistent.

Exactly.




I would be surprised if the Israelites were the only people in the region who didn't know the story of the flood.





I take it for granted too (obviously somebody else finished the story for him). I agree that it isn't out of line to accept that Moses wasn't the only one who ever wrote down ancient legends. (Wether they are true or not has nothing to do with the dating of their written form!)





Archaeologists have found evidence that some Semitic tribe moved into Kanaan (I try to avoid using "c" for the letter Kaf) from the desert (and that would have been the Negev and Sainai) at around 1200 BCE.

If we assume only 40 years for the journey from Egypt (the Israelites obviously settled down occasionally then moved on again and so on, doubting Moses' words and then believing him again and so on), 1400 BCE is a bit early.

There are also no records of text written in ANY alphabetic script before 1800 BCE (in Egypt, in Israel 1500 BCE). And we should probably assume that written Hebrew was already "normal" at the time of Moses (otherwise the entire story would be about an oral prophecy, not text).

There is also no archaeological evidence that the Exodus has ever happened, but I don't think a nomadic tribe moving through the desert leaves much evidence behind anyway. Plus SOMEBODY has arrived in Kanaan from the desert.

So I would date events like this:

1. At around 1700 BCE, when Abraham arrived, the people of Kanaan started making use of the written word. Their language was then very similar still to the Aramaic of Abraham and Abraham's family quickly adopted the dialect.

2. Between around 1700 and 1300 the Israelites were in Egypt (roughly).

3. Between 1300 and 1200 the Israelites moved (back) to Kanaan.

4. Following that they (re-)mixed with the local population anf ultimately ruled the land south of the Phoenician's core land (Lebanon).

I assume the Israelites assimilated somewhat in Egypt, which was one reason why a written law was so important. The Zionists of 1200 BCE had to learn Hebrew just as the Zionists of 1900 CE.

Because of that the Hebrew language didn't change much during those 400 years and hence remained very similar to Phoenician. (Both died out as spoken languages about 2000 years ago and Hebrew was revived, hence they remain very similar even today.)

When I said 1000 BCE I would happily include 1200 BCE. As I said the language and grammar used suggest that it was about that much earlier than the later books of the Bible.

The formation of the planet has nothing, but ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with evolution.

The fact that you still don't know this, even though it has been pointed out to you several times in the past very much disqualified you from arguing for or against evolution.

(For those who are curious: the theory of evolution does not make claims about the creation of life or the universe.)

it does and it doesn't...and we've already gone thru this somewhere. Basically you're right but there is more to the story.

KFC POSTS:

Lula posts:

Leauki posts:

Leauki posts:

Leauki, ever hear of the theory of spontaneous generation...that life arises from non-life? Yes, this was one of the first evolution theories that was squelched by a man named Louis Pasteur, who believed only God could create human creatures.

In his Origins of Species Darwin pictured the history of life as a "tree of life" with a universal common ancestor, a primordial cell, as its root and modern species as it's buds and twigs.

Leauki, ever hear of the Miller-Urey Experiment? Although Darwin didn't understand the origin of life, he speculated it started "in some warm little pond". The Miller-Urey is featured in my children's science books as an icon of evolution....in that it was the lab experiment that was supposed to reproduce the primitive atmosphere that could have produced the first primordial cell, and thus show the building blocks of life.

So, you ought to think twice before claiming the Theory of Evolution doesn't make claims of the origin of life or the universe. With hard bitten Evolutionists, one thing plays off the other..and before you know it textbooks are produced replete with drawings that depict the lie that mankind's one-cell ancestor evolved to an ape-like creature and then into man.

The evolutionary formula for making life is dirt + water + time = living creature. (No Creator God involved.)


LEAUKI POSTS:

I agree and wish that this was not taught in schools, but, alas it is...

Schools teach the evolutionary formula for making the universe is nothing plus nothing equals 2 elements plus eons of time equals 92 natural elements plus lots more time equals all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order? No Creator God involved.

Hello All,

 

The evolutionary questions will not be settled. One side argues from faith, the other side, reason and data. If you want to argue these points, so be it, but I am not clear as to what the value of the discussion will be. 

One side completely dismisses any dating evidence and can't seem to consider the scriptural stories of creation to be anything other than the literal truth, so when faced with this sort of rigidity and irrationality, very little emerges of use.

Scientists and progressive religionists, like the Dalai Lama, can find ways of reconciling religion and science.  We tend to see the hand of God everywhere and in everything, including how life and this planet evolved over time.

I have little faith in fundamentalist's ability to be open and receptive to evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of their bibles.  So, maybe we shouldn't go there.

 

Be well. 

This is not true. Both sides argue from data. It's what they do with the data that makes the argument.



I'm with ya on this one Sodaiho. Congrats on the probably most frequented blog on JU since I've been here.



we do too but just a bit differently.



I could say "backatcha" but you know what? I have faith.....faith that you will come around some day Sodaiho. Eventually everyone will. (:(  

Oh.......and there isn't or hasn't until yet been any evidence to date that contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible. Many have tried but it all checks out so far. We've got Science, archeology, history and the written word on our side.

No.

I know of a theory of how life arises from non-life, but it isn't about a spontaneous generation.




It would surprise me if any school taught that evolution and the formation of the planet are not two different theories.

Hm...

I guess it depends on how much you know and how literal you read the Bible.

If you know of and understand carbon dating you will have evidence that contradicts a literal reading of the Bible.

It's possible to stay away from the required knowledge. Then you won't have evidence that contradicts.

Alternatively, a truly literal reading of the Bible would require one to accept that "yom" in Hebrew is also used for any time span (in fact the word is used to mean "year" several times in the Bible) and that "shana" is just the noun for a root that means "alter", making "shana" an "alteration", a word that ultimately evolved to mean "year", but didn't necessarily mean "year" when it was used in Genesis and Exodus.

Both ventures require deeper digging than is done by most people, religious and non-religious alike.

I now refer to those who stop at a certain point and refuse to dig deeper as "stoppers". A "stop-religionist" is someone who studies a religious text, arrives at certain comfortable point, and then decides that he found the truth. Similarly a "stop-scientist" is a someone who studies nature, arrives at a certain comfortable point, and then decides that he found the fact.

I have Loca down as a stop-religionist and someone not interested in science at all.

And I have you down as a stop-scientist, but oddly enough not a stop-religionist. (It just takes some convincing, but you are definitely interested in digging deeper.)

I have some more research to do, but I am planning to write an article on Genesis and then Exodus. There will also be something about Abraham that will surprise everyone, I am sure.

Quoting Maimonides:

"Consequently he who wishes to attain to human perfection, must therefore first study Logic, next the various branches of Mathematics in their proper order, then Physics, and lastly Metaphysics."

"He, however, who begins with Metaphysics, will not only become confused in matters of religion, but will fall into complete infidelity."

KFC, I think it is the mix of those attending to this blog that are making it so very interesting.  I cannot take credit for that.

I think Leauki has something when he talks about "stop religion" or "stop science" I agree that you are one ofthe more interested and curious of the "fundies" I've come across.

As to me coming over to fundamentalist Christianity?  I could not. I can admit that I admire Jesus alot.  He pointed to a spirituality in practice that was very much needed.  A sort of "corrective" if you will.  I believe he was God made manifest, just as I believe you are, Lula is, and I am. As I have taught before, we are all manifestations of the Absolute. 

 

I also believe, and history clearly bears out, that the church, Catholic and otherwise, has seriously distorted Jesus' message.  It has veered away from true spiritual practice in favor of the very thing Jesus was opposed to, a rigid, fundamentalist understanding of God's word.

Leauki, please let us know when you post these new articles as the religion forum category no longer exists on the forums page.

Be well

 

Is this from his Guide?

 

Same here.

I feel fundamentalist Christianity is too limiting. I enjoy researching and learning and could not live within a system that discourages me from doing so.

On the other hand, I find Zen and all these things too flaky.

Perhaps I am conservative rather than orthodox and conservative rather than liberal when it comes to religion.




It will be another while. I am working on something rather big.

Don't know. Found them on the Web.

My copy of the Guide is at home.

Hmmm, no wonder my mom would periodically say my name was 'mud.'

Sorry couldn't resist.

 

LOL. Zen is the most difficult spiritual practice there is, its what people say about it that can be pretty flaky indeed.

Sometime when you have time, check out Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's book, Meditation and the Bible.  He makes a strong case, based on text analysis, that meditation (Zen) has been a part of Judaism dating back to Abraham. We know, as well, its a basic aspect of Hasidic practice, with roots in kabbalah.  Now, talk about "flaky" , kabbalistic texts are pretty "out there" by contemporary standards.

 

Be well.

 

Leuki, I'm not sure I would place a heavy stance on carbon dating. I remember back when I was in school we had to prove the 'theory.' I found carbon dating to be similar to how we look at 'economics.' There are variables that are left to 'ceteris paribus.'

The theory looks great on paper but it does also have it's limitation depending on which isotopes used (12,13, 14).

Just take a look at Spirit Lake (Washington) and the sudden emergence of petrified trees after Mt. Saint Helens erupted. These trees, the formation of coal, etc yield more contradiction to carbon dating.

I believe it was Walter Veith that found a leaf that was buried in two different types of rocks. Half the leaf was in one type and the other half in a more dense. The carbon dating of the same leaf yielded two significantly dates.

I wouldn't put all my eggs in the carbon dating basket.

JMO

You see, and that's how we know that you are completely ignorant of evolution.

Evolution doesn't say ANYTHING about how life gets started.

There are three subjects that have nothing to do with evolution:

1. Creation of life.

2. Chance.

3. "Macro-Evolution" (as a degree of change).

Anybody bringing up these subjects in combination with evolution just demonstrates that he didn't understand evolution, didn't bother to read up on it, and is arguing against something else, G-d knows what.

That would surprise me since such a theory cannot be proven, only applied.




You mean Rabbi Pierce Kaplan.

Why? Which isotopes did they find and how many of each?

The theory behind carbon dating is sound. We know this because applying it to other materials gives the results predicted by the theory:


Radioactive dating is based on exactly the same theory as the work which created thermonuclear weapons. Over the course of the Cold War, the US built thousands of such bombs, in as many as fifty different configurations based on different isotopes of different elements (almost all of the relevant information about which is classified) and performed hundreds of tests which worked.

And here we come to the point: if an A-bomb is capable of exploding, then radioactive dating is correct. There's no way the two can be separated; they're based on the same theory and the same information. Either both work or neither does. There's no other choice.

And thermonuclear bombs do explode, as we know all too well. So radioactive dating is correct. It's true. It must be true; there's no way it cannot be. It cannot be separated from the theory which is used to create atomic bombs, and we know that that one is true.


http://denbeste.nu/essays/science.shtml

Note that figuring out a way to ask me a question about physics I cannot immediately answer (or won't as my interest in physics is nearly nil at this point) does NOT prove that the two have nothing to do with each other.

Fact is that the same theory (that explains what radioactivity is and what a half-life is etc.) is behind both nuclear bombs and carbon dating. If carbon dating turned out to be wrong, all those nukes would have to implode again.

I read it as literal as can be noting that some of scripture is symbolic and poetic and therefore cannot be taken as literal. So context is very important.







Carbon dating does not contradict scripture at all. Show me how Leauki if you can. Carbon dating is good but is limited and I agree with AD. If you were right Leauki then there wouldn't be any Scientists who were believers. But Carbon dating is only good if the criteria stays the same. If there is any type of catastrophe like Mt St. Helens or say....the flood...it messes up the dating.



I agree with this. I've seen this on both sides of the coin as well.



No, I'm not a stop-scientist, but I would be a stop-pseudo science that serves only to get God out of the picture. My son is a Scientist so it doesn't make sense I would be against Science. My son actually told me recently that parts of the evolutionary theory are good and worthy but you have to take the whole package and that's what muddies the water. The rest of it is garbage and really is more religion than science.



thanks Sodaiho, but not too many like me have been involved in so many diff groups out there so I've seen alot of those "stop-religionists" that Leauki is speaking of. I'm dealing with my own Pastor in my own church right now on an issue that makes him fit this description. Sad to day.

Too many times many take what's been going down the pike because that's what's been taught (in error) and they follow each other in lieu of searching it out on their own. I pointed out some serious flaws in a certain belief system and asked him questions. He never answered my questions to my face. These questions really beg to be answered. The next Sunday he attempted to answer these questions from the pulpit but had to distort scripture to get his answer and it only led to more questions. Probably why he didn't want to deal with me. It's not a salvation issue and I think he's a good guy. It's just that "stop I don't want to know" mentality that drives me crazy. Because if they find out different then they will be out of sync with those that surround them believing in the same wrong doctrine.



And I believe quite strongly this comes right from the pit of hell. Really. I don't mean disrespect Sodaiho, but it's just sounds exactly like the "evil one." It's exactly what he wants us to believe. Anything that takes the focus off the one true God is good in his opinion. It's exactly what he told Eve in the garden that they would become as gods. It's a lie.



and I agree. But even so, there has always been a remnant of true believers regardless of denomination. Lula wouldn't agree since she believes Jesus instituted the CC which of course I do not. The wheat and tares will grow together until the end.



and I would say that you threw the baby away with the diry bath water. I'm not rigid at all. Jesus freed us from that. I agree. I believe we are under grace now, not the law which is very freeing. But even saying that we as Christians are not to frustrate the spirit of God by going out and committing all sorts of evil in the name of freedom. As children of the King we are representing him and should try our best to act as Jesus did which is His will, not our own.



why? What does it limit you to do?

Then why did Darwin label his book "Origin of Species?" Origins is all about how life gets started.

Darwin definately understood that the evolution of species was connected to the origin of species. He wrote the following in a letter to Joeseph Dalton Hooker, 1871:

"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine (sic) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were found."

Abiogenesis (term coined by TH Huxley in 1870) is the study of life from non-life. It is technically separate from evolution but completely connected to it at the same time. Evolutionists separate the origin from evolution. Creationist tend to combine the two ideas.

In the end, evolution is one part of a naturalistic worldview. Every worldview answers five fundamental questions:

1) Where did life come from? (origins)
2) What does it mean to be human? (identity)
3) What is the purpose of life? (meaning)
4) How should I live? (morality)
5) What happens after I die? (mortality).

Evolution is part of a worldview that attempts to answer these questions through a purely naturalistic point of view. Evolution and creationism as hypotheses are either equally scientific or equally unscientific.

Richard Dawkins understands why the origins debate is vital to both of these two worldviews. For this reason he wrote:

"A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims." (You can't have it both ways: Irreconcilable differences? Skeptical Inquirer July 1999).

Neither view (evolution or creationism) has been scientifically proven. There are scientists who represent both sides of the argument. You can't refer to one as faith and the other as science. The debate is decided at the level of origins- both sides agree on natural selection. Either God created life or he didn't. For this reason, evolutionists typically explain that the first step in the descent into atheism is to believe that there is no Creator. Thus, this issue is deeply rooted in one's personal worldview.

 

KFC,  Interesting, this.  I just wrote something that might be on point.  As you may be aware I am a retired psychotherapist and have been very interested in cognitive psychology.  I know that our minds are quite complex and there is a seriously complex interaction between what we actually see and what we beloieve about what we see.  In other words, our minds are a storehouse of images and assumptions, we might call these "core beliefs" (or as Buddhists sometimes refer to them as store consciousness).  These core beliefs acts as filters to our senses.  So, we must practice very hard to actually experience what is before us without the distortion from our experience, or as some might say, our pre-existing knowledge.

 

My point is that people of faith may have a seriously difficult time by-passing those filters and seeing their evidence clearly.  Just so, an athiest scientist may have the same difficulty with spiritual matters.  

 

Another good reason to develop a disciplined spiritual practice of meditation.

 

Be well.

 

He named it "Origin of Species" because it is about the "origin" (beginning) of "species" (different types of life).

If it was about the beginning of life he would have named it "Origin of Life".