Ever the Expert

[Jet Black]

Of course I'm way out in left field here, but I was trying to show that a human explanation might exist for something that is unknowable until Christ comes again. In my radical explanation, I could see some restrictions placed on the people chosen by God through whom the Messiah would be born. The forbidding of eating pork and "unclean" animals, draining the blood from meat, and this requirement MIGHT have to do with keeping certain proteins and other genetic structures from being ingested, and eventually incorporated in their genetic make-up.

there is no process that reverse-translates proteins into RNA and then reverse-transcribes this into the DNA. It makes more sense that the rules were originally there because most of the forbidden foods were known for being horribly poisonous (filter feeders, pork etc) however around Christ's time, people were getting a bit better at the hygiene lark.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes it does, although the reference is subtle, and of course it doesn't use that word.

So subtle as not to be there at all.

Yes it does, and we're not talking about mud here, nor dust either, and certainly not 'holy' water.

It most certainly is Holy Water and dust from the floor of the tabernacle.

17The priest shall take sacral water in an earthen vessel and, taking some of the earth that is on the floor of the Tabernacle, the priest shall put it into the water.

This is clearly saying Holy water and earth from the floor. Depending on what version of the Old Testament you are using it will use the word dust. But dust or earth from the floor of the tabernacle was used.

The only way women would be able to go out their back doors and mix this vile potion would be if they kept goats and other barnyard animals back there.

Woman didn't mix the "vile" potion at all the Priest did. Kept goats and other barnyard animals back where? This is non-sensical.

The "dust" from the floor of the tabernacle was filth that was tracked in. This may even have included miscroscopic larvae of some of the more horrific parasitic worms of that area. Whatever it was, it was vile, and definitely infectious.

The Tabernacle was a Holy Place, it was not a place where commoners would even be allowed. It was hallowed and the Priest themselves had to wash prior to coming into it.

Horrific parasitic worms and larvae????? You are really stretching here Aron-ra. While it could be quite possible that any area may have some microscopic elements, to claim this was the reason for any part of the ritual is pressing credibility.

The passage indicates this sort of liklihood with the symptoms it describes. If this was not some filthy infectious agent, then how do you think the spell really worked? Was it God's magic that caused all this swelling and distention of what appear by this description to be the female reproductive organs?

First of all we don't know if this ritual ever "condemned" any women. We don't know how many of the men actually required this of their wives. For a women to be placed in this position a man had to give a warning but the warning was forbid, so it was a catch all mechinism. If a man brought his wife before priest, then people knew that he had given the forbidden warning. It was not considered a good thing for a man to have done so.

Also, I should point out that the abortion debate should still be null and void since it is only supposed to be performed by a priest, and isn't supposed to work without God's immediate involvement and approval.

If you are making that determination on this ritual then you are making that determination without basis. Abortion is not being described in this ritual.

Why did you put "spell" in quotations? That's what it is.

Because in the english translated version that I looked at didn't know the exact word translation for whatever it was in the original language. So I was not sure that spell was the correct wording. It may indeed be, but the version I used was not certain of its accuracy.

And what exactly does "barren" mean to you?

Barren in the Bible was a woman unable to conceive. This means that the woman if quilty would never be able to conceive a child.

Boy did you read that wrong! For one thing, the distended belly doesn't refer to pregnancy. For another, this atrocity occured because women had no safeguards against their safeguards.

I didn't in anyway claim that the distended belly referred to pregnancy, you did. You claimed that the woman must be pregnant and was having a miscarriage, did you not?

This atrocity is like so many that non-believers cite, they are simply misunderstood or misinterpreted. This was a safeguard for women, for at the time the Law of Hammurabi as you so like to cite states that a women was to be thrown in the river and drowned if she was accused of adultry. In other laws of the land, the woman was stoned and in each of these cases, the woman had no legal standing to stop it. She was at the mercy of her husband and her husband alone. No one was to stop a man from meting out punishment in the way of death even when there was no proof of adultry.

Now its not only a spell, but a curse. I guess that means my point is made.
The "sagging thigh" would be the feminine swelling I was talking about. There are other subtle references to genetalia elsewhere in the Bible, like the "stones" and "tail" that "moveth like a cedar" on Job's 'behemoth' (rhinoceros). Or in Genesis 32 when God cheats at wrestling by "touching" Jacob in the "hollow of the thigh", (translation: "hit him in the nards").

Well as I have noticed, your interpretations of "subtle references" usually means that they are so subtle that they remain hidden when read.

This is the same move Krsna urged Arjuna to use when he cheated in his wrestling match, and he phrased it the same way.

Please paste that information for me please.

In the Hebrew tradition, the Talmud says that "an embryo is a limb of its mother" [Hulin 58a] "part of the mother...."one of her own limbs". (Gittin 23b). So the sagging "thigh", or more accurately, as in the KJB, a rotting "thigh" refers to a rotting fetus, a miscarriage.

Do you really expect me to believe that? Do you expect anyone to believe that?

The distended belly did not mean pregnancy, as you thought it did.

I never said that it did and I guess it doesn't matter what I actually say or don't say or what the Bible actually says or doesn't say for you it is all the same. You can use an agrument whether or not it is valid or not. Please feel free to use any agrument that I may make but don't make up an argument that I don't use. I may even forget sometimes that I have used something and so feel free to bring it forth in way of quotes to remind me but I would ask that you refrain from placing forth arguments that I have not made.

In this case, the woman in question may or may not be pregnant. Unfaithful women don't get pregnant every time. But if she is pregnant, she likely isn't showing yet. The distended belly goes along with the sagging fetal "thigh" meaning they are both a result of whatever fecal or bacterial infection she may have been forced to ingest.

Actually the most common reason for this distended belly and sagging thigh was considered that the woman would no longer be sexy and wanted but her belly and thigh would be that of an old fat woman. But this is as contrived as your explanation.

...meaning infection, parasitic infestation, or possibly even disease.
This part is amusing too, especially in light of your interpretation that this was supposed to be her "safeguard" and "only protection" against these accusations.

Now this is amusing. If it were true that she was infected with any such thing how would they know until long afterward? How would the belly distend and thigh sag until long after an infestation began? Regardless, you research this and find any mention of people having this symptom when they ingested mud from the area. This is all just speculation, baseless in my opinion. You are using fictional concepts to argue a point.

What is there to protect her from being forced [violently?]

Again, you are putting your fictional spin on this. It doesn't say that they were violently forced. In fact, they came willingly with barley to show they were free from quilt.

to drink infectious filth?

Highly unlikely considering as I have said that the Priest was the only one regularly in there and everyone had to wash their feet before entering.

What is there to safeguard her from losing her child due to some (obviously undeserving and unloving) sexist jerk's insecurity? You have a very strange interpretation of women's rights. But then, as a Biblical literalist, I guess you would have to.

Exactly, this was to safeguard her. In other societies they were put to death immediately and without proof. With this ritual, it was only for those women who were accused without proof. So, in practice we don't know that it was always showing the woman not quilty. We just have no way of knowing.

That sure sounds like a miscarriage, don't it?

No.

The distended belly here may have more to do with the stomache than with the uterus. But I don't know as I can't tell what kind of infection, infestation, or disease she's really getting here. I suppose it could just make her really sick to her stomache, and may never have been able to make her barren in the first place. Maybe the priests just thought it would because they didn't know any better. Who knows? The scientific approach would be to test this spell. But I suspect that even though you consider the Bible to be a scientifically accurate guide to morality, and this hienous act to be a protection of a woman's rights, you'll still refuse to allow anyone to test this on both scientific and moral grounds.

I would not be troubled by testing it, but it might be just a little hard to do considering that there is no tabernacle to do so.

But what does it mean if she is not able to "retain seed"? Does that not mean that the pregnancy was aborted?

No, it means that she will not be able to conceive.

Is there any other way to interpret that? If she cannot "retain" seed, then she already had seed in her, which in this context can only mean that she was pregnant. But now she can't retain that seed, which means the baby was lost, aborted by the priest, and by God, since the priest has to conjure God's blessing for the spell to work. It is a subtle point, but still unmistakably clear that we are definitely talking about an abortion.

I think not.

This is consistent with much of Hebrew tradition. All through the Bible, we see scenes of parents killing their children, and sometimes even eating them. In both the Torah and the Talmud, we even see children being devalued, abused or used for sex, even by some of God's most favorite characters. Then we see God's "chosen" people deliberately murdering children, sometimes while they're still inside the womb (2 Kings 15:16, Hosea 13:16, Amos 1:13). In Genesis 38, we see that God considers wasted sperm worthy of a death sentence. But in Exodus 21:22, we see again that God values man's seed more than he does any fruit of the womb, and this is particularly true of the yet-unborn. The penalty for causing a miscarriage is slight next to that of taking the life of someone already born. The Talmud says "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." [Yevamot 69b] and is still a sub-human non-entity, a mere extension of the woman, until born. "Once his head has come forth, he may not be harmed." (Sanhedrin 72b, 16) "Once its head (or greater part) has emerged, it may not be touched, for we may not set aside one life [nefesh] for another." Mishna (Oholot 7,6). "If a woman has difficulty in childbirth, the embryo within her must be dismembered limb by limb, because her life [hayyeha] takes precedence over its life [yayyav]. If the child's arm comes out before the head, it is to be amputated. Because the life of the fetus is only potential, and cannot compete with "actual human life". So the Hebrew tradition does condone abortion both in the Talmud and the Torah / Bible.

This statement would only bring in more of the same problems that we have with this ritual interpretation so I think I just won't go there.

This is one of many examples of sick, barbaric, and sexist society. The only modern comparison I could make would be with the Taliban.

I think that I have given a rational and clear depiciton of the ritual, I also take great offense to your statement but that is personal so I won't respond in that way.

This was a surprisingly weak excuse for an explanation, and it demonstrates that I must understand this passage much better than your sources do. What symbolic meaning do they ascribe for the magic wand? Or for why each elemental point of the pentacle should be represented in the spell? Or for what any of this silliness has to do with getting rid of parasites, (which the Bible calls Leprosy)?

Now this made me laugh. Weak excuse? I can't even comment because I would most likely become unkind.

I know that you'll never admit to this, (if only because you're not permitted to) but these spells and hexes and ritual killings are naught but superstition perpetuated by primitives who didn't know what they were doing, and didn't know how anything really works. And none of it in any way indicates Jesus.

In your opinion.

But since both versions of this spell are entirely elemental, (or talisminal) and neither require any incantation, and the Bible says it applies in all cases, then we should certainly be able to test it, right? Or you could just concede that I was right, and that the Bible really does include magic spells that don't work.

You spend the entire post talking about how the spell of the jealousy ritual works (infestation of parasites for instance) and then turn around and claim they don't work. You shift your argument to fit the point you want to make. One time you want to show they work and cause abortions and the next argument they don't work and I must concede that you were right?

 

[awstar]

there is no process that reverse-translates proteins into RNA and then reverse-transcribes this into the DNA. It makes more sense that the rules were originally there because most of the forbidden foods were known for being horribly poisonous (filter feeders, pork etc) however around Christ's time, people were getting a bit better at the hygiene lark.

Like I said, I'm way out of my field here, so I'll defer to your understanding of what could or could not happen genetically. What would the possibility that some of this forbidden meat contain viruses that affect the human genome? or would that be included in the poison you are referring to?

 

[Aron-Ra]

But how is this reaction going to occur only with his mother's milk, and not his aunt's milk?

Of course I'm way out in left field here, but I was trying to show that a human explanation might exist for something that is unknowable until Christ comes again. In my radical explanation, I could see some restrictions placed on the people chosen by God through whom the Messiah would be born. The forbidding of eating pork and "unclean" animals, draining the blood from meat, and this requirement MIGHT have to do with keeping certain proteins and other genetic structures from being ingested, and eventually incorporated in their genetic make-up.

You didn't answer the question. Milk that is sufficiently boiled isn't going to carry any infectious agents anyway. And whether it came from the goat's own mother or another wouldn't make any difference even if it wasn't boiled. Not only that, but it was my understanding that the body does not digest nucleic acids. While some may say, "you are what you eat", you can still eat all the carrots you like without incorporating any of their DNA into your own.

Again, I'm just speculating. The best reason for obeying God in these matters is because He said so, so we trust His heart and do what He says.

But you're not trusting in what God says. You're trusting some Bronze age goat herder who made up a story, one which was based on an earlier story that was dedicated to another god. These are cultural mandates and superstitions, nothing more. And they were obviously written by men as no "supreme" being would scribble such hogwash as this.

Fortunately these strange commands were only temporary until the Messiah was born a perfect man and died for the forgiveness of sin, thereby making the law obsolete with the perfect sacrifice of God's perfect lamb. Just as foretold in the scriptures -- God's Holy Word.

But it is not "God's holy word". It is the word of a handful of religious devotees speaking from their own perspectives, not God's. Worshipping a man-made collection of folklore as if that were equal to God himself, or synonemous with him, is a form of idolatry, and even the Bible tells you that.

 

[awstar]

But it is not "God's holy word". It is the word of a handful of religious devotees speaking from their own perspectives, not God's. Worshipping a man-made collection of folklore as if that were equal to God himself, or synonemous with him, is a form of idolatry, and even the Bible tells you that.

I suppose we will both find out soon enough from Whom the words of the Bible came. At least we both tried to enlighten each other when we had the chance. I'm at peace where I stand.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I suppose we will both find out soon enough from Whom the words of the Bible came. At least we both tried to enlighten each other when we had the chance. I'm at peace where I stand.

As I am also. Except that from my perspective, neither of us will ever know. You don't magically attain all the answers to the mystic secrets of the universe upon your demise. On the contrary, you lose all the information you ever had. At that point, you know, dream, think, and feel nothing at all.

 

[awstar]

As I am also. Except that from my perspective, neither of us will ever know. You don't magically attain all the answers to the mystic secrets of the universe upon your demise. On the contrary, you lose all the information you ever had. At that point, you know, dream, think, and feel nothing at all.

If we were having this conversation at the local pub, I'd lift my beer to toast you and wish you well. But I can't help think you are so much closer to stepping into the kingdom of light than those who are expecting to "earn" their way into the kingdom of God. So I'm going to toast you and wish you "hope".

 

[william jay schroeder]

As I am also. Except that from my perspective, neither of us will ever know. You don't magically attain all the answers to the mystic secrets of the universe upon your demise. On the contrary, you lose all the information you ever had. At that point, you know, dream, think, and feel nothing at all.

Faith is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see. what you hope for is nothing. That, what is at the end, is nothing. What ever it is, its for ever, just so you know.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Faith is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see.

Faith is an obstinate conviction that is not based on reason.

what you hope for is nothing. That, what is at the end, is nothing. What ever it is, its for ever, just so you know.

I do not hope for nothing. If I could choose to believe what I would rather, I certainly wouldn't be a material atheist. Still, if there is a conciousness that somehow survives mortality, I doubt very much that there would be a god also. But even if there is something which I would call a god, I still doubt very much that it would be anything like the Christian god, who values belief without reason higher than anything else, and who damns good people for following rationale over gullability. Rather I think what we would find is an omniscient, cumulative conciousness consisting of all life, something similar to the Tao, or the Force, one who is wholly above such petty criteria, who is not vain, jealous, vengeful or wroth, and who cares more about karma than any vow of unquestioned faith. This entity also would not perform miracles, and would act without benevolence or malevolence to anything. Also I believe that some fashion of reincarnation would be more likely, and infinitely more practical, than any everlasting Heaven or Hell. These concepts simply don't make sense.

But if all your beliefs about your god are correct, and he really is responsible for all the inhuman atrocities in the Old Testament, then I would still rather be damned than to have to kiss up to such a thing for all eternity. That to me would be no different than being trapped in a house with little Anthony Freemont from the Twilight Zone.

"Its good that you wished your sister into cartoon-land, Anthony.
Isn't it good that Anthony did that to his sister?
Yes sir, its a good thing! A real good thing!"

All things considered, I choose death as the best possible option in that case. And your Bible promises that to be just what I'll get. I need fear no eternal pit because I simply won't exist. In other words, my fate is the same whether your god exists or not.

"You're a bad man! You've been thinking bad thoughts!
I'm going to give you a jack-in-the-box head!"

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not in the case of Genesis. The only thing to indicate that they didn't understand the information they recorded is the fact that they got virtually everything wrong.

I posted a thread in which I put forth an argument on the Genesis sequences and the common Scientific material and showed that they did not conflict other than the fruit tree coming out of the order used. I gave a reasonable hypothesis for that. So, they didn't have everything wrong. They had one part of the sequence different than what science says happens when the universe was formed.

You're putting words into my mouth that I did not say, and distorting the words that I did say. First of all, the experts don't disagree with what I'm saying.

Some do. Some experts disagree with other experts and most use reason for their conclusions in each case.

Second, if they base their conclusions on reason, then their position will be tentative, according to whatever the evidence implies. But a faith-based position is defined as one that will not change regardless what any amount of evidence demands.

I have tried to use information that is non-Christian throughout this entire thread. I am sure that there are those that hold this mindset but I research outside of Christian materials.

For example, A friend of mine is the principle of a fundamentalist Southern Baptist Christian school, and their motto "stresses the Word of God as the only source of truth in our world. With the Bible as our foundation." That of course means that anything from the natural world of scientific evidence must be discarded or ignored as a lie, again, automatically, and without any objective consideration even permitted.

Our own HuManiTeE has autonomically parroted this same literally thoughtless dogmatism earlier in this very thread.

In fact, objective consideration is expressly forbidden! One of the tenets of the oath of compliance which each of the "scientists" at the Institute for Creation Research must take is as follows: "2) The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific[sic] and historical as well as moral and theological."

Here they state that their position must not change. No matter what new information may come to light, it cannot be allowed to call their assumed authority into question. This is already an inheritently dishonest position.

This is unrelated to our discussion. I have not used ICR for any of my material.

AnswersInGenesis.org does much the same thing: 'By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

Doesn't matter in our discussion.

What they're saying here is that no matter how solidly they are proven wrong on any point, they are forbidden by thier oath to accept it, and are required to deny any weakness in any of their tenets, and to rationalize away all the evidence from every relevant field aligned against their priori conclusions. And considering the claims they make, this position is such that it cannot be maintained without deliberately lying and/or misrepresenting something.

For example, the next line of their motto: "Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.' This is a grotesquest attempt at misrepresentation/deception as the Bible is also interpreted by fallible people who clearly don't possess enough information, and the Bible was also written by fallible people who clearly possessed even less. More importantly, creationism doesn't interpret evidence, it only ignores or denies it, or changes the subject, often with emotional pleas. And the supposedly "fallible people" who do evaluate the evidence posses a whole lot more information than anyone who was ever involved with the ICR or AIG.

As I have said, I have not used ICR or AIG in our arguments so this is irrelevant.

And as I said, faith is defined in most dictionaries as a position that isn't based on evidence to begin with, and is often maintained despite all evidence to the contrary. It is a firm, stoic position that must not be allowed to change, even if it is proven to be wrong. In other words, it is a state of dishonest denial.

Faith can never be based on evidence, but evidence must be present to have faith. I could never have faith if I did not know if God were actually real or if there was no evidence for Him. But for you to claim that it is a state of dishonest denial is an ad hominem.

Now compare that to the position of real scientists, which (I think) is best explained by the ingenius, professor Stephen Hawking;
"a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. ...Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
--A Brief History of Time

So in reality, if you feel this to be the way you live your life you have absolutely no reason to believe that what you know of the universe today including what you base your information on in regard to Judaism and Christianity could change tomorrow. Nothing that you have claimed can be trusted to be totally true or absolute. You may have an observation that you feel is adequate but that may change by new information that would conflict with your theory making a change in your postition. Correct?

And by the late, great, Carl Sagan:
"We humans long to be connected with our origins so we create rituals. Science is another way to experience this longing. It also connects us with our origins, and it too has its rituals and its commandments. Its only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. Whatever is inconsistent with the facts -- no matter how fond of it we are -- must be discarded or revised."
--COSMOS

Which has become a sacred truth. The sacred truth of Science is that there is no sacred truth which means Science contridicts itself. There is no other truth that rises above the Scientific truth, but that truth is only truth as far as no other truth can be true. Rather circular isn't it.

So a scientific position is tentative. There is (basically) no such thing as an "absolute" [unquestionable] truth. Logically, you can't even seek the truth if you won't admit that you don't already know it. Science is a self-correcting process winnowing reality out of falsity,

What then is reality if Science does not allow absolute truth? What then is true amidst the false, for tomorrow what is reality today may become falsity. When do we "know" or even presume to have reality when Science is always correcting what is "known". When do you actually know that you know? How can you even possibly admit you don't know when you can't even know that you don't know?

and therefore continuously improving our understanding, usually with practical applications which creation science has never, (and can never) provide. Science also subjects itself to the peer-review process, -something creationism will not permit- in which conclusions and proposals are tested for accuracy, something that isn't possible when you've previously refused to change your mind no matter what you may find out later.

Again, this is totally unrelated to any discussion we have had during this thread.

Now look at the very definition of the scientific method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Creationism is completely the reverse of this. They've made their final conclusion right at the onset where science never makes a final conclusion at all. Creation "scientists" don't observe anything, since they can only believe their position on faith, and they will not test any of their concepts. Nor do they ever accept any means of potential falsification, since they've sworn an oath to be unreasonable. They don't make any testible hypotheses, ever. And every time they actually publish a valid prediction about what they expect to see, assuming they're right, the opposite is always discovered, and they just pretend they never made that prediction.

"No one's ever seen one species turn into another, and no one ever will."
"No transitional species will ever be found."
"Evolution is losing support in the scientific community."
"Archaeopteryx was a one-of-a-kind, a freak.fraud/forgery."
"No one will ever discover a feathered dinosaur."
"No one will ever discover any fish with feet."
"Genetics will refute the common ancestry model."
"They'll never find any 'missing links' or ape-men"

Each of these have been disproved a dozen times at least. We don't have any links in the hominine chain that are still missing. Yet they keep saying that we'll never find what we just keep on finding.

These people are lying just by calling themselves scientists because they're opposed to the method itself. They are the antithesis of science, and their own oaths of their priori conclusion of what they will or won't accept proves that.

Why do you insist on making arguments against points that I have not even entered into the discussion? Could it be that you can not argue against those things we are discussing so you bring in things that are unrelated which have nothing to do with what we are discussing? You have spent an entire post arguing against a position that I have not even made.

Of course not. But you've yet to post anything (in this entire conversation) which either supports your position or challenges mine.

I beg to differ. Maybe I should bring up the information that has been shown to be false so far. I don't have time right now but I think that might be enlightening.

Yes I read this when I first visited this site. But I am at a loss as to why you quoted it here. What point are you trying to make? How did you imagine this should comprimise my position? Or why did you think it supported yours?

I am out of time so I will have to come back and finish this when time permits.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Oncedeceived.

There is no reason to post anything if you can't do it right. I have finished my reply to your previous post. But I'm not going to submit it until all your replies in this series are complete. It doesn't make any sense not to present your argument adequately on the excuse of inadequate time. Take as long as you need. If you can't present a sufficient argument now, save it, and post one tomorrow that is at least worthwhile.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedeceived.

There is no reason to post anything if you can't do it right. I have finished my reply to your previous post. But I'm not going to submit it until all your replies in this series are complete. It doesn't make any sense not to present your argument adequately on the excuse of inadequate time. Take as long as you need. If you can't present a sufficient argument now, save it, and post one tomorrow that is at least worthwhile.

Do as you wish. It doesn't matter to me.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I have finished my reply to your previous post. But I'm not going to submit it until all your replies in this series are complete.

Do as you wish. It doesn't matter to me.

I wouldn't want to interrupt. It would be rude. And there are already a couple of posts I really wanted answered, but that you never replied to. So I am afraid that replying prematurely might mean more posts that wouldn't be answered in their proper order later on. These should be presented coherently. So I'll just bite my tongue as I read each of your posts, and not correct any of them until its my turn.

 

[Yamialpha]

I notice alot of creationists come here and make grandiose proclaations about the evidence, but I have to ask, are you really capable of making a judgement on this evidence? Do you really understand it sufficiently well to actually make a good contribution to the debate? or are you just toeing the party line? I dno't mean to come across as agressive in this post, but it does concern me that many of the creationist posters are not really adressing any of the evidence and are not actually learning anything about the opposing view, preferring to just flippantly dismiss anything that disagrees with their preconcieved worldview.

Perhaps others (even myself) are guilty of doing the same, however the difference I notice with the evolutionists, is that we tend to put forth a significant amount of evidence and analysis of the evidence, and this is something I think is lacking from the creationist side.

To the creationists, please recognise that you do not know it all, and you are not all experts on every facet of science, and please read the evidence that the evolutionists put forth. If you have a problem with it, please try to make clear in detail what your problems with the data are, and then perhaps you might either stand a better chance of convincing the opposition that you are right, or allow them to provide a better explanation and help you to learn. Flippant dismissals get nobody anywhere, and merely add to the frustration of those who often spend a good deal of time writing out lengthy responses to your problems.

I hope that we can all discuss the issues sensibly and maturely,

Jet.

Very true. Creationists do have a tendency to throw their hands up and say "God made it this way." rather than have verifiable proof. Anyone who has done research in the theistic view of science knows that there is evidence in the world to prove creationism and refute many of the ideals of evolutionism. Good point Jet.

 

[Tomk80]

Very true. Creationists do have a tendency to throw their hands up and say "God made it this way." rather than have verifiable proof. Anyone who has done research in the theistic view of science knows that there is evidence in the world to prove creationism and refute many of the ideals of evolutionism. Good point Jet.

Ideals of evolution? Since when is evolution some ideological movement?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I was surprised when I saw that date, and wondered where you found it. Then I realized that it came from my own source. I thought it said BCE. I figured it must be a typo, because if Zarathustra wrote the Avesta, as all my sources said he did, then that date should have ended in BCE, not CE, and certainly not AD. So I looked into the history of the Yashts to confirm my suspicion. Sure enough, the Yashts of Mithra are among the writings attributed to Zarathustra, and "redacted" into "younger Avestan" during the dates you suggest. Some of the poems contained in this part of the Avesta present themselves as though written by him. Other evidence suggests it is likely that he did write some of these other Yashts, as the Zoroastrians claim he did. And if he did, then they are as much as 1200 years older than this passage implies, and would still pre-date Isaiah by centuries.

The only real archeological evidence that can be used to date anything due to Zoroastra are the Gathas. No one is certain when Zarathustra (Zoroastra) lived and in fact many scholars differ greatly on the date. It has a spread of anywhere between 1200 BC to 600 BC. The Gathas the only tangible and physical evidence of Zoroastra which are thought to be written by him. They are dated as early as 1200 BC to the 6 century BC. This dating though does not come from dating an original manuscript or physical article containing the words but only on the language used and it is possible and some think that the language of the Gathas, like Latin and Sanskrit, is an artificially sustained sacred language. If this is truly the case, the language would continue to be used in the literature of religion long after it had ceased to be a functional spoken language. If this is the case, the Gathas were simply composed during the sixth century B.C. in an archaic tongue. Unfortunately, so far with the evidence that we have now, it is impossible to be sure of the date.

Now if we take the earlier date of say 1200 BC, we find that the Biblical aspects that you claim that are borrowed are still much earlier. Abraham's birth is dated around 2056 BC I believe and that he left Ur in 1900 BC or so. The early era of Judaism is cited for around 1650 BC (this is the first mention of Yahweh yet I can't remember as of yet where this was found). Which of course pre-date Isaiah. Isaiah is considered to be from 950 BC or there about so even then if the late date is actual then Isaiah would pre-date them as well.

It doesn't help that Roman Mithraists tried to obscure all evidence of their Persian origins, (again, according to these same sources). And that makes it impossible to present a conclusive argument on their history. That's the problem with archaeology. Unlike paleontology, there are no absolute dating methods. Everything is contextual. The Zoroastrians believe that the Mithraic tradition is 1200 years older than you say they are, because you're basing your conclusion on the archaeological date. But you say that your god was worshipped 1500 years before the very earliest archaeological record of that deity, so you're both in the same boat. If I accept the contextual and circumstantial evidence for your position, then you should accept the same for the Mithraic position.

Even if it could be proven that the Roman Mithraists were indeed a cult derived from the cult Zorastra the timeline is pre-dated by the dates of the time of the patriarchs.

Well, actually logic tells me that Abraham shouldn't precede the beginning of the Hebrew oral tradition by 400 years, and that Moses wouldn't have come along before Akenaten.

What do you mean that Abraham shouldn't precede the beginning of the Hebrew oral tradition? Abraham is the beginning of the Hebrew tradition itself. Moses did come before Akenaten. Akenaten came around 1367-1350 BC and Moses came in around 1496-1450 BC.

But the point is that Zarathustra's Avesta was the first mention of several concepts that hadn't yet been adopted by Semitic monotheism; one of them being the dichotomy the wise lord of the Kingdom of Justice and Truth or the Kingdom of the Lie under the Opposer of Faith. The books Moses allegedly compiled didn't include any such concept. And the first books that did weren't written until almost Jesus' time.

Be specific. Genesis speaks about Good and evil, speaks about punishment and so forth. So I am not sure what you are referring to here.

I am proposing something that perhaps you're not getting because of our respective mindsets at the onset. Being a creationist, you probably imagine everything poofing into existence, as it is now, all at once, and that may include your Bible.

Well as usual you are wrong. I don't think that everything "poofed" into existence all at once. I don't think that the Bible did either which should be clear by our discussion but then again.

After all, I remember tele-evangelist, Kevin Copeland claiming that the entirety of the Bible had already been written, by God, before he ever created light. So you believe something similar. I don't know. Its an absurd concept to me, but I know there are people who believe this.

People believe many things that I feel absurd as well. But Kevin Copeland does not represent my viewpoint or me for that matter.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Obviously, as an "evolutionist", I don't see it that way. What I propose is that your belief system was slowly molded into its current form by adopting and adapting various concepts over many generations, the same way you might say that all the other religions formed except yours. I suggest that none of your Biblical authors, nor the Hebrew religious tradition itself included any mention of posthumous judgements for the option of Heaven or Hell until after the influence of Zarathustra's religion.

I beg to differ. Sheol which means hell is used some 65 times in the OT.:

Genesis 37:33-35; Genesis 42:37-38; Genesis 44:27-31; Numbers 16:23-33; Deuteronomy 32:22; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Samuel 22:5-6; 1 Kings 2:6; 1 Kings 2:9; Job 7:9-10; Job 11:7-8; Job 14:11-14; Job 17:13-16; Job 21:13; Job 24:19; Job 26:6; Psalms 6:5; Psalms 9:17; Psalms 16:10; Psalms 18:4-5; Psalms 30:3; Psalms 31:17; Psalms 49:14-15; Psalms 55:15; Psalms 86:13; Psalms 88:3; Psalms 89:48; Psalms 116:3; Psalms 139:8; Psalms 141:7; Proverbs 1:11-12; Proverbs 5:5; Proverbs 7:27; Proverbs 9:18; Proverbs 15:11; Proverbs 15:24; Proverbs 23:14; Proverbs 27:20; Proverbs 30:16; Ecclesiastes 9:10; Isaiah 5:14; Isaiah 7:11; Isaiah 14:11; Isaiah 14:15; Isaiah 28:15; Isaiah 28:18; Isaiah 38:10; Isaiah 38:18; Isaiah 57:9; Ezekiel 31:15-17; Ezekiel 32:21; Ezekiel 32:27; Hosea 13:14; Amos 9:2; Jonah 2:2; Habbakuk 2:5

And the word Gehenna:

2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6; 2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 7:31; 19:2-6; 32:35. We quote Jeremiah, 19:2-6, which speaks of the Jews worshipping pagan idols and committing abominations:

"19:2. And you shall go out to the Ben-Hinnom Valley which is at the entrance of the Harsith Gate, and you shall call there the words that I will speak to you. 19:3. And you shall say; Hearken to the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; so said the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel; Behold I am bringing evil upon this place, which whoever hears, his ears will tingle. 19:4. Because they forsook Me and they estranged this place and burnt incense therein to other gods, which they had not known, they, their forefathers, and the kings of Judah, and they filled this place with the blood of innocent people. 19:5. And they built the high places of Baal to burn their children with fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command, neither did I speak nor did it enter My mind. 19:6. Therefore, behold days are coming, says the Lord, when this place will no longer be called Topheth or Ben-Hinnom Valley, but the Valley of Slaughter."

Daniel speaks of Heaven as well as Psalms.

I didn't claim that. You said that Roman Mithraism wasn't based on any earlier representation of Mithra from Persia, based (I suspect) on your position that the "Younger Avestas" came along after the Roman version. All I said about this inscription was just what this site said it was; archaeological evidence of a transition from Eastern influence which already existed, which was later modified into Roman Mithraism.

You were claiming an inscription that was not considered to be authentic to this cult. The date I used was for the oldest "authentic" piece to that cult.

I did read it, all the way through, before I posted anything about it. And I did understand it, or I wouldn't have done so. But it seems that you did not understand it.

I did most certainly understand it. You claimed that this earlier date was for Roman Mithraism and it was not. The later date that I cited in your source was considered the oldest evidence which was dated much later.

There was a rich intermingling of religious systems that came together in Asia Minor. That Mithraic worship was present in Asia Minor from ancient times is evident through the great number of theophorous names of rulers to be found in the region, such as Mithridates Eupator, the last ruler of Pontus.1 One possible explanation for why the name of Mithra was chosen is that it had particular appeal to the militaristic mentality

Right here you are supporting my position with your source. It states that the Roman Mithraistic cult chose a name for their militaristic mentality. They chose this meaning that they were not derived by the earlier religion. The name Mithra in early religion was actually Mitra rather than Mithra. There is no evidence to date that clearly links the two other than the group of Roman cultists taking the name for their cult. In fact , the practices of the cult were not the same as Zorastrain cult practices.

on account of the ancient Iranian recognition of Mithra as a protector of kings and warrior-defender of truth. Beskow suggests that the presence of peculiar private societies that existed in Bosporan cities, that were since 110 B.C.E. under the control of Mithridates Eupator, indicate a prototype for later Roman Mithraism.

But that the Roman cultists would relate to this and take these on would still not mean that they originated in the earlier form.

2 He explains that the societies were concerned with the worship of Oriental deities, were headed by a leader termed Pater, excluded women, were composed primarily of aristocratic soldiers, and were limited to groups of 15-20 persons.3 The size of the societal groups suggests a striking parallel to the Mithraea found later throughout the Roman Empire, the largest of which could only accommodate roughly 40 persons and most accommodated roughly between one and two dozen.4 Also, plaques with a tauroctone (That is, just the bull-slaying, to differentiate from the more complex "Tauroctony" of later Roman Mithraism that involved additional complex astrological allusions and figures.) image have been found in Crimea (which was absorbed into the Pontic kingdom in 110. B.C.E). Beskow writes:

Another possible piece of evidence is offered by five terracotta plaques with a tauroctone, found in Crimea and taken into the records of Mithraic monuments by Cumont and Vermaseren. If they are Mithraic, they are certainly the oldest known representations of Mithras tauroctone; the somewhat varying dates given by Russian archaeologists will set the beginning of the first century C.E. as a terminus ad quem, which is also said to have been confirmed by the stratigraphic conditions.5

Also some evidence suggests that the original prototypes of Roman Mithraism may have had more Iranian influence in their character.6 It is clear that when it was adopted into the Roman culture, obvious Iranian vestiges were dropped, attested by the fact that all Roman Mithraic inscriptions are in either Greek or Latin.7 Finally, the oldest inscription that is agreed by consensus to be Roman Mithraic was found in Asia Minor, dating to 77-78 C.E, by a Roman prefect.8

7 Finally, the oldest inscription that is agreed by consensus to be Roman Mithraic was found in Asia Minor, dating to 77-78 C.E, by a Roman prefect

So again, the oldest Roman Mithraic article found is dated 77-78 AD. Which is what I pointed out. You gave the other quote without this last quote which made it seem that the dates were earlier when they were in fact much later. These are not known to be evidence for the Roman Mithraic cult.

Not far from the region, in ancient Armenia, a strong echo of Persian influence had been solidly established through the conservative character of the Zoroastrianism practiced there, indicating the great expanse of territory that was put under Persian influence, and therefore, exposed to Mithraic cults.9 Although, from this one can not argue that particular tenets governing the worship of Mithra survived transition from East to Asia Minor to West, we can at least thus clearly indicate a line of migration in the recognition of the god and his status. Certainly, a great deal of fusion among religion systems occurred in Asia Minor, where the ancient traditions of Mesopotamia and Greece met and embraced in some of the most interesting ways.

This is a very prominent point to the discussion, it can not be shown that Roman Mithra worship was the same as the earlier version of the Zoroastrian cult. The particular belief systems that you profess of the Roman Mithra cult are not in evidence prior to the Old Testament.

Also, it seems to be the case that the type of Mithraism that, for instance, offers a potential precedent for Roman Mithraea in the private societies noted above also wasn't a standard Zoroastrian cultic recognition of Mithra. Indeed, private (secret?) societies surrounding the recognition and worship of a deity other than Ahura-Mazda could easily constitute a heretical movement. Such a theoretical heretical Mithraism may entertain alternate versions of the creation story and so to an extent bridge the gap between the Mithras (sic) and Tauroctony in the Roman Empire and earlier Zoroastrian recognition of Mithra.

Clearly this is a problem with your position as you are trying to make a connection of Zoroastraism as the origin of the borrowing when in fact, it can not be shown that Roman Mithraism held any of the same beliefs of that sect.

Along with the private societies in Bosporan cities, a revealing inscription dating much earlier to c. 358 B.C.E. from the region of Caria, in southern Asia Minor, suggests that there was a syncretic movement between Hellenistic and Persian/Medean divinities in the region. In this particular Aramaic inscription, the epithet ksathrapati is identified with Apollo, which for Iranians would correspond to Mithra.10 Further evidence that this inscription was not the product of Zoroastrian belief is that the Old Persian term krp', a cognate of karapan, is used to designate the cult. The latter is a term used by Zoroaster in the Gathas to denote non-Zoroastrian priests.11

Same problem.

They're saying that this inscription is earlier evidence of Mithraism, at least 600 years older than the Younger Avestas, implying that Zarathustra probably did write them after all, centuries earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The avestas were dated around 600 BC on linguistics alone, there are no actual originals of this. So on one hand you claim unsubstanciated dates for known dates (original artifacts). Yes the Dead Sea Scrolls date later but they are copies of much, much earlier forms. I have shown that Biblical concepts pre-date Zarathustra.

What this last passage is telling you is that the latter Mithraism, adapted for Rome, arose out of traditional Zoroastrianism as an unwelcome heretical cult, the same way Christianity rose out of Judaism.

It is not telling me that. What it is saying is that it did not adhere to the same belief system that came before and that any borrowing of concepts is totally unproven if not totally false. When you cite Zoroastrianism as the dating for the belief systems that are considered to be borrowed by Judaism then this proves to be unvalid. You can not cite any evidence that brings these certain beliefs in prior to Biblical terms.

Hence all the secrecy. Get it?

Considering all the secrecy, the fact that ALL the evidence is only imagery rather than textual, and the fact that in Judaism any drifting from the original Torah was forbidden; it would be most unlikely that Judaism would have taken anything from another cult especially one that was very secretive. Get it?

 

[Jet Black]

Anyone who has done research in the theistic view of science knows that there is evidence in the world to prove creationism and refute many of the ideals of evolutionism.

what ideals of evolution? that's like saying "the ideals of gravitationalism" and please do either go into the post I made in more detail or further clarify your statements, rather than regale us with your pithy statements.

 

[Jet Black]

Like I said, I'm way out of my field here, so I'll defer to your understanding of what could or could not happen genetically. What would the possibility that some of this forbidden meat contain viruses that affect the human genome? or would that be included in the poison you are referring to?

very very slim. I wound't really worry too much about distortions of the human genome, these happen often enough anyway, and I can't really see any theological justification as to why a given protein (that God designed anyway according to some) would be a bad thing.

 

[awstar]

... I can't really see any theological justification as to why a given protein (that God designed anyway according to some) would be a bad thing.

We may not know the reason, but it would be consistent with forbidding Adam from the eating from one tree, when all the others are freely given to him to eat. There's a certain pattern here that, in a way only God can make happen, serves as His signature.

Personally, I believe that God is preparing His people for the time when they are to eat only the one true source of spiritual nurishment -- the bread of life that He will eventually provide in His Son Jesus.