Noah's Ark

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 9:29 PM

AV1611VET said:
I don't remember now, but check this out:

Q: Was there writing in Noah's time?

A: Yes, there's evidence of writing systems existing before the time of Noah, and it's likely that writing was also present during his time. While the Bible doesn't explicitly state Noah was literate, the existence of writing before the flood is implied.

The Bible itself uses terms like "book" and "scroll" in relation to pre-flood events, suggesting that writing was known.

Some interpretations of Genesis suggest that Adam kept a written record of his experiences, which was then passed down through generations.

I wonder what the AI would say if you asked it if Adam wrote in King James English?

AV1611VET · Sunday at 9:31 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
I wonder what the AI would say if you asked it if Adam wrote in King James English?

I edited my post with more info.

Please read it again, thanks.

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 9:34 PM

AV1611VET said:
I edited my post with more info.

Please read it again, thanks.

I did. Now, you might ask that AI of yours what it thinks about the articles I posted back up in post #2, 222.

AV1611VET · Sunday at 9:35 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
I wonder what the AI would say if you asked it if Adam wrote in King James English?

Q: Did Adam write King James English?

A: No, Adam did not write the King James Bible. The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible was commissioned by King James I of England, but the translation work was carried out by a committee of scholars and clergymen. While King James I did have some involvement, such as commissioning the project and potentially reviewing some portions, he did not personally translate the text.

Q: Did Adam write in Jacobean English?

A: Adam, the first human in the biblical narrative, did not write in Jacobean English.

Jacobean English was the style of English used during the reign of King James I of England (1603-1625). The story of Adam is in the Bible, which was originally written in Hebrew and later translated into different languages, including English. The King James Bible, a significant Jacobean work, came from translations during that time.

Therefore, any writings by Adam would have been written thousands of years before the Jacobean era and would not have been in English.

AV1611VET · Sunday at 9:39 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
I did. Now, you might ask that AI of yours what it thinks about the articles I posted back up in post #2, 222.

What point are you making?

That AI Overview can take a hike? or AI Overview is wrong? or confused? or biased?

Do you think I'm not expecting academia to say this?

(I wasn't born yesterday.

)

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 9:54 PM

AV1611VET said:
What point are you making?

That AI Overview can take a hike? or AI Overview is wrong? or confused? or biased?

Do you think I'm not expecting academia to say this?

(I wasn't born yesterday. )

Yes, the overuse and reliance upon AI that is steadily growing ................. can take a hike! I see it as an ongoing, dominant manifestation of Transhumanism, which in turn is another manifestation of the impulse represented by the Tower of Babel narrative.

And one of these days, despite our obvious differences about how we approach the first 11 chapters of Genesis, and that we have different definitions about what 'inspiration' is and how it works, you'll realize that from Abraham on...........our essential beliefs aren't so drastically different, even if some of our methods of Hermeneutics and Exegesis are.

AV1611VET · Sunday at 10:03 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
Yes, the overuse and reliance upon AI that is steadily growing ................. can take a hike!

It was created to be used, was it not?

2PhiloVoid said:
I see it as an ongoing, dominant manifestation of Transhumanism, which in turn is another manifestation of the impulse represented by the Tower of Babel narrative.

It's interesting that artificial intelligence has an impressive list of scientists behind its creation and development.

But now that it is being used to support Biblical doctrine, I see it's getting thumbs down.

I'm under the impression that any source of information, organization, or single person that dares to even come close to challenging the academic world will be met with near zero tolerance and subject to verbal abuse.

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 10:20 PM

AV1611VET said:
It was created to be used, was it not?

It was, but you barely see me using it. In fact, I think I've used it twice very, very briefly over the past few months, with one of those times being just the other day in conversation with you.

When I use AI, I want to see the actual sources that it is using. Without that, the answer is dead to me.

AV1611VET said:
It's interesting that artificial intelligence has an impressive list of scientists behind its creation and development.

And if you've paid attention, there are a number of creators of AI themselves warning about its misuse, which is par for the course with just about any technology.

AV1611VET said:
But now that it is being used to support Biblical doctrine, I see it's getting thumbs down.

No, there's no "now" in any of it. There are some who give it a thumbs up and some who give it a thumbs down, and some who remain in a neutral position

AV1611VET said:
I'm under the impression that any source of information, organization, or single person that dares to even come close to challenging the academic world will be met with near zero tolerance and subject to verbal abuse.

You're under the wrong impression. It's not just you Independent Baptists who get bumped around. Moreover, if you've paid attention closely, there are a lot of academics who disagree with one another on a variety of topics, not just with you or me over the Bible. Take those Creationists I cited back up in post 2,222 as a case in point.

AV1611VET · Sunday at 10:40 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
When I use AI, I want to see the actual sources that it is using. Without that, the answer is dead to me.

And if that source happens to be ICR? DI? Kent Hovind? or Ken Ham?

2PhiloVoid said:
And if you've paid attention, there are a number of creators of AI themselves warning about its misuse, which is par for the course with just about any technology.

(Cue Thalidomide waiting in the wings.)

When did the "misuse" start? before or after AI was touted as the next best thing to sliced bread?

2PhiloVoid said:
No, there's no "now" in any of it. There are some who give it a thumbs up and some who give it a thumbs down, and some who remain in a neutral position.

For a scientific invention?

Was it properly vetted?

Are you telling me a shrewdness of scientists get together and invent a wonder machine, put it in use, advertise it as a better mousetrap, and other scientists are giving it a thumbs down?

Interesting.

Must be because Christians are using ... er ... I mean ... misusing it to promote their doctrine?

2PhiloVoid said:
You're under the wrong impression. It's not just you Independent Baptists who get bumped around.

Yes, I know.

I said "any source of information, organization, or single person".

You know ... ICR, DI, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, Chuck Missler, Bob Larson ... anyone who claims the cross, but dares say a word against something academia deems worthy of getting mentioned in an encyclopedia.

Even me.

I scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to knowing the latest scientific paradigms; and what happens?

I get put on IGNORE (or ignored) by the intellectual giants here.

(And believe me, I'm not complaining. I expect it.)

2PhiloVoid said:
Moreover, if you've paid attention closely, there are a lot of academics who disagree with one another on a variety of topics,

If those disagreements are against the Bible, they get a nod and a pass.

But if those disagreements are against scientific paradigms, they're considered "peer review."

Mention (or list) seven different theories as to how we got our moon, and science will nod their approval.

But clear up some contradiction in the Bible -- (like Judas hanging himself in one account; yet getting his guts splattered all over in another) -- clear that up, and science will ostracize you.

2PhiloVoid · Monday at 6:36 AM

AV1611VET said:
And if that source happens to be ICR? DI? Kent Hovind? or Ken Ham?

OH, BOO HOO! Get over yourself, Grandpa! Christianity isn't all about you and your favorite fundamentalists. It never was.

You need to wake up and smell the coffee and stop fixating on a handful of preferred Christian voices. If we as Christians are going to stand firm against the anti-christs through mutual encouragement, it isn't going to come about by everyone suddenly deciding to jump over to the Independent Baptist lily pad.

Truth is, I don't think even St. Paul would approve of your sectarianism and your lack of charity toward other Christians----and don't go pulling out the 1st chapter of Galatians in the attempt to "PROVE" me wrong. I'll dismantle that notion and eisegetical misapplication in the blink of an eye. I've about had enough of seeing that sort of thing done here or anywhere. You're sure not going to do it to me.

AV1611VET said:
(Cue Thalidomide waiting in the wings.)

When did the "misuse" start? before or after AI was touted as the next best thing to sliced bread?

For a scientific invention?

Was it properly vetted?

Are you telling me a shrewdness of scientists get together and invent a wonder machine, put it in use, advertise it as a better mousetrap, and other scientists are giving it a thumbs down?

Interesting.

Must be because Christians are using ... er ... I mean ... misusing it to promote their doctrine?

Yes, I know.

I said "any source of information, organization, or single person".

You know ... ICR, DI, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, Chuck Missler, Bob Larson ... anyone who claims the cross, but dares say a word against something academia deems worthy of getting mentioned in an encyclopedia.

Even me.

I scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to knowing the latest scientific paradigms; and what happens?

I get put on IGNORE (or ignored) by the intellectual giants here.

(And believe me, I'm not complaining. I expect it.)

If those disagreements are against the Bible, they get a nod and a pass.

But if those disagreements are against scientific paradigms, they're considered "peer review."

Mention (or list) seven different theories as to how we got our moon, and science will nod their approval.

But clear up some contradiction in the Bible -- (like Judas hanging himself in one account; yet getting his guts splattered all over in another) -- clear that up, and science will ostracize you.

It doesn't sound very appetizing to those of us who value our conceptions and definitions of TRUTH when you ardently display Independent Baptists in sheer opposition to Academia. You make it sound like there are ZERO academic credentials in your court, which to my mind, isn't a good place to be in.

Fact is, you have some of the most bizarre and willy-nilly interpretations of the Bible I've ever heard-----it's almost like you just make up stuff on the fly. And here I thought only the Faith Movement folks were capable of that. Let's not pretend that everything dropping from the mouth of an Independent Baptist is some syllable gotten directly from the Holy Spirit. I think we know better than that........................

DamianWarS · Monday at 7:07 AM

AV1611VET said:
And how should it have been highlighted then to satisfy the academic world?

Should it have said, "And Adam wrote ..."? "And Noah wrote ..."? "And Abraham wrote ..."?

Would that have done it?

I seriously doubt it, in view of the fact that the Bible says others wrote, and that doesn't mean a thing to the naysayers.

I don't follow tradition.

Modern academia is wrong.

And just because it doesn't go out of its way to "satisfy" -- (not that it would though) -- but "satisfy" the academic world by preambling everything with, "And [list author here] wrote ..." doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

Why do you want it in the controversial section?

Are you wanting a Christian website to treat it as such?

That's like saying the Bible should be sold in the fiction section of bookstores.

I would say you're doing the online equivalent of a filibuster to distract/avoid from the issues. I'm really not interested in these controversial tangential interests supported by fantasy and whims. I'm not sure if you just get a rise out of this sort of discourse but its simply not something I have any interest in engaging.

2PhiloVoid · Monday at 7:20 AM

DamianWarS said:
I would say you're doing the online equivalent of a filibuster to distract/avoid from the issues. I'm really not interested in these controversial tangential interests supported by fantasy and whims. I'm not sure if you just get a rise out of this sort of discourse but its simply not something I have any interest in engaging.

What's going on is that in the context of the earliest chapters of Genesis, including Noah's narrative, he's placed all of his eggs in the interpretive basket of the Wiseman Hypothesis. I can understand the hypothesis and can even mull it over as being one "other," even if minimally evident, form of historiographical modelling, but it's just a hypothesis, not even a scientific one at that.

DamianWarS · Monday at 11:26 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
What's going on is that in the context of the earliest chapters of Genesis, including Noah's narrative, he's placed all of his eggs in the interpretive basket of the Wiseman Hypothesis. I can understand the hypothesis and can even mull it over as being one "other," even if minimally evident, form of historiographical modelling, but it's just a hypothesis, not even a scientific one at that.

its circular either way. The flood proves the account is from Noah's own hand and the the account by Noah's own hand proofs the flood.

I'm saying it doesn't matter so I don't really care either way. I don't have an issue with @AV1611VET accepting this tablet theory, but even with that it adds no weight to the texts in question as the literness of at least pre-abrahmic account can only have diminishing value and we should be focused today not on their literal value but their redemptive message which is alive and deep with meaning.

Did the flood happen or not? I don't care, the redemptive message however is unchanged either way.

2PhiloVoid · Monday at 11:32 AM

DamianWarS said:
its circular either way. The flood proves the account is from Noah's own hand and the the account by Noah's own hand proofs the flood.

I'm saying it doesn't matter so I don't really care either way. I don't have an issue with @AV1611VET accepting this tablet theory, but even with that it adds no weight to the texts in question as the literness of at least pre-abrahmic account can only have diminishing value and we should be focused today not on their literal value but their redemptive message which is alive and deep with meaning.

Did the flood happen or not? I don't care, the redemptive message however is unchanged either way.

As a science and philosophy minded person, I care whether or not the Flood happened; I also care if what is being conveyed via religious voices form the past, or those today, is true. If it's not true, then there's a lot of explanation that needs to then be given by Jews and Christians as to why anyone should see the first eleven chapters of Genesis as having any prophetic import.

Obviously, both you and I seem to share at least that general notion, that these early narratives carry with them prophetic import, whether we know they represent true, historical events or less than historical narratives for the sake of theology.

Hans Blaster · Monday at 11:45 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
As a science and philosophy minded person, I care whether or not the Flood happened;

It didn't.

2PhiloVoid said:
I also care if what is being conveyed via religious voices form the past, or those today, is true. If it's not true, then there's a lot of explanation that needs to then be given by Jews and Christians as to why anyone should see the first eleven chapters of Genesis as having any prophetic import.

Obviously, both you and I seem to share at least that general notion, that these early narratives carry with them prophetic import, whether we know they represent true, historical events or less than historical narratives for the sake of theology.

What prophesy is in chapters 1-11 of Genesis? I don't recall any.

2PhiloVoid · Monday at 11:58 AM

Hans Blaster said:
It didn't.

Right. A global flood didn't happen. That doesn't mean some smaller flood didn't happen that was large enough to leave a lasting traditional story in the cultural memory of Ancient Near Eastern peoples.

Hans Blaster said:
What prophesy is in chapters 1-11 of Genesis? I don't recall any.

When I'm referring to the term "prophetic" as a descriptor in the case of Genesis, I'm referring to that denotation. But, as it is, in the vein of the other more seemingly predictive denotation of the term, there are some statements in Genesis that, for Christians, seem to allude ahead of time to Christ. .................... but yes, me and my 30 books from various Jewish rabbis already know that these predictive statements are counted as such by Jewish readers.

2PhiloVoid · Monday at 12:32 PM

Hans Blaster said:
It didn't.

What prophesy is in chapters 1-11 of Genesis? I don't recall any.

Sorry. My wife was talking to me and I got distracted.

Above, where I mention the descriptor I was referring to, I meant to add that the one I have been referring to is the one indicating "speaking forth for a purpose." This is one of the denotations, and it is other than the one so often cited in reference to "speaking predicatively, in advance."

Hans Blaster · Monday at 12:33 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
Right. A global flood didn't happen. That doesn't mean some smaller flood didn't happen that was large enough to leave a lasting traditional story in the cultural memory of Ancient Near Eastern peoples.

There aren't even floods that would have flooded the known world either, but I don't know that it matters where the original story got started as we do understand what the Jewish scribes were doing 2600 (or so) years ago when they crafted the current version for their own scripture.

2PhiloVoid said:
When I'm referring to the term "prophetic" as a descriptor in the case of Genesis, I'm referring to that denotation.

Wait (after looking below) are you saying you are using "prophetic" to mean non-predictive?

2PhiloVoid said:
But, as it is, in the vein of the other more seemingly predictive denotation of the term, there are some statements in Genesis that, for Christians, seem to allude ahead of time to Christ. .................... but yes, me and my 30 books from various Jewish rabbis already know that these predictive statements are counted as such by Jewish readers.

I would agree with the rabbis as I lack the theologians' talent for crafting prophesy from non-prophesy. (or having a second or third go at fulfillment)

Hans Blaster · Monday at 12:36 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
Sorry. My wife was talking to me and I got distracted.

Sorry, I can't empathize with this problem.

2PhiloVoid said:
Above, where I mention the descriptor I was referring to, I meant to add that the one I have been referring to is the one indicating "speaking forth for a purpose." This is one of the denotations, and it is other than the one so often cited in reference to "speaking predicatively, in advance."

I've never heard of such a concept. Where does this notion come from?

2PhiloVoid · Monday at 12:43 PM

Hans Blaster said:
There aren't even floods that would have flooded the known world either, but I don't know that it matters where the original story got started as we do understand what the Jewish scribes were doing 2600 (or so) years ago when they crafted the current version for their own scripture.

Please tell my your not a literalist, Hans. I didn't say that I believe in a world-wide flood seen from an ancient point of view, let alone a global one.

However, this doesn't mean that there were no significant floods that took place in the Ancient Near East anywhere from 4 to 7 thousand years ago that might have left a trace in the memory of ancient near eastern or middle eastern people.

Hans Blaster said:
Wait (after looking below) are you saying you are using "prophetic" to mean non-predictive?

Yes. BINGO!

Hans Blaster said:
I would agree with the rabbis as I lack the theologians' talent for crafting prophesy from non-prophesy. (or having a second or third go at fulfillment)

Far be it from me to contest harshly with the Jewish Rabbis, because I understand their interpretive points. But I also understand Christian theological points as well.

Noah's Ark

Critically Copernican

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Critically Copernican

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Critically Copernican

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Critically Copernican

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Critically Copernican

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Critically Copernican

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Critically Copernican

On August Recess

Critically Copernican

Critically Copernican

On August Recess

On August Recess

Critically Copernican

Similar threads