Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

[Astrid]

I have no clue what you are talking about.

Me either. So it makes no sense whether read, or not.

 

[T.i.m.o.t.h.y.]

Really? Name one.

The Sumerian King list, history's first mention of a great flood dating at 2100 BC.

There are many other examples that can be found on internet.

 

[T.i.m.o.t.h.y.]

As I stated in the context of this thread and others interpretation of the Bible is based on bias, furthermore as mentioned previously a literal interpretation of the Bible exposes contradictions.

As you demonstrate each time with your interpretations.

Stating that there are contradictions can be due to interpretive bias also.

Many contradictions are due to translation error, or scribal copy error.

And the erroneous idea of the Bible publishers or the critical text scholars not to correct them.

But that involves the actual text and not a person's mistake or choice to mentally interpret the text to other than what it says, assuming that the text itself is not in error.

What methods are they?

Of interpretation... you know of literal, and you know of metaphor, & idiom, & parable.

These can all be found through internet search.

I was mostly referring to the Hebrew method called PaRDeS.

P [plain meaning] literal
R [remez meaning] allusive implication
D [deresh meaning] non-literal, homiletic
S [sod meaning] secret, hidden

What would they be?

That too can be found by internet search.

As mentioned previously: The Sumerian King list [dating at 2100BC] that gives the first mention of a great flood.

 

[Astrid]

The Sumerian King list, history's first mention of a great flood dating at 2100 BC

There are many other examples that can be found on internet.

Floods are common.
The Noah flood is fiction.
So is a king who reigned for 28,800 years.
Or even a mere 1200.

Genesis contains factual material here and there,
mundane things like water or hills.

Note that con men sprinkle in some facts with
their narratives.

As an historical document, Genesis is worthless,
and none (zero) of the supernatural stuff
has any archaeological, or other scientific
basis whatsoever.

You do know that?







Except it does disprove the historicity of " genesis".

 

[AV1611VET]

Since " the flood" is fiction, that doesn't gel much.

Except it does disprove the historicity of " genesis".

Not even close.

The Flood, as told in Genesis, is the real account of what happened.

Anything with different details is a fake.

Shem, Noah's son, lived right up to the time of Jacob, and he was available to set the record straight, should any lies start creeping into the true narrative.

Egyptian accounts of the Flood, Sumerian accounts, Chinese accounts of the Flood are all lies of the Devil.

 

[T.i.m.o.t.h.y.]

Floods are common.
The Noah flood is fiction.
So is a king who reigned for 28,800 years.
Or even a mere 1200.

Genesis contains factual material here and there,
mundane things like water or hills.

Note that con men sprinkle in some facts with
their narratives.

As an historical document, Genesis is worthless,
and none (zero) of the supernatural stuff
has any archaeological, or other scientific
basis whatsoever.

You do know that?







Except it does disprove the historicity of " genesis".

I disagree with your limited views.

 

[sjastro]

As you demonstrate each time with your interpretations.

Stating that there are contradictions can be due to interpretive bias also.

Many contradictions are due to translation error, or scribal copy error.

And the erroneous idea of the Bible publishers or the critical text scholars not to correct them.

But that involves the actual text and not a person's mistake or choice to mentally interpret the text to other than what it says, assuming that the text itself is not in error.

A literal interpretation of the Bible is to read the Bible exactly as it is.
In Genesis 1:4-5 day and night were separated on day 1 of creation while in Genesis 1:14-16 it was on day 4 which is a contradiction, similarly in Genesis 1 plants were created on day 3 and humans on day 6 whereas in Genesis 2 the implication is humans were created before plants which is another contradiction.

This is not ‘my interpretation’, anyone with a literal interpretation would make the same conclusions.
Any deviation from this interpretation such as the light created on day 1 being different from that created on day 4 which Genesis does not explain is no longer literal.

Of interpretation... you know of literal, and you know of metaphor, & idiom, & parable.

These can all be found through internet search.

I was mostly referring to the Hebrew method called PaRDeS.

P [plain meaning] literal
R [remez meaning] allusive implication
D [deresh meaning] non-literal, homiletic
S [sod meaning] secret, hidden.

The issue raised was about the Bible being unable to contradict the science while the opposite can be true where the Bible presents a historical account which can be attested or not through archaeology.
Your response is a non-answer science is evidence based, the Bible largely isn’t and as a result it is science through archaeology which determines the historicity of the Bible.

Biblical archaeology is based on two mutually exclusive principles minimalism and maximalism.
The former case states the Bible is fictional unless the archaeological evidence shows otherwise, the latter is to assume the Bible is more or less correct unless contradicted by the archaeological evidence.

An example of the historicity of the Bible backed by archaeological evidence is found in 1 Kings 14:25 and 2 Chronicles 12:1-12 which refers to a King Shisak of Egypt.
Shishak is a translation for the pharaoh Shoshenq 1 who campaigned in Canaan and left details of his campaign at the Bubastite Portal - Wikipedia at Karnak in Egypt which is consistent with the Biblical account.
This is further supported by evidence from archaeological sites in Israel where Shishak campaigned.

That too can be found by internet search.

As mentioned previously: The Sumerian King list [dating at 2100BC] that gives the first mention of a great flood.

Except the Epic of Gilgamesh states the global flood lasted for seven days and seven nights as opposed to the 40 days and 40 nights in the Bible and the human race was subject to the wrath of gods in the epic, unlike the actions taken by the monotheistic God in the Bible.
They are two separate stories and furthermore where is the evidence that either story is correct such as the presence of large scale sedimentation.

 

[dlamberth]

As you demonstrate each time with your interpretations.

Stating that there are contradictions can be due to interpretive bias also.

Many contradictions are due to translation error, or scribal copy error.

And the erroneous idea of the Bible publishers or the critical text scholars not to correct them.

But that involves the actual text and not a person's mistake or choice to mentally interpret the text to other than what it says, assuming that the text itself is not in error.


Of interpretation... you know of literal, and you know of metaphor, & idiom, & parable.

These can all be found through internet search.

I was mostly referring to the Hebrew method called PaRDeS.

P [plain meaning] literal
R [remez meaning] allusive implication
D [deresh meaning] non-literal, homiletic
S [sod meaning] secret, hidden

That too can be found by internet search.

As mentioned previously: The Sumerian King list [dating at 2100BC] that gives the first mention of a great flood.

Contractions can also be injected through the religious biases of the various writers themselves.

 

[T.i.m.o.t.h.y.]

A literal interpretation of the Bible is to read the Bible exactly as it is.
In Genesis 1:4-5 day and night were separated on day 1 of creation while in Genesis 1:14-16 it was on day 4 which is a contradiction,

It was not a separation on day 4. It was the creation of the sun on day 4.

similarly in Genesis 1 plants were created on day 3 and humans on day 6 whereas in Genesis 2 the implication is humans were created before plants which is another contradiction.

In Genesis two the narrative describes focus of events after day 7 when God finished creating. The entirety involving Adam and Eve.

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are different.

There is no contradiction.

This is not ‘my interpretation’, anyone with a literal interpretation would make the same conclusions.

Yes there are others who have the same interpretation, but I am discussing with you, not all of them. So it's your interpretation.

Any deviation from this interpretation such as the light created on day 1 being different from that created on day 4 which Genesis does not explain is no longer literal.

Day 4 explained that the sun was created on that day. Genesis day 1 God spoke let there be light. It doesn't say
God created that light.

You don't see the difference. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

Literal light coming from God, not some created object.

The issue raised was about the Bible being unable to contradict the science while the opposite can be true where the Bible presents a historical account which can be attested or not through archaeology.
Your response is a non-answer science is evidence based, the Bible largely isn’t and as a result it is science through archaeology which determines the historicity of the Bible.

I agree that the Bible is not written as a way to gain scientific knowledge. It's written as way to gain understanding about God the Creator of all things. It's written in such way so that a grade school child could understand it.

So no wonder that my response was not a credible scientific one.

Biblical archaeology is based on two mutually exclusive principles minimalism and maximalism.
The former case states the Bible is fictional unless the archaeological evidence shows otherwise, the latter is to assume the Bible is more or less correct unless contradicted by the archaeological evidence.

An example of the historicity of the Bible backed by archaeological evidence is found in 1 Kings 14:25 and 2 Chronicles 12:1-12 which refers to a King Shisak of Egypt.
Shishak is a translation for the pharaoh Shoshenq 1 who campaigned in Canaan and left details of his campaign at the Bubastite Portal - Wikipedia at Karnak in Egypt which is consistent with the Biblical account.
This is further supported by evidence from archaeological sites in Israel where Shishak campaigned.

.

Except the Epic of Gilgamesh states the global flood lasted for seven days and seven nights as opposed to the 40 days and 40 nights in the Bible and the human race was subject to the wrath of gods in the epic, unlike the actions taken by the monotheistic God in the Bible.
They are two separate stories and furthermore where is the evidence that either story is correct such as the presence of large scale sedimentation.

Gilgamesh has it's differences of events of the flood just like all other cultures which recount it yet with some differences. Without a central authorized record of any event for people to look to, over time and distance the actual facts become lost and are replaced. However, the main fact remains.. that there was a large flood.

I can only say that it's my belief that the central authorized record is the Bible. Written with the record of why most people would not believe what it says if there wasn't corresponding nature based evidence to verify.

 

[Ophiolite]

Without a central authorized record of any event for people to look to, over time and distance the actual facts become lost and are replaced. However, the main fact remains.. that there was a large flood.

I imposed the bolding of text in the above quote.

If, in an account containing assertions, the actual facts become lost then, by definition, if you insist the account is literal it is an account without actual facts and is therefore fiction.

 

[Astrid]

I disagree with your limited views.

Of course.
Science is terrif as long as it supports some
parts of the bible.
As soon as it disproves your dearly held
beliefs, then it's falsely so called science,
and any reference to it is a limited view.

 

[Astrid]

I imposed the bolding of text in the above quote.

If, in an account containing assertions, the actual facts become lost then, by definition, if you insist the account is literal it is an account without actual facts and is therefore fiction.

If the subject is just whether there's been one
or more large floods, that doesn't need any
Bible to say so.
Noah- flood is fiction.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is terrif as long as it supports some parts of the bible.

Yup.

As soon as it disproves your dearly held beliefs, then it's falsely so called science, and any reference to it is a limited view.

No argument there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Noah- flood is fiction.

But a dry Earth getting hit by a comet and resulting in our oceans isn't fiction, is it?

Earth gets hit by a comet, and we get our oceans.

Later, a small chuck of rock (by comparison) hits us, and the result is the loss of 75% of all plant and animal life on the earth, as well as the total distinction of all non-avian dinosaurs.

Brilliant.

That's like Mike Tyson hitting someone and making him healthier.

Later, Richard Simmons slaps him and knocks him clear across the ring, leaving him barely alive.

 

[sjastro]

It was not a separation on day 4. It was the creation of the sun on day 4.

The issue is about separation or more precisely the division of day and night on days 1 and 4 of creation according to Genesis 1:4-5 and Genesis 1:14-16 respectively.
In order to avoid the contradiction day and night could not be divided on day 4 because it was already divided on day 1, you claim the light created on day 1 is divine light which is clearly a metaphorical interpretation.
It is not a literal interpretation as you cannot show this light actually exists nor how light is produced without a source such as the sun and stars which is the point of Genesis 1:14-16.

This means the creation week itself is metaphorical and not literal.

In Genesis two the narrative describes focus of events after day 7 when God finished creating. The entirety involving Adam and Eve.

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are different.

There is no contradiction.

There is a contradiction, let me repeat in Genesis 1 plants came before humans, in Genesis 2 they came after humans.

Yes there are others who have the same interpretation, but I am discussing with you, not all of them. So it's your interpretation.

Let me make my position perfectly clear, like the majority of Christians I see Genesis as a metaphorical work, I would imagine myself as a scribe in the 6th century BC when Genesis was written and having read the scroll without any prior knowledge or preconceptions, I would conclude there are contradictions in Genesis.

Note this is the opposite to the fundamentalists and YECs literal interpretations of Genesis who unwittingly resort to metaphorical interpretations or at worst spin doctoring to avoid the contradictions.

Day 4 explained that the sun was created on that day. Genesis day 1 God spoke let there be light. It doesn't say
God created that light.

You don't see the difference. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

Literal light coming from God, not some created object.

This has already been explained and the light coming from God is not literal but metaphorical.

I agree that the Bible is not written as a way to gain scientific knowledge. It's written as way to gain understanding about God the Creator of all things. It's written in such way so that a grade school child could understand it.

So no wonder that my response was not a credible scientific one.

.

Gilgamesh has it's differences of events of the flood just like all other cultures which recount it yet with some differences. Without a central authorized record of any event for people to look to, over time and distance the actual facts become lost and are replaced. However, the main fact remains.. that there was a large flood.

I can only say that it's my belief that the central authorized record is the Bible. Written with the record of why most people would not believe what it says if there wasn't corresponding nature based evidence to verify.

You used the Epic of Gilgamesh as an example of an archaeological finding which attest to the historical validity of Genesis, yet you have admitted there is no physical evidence which is contradictory as archaeological findings are physical evidence.
The Biblical and Sumerian versions are stories of a flood not evidence of a flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Biblical and Sumerian versions are stories of a flood not evidence of a flood.

Time for my story again that I once made up:

Re: The Epic of Gilgamesh

Shem: What's this trash you wrote, Nimrod; are you okay!?

Nimrod: Don't start on me again, uncle; you've always looked down on us Hamites.

Shem: That's garbage too! You used to be a mighty hunter before the LORD, what went wrong?

Nimrod: You think you Shemites are so much better than us, just because my grandfather was cursed for what his father did to your mother in that tent that day.

Shem: I watched you grow up, Nimrod, and how you used to love the LORD so much; but somewhere along the line you went astray and broke away from the rest of us and went and formed your own little empire. Well ... you do what you want, but as long as I live, I'll make sure my eyewitness testimony trumps your lies.

Nimrod: And what makes you an authority on the Flood over me?

Shem: I was there! Remember??? I was on the Ark ... you weren't!

Nimrod: Oh, that's right ... somehow I forgot ... what with there being no evidence and all.

Shem: [facepalms]

 

[T.i.m.o.t.h.y.]

I imposed the bolding of text in the above quote.

If, in an account containing assertions, the actual facts become lost then, by definition, if you insist the account is literal it is an account without actual facts and is therefore fiction.

I am stating that the global flood of Noah is literal. I am saying that the archeology of creation scientists is evidence, therefore I am stating that it is not fiction.

 

[Shemjaza]

I am stating that the global flood of Noah is literal. I am saying that the archeology of creation scientists is evidence, therefore I am stating that it is not fiction.

What archaeology of creation scientists?

There isn't physical evidence for a world wide flood in human history.

Archaeological remains, geological evidence, genetic diversity are all counter to the literal flood events believed by any kind of recent Creation believing Creationist.

 

[rturner76]

Falsely so called science says:
The moon does not have light. The sun's light is reflected off the moon surface.

Which can be proven with empirical real-time data whereas a philosophy or belief cannot..

So which do creationists believe? Are you really going to "adapt" God's word to aethiest science unscientific explanations? No man has gone past the firmament (they tried to in Genesis and God confounded them).

If you care nothing about science and are looking for philosophical answers, you should have no need for science. On the other hand, with no use for science in a philosophical argument. I think it would be helpful to study the difference between soft science (as in philosophy, civics, social studies, teaching, et) and hard science (mathematics, physics, biology, astronomy, etc). One provides answers to non-tangible questions (like the meaning of life, sin, right and wrong, internal motivation, etc) which is subjective. Subjective meaning is "influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts" (Cambridge Dictionary). One answers questions in regard to provable factual information (photographs, observation, measurements, mathematic equations, etc) objective meaning Objective, "not influenced by an individual’s personal viewpoint—unbiased." (Dictonary.com

The standard of object truth cannot by definition be established based on personal beliefs or feelings and subjective truth cannot be established by NOT being influenced by an individual or personal viewpoint.

That is not about science, that is about the English language.

 

[dlamberth]

I am stating that the global flood of Noah is literal. I am saying that the archeology of creation scientists is evidence, therefore I am stating that it is not fiction.

There is no physical evidence of a global Noah flood. Such evidence simply does not exist.