OK, so what was the point of your post- was it just about scriptural interpretation? i.e. where's the science? it appears to be in the wrong forum...
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
OK, so what was the point of your post- was it just about scriptural interpretation? i.e. where's the science? it appears to be in the wrong forum...There is nothing in my post that indicates that I haven't already spent a significant amount of time looking at modern scientific research related to the origins of our universe; however, that was not the point of my post.
No one is dismissing the Bible texts as "simply fictitious." The statement is that there is no scientific evidence in the Bible. The Bible may be correct to some degree in describing events of the past but the evidence comes from the work of the archaeologists.
Fine, I should have been clearer. A more proper statement would have been there is no real evidence in scripture for the debate on the creation myth. I thought that the meaning was obvious from context. I am not playing games. It appears that there was a simple misunderstanding.
Clearly some parts are inaccurate, at best. But if you wish you can reinterpret Genesis to suit your beliefs, or look at it as a morality tale. In that case, even though it did not happen, it would not be a lie as so many creationists like to claim. Just as no one is disappointed that animals do not talk like in Aesop's Fables, the stories still have value. But if one insists that the Genesis accounts are accurate or the Bible is a lie, again as only creationists do, then those people are harming Christianity since much of it is obviously false.
The point is moot. The Bible simply does not teach the age of the Earth, old or young. Any attempt to deduce the age of the Earth from the Bible is a misuse of scripture.The statement was "there is no "real evidence" in scripture," and yes, taken at face value, it does dismiss the text as "simply fictitious."
You have presented a false dichotomy; the choice isn't binary.
The statement was "there is no "real evidence" in scripture," and yes, taken at face value, it does dismiss the text as "simply fictitious."
If we are talking about the creation story in the Bible the bottom line is that that story is fictitious. No "7 days", there never were only two humans, no flood of Noah that wiped out all life on Earth, no Tower of Babel. Now it may be a series of morality tales, but the morals seem to be missing.
Where did I present a false dichotomy? Details please.
Let's take a look at your "bottom line"
- No "7 days" - Are you sure you are understanding the text as it was intended?
- Never were only two humans - Can you please provide the scientific proof for this.
- no flood of Noah that wiped out all life on Earth - Are you sure you are understanding the text as it was intended?
- No Tower of Babel - Can you please provide the scientific proof for this.
Bottom line, your response here demonstrates the same kind of dogmatism found in the AiG article and, although it comes from the opposite end of the spectrum, it is a demonstration of the same problem that characterizes far too much of this debate.
And?You said, "you can reinterpret Genesis to suit your beliefs, or look at it as a morality tale"
I would like to see the scientific evidence that "proves" this hypothesis. Even scientists that do not have any stake in the Creation/Evolution debate do not consider this a proven conclusion.That is a poorly asked question, but in the colloquial use of the word "proof", yes I can.
Interestingly, Hebrew scholars disagree with your conclusion. Debates over how to interpret this passage in translation have been quite common. I am curious how you would translate the following, and what would be the basis for your translation?It would be pretty hard to interpret that one any differently. Besides it portrays your God as a rather evil being no matter how you try to justify it.
Please, at least do some of your own homework.
Now you make false claims about me? There was no dogma there. If you can't be honest there is not much point in continuing.I
If you want more info on anything that you did not understand simply ask politely and properly. Everything that I wrote was obvious. And one question at a time if you want any detail at all.
And?
By the way, quotes out of context are a bit of a no no in debates and discussions.
I would like to see the scientific evidence that "proves" this hypothesis. Even scientists that do not have any stake in the Creation/Evolution debate do not consider this a proven conclusion.
Interestingly, Hebrew scholars disagree with your conclusion. Debates over how to interpret this passage in translation have been quite common. I am curious how you would translate the following, and what would be the basis for your translation?
המבול היה על הארץ הזאת
Would "The flood covered this land" or "The flood covered this earth" be a more accurate translation? How does google translate it? (Google Translate)
That is just one of the textual questions that translators struggle with when looking at this passage.
I have done so long ago, and it was not I who made this ludicrous statement. As it stands, only about 10% of KNOWN archeological sites have been excavated, and several ANE sources reference a "tower of Babel." Many ANE scholars believe that there was a historical site which is alluded to in these stories. Because archeology always provides a very incomplete picture of history, in archeology there is a very well known saying unique to this field of study i.e. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Again, if you know of any research that provides conclusive evidenced forts the idea that a "tower of Babel" never existed, I would like to see it. In all of my studies I have never come across this research. Since this is your claim, the burden of proof false on you.
I did not make a false claim about you, I simply noted the four very dogmatic points you made; points that I do not believe you can support nearly as strongly has you have suggested.
You are not worth the bother.Claiming that this was taken out of context implies that it would have meant something very differently if read in the full context from which the quote was taken. I am not sure how this would have meant something different if it was read within the full context. The concluding statement in your original quote seems only to strengthen the impression that conveyed in this quote. If you believe I have misunderstood you, then please explain.
You are not worth the bother.
If you want a discussion then clean up your act.
You either try and dodge the questions (see your response above), or kick up the dust and hope no one notices (this post). Neither is intellectually honest.
You originally made the statement that "If we are talking about the creation story in the Bible the bottom line is that that story is fictitious. No "7 days", there never were only two humans, no flood of Noah that wiped out all life on Earth, no Tower of Babel."
I asked that we take a look at your "bottom line"
Until you are willing to respond to the questions I asked with an intelligent response rather than with insults and misdirection, I will not of no further response.
- No "7 days" - Are you sure you are understanding the text as it was intended?
- Never were only two humans - Can you please provide the scientific proof for this?
- no flood of Noah that wiped out all life on Earth - Are you sure you are understanding the text as it was intended?
- No Tower of Babel - Can you please provide the scientific proof for this?
benelchi, I will make you an offer, earlier I told you that if you asked a question I would answer it on any of the so called "dogma" that I listed. One question at a time, one answer. I already gave you one but it was short since you asked several questions. But the simple fact that populations evolve and not individuals was a valid answer. I will flesh it out more for you. It is late so the answer will come tomorrow.
If you were really interested in understanding evolution rather than just trying to debunk it a little reading would make clear to you that there are not two competing theories. Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are part and parcel of the same theory. Under some conditions you get one, under different conditions you get the other.I will look for your response. A few thoughts:
Evolutionists who hold to gradualism need to explain why the fossil record doesn't appear to support their theory; if a population gradually evolves we should see significantly different evidence for this in the fossil record.
Evolutionists who hold to a theory of punctuated equilibrium need to explain the mechanism that causes these rapid changes that happened far too quickly to be explained by random mutations.
Additionally, the fact that (even among evolutionists) there are competing theories demonstrates the point of this thread i.e. there is simply not enough definitive evidence for the dogmatism that characterizes far too much of this debate.
If you were really interested in understanding evolution rather than just trying to debunk it a little reading would make clear to you that there are not two competing theories. Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are part and parcel of the same theory. Under some conditions you get one, under different conditions you get the other.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?