Doesn't quite work I'm afraid.
Mallon's point was that the original authors did not intend to teach cosmology ancient or modern.
If you want to reverse that, you have to claim Genesis was teaching cosmology to the ancient Hebrews and that scientific 'advances' are a perversion of scriptural cosmology.
Geocentrism and Flat Earth anyone?
ANE ?Mallon's point was that the original authors did not intend to teach cosmology ancient or modern.
i think that this is both the first and most important distinction to make in the discussion of the ANE basis for the OT.
What do you propose the meaning is then if not of our origin?In order for God to speak to people, He used human language, this language is by necessity embedded in a linguistic-cultural-historical matrix that includes things like where did the stars come from and where does God live.
The problem comes from using these ideas to communicate something else, if the something else is what is important and is the purpose of the communication then the matrix is incidental, necessary as packaging is to get a present to your lover through the mail, but certainly not the present itself.
Likewise if God intended to teach us that He created the heavens and the earth, that the earth is his footstool and the heavens are his great temple, he had to use human metaphors of things that the first hearers were familiar with, hence the metaphors these ideas are wrapped in.
But that question was not asked, you are putting words in someones mouth.but to ask questions like:
is God's footstool really green or is it blue, which is the dominant color of the earth (earth as land, earth as watery ball) not only misses the point, but elevates the packaging to the same level as the present.
And again what is the true purpose of the genesis account then?teaching as a timeless, transcultural, truth for all believers or using as a need to communicate is this great and important distinction that i think is primarily missed in the YECist community.
I am sorry i tried to simplify the theory to the point that you think it was incorrect, I have put a lot more time into this than I planned, and I did not feel like reiterating the whole thing over again.I'm not being combative at all. It irritates me, however, when you reject evidence out of hand without having first understood it. As much as I'm sure you would like the science of supercontinents put into laymen's terms for the general audience, you seem to be admitting in your previous post a few pages back that you yourself are having a hard time grasping the "snoozefest" papers I alluded to. So why reject them out of hand?
Not at all. That's what I did in my previous reply to you -- correct your erroneous understanding of plate tectonism.
uhhh was that not the point of me throwing out a simplified version of it?No, it is not what you said. There is more to tectonics than simple continental plates floating about randomly on the aesthenosphere.
And what are the supposed forces?The plates are being physically pushed about from specific loci (like the mid-Atlantic ridge) and pulled down elsewhere (like the Mariana trench). These are the forces that drive continental plates into one another, creating supercontinents; not the wave action of the magmatic mantle, as you suppose. This is why you are wrong.
I left out gravitational and magnetic forces, along with the fluidic nature of the mantle, not because I am Ignorant, or disbelieve, but because it was extraneous.
As for wave action, do you honestly believe that Gravity doesnt affect the mantle and cause surging, much like the tides?
now as for supercontinents, I dispute pangea as myth, in that it is highly suspect to "convienence" for explaining various other theories. now as for tectonics, I do not nessesarily dispute that.
But I proclaim their are other competing theories, that I don't nessesarily accept either, but for examples sake
I repost the interesting, if not nessesarily acceptable alternate theory
http://www.nealadams.com/
http://continuitystudios.net/pangea.html
Again I repeat I post these as examples of alternatives, to pangea,
that all research into them is influenced with the expectation of producing results affirming evolution.Would the sciences of geology, biology, and palaeontology be related if they all disagreed with each other? No. But they don't, so what's your point?
Evolution, in fact, is THE universal theory that makes sense of these three independent fields.
on the contrary you read it correctly, I posted it as an exampleNice try. But your attempt at turning the tables by switching a few of my words doesn't work for the very reason that Assyrian pointed out above. Read it again. The logic doesn't hold. Instead, you seem to be agreeing with me that the ancient Hebrew cosmology isn't scientific, which I doubt you were trying to do.
of the focus on science above that of scripture, as well as
to demonstrate how you twist the scriptures the same way you complain about "creation scientist" twisting science
I have found no verses stating the earth is flat, in scripture, and as for geocentric, their is no evidence that we are not potentially in the exact center of the universe, (I am also un aware of any scriptures actually calling the earth the center of the universe)Flat-earth geocentrists feel the same way about you!
You didn't simplify the theory to the point that I think it's incorrect. You simplified the theory to the point that is incorrect. This isn't an ambiguous, subjective matter, here. Your understanding of the Wilson cycle is just plain wrong. Hate to put it so bluntly, but my point doesn't seem to be getting across.I am sorry i tried to simplify the theory to the point that you think it was incorrect,
Your point was to misrepresent and oversimplify the Wilson cycle and the formation of supercontinents? If so, then you did a good job!uhhh was that not the point of me throwing out a simplified version of it?
You're kidding, right? I just told you above. Slab-pull and ridge-push.And what are the supposed forces?
I'm sure gravity plays a great role. Certainly, it induces slab-pull, which is thought to drive mantle convection. The forces acting within the mantle are mainly convective, though, and not simply gravitational (and certainly not "surge" forces, like we see in the ocean tides).As for wave action, do you honestly believe that Gravity doesnt affect the mantle and cause surging, much like the tides?
Do you similarly suspect gravity because it "conveniently" explains the orbits of planets and the force that keeps our feet on the ground?now as for supercontinents, I dispute pangea as myth, in that it is highly suspect to "convienence" for explaining various other theories.
I guess the fact that these alternatives have yet to be published in the scientific literature or accepted by any geologist, for that matter, means nothing to you. Seems Mr. Adams got the thumbs-up from the New York Times, though. Guess it's a start!I repost the interesting, if not nessesarily acceptable alternate theory
http://www.nealadams.com/
http://continuitystudios.net/pangea.html
Again I repeat I post these as examples of alternatives, to pangea
You've been saying this a lot lately, but you've done a rather poor job of supporting your hearsay. Care to provide an actual concrete example?that all research into them is influenced with the expectation of producing results affirming evolution.
Great!on the contrary you read it correctly
Then you haven't been reading your Bible literally enough! The Bible suggests a flat earth at the centre of our solar system many times:I have found no verses stating the earth is flat, in scripture, and as for geocentric, their is no evidence that we are not potentially in the exact center of the universe, (I am also un aware of any scriptures actually calling the earth the center of the universe)
And evidently, you missed my sarcasm.You said it
What? I'm saying I have no way of judging whether someone is Christian or not from reading a bike repair manual.Are you saying their is another way of salvation apart from Christ?
Or that you arent concerned about the lost?
Jer 29:4Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon:as I stated earlier I am not a creationist,nor do I agree with their methods.
as for education, Again my concern is that the only viewpoint being expressed in education is what many call scientific, look at where the whole system is heading, it is basically educating the masses so that they can compete in the "rat race".
The problem I have with that is it de values people if they have a disability, or other disadvantage, sure many people are able to over come these things, but the vast majority are not and end up in their menial dead end jobs. We get told our children are being "left behind" But how is it truely freedom, if we are forced into a "competition" , with a country that basically pays slave wages. The mentality is getting more and more like a business, which has many scientifically influenced idealologies, including darwinism.
And as for choosing, again I do not think you are comprehending my point. We cannot love both the world and God.
At some point you are going to die, and you will be forced to let go of your earthly belongings, and accumulations, which includes science. I concede many technical improvements are made, however, at what cost, are they made?
If they are just tools, they should be something you are at least willing to part with , with the realization it is temporary, and not eternal.
Astronomy, geology, virology......I am un aware of anything contained within genesis that conflicts with what science has "discovered" save evolution...
Not all allegories and parables are labeled that way. Jerusalem and her sisters Ezek 16, or the Good Samaritan are left without any indication of whether they are literal or not. The same with Jesus' claim to be a door.When I hear you state that scripture is allegorical, I realize that much of it is, however Genesis is never given as an allegory, of creation, and it is certainly not a Myth.
...
Tahts the problem I have with how TE presumes its myth, I am un aware of any parable or allegory, that is not presented seperately in a manner that it is distinguished as an allegory, Whereass Genesis is presented as fact, and the arguement, that the Hebrews, were "not enlightened" enought to comprehend a more elaborate explanation, doesn't jive with all the philosophical debates that existed back then within the Greco/Roman communities that infact believed in some form of evolution.
so do you believe they are a special creation created after the rest of creation?What do you propose the meaning is then if not of our origin?
the origins of the semitic peoples.
And also what about all of the other seperate events mentioned in it, ?
And again what is the true purpose of the genesis account then?
so are you saying the other 6 days mentioned of the creation are irrelevant?genesis chapter 1 is 1st the sabbath,
I am not aware of them even beig mentioned.2nd putting the neighbor's gods into their place as created
but is this all you believe about it?, 3rd the preamble for the treaty of the Great King.
Well after looking at the flat earth site, I would have to agree that the flat earth believers would call me heretic, but I would also do the same with them, as they appear to stretch scripture in the same manners as those they complain against.Geocentrism, cannot be disproven scientifically can it?
crucial element is "the earth does not move" falsified by pendulum and coriallis effect
Tahts the problem I have with how TE presumes its myth, I am un aware of any parable or allegory, that is not presented seperately in a manner that it is distinguished as an allegory, Whereass Genesis is presented as fact, and the arguement, that the Hebrews, were "not enlightened" enought to comprehend a more elaborate explanation, doesn't jive with all the philosophical debates that existed back then within the Greco/Roman communities that infact believed in some form of evolution.
This one little sentece is going to be tricky , as it leads into a great deal of the issue, but here goes
in a reply to chief you stated:
I have several elaborations on this . First you stated this in such a manner that unless the anwser is given to you in the exact manner you demand then you are unwilling to listen to it.
If, you do not hold science as the" do all end all, be all" method of communication, or debate, then, Why is no other explanation acceptable to you?
Much like the manner you claim that creationist do.
I never claimed you stated science was perfect,
what people think science is perfect?
Randon Guy for one
But I will say I think you hold to it like you would a wife, "omitting her imperfections" and singing her praises.
Or maby a better analogy would be a classic car, that has seen better days, that You (as well as all the other scientist you keep refering to ) are continually tuning up, and patching, much in the way you keep stating about your supposed not viewing science as perfect.
another quote to demonstrate
Like I tried saying in another post, Is a miracle still a miracle if you know how it is done?
Perhaps I should go a step further, and ask in a manner that will cause some to question which is true.
The Bible speaks of how Jesus Fed the masses with mere scraps. Now I have seen many modern so called "scientific" explanations for many biblical miracles even how Jesus walked on water, But I ask you and anyone else who cares to respond, how can science explain where he pulled tangable (and edible) matter completely and totally out of thin air?
Shernren's back
Woohoo!
With both him and glaudys away, YECism was seeming more and more attractive
You are blessed then, its not that hard to find I live in GA I am sure if you google it, you will find many a heated debate , I had an article fro ma local professor of evolution decrying God, I Will look and see If I can find it online.
Last reply for the night I think Im catchin ga cold, and Im exhausted, and in pain, but who knows If I cant sleep I may come back earlier.
U of U said:The University of Utah is fully committed to affirmative action and to its policies of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in all programs, activities, and employment with regard to race, color, national origin, sex, age, status as a person with a disability, religion, sexual orientation, and status as a veteran or disabled veteran. The University seeks to provide equal access to its programs, services and activities for people with disabilities. Reasonable prior notice is needed to arrange accommodations. Evidence of practices not consistent with these policies should be reported to the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, (801) 581-8365 (voice or TDD).
U of Georgia said:The University of Georgia (the University) is committed to maintaining a fair and respectful environment for living, work and study. To that end, and in accordance with federal and state law, Board of Regents policy, and University policy, the University prohibits any member of the faculty, staff, administration, student body, or visitors to campus, whether they be guests, patrons, independent contractors, or clients, from harassing and/or discriminating against any other member of the University community because of that persons race, sex (including sexual harassment), sexual orientation, ethnic or national origin, religion, age, disabled status, or status as a disabled veteran or veteran of the Vietnam era. Incidents of harassment and discrimination will be met with appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from the University.
Science is derived from many greco roman philosophies, and they were in fact pagans
When computer models are used that extend far into the future or past, I would say so, as for divination itself, I was attempting to demonstrated how those ideas and practices have permiated our society as innoculous.
accuracy is not its only goal
whereas schripture apparently has not?
That wasn't the question
Again with the diversions, its like no one wants to really put themselves out
I do not see you denying it, if its paranoia, then present some examples of how it is
Jesus is the larger picture
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?