Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Who cares? You ahve a real bee in your bonnet about Pluto...it doesn't support any of your claims or notions.Would primary students in 2000 name Pluto as our 9th planet?
Who cares? You ahve a real bee in your bonnet about Pluto...it doesn't support any of your claims or notions.Would primary students in 2000 name Pluto as our 9th planet?
Depends if Jesus named Pluto as our 9th planet.Would primary students in 2000 name Pluto as our 9th planet?
"OK, here's what we do: we take the two existing texts and split each in half; we call the resulting fragments A1 and A2, and B1 and B2; then we imagine two events taking place which the existing texts don't imply or suggest, which we call E1 and E2; then we stitch the pieces together in the following order: A1-E1-B1-A2-E2-B2; voila: a harmonized text!"Occam's razor disagrees.
Why create another text, when you can just employ sensus plenior in your head and visualize a man hanging himself upside down?
And you still haven't said whether you'd apply this Bizarro World version of Occam to other examples. Again, say you have two texts on the death of Richard II: one text which says Henry IV had an assassin stab him, and another which says he died of natural causes in his prison cell. We can "harmonize" them by saying "Henry IV sent an assassin, but before the assassin could perform his assignment, Richard died of natural causes. The assassin then stabbed the already-dead body." [I've "improved" the story a bit after the first two attempts.] Would you say that anybody who scoffed at this must be the kind of fanatical, dogmatic skeptic who saw contradictions everywhere?
But you couldn't say why?No, I wouldn't.
But you couldn't say why?But you need a better example than this, chief.
If that's a good enough "reason" to dismiss the reconciliation of the two versions of Richard's death, it's obviously a good enough reason to dismiss the reconciliation of the two versions of Judas' death. So all anybody would have to do, to "refute" your reconciliation, is say "I don't like it," and you would have to acknowledge failure.I don't like it.
Great; then we've established that you believe you can add to and rearrange two Biblical passages, so as to make them compatible, but that's a procedure you just dismiss out of hand when applied to other histories, without the slightest attempt to explain the discrepancy. This, of course, constitutes a blatant case of special pleading. Usually people who are engaged in special pleading make at least some, token attempt to deny it, to say they are actually following a consistent rule, but you're admirably open about how science can take a hike, and logic can take a hike, and consistency can take a hike, you're going to stick to your guns no matter how these false gods conspire against your position.And if you even have to drum something like this up to attempt to justify that it was a contradiction, then go for it.
Just don't expect me to go along with it.
Most regimes ignore them.As a side note, what do you think some regimes do to Christians who can't provide compelling evidence for their faith?
Okay.Yes, it is an introduction. The details are of the preparation of the earth for life and then the creation of life. The earth was already in existence, in darkness and covered with water, as the first day began.
So accept that evolution happened, and all living things, including man, come from a single common ancestor.No, what I do is allow science to inform my faith.
Do you accept that the Big Bang was about 14 billion years ago, with the sun forming 4 billion years ago, and the earth forming after that?For example; science has revealed that the objects of the physical universe have formed as the outcomes of processes that began with what they call the singularity ("big bang"). And so when I read: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." in my mind I think this: in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth by means of a singularity."
Okay.Or when I read of the early earth conditions of the first day I am reminded of experiments such as those of Miller and Urey who created in the laboratory conditions that they surmised were similiar to early earth conditions and in which they produced pre-cursors for life: amino acids. Is this the way God created life on earth? By first bringing about conditions that would give him the needed raw materials? On this topic I find it interesting that in Genesis we have God saying: "Let the earth bring forth [plant life]" and "Let the earth bring forth living creatures." because those who study origins of life on earth say that they see a connection between the environment (the earth) and the origin of life. (They call it abiogenesis.)
So why does it get it wrong?The purpose of Genesis 1 was, and is, to communicate to the reader that God created all things, a thought expressed so well by the last Bible writer: "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory, honor, and power, because you created all things; they came into existence and were created because of your will." (Rev 4:11)
Prove it.1. My contention is that Genesis 1 & 2 are from separate oral traditions that were woven together when the Bible was written down.
The only deserved contempt here is your postulates without on shred of empirical evidence to back any of it up. You can have your opinion which is evidence of nothing. The whole thing about Gen. 1 and 2 as separate is speculation based on flimsy evidence.2. My contention is that you are probably going to come up with some cobbled together excuse. Any mention of 'Spiritual' death will be greeted with the contempt it deserves.
Why not? If they put ''evening and morning ...a day'' in the text then it was obviously important to them to include their measurement of time. It obviously means an ordinary day. So i am not understanding your basis for dismissing with a hand wave. There is plenty that is omitted from the accounts lake a start date.Some ppl spell satan...
s.n.a.k.e. or s.e.r.p.e.n.t.
And I'm not sure it's productive for us to quibble over God's definition of 'day'.
You must be reading a different Bible to me. Mine has no mention of Satan anywhere in Genesis.
Revelation is referring to the Leviathan, a serpentine monster with seven heads.The serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan.
The sun is not needed to grow plants.Nope. You are glazing over the direct contradictions that cannot be explained as parenthetical, like when plants showed up, in one account without the sun being established even.
This is why Christianity will continue to marginalize itself. The mirror bending required to make it look straight and recognizable as a viable theology is too big a cost for rational thinking and living.The sun is not needed to grow plants.
The problem here is with your asinine statement about the sun and plants, not Christianity. If plants grew absent the sun then the obvious deduction is the source for light did not involve the sun. Let there be light is in the beginning verses prior to the sun which was day 4.This is why Christianity will continue to marginalize itself.
You have not demonstrated rational thinking in the first place. you ar right. The sun is after the Earth and the plants grew absent the sun according to Genesis. The primary source is God and Moses is the scribe. That means God is the source for the Genesis account. Without that basic supposition then there is no reason to conclude Genesis has any historical value. Your postulates are based on the speculations of Godless men who were not there and really do not know.The mirror bending required to make it look straight and recognizable as a viable theology is too big a cost for rational thinking and living.
Well, then there's your marginalization in action because we know better, and the authors of that narrative obviously didn't. So now we have a trust factor in that we see these authors as superstitious and ignorant, by no fault of their own, so not really worthy of our trust to guide us into a clear understanding of the world we experience.The problem here is with your asinine statement about the sun and plants, not Christianity. If plants grew absent the sun then the obvious deduction is the source for light did not involve the sun. Let there be light is in the beginning verses prior to the sun which was day 4.
Genesis has no historical value except to display the types of pagan creation myths that filtered around the Levant in 800 BC when the OT canon was forming. It is a myth. What's worse is it looks like a child's bedtime myth like a Aesop Fable warning of the dangers in the world and the consequence of disobedience. It takes the effort of a childlike mental state to maintain that such fables are real and literal.You have not demonstrated rational thinking in the first place. you ar right. The sun is after the Earth and the plants grew absent the sun according to Genesis. The primary source is God and Moses is the scribe. That means God is the source for the Genesis account. Without that basic supposition then there is no reason to conclude Genesis has any historical value. Your postulates are based on the speculations of Godless men who were not there and really do not know.
You know better? So you think.Well, then there's your marginalization in action because we know better,
Opinion unsupported by evidence. Boring.and the authors of that narrative obviously didn't.
Right you are entitled to your opinion which is unsupported by evidence.So now we have a trust factor in that we see these authors as superstitious and ignorant, by no fault of their own, so not really worthy of our trust to guide us into a clear understanding of the world we experience.
Genesis has no historical value except to display the types of pagan creation myths that filtered around the Levant in 800 BC when the OT canon was forming. It is a myth. What's worse is it looks like a child's bedtime myth like a Aesop Fable warning of the dangers in the world and the consequence of disobedience. It takes the effort of a childlike mental state to maintain that such fables are real and literal.
That is a Christian apologetic that does not wash at all. Night and day were separated into their periods on day 1. That's it. Full stop. There is no apologetic for that that isn't desperate, warping to reality, and strained. The sun it seems is nothing more than a demi-god, a type of ornament hung that "rules" the day (an obvious human anthropomorphism) while the moon "rules" the night.Considering that this day, as back in the day when Genesis was written, the word day ranges quite a span of time; from the daylight portion of the 24 hour day on up to the indefinite period of time we might call grandpa's day or to the thousand years of one day with God (Psalm 90:4).
Genesis 1 recounts 6 days of creation and then Genesis 2:4 calls it but one day. Is that a contradiction? No, it just exemplifies the wide range of meanings of the word day. One can insist that God meant a 24 hour day with respect to the death of Adam but the narrative (Adam lived 930 years) suggests that maybe he had something else in mind.
john
It is supported by tons of evidence. We know many of the sources of ancient creation myths of the Levant. We know the origins of the flood myths. We know when the OT canon was congealed and the types of stories from distant lands that it was built from. We know how the world actually works, and we have literature examples of fables to compare the biblical writings to.Right you are entitled to your opinion which is unsupported by evidence.
None produced by you.It is supported by tons of evidence.
Myth is opinion as opposed to fact. How do you know your belief your mother is an upright ape is not myth? Faith based on the guesses/speculations of Godless men who were not there? Seems your childlike faith is based on the guesses of Godless men who believe their ancient ancestors walked on all fours? Really?We know many of the sources of ancient creation myths
Myth is opinion. The grand canyon can be easily explained by the Noah flood account as not. Either way there would be no way to determine the condition of the earth prior to the worldwide flood.of the Levant. We know the origins of the flood myths.
You do? Doubtful since you demonstrate little knowledge of anything. Long on opinion, short on facts is no way to do thru life.We know how the world actually works,
Well if you believe the Genesis account is fables then make your case from the writings. It is written as chronological history and it seems you cannot deduce the difference. Your opinion is not evidence of anything.and we have literature examples of fables
You mean Genesis?to compare the biblical writings to.
Well you have not mentioned any and are you including Darwin in your analysis of history? Our start point is the Bible and the Genesis account is validated by Jesus and Paul in the new as history. That provides corroboration. Genesis is corroborated as history throughout the collected writings included in the Bible. There is nothing there about myth writings.That is a pile of evidence against your position.
Let me ask you this then. Why do you need to believe this as literally true? Does it help you maintain your faith in your God? Would your faith in God fail in the face of this being a myth?None produced by you.
Myth is opinion as opposed to fact. How do you know your belief your mother is an upright ape is not myth? Faith based on the guesses/speculations of Godless men who were not there? Seems your childlike faith is based on the guesses of Godless men who believe their ancient ancestors walked on all fours? Really?
Myth is opinion. The grand canyon can be easily explained by the Noah flood account as not. Either way there would be no way to determine the condition of the earth prior to the worldwide flood.
You do? Doubtful since you demonstrate little knowledge of anything. Long on opinion, short on facts is no way to do thru life.
Well if you believe the Genesis account is fables then make your case from the writings. It is written as chronological history and it seems you cannot deduce the difference. Your opinion is not evidence of anything.
You mean Genesis?
Well you have not mentioned any and are you including Darwin in your analysis of history? Our start point is the Bible and the Genesis account is validated by Jesus and Paul in the new as history. That provides corroboration. Genesis is corroborated as history throughout the collected writings included in the Bible. There is nothing there about myth writings.