Is abortion always a sin? [Archive]

Radrook

19th June 2004, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

All right. The bible is not a legitimate source of moral law. It advocates murder, slavery, intolerance and incest. I've just shown you an example of where it advocates murder. If you want examples of the other things it advocates, I'll be happy to give them to you. Leviticus is particularly troubling.

My definition of moral law is "that which is good for humanity". I admit that such a definition is fraught with contradiction. We must all decide for ourselves what is good. But I prefer that to having some 2000+ year old book tell me, especially when it espouses such intolerance.

The Bible is not 2000 years old.
What you are referring to is the NT.
The Bible goes back in recorded human history to approx 6,000 years.
So if antiquity is an issue for you, I guess now you even have a stronger reason to reject it.

I would not have used the word "sin" if it had been an ethics forum. But since it is a religion spirituality forum, I was forced to use the word "sin" to keep the subject within the forum parameters.

I would have much more preferred to approach the subject from a purely ethical viewpoint which stirs up far less controversy. But since there is no ethics forum at this site I had to deal with it in this context.

Good for humanity?

God considered it good for humanity to see how futile it is for humans to strive and please God without a Ransom sacrifice. So the law was made harsh on purpose in order to illustrate this forcefully.

Romans 3:20
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Also, seen from a purely human standpoint, where once life is lost it is irrevocably gone the punishment will seem extreme. But remember, God has the power to bring back these people. So their death to him was merely a temporary interruption--not a permanent judgment.

That's why God speaks of the people of Sodom a people he had executed, being present during Judgment Day.

Matthew 11:24
But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

John 11:

21"Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask."
23Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."
24Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

But as I said, simply substitute the phrase "morally wrong" for "sin" and we can proceed from there.

BTW
Tolerance is not always good.
It tends to encourage lawlessness.

My apologies!
I just noticed that this forum has to do with both religion and philosophy. So yes it is legitimate to ask the question from a purely philosophical perspective! So the question can be asked as:

Is abortion always ethically wrong?

Radrook

19th June 2004, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

All right. The bible is not a legitimate source of moral law. It advocates murder, slavery, intolerance and incest. I've just shown you an example of where it advocates murder. If you want examples of the other things it advocates, I'll be happy to give them to you. Leviticus is particularly troubling.

Show me where the Bible advocates murder and incest.
Stoning of those condemmed under law was not murder.
I suggest you look up the definition.

Incest?

Surely you jest!

Leviticus 18
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

KJV

Piscivore

19th June 2004, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

I would not have used the word "sin" if it had been an ethics forum. But since it is a religion spirituality forum, I was forced to use the word "sin" to keep the subject within the forum parameters.

I would have much more preferred to approach the subject from a purely ethical viewpoint which stirs up far less controversy. But since there is no ethics forum at this site I had to deal with it in this context.

This is a religion and philosophy forum, and Ethics is one of the primary branches of philosophy. Your assertion is incorrect.

Do you want to discuss this from a "purely ethical viewpoint" at this time, or continue the religion angle?

If the religion discussion is to continue- as "sin" is normally defined as an offense against god- then NO, abortion is not "sinfull" at all because there is no god to offend.

Iacchus

19th June 2004, 05:49 AM

Do we sin against God or, do we sin against our nature, regardless of whether God exists or not? Is it abortion that's the sin? Or, the selfish nature that quite often accompanies it?

Iacchus

19th June 2004, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

Incest?

Surely you jest!Perhaps he's referring to Lot and his two daughters here?

DangerousBeliefs

19th June 2004, 06:02 AM

If the two people involved in the pregnancy are teenagers who are left without proper sexual education or birth control alternatives, then I believe the parents of these teenagers are MORALLY responsible.

KelvinG

19th June 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

A transgression of biblical moral law.

Well, I suppose if one is bound to the bible for defining what is a sin or not, then your original question about abortion is unanswerable. Does the bible ever mention abortion?

For those of us who believe the bible is a load of bunk and not worth the pages it is written on, the concept of "sin" doesn't exist in the traditional religious sense. That doesn't mean abandonment of right and wrong, it just means we don't try and make morale decision based on a often vague and contradictory book.

I believe abortion is OK under most circumstances, although I do have problems with later term abortions. I think everyone has a line that they draw on this issue.

The Central Scrutinizer

19th June 2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

Is abortion always ethically wrong?

No. In fact, abortion is never ethically wrong.

Pixel42

19th June 2004, 08:53 AM

Can someone please explain why religious people regard abortion as a sin? This is a serious question.

I've always assumed it's because they believe an immortal soul is lost, but I've never understood how the business of immortal souls is supposed to work.

Does God create a new immortal soul every time a baby is conceived, or does he have a ready-made supply on hand?

40% of conceptions are miscarried, abortion is a drop in the ocean by comparison. Surely if God knows everything he knows in advance which pregnancies are going to miscarry or be aborted, and doesn't waste one of his precious immortal souls on something that will never be more than a half-inch mass of tissue... but in that case religious people wouldn't get so worked up about abortion, so that can't be right.

What about identical twins, do they end up with half a soul each?

My niece died when she was six hours old, did God create an immortal soul for her, and if so what will happen to that for the rest of eternity?

Like I say, completely mystified.

DangerousBeliefs

19th June 2004, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Pixel42
My niece died when she was six hours old, did God create an immortal soul for her, and if so what will happen to that for the rest of eternity?

Was the infant baptisted? If no, then she will wander Limbo forever (with all the bad Jews).

The GM

19th June 2004, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Perhaps he's referring to Lot and his two daughters here?

Or Cain and his sisters.

Doctor X

19th June 2004, 10:41 AM

Tricky:

Why do we bother? [Cue Sad Part of William Tell Overture.--Ed.]

First, it is not a sin.

Second, I can only renew my suggestion that posters read just a bit of scholarship before making eroneous assertions such as this:

The Bible is not 2000 years old.
What you are referring to is the NT.
The Bible goes back in recorded human history to approx 6,000 years.

More like 3000 in that:

Israel generated relatively few new myths, and the majority of them drew on older mythic material, including the Garden of Eden and the personifications of wisdom; . . . [Smith--Ed.]

and no one dates E or J earlier than 922 BCE. Dating of D and P are controversial. While Friedman makes a very good case for a pre-exilic date for P, many still adhere to a post-exilic date.

I would not have used the word "sin" if it had been an ethics forum.

More to point: where in the OT/NT is abortion defined as a "sin?" There is a pro-abortion passage however.

God considered it good for humanity to see how futile it is for humans to strive and please God without a Ransom sacrifice.

Christian apologetic mischaracterization of the OT texts aside, I would remind of this wonderful case of Big Daddy determining what is "good" for humanity:

Ezek 20:25-26 Moreover I gave them statues that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know I am the Lord.

--J.D.

References:

Freidman RE. Who Wrote the Bible? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060630353/qid=1080647130/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-9499964-0449663)

Friedman RE. The Bible with Sources Revealed (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060530693/qid=1087667308/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/002-7462021-6544050?v=glance&s=books&n=507846).

Smith MS. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195167686/qid=1087667488/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7462021-6544050?v=glance&s=books).

DangerousBeliefs

19th June 2004, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by The GM

Or Cain and his sisters.

Abraham?

"And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."
Genesis 20:11-12

Doctor X

19th June 2004, 11:03 AM

Abraham came from Arkansas?

--J.D.

Radrook

19th June 2004, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Perhaps he's referring to Lot and his two daughters here?

Any incident recorded in the Bible = God's approval of conduct.
Lot and daughters incident was recorded.
Lot and daughter's incident =approval of conduct.

Valid but untrue untrue conclusion.

Your premise is wrong since whatever is recorded in the Bible does not mean that God approves of it. Otherwise it would mean that he approves of everything Satan does since that too is recorded.

Radrook

19th June 2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore

This is a religion and philosophy forum, and Ethics is one of the primary branches of philosophy. Your assertion is incorrect.

Do you want to discuss this from a "purely ethical viewpoint" at this time, or continue the religion angle?

If the religion discussion is to continue- as "sin" is normally defined as an offense against god- then NO, abortion is not "sinfull" at all because there is no god to offend.

What assertion is incorrect?
The one I made and I admitted was incorrect?
Or another one?

About discussion, I leave that entirely up to you.
However, you should be informed that I do not believe in interminable debates where no end is in sight. So when the discussion reaches a certain saturation point that becomes repetitive and is tantamount to wheel-spinning I will discontinue. Meaning no disrespect to the board or the other persons. But simply because I believe hat it would be time-wastage and time is both limited and finite for us mortals.

Doctor X

19th June 2004, 02:01 PM

Otherwise it would mean that he approves of everything Satan does since that too is recorded.

Actually, perhaps he does.

Satan as a character really only appears once in Chronicles. This re-write of the Deuteronomistic History [DH--Ed.] "fixes" a problematic incident. YHWH orders David to perform a census, then punishes David for performing this census.

What?

The Chronicler has Satan do the ordering. Now, one can argue that YHWH has to know what Satan is doing--if he does not he is not much of a deity. However, YHWH clearly is limited in the DH and in other texts of the OT, so perhaps in Chronicles one should not blame YHWH.

With Job, it is the "prosecutor/adversary" who is independent but an agent of Big Daddy--he visits the other gods in the beginning and works with the permission of Big Daddy.

The serpent is not Satan--though one could argue he is a "satan"--$tn--that causes Adam and Eve to "stumble." I rather enjoy how the Gnostics--seeing how the serpent was trying to help A & E against the evil machinations of the demiurge--conclude he was Junior!

And . . . no . . . "Lucifer" is not Satan either. He is not even "a satan;" he is a bizarre translation!

In the NT, the position of Satan is different depending on the text. With the Synoptics he is at best a temptor--but does work for Big Daddy? The "fallen angels" myth is extra-biblical. However, in the wilderness there is a suggestion that Satan wants Junior to obey him--which would suggest Satan is independent of Big Daddy.

In Jn however Satan rather keeps things going--by entering Judas. This may be a complicated device to get Judas to betray Junior--how can anyone betray Junior?--however, in Jn, everything happens according to Junior's plan. He is in total control of his persecution and execution. In Jn, then, Satan works for Junior but is probably another pawn rather than direct agent.

--J.D.

Radrook

19th June 2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by The GM

Or Cain and his sisters.

In the beginning of human history brother sister marriages were allowed because there is nothing sinful about marriage itself. It is simply the union between two people who promise to love and cherish one another. Furthermore, mate availability was limited to family since there were no other non-family humans around. Additionally, the genetic defect stigma which such marriages were to become associated with did not exist because mankind was closer to perfection. So in short:

1. Nothing sinful about marriage.
2. It was necessary due to lack of mate availability.
3. Human perfection meant no genetic problems

Marriage is simply the union of two people who promise to love one another. Furthermore, mankind was closer to perfection then as evidenced by the long life-spans that recorded. So genetic problems due to brother sister marriages would not be an issue. Even in Abraham's time this still applied.

By the time that the Law was instituted such was not the case.
Mankind had drifted much further from physical perfection and the result from such marriages was becoming more and more evident. So God made it known that it was no longer recommended.

As to father daughter mother son, that type of marriage had never been approved. First it was totally unnecessary. Second amorous interests would seriously disrupt the nuclear family dynamics in which parental authority is very important to the welfare of children.

Actually, the only reason God mentions it in Levitiucus is because the Canaanites were routinely doing this among other things such as bestiality.. So Israel needed to know that this was one of the reasons why God was against the Canaanites.

Doctor X

19th June 2004, 02:26 PM

Oh my. . . .

1. Nothing sinful about marriage.

Okay. . . .

2. It was necessary due to lack of mate availability.

Eeeeerrrrrrrrrmmmmmm not so much evidence for that, but let us let it slide.

3. Human perfection meant no genetic problems.

SCREEEEECCCHHHHHHH!!!!! Crash! KaBoom! "Oh, the humanity!"

Er . . . um . . . no.

Actually, the only reason God mentions it in Levitiucus (sic) is because the Canaanites were routinely doing this among other things such as bestiality.. So Israel needed to know that this was one of the reasons why God was against the Canaanites.

The Israelites and Canaanites were the same, actually. It is rather an artificial division use later on to create a false opposition. This is discussed in the Smith reference above and in other references given on this and other posts.

--J.D.

Radrook

19th June 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

Was the infant baptisted? If no, then she will wander Limbo forever (with all the bad Jews).

Not all Christians believe in the immortality of the human soul and in limbo. Neither do true Christians hate Jews because they are Jews. Otherwise they would have to hate Jesus because Jesus was Jew. So were his Apostles which would include he whom the Catholics call the first Pope, Peter. The first Christians were all Jews.

God dealt only with Jews before turning his attention to gentiles.
He chose to inspire them in order that we might have the Bible.

Furthermore a Christian is not supposed to hate someone based merely on religion or nationality. So the people you describe as Jew haters or who call all Jews bad are not Christians at all, they only claim to be. Jesus himself described such persons in the following way:

"Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.

Matthew 7:21-23

BTW
Infant baptism does not have any scriptural support.

Doctor X

19th June 2004, 02:33 PM

He chose to inspire them in order that we might have the Bible.

Once again, no tradition of inspiration in the creation of the OT. Actually, not one in the NT. Luke certainly does not mention it when introducing his gospel or his Acts. Theopneustos only occurs in one late text.

One cannot simply throw about claims which are contradicted by the texts and history.

--J.D.

Radrook

19th June 2004, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG
[B]
For those of us who believe the bible is a load of bunk and not worth the pages it is written on, the concept of "sin" doesn't exist in the traditional religious sense....

Well, I suppose if one is bound to the bible for defining what is a sin or not, then your original question about abortion is unanswerable. Does the bible ever mention abortion?

Why would I give a person who considers everything the Bible says bunk and not worth the pages it was written on a biblical answer to his question? Better yet, why would such a person have the gumption of even requesting a biblical answer?

Doctor X

19th June 2004, 02:43 PM

For the texts may contradict what one thinks or wants them to say about the matter.

Certainly it does for most of this thread.

1 Sam 15:3: "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy (hrm) all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

--J.D.

[Edited because random quoting of biblical texts appears the current vogue.--Ed.]

triadboy

19th June 2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Radrook
.
The Bible goes back in recorded human history to approx 6,000 years.

I call "bullsh*t" on you!

Doctor X

19th June 2004, 03:54 PM

I already did, Triadboy, but he seems uninterested in facts.

--J.D.

KelvinG

19th June 2004, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Radrook

Why would I give a person who considers everything the Bible says bunk and not worth the pages it was written on a biblical answer to his question? Better yet, why would such a person have the gumption of even requesting a biblical answer?

OK, so don't give an answer then.
Cause you're right, if it came from the bible, I wouldn't place any merit in it. I think the book is a disgusting rag.
Cheers.

Radrook

19th June 2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG

OK, so don't give an answer then.
Cause you're right, if it came from the bible, I wouldn't place any merit in it. I think the book is a disgusting rag.
Cheers.

The Bible's opinion of you isn't complimentary either:

Matthew 7:6
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

KelvinG

19th June 2004, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Radrook

The Bible's opinion of you isn't complimentary either:

Matthew 7:6
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

tsk, tsk, Radrook. Not very Christian of you.
Y'know, turning the other cheek and all.;)

Doctor X

19th June 2004, 06:11 PM

KevinG:

Do not feel bad; he originally posted that quote, then edited it out--which prompted my quote.

Now you merit the attention.

Remember, Cthulhu will always love to have you for dinner. . . .

--J.D.

KelvinG

19th June 2004, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Doctor X
KevinG:

Do not feel bad; he originally posted that quote, then edited it out--which prompted my quote.

Now you merit the attention.

Remember, Cthulhu will always love to have you for dinner. . . .

--J.D.

I made a mistake of entering into a discussion with a bible fundie, which I had promised in the past I would never again do.
I shall rectify that mistake now.

Tricky

19th June 2004, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Perhaps he's referring to Lot and his two daughters here?
Actually, I was referring to this bit (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=GEN+38&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
Genesis 38:8
Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother."
9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.
There you go. Advocating murder and incest in one passage. A doubleheader, so to speak.

Tricky

19th June 2004, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Radrook
Show me where the Bible advocates murder and incest.
Stoning of those condemmed under law was not murder.
I suggest you look up the definition.
And I suggest that if you believe that stoning people to death for trying to talk to spirits can in any way be justified as moral by the Bible, then I stand by my statement that the Bible is not a legitimate source for morality.

If you are arguing that morals change with time and necessity, then I would say that this 2000+ year-old text is too badly outdated to be relevant to what we call morality today.

Piscivore

19th June 2004, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Radrook

What assertion is incorrect?[\quote]
This one:
[quote]But since it is a religion spirituality forum, I was forced to use the word "sin" to keep the subject within the forum parameters.

The one I made and I admitted was incorrect?

Yes, and I did not see that part. My apologies.

Doctor X

19th June 2004, 09:42 PM

The sad part about it all is that one can have a faith despite scripture. Granted, I do not agree with it, but a person can do it.

A number of the scholars remain having a faith. Prof. Smith--I am glad I obtained his Origins of Biblical Monotheism--freely admits growing up with a religion and still having it. Yet, he has written two books demonstrating the polytheism of Israeli religions, demonstrating much of what these posters want to deny--that the Pentateuch is not history as we understand now--a record of what actually happened.

The problem is that some are afraid of their faith. They not only refuse to question, they refuse to look at the evidence.

Well, evidence does not just "go away" if you close your eyes.

One claims he will discuss anything, but will not debate his faith. Yet he presents his faith as fact. He cannot have it both ways.

Another claims he has reviewed scholarship and dismisses it as the result of bias and ignorance. Well, the scholar mentioned above admits a bias--towards his own faith. Yet he steps away from it and encourages his collegues to do the same. Nevertheless, he cannot demonstrate any familiarity with the scholarship--he does not have to "accept it," but he should, if he rejects it, be able to explain why without falling upon fallacy.

Alas.

--J.D.

Beancounter

19th June 2004, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Radrook
Furthermore, mankind was closer to perfection then as evidenced by the long life-spans that recorded.

Radrook

I just want to confirm that you actually believe that people lived for 800 or 900 years in those days?

Doctor X

19th June 2004, 09:50 PM

Tricky:

R:Show me where the Bible advocates murder and incest.

T: And I suggest that if you believe that stoning people to death for trying to talk to spirits can in any way be justified as moral by the Bible, then I stand by my statement that the Bible is not a legitimate source for morality.

Funny he has rather ignored the demand for child sacrifice. Probably the brats deserved it. . . .

. . . rather like those kids who teased Ezra . . . he could not "bear" it.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA! . . . HA! . . . HA . . . Ha . . . ha . . . heh?

Storms off decrying the lack of humor in modern times. . . .

--J.D.

Tricky

19th June 2004, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Beancounter
Radrook

I just want to confirm that you actually believe that people lived for 800 or 900 years in those days?
I've heard it suggested that in translation, the term for "years" was confused with the word "months". This seems quite logical to me. A 900 month old man would be about 75 years old, which is indeed quite old for the time, but not beyond the boundaries of believability.

Beancounter

19th June 2004, 09:56 PM

Tricky

19th June 2004, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Beancounter
That would make sense but I suspect it is just an attempt to rationalise a myth.
The point is that even those who made and told those myths never intended to suggest such lengthy life spans. There is nothing anywhere else in the Bible (that I am able to find) that suggests there is anything unusual about those numbers. That suggests to me that the numbers are merely a poor translation.
Originally posted by Beancounter
I am sure Radrook does not believe that something got lost in translation!
I wouldn't be so sure. Radrook is indeed a Biblical scholar, and has commented on another thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870506993&highlight=nepesh#post1870506993) how "nepesh" may have been incorrectly translated as "soul". He also doesn't believe in hell. Though I disagree with him on many points, I would never say that Radrook is a mindless bible-thumping drone. He has thought his positions through at great length.

Doctor X

19th June 2004, 10:25 PM

Save for his apparent unfamiliarity with the literature.

Sorry, but one who claims the texts are "clearly" historical, who ducks comment on multiple authorship of the OT--the Pentateuch in particular--who thinks the texts are thousands of years older than they are, who claims pseudoPauline texts are legitimate--but cannot defend the claim--et cetera, et cetera, et cetera ad nauseum--is not a "Bible scholar."

If he is, I play shortstop for the Yankees . . . and Uma Thurmon has lifted that restraining order against me. . . .

--J.D.

Beancounter

19th June 2004, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Radrook
Additionally, the genetic defect stigma which such marriages were to become associated with did not exist because mankind was closer to perfection.

Snip

Furthermore, mankind was closer to perfection then as evidenced by the long life-spans that recorded.

Snip

By the time that the Law was instituted such was not the case.
Mankind had drifted much further from physical perfection .....

I was not intending to be judgemental (I shall leave that to him upstairs) but the above does imply to me that Radrook believes that people lived a lot longer in the OT times due to mankind being closer to "physical perfection".

If someone believes this (as well as Adam and Eve - also implied from Radrook's post) then I do have a slight problem taking their opinions seriously. Maybe that is my problem not his but there you are.

Radrook

20th June 2004, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by Beancounter

Radrook

I just want to confirm that you actually believe that people lived for 800 or 900 years in those days?

It is generally agreed among qualified Bible scholars that the only difference between our year and the biblical year is that the biblical year is 360 days long while ours is 365.

Perhaps your difficulty in accepting this is that you consider the Genesis account a myth. In that case everything said within Genesis becomes suspect. For those of us who do not consider the Genesis account a myth, the long life spans are just a natural consequence of man's being closer to physical perfection than he is now.

Actually, since man was designed to live forever, such ages which you view as outstanding are pitiful in comparison.

BTW
That residual "vigor"did not last long since by Abraham's time the life span had dropped considerably. So yopu can rest assured.

In fact, by Abraham and Moses time, anyone reaching the age of 85 was considered old. However, according to your reasoning of years meaning months that would would make Moses and Joshua approximately seven years old at the time of their death.

Weird!

Radrook

20th June 2004, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Beancounter

I was not intending to be judgemental (I shall leave that to him upstairs) but the above does imply to me that Radrook believes that people lived a lot longer in the OT times due to mankind being closer to "physical perfection".

If someone believes this (as well as Adam and Eve - also implied from Radrook's post) then I do have a slight problem taking their opinions seriously. Maybe that is my problem not his but there you are.

OK!
I see what the situation is.
You believe that the Genesis account is myth.
In short, we lack a common ground for agreement.
That is OK.
You are entitled to your opinion.
God bless.

Radrook

20th June 2004, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

The point is that even those who made and told those myths never intended to suggest such lengthy life spans. There is nothing anywhere else in the Bible (that I am able to find) that suggests there is anything unusual about those numbers. That suggests to me that the numbers are merely a poor translation.

Funny!
To me the silence concerning these numbers suggests that they were accepted as fact and that there was absolutely no reason to dispute them. Neither is there the slightest indication on the part ofv the writers that such events were myth. If there was, point it out. The very fact that you cannot point it out shows clearly that your accusations are unsubstantiated conjectures.

Furthermore, Jesus the Son of God quoted events from the Genesis account as being fact.

Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,

Matthew 24:38
For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;

Matthew 10:15
I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town

So anyone who tags the Genesis account as myth is calling Jesus a liar. That is a very serious accusation to make.

The Cats Venm

20th June 2004, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
So anyone who tags the Genesis account as myth is calling Jesus a liar. That is a very serious accusation to make.

Jesus is a liar.

There is no god.

Proove me wrong.

:D

Doctor X

20th June 2004, 01:59 AM

Interesting. . . .

It is generally agreed among qualified Bible scholars. . . .

Argumentum ad non verus Caledoni with a dash of ipse dixit of course.

Unfortunately, also wrong. For:

Perhaps your difficulty in accepting this is that you consider the Genesis account a myth.

Here are a number of "qualified Bible scholars" who demonstrate Genesis is a myth:

Mark S. Smith
Skirball Professor of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
New York University

Richard Elliott Friedman
Katzin Chair and Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature
University of California, San Diego

Frank Moore Cross
Hancock Professor Emeritus of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages
Harvard University

Claus Westermann
Professor Emeritus
University of Heidelberg

Gerd Lüdemann
Professor and Director of the Institute of Early Christian Studies
University of G öttingen

John C. H. Laughlin
Professor of Religion and Chairman of Department of Religion
Avert College

John Day
Fellow and Tutor of Lady Margaret Hall and Lecturer in Old Testament
Oxford University

Othmar Keel
Professor of Old Testament Exegesis and Religious History of the Biblical World
University of Fribourg

Christoph Uehlinger
Senior Lecturer in Old Testament Exegesis and Religious History of the Biblical World
University of Fibourg

Burton L. Mack
Professor Emeritus of Religion
Claremont Graduate School

Jonathan Z. Smith
Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor of Humanities
University of Chicago

Jon D. Levenson
Albert A. List Professor of Jewish Studies at the Divinity School and Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations
Harvard University

Neil Forsyth
Professor of English
University of Lausanne

John C. Collins
Former President: Society of Biblical Literature
Professor: Divinity School
University of Chicago

Israel Finkelstein
Director: Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology
Tel Aviv University

Neil Asher Silberman
Director of Historical Interpretation
Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritiage Presentation, Belgium

Thomas L. Thompson
Professor of Old Testament
Institute of Biblical Exegesis University of Copenhagen

Diana V. Edelman
Professor: Department of Philosophy and Religion
James Madison University

Do I have to continue with this?

--J.D.

Tricky

20th June 2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

Funny!
To me the silence concerning these numbers suggests that they were accepted as fact and that there was absolutely no reason to dispute them. Neither is there the slightest indication on the part ofv the writers that such events were myth. If there was, point it out. The very fact that you cannot point it out shows clearly that your accusations are unsubstantiated conjectures.

Furthermore, Jesus the Son of God quoted events from the Genesis account as being fact.

Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,

Matthew 24:38
For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;

Matthew 10:15
I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town
So anyone who tags the Genesis account as myth is calling Jesus a liar. That is a very serious accusation to make.
Not at all. It could simply be that Jesus, like people have done for all time, was using them as parables. If I say, "haven't you read the story of the tortoise and the hare?", does that make me a liar?

Of course, it could be that Jesus was simply mistaken. If he believed old myths because that was what he was taught, then it is understandable that he might view them as truth.

But Jesus was known to contradict himself on occasion. Does that make him a liar? Nope, just moody.

Lord Emsworth

20th June 2004, 09:17 AM

Lord Emsworth

20th June 2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
Perhaps your difficulty in accepting this is that you consider the Genesis account a myth. In that case everything said within Genesis becomes suspect.

What about the cosmology? Do you believe in a (solid) firmament? Waters above the heavens, and therefore above the sun, moon, stars???

I bet you have gone into pick and choose mode for these.

Tricky

20th June 2004, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

But that would then mean that they begot offspring at the age of about ten years. :o

Or even yourger. :o :o
You mean as opposed to 120 years? Which sounds more credible to you?

Oh, and give my deepest regards to the Lady Constance when next you see her.

Lord Emsworth

20th June 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

You mean as opposed to 120 years? Which sounds more credible to you?

Pseudohistory sounds quite credible here.

Originally posted by Tricky
Oh, and give my deepest regards to the Lady Constance when next you see her.

Must I? :(

csense

20th June 2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Doctor X

One claims he will discuss anything, but will not debate his faith. Yet he presents his faith as fact. He cannot have it both ways.

--J.D

Still making false claims I see.

Care to provide evidence of your first assertion above...and while your at it, you might want to provide evidence of your claim that I come to preach.

You're not only a pathetic excuse for a skeptic, but you give this board and all skeptics a bad reputation.

Care to clear up that reputation, or make it worse....it's your call debunker.

DangerousBeliefs

20th June 2004, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

It is generally agreed among qualified Bible scholars that the only difference between our year and the biblical year is that the biblical year is 360 days long while ours is 365.

Perhaps your difficulty in accepting this is that you consider the Genesis account a myth. In that case everything said within Genesis becomes suspect. For those of us who do not consider the Genesis account a myth, the long life spans are just a natural consequence of man's being closer to physical perfection than he is now.

Actually, since man was designed to live forever, such ages which you view as outstanding are pitiful in comparison.

BTW
That residual "vigor"did not last long since by Abraham's time the life span had dropped considerably. So yopu can rest assured.

In fact, by Abraham and Moses time, anyone reaching the age of 85 was considered old. However, according to your reasoning of years meaning months that would would make Moses and Joshua approximately seven years old at the time of their death.

Weird!

Well, unlike the completely fabricated mythology of the Bible, evidence (and general physics) shows that days are actually getting SHORTER as the Earth's rotation gratually slows down. Fossil coral from 370 million years ago shows us that the Earth had a "day" of 22.7 hours.

Although the difference between our times and those of Abraham are negligible... just a few seconds.

Tricky

20th June 2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
Well, unlike the completely fabricated mythology of the Bible, evidence (and general physics) shows that days are actually getting SHORTER as the Earth's rotation gratually slows down. Fossil coral from 370 million years ago shows us that the Earth had a "day" of 22.7 hours.
I believe you mean LONGER. (24 hours is longer than 22.7) Perhaps you meant that years have FEWER days now than in the past.

Johnny Pneumatic

20th June 2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
[B]

In the beginning of human history brother sister marriages were allowed because there is nothing sinful about marriage itself. It is simply the union between two people who promise to love and cherish one another. Furthermore, mate availability was limited to family since there were no other non-family humans around. Additionally, the genetic defect stigma which such marriages were to become associated with did not exist because mankind was closer to perfection.

So when exactly did humans get lower back problems, a worthless Appendix, messed up eyes and problems with wisdom teeth? I really havn't the time for this.

Tricky

20th June 2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
So when exactly did humans get lower back problems, a worthless Appendix, messed up eyes and problems with wisdom teeth? I really havn't the time for this.
Devolution, of course. You know, survival of the unfittest?

Lord Emsworth

20th June 2004, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas

So when exactly did humans get lower back problems, a worthless Appendix, messed up eyes and problems with wisdom teeth? I really havn't the time for this.

The problems with the wisdom teeth seem obvious from a literalist's POV.:alc:

Doctor X

20th June 2004, 02:41 PM

Still making false claims I see.

Care to provide evidence of your first assertion above...and while your at it, you might want to provide evidence of your claim that I come to preach.

Radook:
It is generally agreed among qualified Bible scholars that the only difference between our year and the biblical year is that the biblical year is 360 days long while ours is 365.

Perhaps your difficulty in accepting this is that you consider the Genesis account a myth.

Quod erat demonstrandum

Now, if I was an unkind man, I would note that had the individual expended just a fraction of the energy he wasted having his "moment" on reading the posts, including his sermon above, he may have seen that and not have made a fool out of himself again.

Of course, that would require him to be honest. I remain an optimist.

--J.D.

20th June 2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

I've heard it suggested that in translation, the term for "years" was confused with the word "months". This seems quite logical to me. A 900 month old man would be about 75 years old, which is indeed quite old for the time, but not beyond the boundaries of believability.

Before you seriously consider that possibility, I'd suggest you to check Genesis 5:15-16.

I personally find it easier to believe that Bible authors followed the old tradition of exaggerating life spans of their suppposed ancestors than that a 5 1/2 year old boy becomes a father.

(Perhaps the most striking example of this kind of exaggeration is the Sumerian king list that includes some kings who ruled over 16000 years.)

Doctor X

20th June 2004, 03:16 PM

Well that is patently ridiculous:

(Perhaps the most striking example of this kind of exaggeration is the Sumerian king list that includes some kings who ruled over 16000 years.)

the world is only 10,000 years old!

--J.D.

csense

20th June 2004, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by csense

Doctor X: One claims he will discuss anything, but will not debate his faith. Yet he presents his faith as fact. He cannot have it both ways.

csense: Still making fasle claims I see. Care to provide evidence of your first assertion above...and while your at it, you might want to provide evidence of your claim that I come to preach.

Originally posted by Doctor X

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radook: It is generally agreed among qualified Bible scholars that the only difference between our year and the biblical year is that the biblical year is 360 days long while ours is 365.
Perhaps your difficulty in accepting this is that you consider the Genesis account a myth
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quod erat demonstrandum

Now, if I was an unkind man, I would note that had the individual expended just a fraction of the energy he wasted having his "moment" on reading the posts, including his sermon above, he may have seen that and not have made a fool out of himself again.

Of course, that would require him to be honest. I remain an optimist.

--J.D.

Well, that's evidence alright...evidence that you're a moron, or worse.

It's clear to anyone who follows these threads that the assertion was directed at me.

You're simply a fool.

Stay away from me.

Doctor X

20th June 2004, 04:06 PM

Apparently he cannot follow a discussion.

Understandable when all he can contribute is a tempert-tantrum and argumentum ad hominem.

Is he so riddl'd with vanity that he thinks every comment applies to him?

Again, had he expended just a modicum of his effort to maintain his sense of "injur'd merit" to reading the posts he would be able to follow the conversation.

For conversation is not his purpose.

He came to preach and preach he has. He has only himself to blame that the congregation ignores him.

If he dislikes having his baser motives thus exposed he would do well to drop them.

--J.D.

Radrook

20th June 2004, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Not at all. It could simply be that Jesus, like people have done for all time, was using them as parables.

When Jesus used parables he made sure they were understood as parables and could not be mistaken for fact. If you had read the Bible you would know that parables are introiduced as parables:

Mark 12:1
And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.

Clear enough right?
It is a parable.

Yet for others, such would always remain enigmas.
Some, like the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, would be mistaken as factual.

Rest assured. however that those deserving to understand would.

If I say, "haven't you read the story of the tortoise and the hare?", does that make me a liar?

Surely you jest.

Of course, it could be that Jesus was simply mistaken.

You are free to believe that if you wish.
But, as you already know, that is not an acceptable alternative for a Christian.

But Jesus was known to contradict himself on occasion. Does that make him a liar? Nope, just moody. [/B]

That is what you perceive Jesus to be doing because you lack the necessary knowledge to understand.
That is not what Jesus did.

BTW
We have absolutely no basis to say that Jesus was talking metaphorically in the case of referring to the cities of Sodom and Gomorra or Niniveh. These cities are not some mythological constructs like the Emerald City in the Wizard of Oz. These cities show archeological evidence of having existed. In fact, the area where the cities of Sodom and Gomorra existed show signs of the destruction that the Bible tells us about.

Additionally, for thousands of years neither the Jews, nor Christians, nor Moslems considered these events myths. Only recently with the popularization of atheistic evolution and the attempt made by atheistic scientists to discredit the Bible has the Bible account come under this type of attack. If these things were myths, then they would have been understood as myth immediately. They would not have had to wait thousands of years until an atheistic view became popular in order to be put in doubt.

It seems as if you haven't read the Bible.
I will tell you why you give me that impression.
If you had read the Bible and not just pecked here and there to find what you believe to be faults
then you would have readily seen that when the Bible is speaking historically and in symbols it differentiates so that the reader knows it is speaking in symbols.

For example, the prophesies of the OT are all introduced so that the reader knows they are prophesies. Anyone who has read the introductions to these prophecies knows this as a fact. We are clearly told when the prophets are recieving information via visions, as Ezekiel did, or via dreams as Joseph and Daniel did. .

In Jesus case we are either told directly that they are parables or Jesus' tone changes so that we know as readers that he is shifting into the parable mode. At other times he gives us the interpretation of what he has just said, as in the parable of the tares and the wheat, or the harvest.

AT other times he allows the context to explain the parable. As when he spoke of the pharasees in terms of a rich man and the common people in terms of a poor man whom the pharasees considererd accursed.

ohn 7:49
But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.

It is also important to keep well in mind that the historical events in Genesis were considered fact by the Jews, Moslems and Christians for thousands of years.

Only recently with the popularization of atheistic evolution and its efforts to discredit the Bible have these recorded events been systematically attacked as being unscientific and therefore highly improbable. All of which is merely a statement of disbelief in a creator who has the power to do what the Bible tells us he did.

Mark 10:27
And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

Unfortumately the popularity of these athesistic anitbiblical ideas has resulted in the inability to intellectually see and hear what the Bible speaks if clearly. The same sick spiritual condition that Jesus' perceived then but having a different cause.

Matthew 13:15
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Also important is many biblical accounts came under criticism only to be proven fact later when archeologists had to retract and admit that they had been wrong in assuming that the Bible writers were lying. Which brings up the question as to why these archeologists would assume such a thing in the first place and feel the need to go out of their way to discredit the Bible.
Yes, going along with this attack is popular.
It makes one seem sophisticated.
But it is not necessary.
__________________________________________________ __

scriptures are from KJV

Doctor X

20th June 2004, 05:13 PM

I feel like I am sweeping up after a nervous puppy:

We have absolutely no basis to say that Jesus was talking metaphorically in the case of referring to the cities of Sodom and Gomorra or Niniveh (sic). These cities are not some mythological constructs like the Emerald City in the Wizard of Oz. These cities show archeological evidence of having existed.

No.

Nineveh, yes.

Sodom and Gomorrah, no.

Old archaeologists "wandering about the desert with a Bible in one hand and a shovel in the other" have tried to find confirmation for the stories. As with the Exodus and Conquest, more modern archaeology has found something completely different.

Once is interesting is that, just as evidence of a Troy exists, if evidence of the cities of S and G did exist, it does not mean one has found evidence to support the myth any more than one has found a wooden horse.

--J.D.

Beancounter

20th June 2004, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Radrook

But, as you already know, that is not an acceptable alternative for a Christian.

So the debate stops right here

Additionally, for thousands of years neither the Jews, nor Christians, nor Moslems considered these events myths. Only recently with the popularization of atheistic evolution and the attempt made by atheistic scientists to discredit the Bible has the Bible account come under this type of attack. If these things were myths, then they would have been understood as myth immediately. They would not have had to wait thousands of years until an atheistic view became popular in order to be put in doubt.

For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat and there were dragons and unicorns. Belief in a situation does not make that situation fact.

The reason the popularization of evolution is "recent" is because it is a reasonably "recent" theory. Since its introduction it has continually been challenged and fine tuned by biologists etc and will continue to be so until all the questions have been answered. Evolution is a theory that fits the facts as we know them today (fossils, carbon dating etc), creationists on the other hand either ignore these facts and regard a book (written before the flat earthers and unicorns were around) as the real facts or they bend the facts to fit their theory. This I do not understand.

Throughout the ages science has come up with new theories, some of which have "stuck" and some of which have been proven to be incorrect (alchemy etc). However, as with evolution those which have "stuck" continue to be challenged and modified all the time.

You are not prepared to challenge your belief system. This I also do not understand.

Doctor X

20th June 2004, 06:23 PM

You are not prepared to challenge your belief system. This I also do not understand.

It is emotionally easier to seek confirmation of a belief than a challenge.

--J.D.

Radrook

20th June 2004, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

What about the cosmology? Do you believe in a (solid) firmament? Waters above the heavens, and therefore above the sun, moon, stars???

I bet you have gone into pick and choose mode for these.

I would not bet on that if I were you.

The Bible does not say that the firmament was solid or that it was above the moon and stars.

It clearly tells us that it was watery.

Also, the waters are not said to be above the heavens.
They are said to be above the waters.
That is above the waters that flow on earth.
Such as in oceans and rivers and lakes and seas.
The waters suspended above the waters formed a canopy which those on the ground would view as the sky.

Genesis:
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.

Such a canopy provided extra shielding from harmful solar radiation such as cosmic rays. This water canopy contributed to the flood described later in Genesis and ceased to exist.
Once the canopy was gone, solar radiation reaching the earth's surface would be far more intense. Some see a positive correlation between the removal of the canopy and the sudden drop in life spans after its removal.

Beancounter

20th June 2004, 07:27 PM

Evolution is a theory that fits the facts as we know them today (fossils, carbon dating etc), creationists on the other hand either ignore these facts and regard a book (written before the flat earthers and unicorns were around) as the real facts or they bend the facts to fit their theory

Originally posted by Radrook

Such a canopy provided extra shielding from harmful solar radiation such as cosmic rays. This water canopy contributed to the flood described later in Genesis and ceased to exist.
Once the canopy was gone, solar radiation reaching the earth's surface would be far more intense. Some see a positive correlation between the removal of the canopy and the sudden drop in life spans after its removal.

QED

Radrook

20th June 2004, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Beancounter

So the debate stops right here

For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat and there were dragons and unicorns. Belief in a situation does not make that situation fact.

If people believed that the earth was flat it wasn't because the Bible taught it.

Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
KJV

Neither did the Bible say that this circle was supported by pillars, on the back of a Titan called Atlas, or balanced on the shell of some gargantuan turtle that swam through space:

Job 26:
7God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing.

NLT

The Bible also speaks about the effects of the big bang by telling us that God stretches out the heavens:

Psalm 104
1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Now since the Bible writers did not have telescopes in order to view the earth from space, how is it that they knew it had no visible means of support? How didt they know that the earth was spherical and that the universe itself could be compared to a gauze that was being gradually stretched out?

Neither does the Bible teach anything about unicorns and satyrs. Such words are mistranslations of animals which do exist such as goats and bulls. You are probably reading the KJV where the translators botched it up. Modern translators don't do that. In fact, the KJV is the only one that I know that calls bulls unicorns and goats satyrs. All the other translators were savvy enough in the original language not to make such a ridiculous mistake.

[quote]The reason the popularization of evolution is "recent" is because it is a reasonably "recent" theory. Since its introduction it has continually been challenged and fine tuned by biologists etc and will continue to be so until all the questions have been answered. Evolution is a theory that fits the facts as we know them today (fossils, carbon dating etc), creationists on the other hand either ignore these facts and regard a book written before the flat earthers and unicorns were around as the real facts or they bend the facts to fit their theory.

First, it is not because of being recent tat a theory is either acceptable or not acceptable to a Christian. There are plenty of recent theories that are. The Big bang theory for example is OK.
Such concepts as relativity are OK as well as are most other scientific discoveries.

It is only when a scientific theory tells us that we are the product of blind chance and that we should totally ignore the preponderance of inductive observation which inexorably demands that we make the inductive leap of concluding that abiogenesis is impossible and that life can only come from life that Christians begin looking suspiciously upon a theory.

Neither is your theory accepted by all scientists.

Scientists Who Believe in God and reject Evolution
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists.html

The reason why not all scientists accept it is because it doesn't seem to fit the facts in certain crucial areas and requires that we ignore inductive observation as I pointed out above.

You are not prepared to challenge your belief system. This I also do not understand.

I am prepared and have had my beliefs challenged repeatedly.
But you have to understand that such challenges are interminable and I am finite.

So I do need my moments of changing the subject.

Lord Emsworth

20th June 2004, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by radrook
I would not bet on that if I were you.

Why not? Inerrantist are almost like robots. Predictable and save bets.

Your post shows that quite well.

Originally posted by radrook
Genesis:
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.

I don't know what translation you are using, but here are the same verses form the KJV (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/gen001.htm):

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Also from here (http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/gier/306/commoncosmos.htm) an explanation of firmament:

The most striking feature of the Old Testament world is the "firmament," a solid dome which separates "the waters from the waters" (Gen. l:6). The Hebrew word translated in the Latin Vulgate as firmamentum is raqia' whose verb form means "to spread, stamp or beat out." The material beaten out is not directly specified, but both biblical and extrabiblical evidence suggests that it is metal. A verb form of raqia' is used in both of these passages: "And gold leaf was hammered out..." (Ex. 39:3); and "beaten silver is brought from Tarshish" (Jer. l0:9).

This posted let's take a look at what you wrote earlier in your post:

Originally posted by radrook
The Bible does not say that the firmament was solid

The Bible says raqia' (see above), the Vulgate says firmamentum, the KJV says firmament and last but not least Martin Luther used the word Himmelsfest (http://dict.leo.org/?p=1ZRX..&search=fest)e for his German (my native tongue) translation.

Originally posted by radrook
or that it was above the moon and stars.

Granted, the KJV says "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night" (Gen 1:14) and not above.

Interesting to note that when the "lights are in the firmament" and there are waters above the firmament then the waters above the firmament are also above the lights in the firmament.

Originally posted by radrook
It clearly tells us that it was watery.

Umm, no.

Originally posted by radrook
Also, the waters are not said to be above the heavens.

"... from the waters which were above the firmament ..." (Gen 1:7) " ...And God called the firmament Heaven..." (Gen 1:8)

Let me recap: The firmanent is called heaven and there are waters above it.

Originally posted by radrook
They are said to be above the waters.
That is above the waters that flow on earth.
Such as in oceans and rivers and lakes and seas.

It you want to say that "the waters which were above the firmament" are above "the waters which were under the firmament from" you are correct - obviously.

Originally posted by radrook
The waters suspended above the waters formed a canopy which those on the ground would view as the sky.

Seems to me that the Bible says there there is a firmament "suspending" the waters above, ...

Originally posted by radrook
Such a canopy provided extra shielding from harmful solar radiation such as cosmic rays. This water canopy contributed to the flood described later in Genesis and ceased to exist.
Once the canopy was gone, solar radiation reaching the earth's surface would be far more intense. Some see a positive correlation between the removal of the canopy and the sudden drop in life spans after its removal.

Oh my, oh my ...

Beancounter

20th June 2004, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Radrook
It is only when a scientific theory tells us that we are the product of blind chance and that we should totally ignore the preponderance of inductive observation .......

Please direct me to this preponderence, I would be interested to read about it.

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Now since the Bible writers did not have telescopes in order to view the earth from space, how is it that they knew it had no visible means of support? How didt they know that the earth was spherical and that the universe itself could be compared to a gauze that was being gradually stretched out?

Circle = spherical - No. If you stand at a point and look around you what do you see? A circular plane, therefore why should ancient writers believe that the world was anything but circular (and flat). Why did they not say "the globe of the earth"?

"Spreads them out like a tent to live in" does not mean that they are continually expanding, rather that the heavens are spread around the earth like a canopy to cover the earth. I went camping the other day and my tent was the same size when I got up as it was when I went to sleep.

Radrook, again you are interpreting biblical statements to fit the facts as we know them today. God created the world in six days = big bang, relativity = lord knows?

Lord Emsworth

20th June 2004, 08:46 PM

Oh, and before I forget ...

Originally posted by radrook
This water canopy contributed to the flood described later in Genesis and ceased to exist.

If it contributed to the flood and ceased to exist, then why Psalms 148:4?

148:4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

Art Vandelay

20th June 2004, 11:38 PM

Is marrying one's brother's widow incest? Doesn't sound like a standard definition to me.

And I don't think there's much point to trying to argue with someone who says "Rest assured. however that those deserving to understand would."

Doctor X

21st June 2004, 01:44 AM

Sits comfortably. Accepts a snifter from Seed. Prepares to enjoy the show.

My Lord of Emsworth:

Your interpretation of "firmament" is correct. Friedman translates it thusly:

And God said, "Let there be a space within the water, and let it separate between the water and water." And God made the space, and it separated between the water that was under the space and the water that was above the space. And it was so. And God called the space "skies." [Friedman--Ed.]

This is a "locative" reordering myth. God--Elohim does not create in this P myth. Indeed, "creating"--Aleph-Res-Bet--"has the original bsic meaning of 'divide' or 'separate.'" [Westermann--Ed.] This separation of Up from Down is a common myth.

Indeed, Elohim starts with a watery deep. It does not go away. Where is it? Hiding with Planet X? What about that water above the firmament in space?

The J creation myth has a different order of creation [Gen 2.4b-2.7--Ed.] Which one should we believe?

--J.D.

References:

Friedman RE. The Bible with Sources Revealed (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060530693/qid=1087808861/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-3392656-5831221?v=glance&s=books).

Westermann C. Genesis: An Introduction (http://www.fortresspress.com/store/item.asp?isbn=080062582X&clsid=25389).

[Edited to provide the references.--Ed.]

Radrook

21st June 2004, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by Beancounter

[quote]"Spreads them out like a tent to live in" does not mean that they are continually expanding, rather that the heavens are spread around the earth like a canopy to cover the earth. I went camping the other day and my tent was the same size when I got up as it was when I went to sleep.

The verbs "spread" and "spreads" are two different words.
One is past perfect the other is present continuous which indicates action that encompasses the present. The other action that happemed and has finished.

It is the same difference that exists between "spoke" and "speaks" "walked" and "walks" "ran" and "runs."

Radrook, again you are interpreting biblical statements to fit the facts as we know them today. God created the world in six days = big bang, relativity = lord knows?

About the six days, the word used in Genesis is not restricted to a 24 hour day. That's why Adam died in the same day as God said he would but yet lived more than 900 earth years.

Genesis 5:5
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Other scriptures repeatedly remind us that God views time differently from humans.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So the days mentioned in Genesis need not be understood as earth days unless one wishes to ridicule. In which case the reader would be conveniently giving meaning to scripture to fit his needs.

Also, you confuse the earth preparatory peroid with the period preceding them when God created the heavens and the earth. That creation period prior to the first preparatory day allows the Bigg Bang with its billions of earth year requirement.

Circle = spherical - No. If you stand at a point and look around you what do you see? A circular plane, therefore why should ancient writers believe that the world was anything but circular (and flat). Why did they not say "the globe of the earth"?

But the Hebrew "Chuwg", can mean a sphere.
So why should it be interpreted as circle that is flat when that would mean interpreting scripture so that it fits in with a reader's preconceived ideas and need to ridicule?

Excerpt:
The Bible of course teaches the correct shape of the earth. Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above 'the circle of the earth' (the Hebrew word for 'circle' can also mean a 'sphere').

Also, Luke 17:34-36 depicts Christ's Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day-time activities in the field-an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

The concept expressed in Isaiah of the earth placed on nothing?
That can only be determined by viewing it from space.

BTW
The fact that the world is a sphere is not a recent concept.
It has had been around for hundreds of years prior to Columbus.

Beancounter

21st June 2004, 02:45 AM

The verbs "spread" and "spreads" are two different words.

Jeepers, Radrook, now we are arguing semantics.

"Like a tent to live in" - I reiterate, tents do not expand. If the bible meant an expanding universe/firmament/whatever why wasn't it clearer? Things growing was a concept they were familiar with.

About the six days, the word used in Genesis is not restricted to a 24 hour day. That's why Adam died in the same day but yet lived more that 900 earth years. Other scriptures repeatedly remind us that God views time differently from humans. So the days mentioned in Genesis need not be understood as earth days unless one wishes to ridicule. In which case the reader would be conveniently giving meaning to scripture to fit his needs.

I can't argue with the meaning of the word in the bible as I am not a scholar in these things ;) Others may be able to comment. However, if god views time differently from humans, given that the bible was written down by humans for humans, surely the authors would have explained the situation in words that you and I would understand literally. Why use phrases that might mean one thing or another - particularly when referring to days/millenia? Again this smacks of interpreting the bible to fit the facts that we know now whereas previous translations were done to fit the facts they knew then.

Also, you confuse the earth preparatory peroid with the period preceding them when God created the heavens and the earth. That creation period prior to the first preparatory day allows the Bigg Bang with its billions of earth year requirement

Again my biblical knowledge lets me down here but what preparatory period would that be? (I don't recall that one being taught in RE) And did this period appear when the big bang theory was promulgated? See above re. interpretation.

But the Hebrew word can mean a sphere.
So why should it be interpreted as circle that is flat when that would mean interpreting scripture so that it fits in with a reader's preconceived ideas and need to ridicule?

Excerpt:
The Bible of course teaches the correct shape of the earth. Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above 'the circle of the earth' (the Hebrew word for 'circle' can also mean a 'sphere').

Also, Luke 17:34-36 depicts Christ's Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day-time activities in the field-an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.

Again I cannot dispute that circle may equal sphere in Hebrew but again I question the clarity of the text. If god told us that the world was round why did this not become accepted until [scientist/historian to insert appropriate date].

I've had a quick look at the Luke verses and it is clear to me that it is dealing with a period of a day "in that day" not a point in time, consequently it is quite possible that "in the day" the son of man is revealed some are sleeping and some are working (at different times of course).

The concept expressed in Isaiah of the earth placed on nothing? That can only be determined by viewing it from space.

Indeed it could only be proven from space, but it can be speculated from right where I am sitting. The answer doesn't prove the answer (or something - I am sure there is a latin phrase for that but I will have to leave that to Doctor X) Incidently, this is the same Isiah that stated that the moon gave off its own light (13:10 and 30:26).

BTW, as I have mentioned elsewhere, this is all a trifle academic because if the bible was not written by god, these arguments are baseless (but they are interesting :) )

Doctor X

21st June 2004, 03:07 AM

Beancounter:

Indeed it could only be proven from space, but it can be speculated from right where I am sitting. The answer doesn't prove the answer (or something - I am sure there is a latin phrase for that but I will have to leave that to Doctor X) Incidently, this is the same Isiah that stated that the moon gave off its own light (13:10 and 30:26).

Petitio principii or "question begging argument" which is a mere restatement of the argument in other terms. Since most people misinterpret "begs the question" you can also call this, Circulus vitiosus or argumentum in circulo for a circular argument.

However, I am not certain that is the fallacy you want given your first sentence.

However, however, remember that before "creation" in the P myth that opens Genesis there are the waters of the deep.

So you have all of this water just sitting there in space. . . .

Sure. . . .

--J.D.

Beancounter

21st June 2004, 03:11 AM

Dear Doc

What I was looking for was:

The fact that the earth does "rest on nothing" and that this could only be proved from space, does not prove that the people who made the statement "the earth rests on nothing" had actually been to space (or god told them it was so). They could merely have made a supposition.

Maybe there isn't a phrase for this fallacy?

Doctor X

21st June 2004, 03:29 AM

Beancounter:

How abouts an invalid premise?

You see, anyone can circumnavigate the globe in numerous ways and demonstrate the absence of "something" "underneath" the Earth--including turtles.

Incidentally, science "assumed" the existence of a "cosmic ether" through which light traveled. The attempts to measure its effects on light--Michelson-Morely Experiments--in many ways led to Einstein's postulate that light has a constant velocity in a vacuum.

I just know some physicist is going to jump down my throat on that. . . .

Westermann makes a very good point in discussion cosmology. Myths are not trying to explain "what is" they are trying to justify "what is." Genesis' P myth preserves a very locative universe--us on ground--Big Daddy up there. What is around us? Water.

Contrary to fundamentalist mindset--given the variations of myths in cultures--this includes the many different creation myths in the OT--people did not require "literal word-for-word" truth in their myths. They wanted/expected stories that supported their view of order.

Most--perhaps all--"creation myths" are "reordering myths" to reestablish order or create a new one. Elohim does this in P. Very little details exist in the J myth--he concentrates on the whole Garden of Eden thang.

Not that Radrook is paying attention; however, I recall a poster who figured out the "math" behind the Flood. Of course, we have at least two versions in the OT. Nevertheless, he calculated the volume of water required for the flood.

Well . . . you have a "water-hammer" that would flatten everything.

I personally love the calculations of the man-hours required to remove the crap produced by the beasties every day.

--J.D.

Beancounter

21st June 2004, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by Doctor X
Beancounter:

How abouts an invalid premise?

You see, anyone can circumnavigate the globe in numerous ways and demonstrate the absence of "something" "underneath" the Earth--including turtles.

I was assuming that circumnavigation had not taken place at the time of writing and therefore the authors didn't have a clue what was 'underneath" the world.

In this case is it still an invalid premise or one of your latin thingamies?

Doctor X

21st June 2004, 03:55 AM

BeanCounter:

Hrrmmm . . . ancients actually knew the world was round long before Megellan's crew returned complaining about the fish in Luzan. Sagan's Cosmos gives a great presentation of one of the Greeks who figured out the circumference.

My point [He has one?--Ed.] is that the premise: "the only way to prove it is FROM SPACE!!" is incorrect for many reasons.

You can have the best logic, but if your premise is wrong, your conclusion is wrong. I would go with that.

I suppose I could look up "incorrect premise/principle."

The Latin thingamagings are classical fallacies. These are incorrect reasonings.

These can blend, of course. For example, if I start with "Radrook is a country-western fan" as a premise, one can attack the premise--"I am not! I only lust after Shania Twain!"

However, if I use it as the basis to attack an argument irrelevant to his obsession with Shania, it becomes a fallacy.

--J.D.

Beancounter

21st June 2004, 04:18 AM

Okey dokey - I see your point. The problem was my lack of historical knowledge.

If the ancient Greeks knew the world was round is it therefore possible that this knowledge could have found its way to the writers of the OT or are the dates not comparable? If they are, this is then a logical explanation (as opposed to god told me) for the use of the word "sphere".

Incidently, if Radrook lusts after Shania Twain, he's alright in my book.

Edited to add: Actually Radrook may be offended by this as one given Exodus 20:17 and the fact that Shania Twain is (was?) married.

Doctor X

21st June 2004, 04:34 AM

If the ancient Greeks knew the world was round is it therefore possible that this knowledge could have found its way to the writers of the OT or are the dates not comparable?

Probably not.

The earlier dates for P are the time of Hezekiah (715-687 BCE) according to Friedman. Scholars traditionally date P much later--post-exilic. Not to tear into that debate, though I tend to agree with Friedman. Part of it has to do with the obvious borrowing of myth from Sumerian/Assyrian/Bablyonian cultures--Gilgamesh. However, these myths were fairly popular--people moved about/talked/did lunch.

So . . . I do not think this would influence the mythmakers--and I do not think the mythmakers cared about exact history.

Though you ask an interesting question--"when did cultures figure out the world is round?" I will have to look into that.

If they are, this is then a logical explanation (as opposed to god told me) for the use of the word "sphere".

I do not buy the translation of "circle of the Earth" as "sphere," nor do translators.

Incidently, if Radrook lusts after Shania Twain, he's alright in my book.

I remain an optimist.

--J.D.

Doctor X

21st June 2004, 04:38 AM

Actually Radrook may be offended by this as one given Exodus 20:17 and the fact that Shania Twain is (was?) married.

Well if he is not offended by the whole mass-slaughter of children, methinks he can get around this one!

It should be worth it to get around her [Right! Stop that!--Ed.]

--J.D.

MRC_Hans

21st June 2004, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

About the six days, the word used in Genesis is not restricted to a 24 hour day. That's why Adam died in the same day as God said he would but yet lived more than 900 earth years.

Terribly sorry, but that does not work. You see, life on Earth is organized in complex ecosystems, with food-chains, symbiosis, even climate regulation. You can't create som of the world, then wait for a prolonged period before doing the rest. Either you do it quick before all these interdependent creatures starve, or it evolves slowly over billions of years. There is no logical in-between.

The fact that the world is a sphere is not a recent concept.
It has had been around for hundreds of years prior to Columbus.

Make that thousands. Sea-faring people have probably known it way back, since it is very evident at sea that the Earth is round.

Hans

Radrook

21st June 2004, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Beancounter
Dear Doc

What I was looking for was:

The fact that the earth does "rest on nothing" and that this could only be proved from space, does not prove that the people who made the statement "the earth rests on nothing" had actually been to space (or god told them it was so). They could merely have made a supposition.

Maybe there isn't a phrase for this fallacy?

The answer was given in response to the accusation that the Bible is the cause of the flat earth idea that many continued to have even after it was well known by the knowledgeable that the earth is a sphere.

A supposition based on what observable evidence?

Radrook

21st June 2004, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Beancounter

I was assuming that circumnavigation had not taken place at the time of writing and therefore the authors didn't have a clue what was 'underneath" the world.

In this case is it still an invalid premise or one of your latin thingamies?

It would be an invalid premise if indeed I had used an invalid premise.

If I had written for example:

"The only way to know that it could be known that the earth is round is for God to tell us."

But that was not my premise nor trhe main thrust of my argument.
My argument was that the Bible is not the source nor the promoter of the flat earth idea as the other poster seemed to be saying.

IAlso, it was not the earth's roundness that I referred to when I mentioned how could the Hebrews know.

It was its being placed upon nothing since the only way to see such a thing is from space.

Doctor X

21st June 2004, 06:38 AM

The P myth presents a flat Earth.

Then you have that whole "four corners. . . ."

--J.D.

Doctor X

21st June 2004, 06:45 AM

Incidentally, there are "serious" flat-earthers out there and some cite the Bible.

There are also those who believe the world is hollow and we live on the inside. The proponent of that theory about 100 odd years ago--Cyrus Teague--had a better source than the Bible--an angle told him! He was also told to change his name to "Koresh."

The P story--like most creation stories--depict a flat-earth with a hierarchy suggestive of what a monarchy would want--according to some scholars: US up here, youse peasants down der.

Did the author(s) of the P story "believe" it?

--J.D.

Beancounter

21st June 2004, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Beancounter
For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat and there were dragons and unicorns. Belief in a situation does not make that situation fact.

My argument was that the Bible is not the source nor the promoter of the flat earth idea as the other poster seemed to be saying.

I was not implying that the bible was the source of the flat earth myth but rather that a long held belief doesn't become true just because it is believed for a long time. This was in response to the following:

[Additionally, for thousands of years neither the Jews, nor Christians, nor Moslems considered these events myths.

However see Dr X's post above - I can't comment.

Skeptical Greg

21st June 2004, 07:14 AM

Dr. X,

Enjoying your commentary as always..

Though Radrook continues to ignore you ( with any direct response,--- obviously unequipped to do so ....), they are providing you with many opportunities to justify our being here..

Oh, and regards the original question..

"... Is abortion always a sin?

Always.. If one believes it to be so..

Radrook

21st June 2004, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Beancounter

Jeepers, Radrook, now we are arguing semantics.

"Like a tent to live in" - I reiterate, tents do not expand. If the bible meant an expanding universe/firmament/whatever why wasn't it clearer? Things growing was a concept they were familiar with.

If semantics become relevant it is because words are being misunderstood and misapplied. There is another scripture that compares it to the heavens being stretched out like a gauze. This was not a statement limited to Isaiah.

I can't argue with the meaning of the word in the bible as I am not a scholar in these things ;) Others may be able to comment. However, if god views time differently from humans, given that the bible was written down by humans for humans, surely the authors would have explained the situation in words that you and I would understand literally. Why use phrases that might mean one thing or another - particularly when referring to days/millenia? Again this smacks of interpreting the bible to fit the facts that we know now whereas previous translations were done to fit the facts they knew then.

The Bible does explain it but you immediately use that very explanation to throw suspicion on the Bible. In other words the Bible is damned if it doesn't and damned if it does from where you stand.

Again my biblical knowledge lets me down here but what preparatory period would that be? (I don't recall that one being taught in RE) And did this period appear when the big bang theory was promulgated? See above re. interpretation.

This period has been mentioned in Genesis for thousands of years.
Are you now saying that as soon as the Big Bang theory was put forth people began adding verses to Genesis? Or are you saying that Bible scholars should never view the Bible as being in harmony with scientific theories because if it is then it means that you will immediately accuse them of tampering with it?

Perhaps I should join in the party and say that when the evolutionists had sea creatures followed by land creatures just like Genesis tells us the Evolutionists were happily copying that order from the Genesis?

Or that when geneticists found that interbreeding of different animal kinds is impossible they got their inspiration from Genesis that tells us that animals multiply according to their kinds? Or even that maybe that the Greeks and other ancient scientists got their idea of a round earth from the Bible? Or that the Big bang idea with the stretching of the universe was borrowed from the book of Isaiah? Or that the concept of germs was inspired by the cleanliness stipulations of Levitucus with its quarantine requirements when infectious decease was involved? Or that te water cycle idea was gotten from the first chapter of Ecclesiastes which mentions it?

Btw
What is RE?

About the Genesis prep days you ask about,
The preparatory periods are periods translated as days.
The period which can encompass the Big Bang and billions of our earth years is before the first prep day.

Before that first day the earth is described as being covered by water [again how did the writer know] and as being dark and void.

BTW
That darkness could have been due to the still present original nebula from which the earth was formed blocking out the much of the sun's light.

As to the water, geologists admit that earth was covered by water before dry land appeared. Maybe the Genesis writer was a geologist? Or maybe as soon as Christians and Hebrew scholars they found out about all this the Bible fanatics immediately began rewriting the Bible to fit in with the recent wrinkles.

Of course such an idea is ludicrous but it does have the saving grace of assuaging the fears of those who might begin to feel a bit twad uneasy with so many biblical scientific harmonious coincidences.

Again I cannot dispute that circle may equal sphere in Hebrew but again I question the clarity of the text. If god told us that the world was round why did this not become accepted until scientist/historian to insert appropriate date

I fail to see how inserting an appropriate date makes the concept acceptable. An Egyptian scientist had speculated that the earth is round and even calculated it circumference.

So there were certain observations on earth that indicated to the ancients that the earth is round. For example, the earth's curved shadow could be observed on the moon. The ships in the distance would present their masts first before presenting their hulls.

I've had a quick look at the Luke verses and it is clear to me that it is dealing with a period of a day "in that day" not a point in time, consequently it is quite possible that "in the day" the son of man is revealed some are sleeping and some are working (at different times of course).

That's OK by me.

Indeed it could only be proven from space, but it can be speculated from right where I am sitting. The answer doesn't prove the answer (or something - I am sure there is a Latin phrase for that but I will have to leave that to Doctor X) Incidentally, this is the same Isiah that stated that the moon gave off its own light (13:10 and 30:26).

BTW, as I have mentioned elsewhere, this is all a trifle academic because if the bible was not written by god, these arguments are baseless (but they are interesting

Not to worry.
No one will suspect that you are giving credence to the Bible since it is more than obvious by your posts that you are not.
But it pays to post a reminder now and then just to make sure.

The Bible doesn't deny that it was written by men.
If it did, then it would not tell you who were the men that wrote it.
The Bible claims inspiration by God.
There is a fine distinction there.

Isaiah 13
10 The stars of heaven and their constellations
will not show their light.
The rising sun will be darkened
and the moon will not give its light.

Do you require everyone who speaks of moonlight to imediately qualify his statement by saying that he meant reflected light or do you reserve that requirenent for Bible writers?

Actually, Isaiah makes the moonligght contingent on the sun since he tells us that as soon as the sun goes out the moon follows suite.

bluess

21st June 2004, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
If a mother will die giving birth if she carries the child to full term and she has no recourse to hospital incubation facilities, is aborton still a sin?

Who said abortion was a sin to begin with?

And why is the entire discussion being couched in terms of the Xian bible? Do Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists or Muslims consider abortion a sin? How about agnostics or Gaea worshippers?

If you are Xian and asking this question, perhaps it needs to be directed to folks within your particular brand of Xianity. Ditto if you are of any other particular religious affiliation.

If you aren't affiliated, please provide your definition of sin.

Edited for spelling.

Radrook

21st June 2004, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by bluess

Who said abortion was a sin to begin with?

And why is the entire discussion being couched in terms of the Xian bible? Do Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists or Muslims consider abortion a sin? How about agnostics or Gaea worshippers?

If you are Xian and asking this question, perhaps it needs to be directed to folks within your particular brand of Xianity. Ditto if you are of any other particular religious affiliation.

If you aren't affiliated, please provide your definition of sin.

Edited for spelling.

I would if I could but I can't so I won't.

Please understand that you baffle me when you claim not to notice that there are Christian who oppose abortion because they consider it a sin. It makes me wonder just where you have been all this time. After all, it's been all over the news for the better part of the previous century. It';s been debated and redebated and has even been an electotral issue.

Iacchus

21st June 2004, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Beancounter

I was not implying that the bible was the source of the flat earth myth but rather that a long held belief doesn't become true just because it is believed for a long time. This was in response to the following:So, does that necessarily conclude that any long standing belief is not true? Isn't your reasoning here just as fallacious? Thus far the belief in God hasn't been readily provable or, disprovable ... by the means of science anyway. ;) Regardless of how much wishful thinking may be involved.

bluess

21st June 2004, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

Please understand that you baffle me when you claim not to notice that there are Christian who oppose abortion because they consider it a sin.

I made no such claim.

What do you define as a sin? Does abortion fall under that definition?

Radrook

21st June 2004, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Beancounter

I was not implying that the bible was the source of the flat earth myth but rather that a long held belief doesn't become true just because it is believed for a long time. This was in response to the following:

[

However see Dr X's post above - I can't comment.

My mentioning that the myth concept was not held before the supposedly higher learning mode arrived was not meant to imply that because a belief is held for a long time it is necessarily true. That is similar to the the fallacy of appeal to tradition.

My mentioning it was in response to the statemnet that the writers themselves cconsidered what they were writing myth. Which of course implied that perhaps the people back then were also doing the same which is totally untrue in relation to both the Hebrews and Christians.

Radrook

21st June 2004, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by bluess

I made no such claim.

What do you define as a sin? Does abortion fall under that definition?

I do not believe in deontological reasoning.
Moral issues require the evaluation and setting of priorities.
So the question cannot be answered with a yes or a no.
Each individual case requires scrutiny and deep thought before one comes to a definitive morally acceptable conclusion.

Sin?
Sin is whenever we purposefully causes unnecessary harm to another creature or or ourseves.

bluess

21st June 2004, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

I do not believe in deontological reasoning.
Moral issues require the evaluation and setting of priorities.
So the question cannot be answered with a yes or a no.
Each individual case requires scrutiny and deep thought before one comes to a definitive morally acceptable conclusion.

So you started this thread for what purpose? Since you asked whether a particular case would be considered a sin?

Radrook

21st June 2004, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by bluess

So you started this thread for what purpose? Since you asked whether a particular case would be considered a sin?

I start the thread to read the different answers and learn the different approaches that others suggest. Just because I have my own approach doesn't mean that the question is not amenable to discussion. Isn't that what philosophy is all about?

The problem is that the posters seem more interested in another subject. So the thread has drifted so far from the subject that it no longer is about abortion. Truly sad since the subject can really become deep if there is interest in delving into the inricacies of the diverse situations that might develop.

Beancounter

21st June 2004, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

If semantics become relevant it is because words are being misunderstood and misapplied. There is another scripture that compares it to the heavens being stretched out like a gauze. This was not a statement limited to Isaiah.

Didn't see the quote so I didn't comment but the same semantics apply - you would say that "being stretched" is a continous process, whereas I would say that it is descriptive of its present status eg that ma, being stretched out on the beach, is tanning. Pedantic maybe, but I would like to see the context of the guaze text - I am not discounting that it may be as you say.
The Bible does explain it but you immediately use that very explanation to throw suspicion on the Bible. In other words the Bible is damned if it doesn't and damned if it does from where you stand.

Re. the time situation, please let me have the ref and I will follow it up.

This period has been mentioned in Genesis for thousands of years.

Ok showing my ignorance
Are you now saying that as soon as the Big Bang theory was put forth people began adding verses to Genesis? Or are you saying that Bible scholars should never view the Bible as being in harmony with scientific theories because if it is then it means that you will immediately accuse them of tampering with it?

No I am merely enquiring as to whether this "preparation period" was interpreted as such before the big bang theory. If I look at the beginning of genisis:

"1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Now from the above I don't see too much evidence of a long preparatory period, verses 1 and 2 could be interpreted to mean any length of time but reading the verses together implies the heaven and earth was created on day one. However, other interpretations are possible and I was merely wandering if these have varied over time in line with conventional scientific wisdom? I am certainly not implying that people changed the bible to match this same wisdom.

Perhaps I should join in the party and say that when the evolutionists had sea creatures followed by land creatures just like Genesis tells us the Evolutionists were happily copying that order from the Genesis? Or that when geneticists found that interbreeding of different animal kinds is impossible they got their inspiration from Genesis that tells us that animals multiply according to their kinds?

[I]Er, no. The above conclusions were derived following scientific theories and evidence such as fossils etc. The theory that sea creatures came first is relatively recent to sceince (as far as I know) and if they wanted to base this theory on the bible then they could have had this view wrapped up long before evolutionists came along. My point was merely a question - if the preparatory period did arise after the big bang or the real age of the earth came to be known then there would be a suspicion that interpretations had changed, particularly given peoples' absolute belief until relatively recently in creation and the time scale laid out in genesis.

Or even that maybe that the Greeks and other ancient scientists got their idea of a round earth from the Bible?

Is this practically possible given the known dissemination of the OT around the time of the Greeks? I do not know?[I]

Or that the Big bang idea with the stretching of the universe was borrowed from the book of Isaiah?

[I] See above

Or that the concept of germs was inspired by the cleanliness stipulations of Levitucus with its quarantine requirements when infectious decease was involved?

[I] Quarantine is common sense, you do the same with sick people. [I]

Or that te water cycle idea was gotten from the first chapter of Ecclesiastes which mentions it?

[I] All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

Given our current knowledge this could refer to the water cycle, alternatively given the scientific knowledge present when the bible was written, it could also mean that "somehow the water gets from the sea to the springs (underground?) because otherwise the sea would fill up" I don't know - again we are looking at this with modern eyes rather than the eyes of people three-odd thousand years ago. [I]

Btw
What is RE?

[I] Religious Education - bible studies at my school were called this [I]

About the Genesis prep days you ask about,
The preparatory periods are periods translated as days.
The period which can encompass the Big Bang and billions of our earth years is before the first prep day.

Before that first day the earth is described as being covered by water [again how did the writer know] and as being dark and void.

[I] See previous comments[I]

BTW
That darkness could have been due to the still present original nebula from which the earth was formed blocking out the much of the sun's light.

[I] Could have been although I am not sure there is room for a nebula between the earth and the sun (astrologers? - what is a nebula anyway?). On the other hand as the sun was not made until the fourth day this does not appear possible[I]

As to the water, geologists admit that earth was covered by water before dry land appeared. Maybe the Genesis writer was a geologist? Or maybe as soon as Christians and Hebrew scholars they found out about all this the Bible fanatics immediately began rewriting the Bible to fit in with the recent wrinkles.

[I] See comments above re. re-writing, as to the earth being covered by water yep - both the same.[I]

Of course such an idea is ludicrous but it does have the saving grace of assuaging the fears of those who might begin to feel a bit twad uneasy with so many biblical scientific harmonious coincidences.

[I] So many?[I]

I fail to see how inserting an appropriate date makes the concept acceptable. An Egyptian scientist had speculated that the earth is round and even calculated it circumference.

So there were certain observations on earth that indicated to the ancients that the earth is round. For example, the earth's curved shadow could be observed on the moon. The ships in the distance would present their masts first before presenting their hulls.

[I] I have forgotten the context here but that means (and I agree) that the writers of the bible could have known that the earth was a sphere. However, I was not implying that the bible was the source of flat earth beliefs merely that they were prevalent for a long time.

BTW, as I have mentioned elsewhere, this is all a trifle academic because if the bible was not written by god, these arguments are baseless (but they are interesting

Not to worry.
No one will suspect that you are giving credence to the Bible since it is more than obvious by your posts that you are not.
But it pays to post a reminder now and then just to make sure.

Jolly good. :)

The Bible doesn't deny that it was written by men.
If it did, then it would not tell you who were the men that wrote it.
The Bible claims inspiration by God.
There is a fine distinction there.

Lost the context here, but the writers were merely conduits were they not as the bible is constantly refered to as the word of god, is it not?[I]

Isaiah 13
10 The stars of heaven and their constellations
will not show their light.
The rising sun will be darkened
and the moon will not give its light.

Do you require everyone who speaks of moonlight to imediately qualify his statement by saying that he meant reflected light or do you reserve that requirenent for Bible writers?

Actually, Isaiah makes the moonligght contingent on the sun since he tells us that as soon as the sun goes out the moon follows suite. [/QUOTE]

[I] Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Beancounter

21st June 2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, does that necessarily conclude that any long standing belief is not true? Isn't your reasoning here just as fallacious? Thus far the belief in God hasn't been readily provable or, disprovable ... by the means of science anyway. ;) Regardless of how much wishful thinking may be involved.

As far as I understand it is impossible to disprove the existence of god and hence it is very difficult to be a true skeptic and an atheist (rather be an agnostic - you never know). My view is not to disprove god but rather to try and indicate that the christian view of god/creation etc etc is not rational based on current knowledge but has rather been dragged into the 21st century screaming and kicking.

No, my reasoning is not as fallacious as the one you propose, I am not saying that any longstanding belief is necessarily untrue, rather that the fact that it is a longstanding belief does not make it true. This is perfectly reasonable viz flat earthers, unicorns, dragons etc etc.

Beancounter

21st June 2004, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

The problem is that the posters seem more interested in another subject. So the thread has drifted so far from the subject that it no longer is about abortion. Truly sad since the subject can really become deep if there is interest in delving into the inricacies of the diverse situations that might develop.

My fault perhaps.

Based on your definition of sin then abortion is a sin if you regard the unborn foetus as a creature given that abortion is carried out purposefully.

Personally I believe the context should be taken into account and, hell is that the time - I have to get home and bath the kids - more on this later.

Iacchus

21st June 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Beancounter

As far as I understand it is impossible to disprove the existence of god and hence it is very difficult to be a true skeptic and an atheist (rather be an agnostic - you never know). My view is not to disprove god but rather to try and indicate that the christian view of god/creation etc etc is not rational based on current knowledge but has rather been dragged into the 21st century screaming and kicking. The current knowledge of what though? The non-existence of God? Sounds to me like Science hasn't even begun to tap into the realm of what we call human experience. And sad to say, it hasn't.

No, my reasoning is not as fallacious as the one you propose, I am not saying that any longstanding belief is necessarily untrue, rather that the fact that it is a longstanding belief does not make it true. This is perfectly reasonable viz flat earthers, unicorns, dragons etc etc. However, I do find it terribly ironic how those who wish to dispell it, are relying on just as much wishful thinking as those who claim to believe otherwise. In which case why don't we just call wishful thinking wishful thinking?

Radrook

21st June 2004, 09:43 AM

Re. the time situation, please let me have the ref and I will follow it up.

Isaiah 40
22It is God Who sits above the circle (the horizon) of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; it is He Who stretches out the heavens like [gauze] curtains and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in,

Amplified Bible

Isaiah 40
22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a gauze curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

Darby translation

Now from the above I don't see too much evidence of a long preparatory period, verses 1 and 2 could be interpreted to mean any length of time but reading the verses together implies the heaven and earth was created on day one.

However, other interpretations are possible and I was merely wandering if these have varied over time in line with conventional scientific wisdom? I am certainly not implying that people changed the bible to match this same wisdom.

Understanding has varied.
But the statement has been there all along and hasn't changed.

The preparatory period begins with day one when God causes light to finally reach earth's surface. Notice that before this statement God had already made the heavens and earth That means that the earth was in orbit around the sun and that the stars had been created. So there definitely was light. However, since the earth is described as being in darkness, obviously that light was not reaching the surface. So as I said, one possibility is that the original material from which out solar system was made was blocking out the sun's light causing the darkness mentioned in Genesis 1: 1.

- if the preparatory period did arise after the big bang or the real age of the earth came to be known then there would be a suspicion that interpretations had changed, particularly given peoples' absolute belief until relatively recently in creation and the time scale laid out in genesis.

Science does shed light on statements made in the Bible which our ancestors could not fully appreciate but which we can due to our greater knowledge. For example, the statement of God hanging the earth upon nothing must have seemed a bit weird to many. Yet to us it seems natural. Or that the animals came before man. That might have seemed somegow unusual siince man is the most important being in God's image. Yet today archeology confirms that animals were here before us. The continuous stretching out of the heavemns must hgave seemed whimsical to our ancestors. Yet today we know that it is caused by the Big Bang which God employed or could have employed to start material creation.

Because we realize what God originally meant or appreciate the full force of his words does not mean that the Bible was wrong because those reading it with insufficient knowledge could not appreciate what we do.

- again we are looking at this with modern eyes rather than the eyes of people three-odd thousand years ago. [I].

That is assuming non inspiration

Could have been although I am not sure there is room for a nebula between the earth and the sun (astrologers? - what is a nebula anyway?). On the other hand as the sun was not made until the fourth day this does not appear possible

It is not really a matter of being between us and the sun..
It is a matter of total envelopment of the original material from which the earth was created. Like a swaddling band.
A nebula is similar to a cloud but on a far vaster scale. They are usually composed of dust, or mostly hydrogen gas and dust mixed with other elements. Such nebulas might condense or collapse under their own gravitational forces and the resulting lumps might form stars and planets.

If the lump is dense enough it will collapse until its core initiates nuclear fusion and it becomes as star. Other lumps might become moons. Others comets and asteroids. Other lumps proto planets and planets.

The current theory is that star systems such as ours form from such nebulas. However, it takes time for the solar radiation to clear the area of debris. If the area around a planet is still thick enough in leftover dust and gas, it might block sunlight.

In fact, what keeps us from seeing the center of our galaxy right now ids the horeshead nebular which lies between us and the galactic center which is 37 million light years away.

So many?

There are many more examples of the Bible knowing what science had to wait to discover.

[

Skeptical Greg

21st June 2004, 10:23 AM

Radrook :

In fact, what keeps us from seeing the center of our galaxy right now ids the horeshead nebular which lies between us and the galactic center which is 37 million light years away.

Not even close..

The Milky Way Galaxy (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980523.html)

"... Orion ( which contains the Horsehead Nebua ) is at the right edge of the picture, just below the galactic plane ... "

I take it astronomy is not one of your areas of expertise?

Doctor X

21st June 2004, 01:28 PM

Diogenes:

Thanks!

The problem is that trying force a piece of text to say what it does not to allow one to save the text from science is rather like arranging the deck chairs on the Titantic.

No matter how sincere, the boat still sinks.

At least it has been conceded that "circle" is a "circle" and not a sphere.

--J.D.

Skeptical Greg

21st June 2004, 01:40 PM

I'm still eagerly awaiting the waffle on the astronomy nonsense..

I'll take strawberries and pecans on mine... Yummy..

Chanileslie

21st June 2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

Was the infant baptisted? If no, then she will wander Limbo forever (with all the bad Jews).

Only if god were the Catholic version. Now, if it were the Latter Day Saint's version (Mormon), the baby would go to heaven and be a choosen one.

Beancounter

21st June 2004, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
The current knowledge of what though? The non-existence of God? Sounds to me like Science hasn't even begun to tap into the realm of what we call human experience. And sad to say, it hasn't.

The current theories of evolution and the creation of the universe, theories that the church actively opposed when promulgated and even today certain schools still refuse to teach evolution. I reiterate how can you have knowledge of the non-existence of god? - you can't prove a negative!

I am sure science would be the first to admit there are a myriad of things that it has not "tapped into" and that is why scientists love going to work each morning - maybe they will make the next big discovery. That is the beauty of science - it does not claim to have all the answers, merely those that have been discovered to date.

Christianity on the other hand has one text book and a bunch of academics/believers trying to mould interpretations of the text to keep up with what science is discovering.

Which standpoint would a rational being who had never been to earth take? I'll let you answer that one.

Beancounter

21st June 2004, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Radrook
.Understanding has varied.

I would be interested to see if there is any correlation between these variations and conventional scientific theories

But the statement has been there all along and hasn't changed.

Fair enough

The preparatory period begins with day one when God causes light to finally reach earth's surface. Notice that before this statement God had already made the heavens and earth That means that the earth was in orbit around the sun and that the stars had been created

Your interpretation not mine - this is a fairly bold extrapolation of the text based on today's knowledge. If you took this tack in a court of law your case would be thrown out post haste. Also it explicitly states that the stars, sun and moon were made on the fourth day - why do you chose to ignore this explicit statement in favour of a vague interpretation - because it does not fit current scientific knowledge?

So there definitely was light. However, since the earth is described as being in darkness, obviously that light was not reaching the surface.

If there was light why did god bother to make the sun?

So as I said, one possibility is that the original material from which out solar system was made was blocking out the sun's light causing the darkness mentioned in Genesis 1: 1.

My italics

Science does shed light on statements made in the Bible which our ancestors could not fully appreciate but which we can due to our greater knowledge. For example, the statement of God hanging the earth upon nothing must have seemed a bit weird to many. Yet to us it seems natural. Or that the animals came before man. That might have seemed somegow unusual siince man is the most important being in God's image. Yet today archeology confirms that animals were here before us. The continuous your interpretation stretching out of the heavemns must hgave seemed whimsical to our ancestors. Yet today we know that it is caused by the Big Bang which God employed or could have ah, uncertainty employed to start material creation.

Because we realize what God originally meant or appreciate the full force of his words does not mean that the Bible was wrong because those reading it with insufficient knowledge could not appreciate what we do.

I reiterate an earlier point (here or elsewhere). If god gave the writers of the bible the inspiration to write it, why did he not also give them the knowledge to understand exactly now he had done it? Surely people who could gladly accept that guys could live for hundreds of years could have grasped the concept of a few billion for the creation of the earth?

It is not really a matter of being between us and the sun..
It is a matter of total envelopment of the original material from which the earth was created. Like a swaddling band.
A nebula is similar to a cloud but on a far vaster scale. They are usually composed of dust, or mostly hydrogen gas and dust mixed with other elements. Such nebulas might condense or collapse under their own gravitational forces and the resulting lumps might form stars and planets.

If the lump is dense enough it will collapse until its core initiates nuclear fusion and it becomes as star. Other lumps might become moons. Others comets and asteroids. Other lumps proto planets and planets.

The current theory is that star systems such as ours form from such nebulas. However, it takes time for the solar radiation to clear the area of debris. If the area around a planet is still thick enough in leftover dust and gas, it might block sunlight.

In fact, what keeps us from seeing the center of our galaxy right now ids the horeshead nebular which lies between us and the galactic center which is 37 million light years away.

I'll leave this to other, more learned, individuals than myself, but as mentioned above, it would have been nice for god to have imparted some of this knowledge at the time don't you think?

There are many more examples of the Bible knowing what science had to wait to discover.

Or are they examples of the bible interpretations fitting what we have discovered? Also, correlation does not equate to causality.

Radrook

21st June 2004, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Radrook :

Not even close..

The Milky Way Galaxy (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980523.html)

"... Orion ( which contains the Horsehead Nebua ) is at the right edge of the picture, just below the galactic plane ... "

I take it astronomy is not one of your areas of expertise?

First, I don't like dealing with sarcasm, snide remarks, heckling and jacking, or any other type of buffoonery. So if you wish to continue to communicate with me I strongly suggest that you modify your approach.

Second, who I ignore or don't ignore should be none of your concern. I am well within the accepted parameters of forum rules. If you have a beef with forum rules take your gripe to the administrators.

Third of least importance from where I stand:

I might have been off on the precise nebula involved but was right on the dot with the cause of what obscures our view of the galactic hub--nebulas.

Excerpt:
The Galactic Center is the hub around which the pinwheel of our Milky Way rotates. Astronomers can't see light from this central region because clouds of gas obscure it

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/redir?src=websearch&requestId=aedd8dbebb2d8570&clickedItemRank=1&userQuery=Milky+Way++galactic+hub&clickedItemURN=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fnsu%2 F020107%2F020107-9.html

BTW

Astronomy is a lifelong hobby of mine.
That small insignificant innacuracy was caused by the exhaustion of answering too many posts.

Nothing more.

Radrook

21st June 2004, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Beancounter

My fault perhaps.

Based on your definition of sin then abortion is a sin if you regard the unborn fetus as a creature given that abortion is carried out purposefully.

Personally I believe the context should be taken into account and, hell is that the time - I have to get home and bath the kids - more on this later.

Abortion can occur in so many diverse contexts that it would be unwise to apply deontological reasoning to it. For example, we might have a woman who will die if she carries the child to term. The child will die if it is not carried in uterus to term. It is the mother's life versus the child's. Whose life receives priority here?

We might have a pregnant rape victim whose mental health is being adversely affected by carrying the results of the rape. In fact, the prognosis is insanity if she does. Should she be forced to go insane in order to not abort?

We might have a pregnant woman that carries a severely deformed fetus similar to the Elephant man or else one that is blind, deaf, and dumb and maybe missing limbs as the thalidomide babies were.

The future "life" of the fetus will be of suffering and agonizing pain.

Should she feel forced to carry it to term?

Where do we draw the line?
Via rule thinking?

To that I say that the road to "hell" is paved by inflexible rule thinkers.

BTW
I was not minding our discussion about the other subjects at all.
: )

But if it is against the forum rules to deviate from a subject too much then perhaps it would be wise to continue it on a separate thread? I definitely do not want to begin breaking forum rules.

Radrook

21st June 2004, 11:20 PM

Your interpretation not mine - this is a fairly bold extrapolation of the text based on today's knowledge. If you took this tack in a court of law your case would be thrown out post haste. Also it explicitly states that the stars, sun and moon were made on the fourth day - why do you chose to ignore this explicit statement in favor of a vague interpretation - because it does not fit current scientific knowledge?

The operative word here is "made"hayah which can be translated as "become; cause to appear or arise;

In view that God already tells us that he had created the universe--it is logical to concluded that what "hayah" here means is not "create "but made to appear" .

Since there was a water canopy between earth and the heavenly bodies, the thinning out of this canopy in order to make the heavenly bodies visible is logically what the Hebrew word refers to.

I reiterate an earlier point (here or elsewhere). If god gave the writers of the bible the inspiration to write it, why did he not also give them the knowledge to understand exactly now he had done it? Surely people who could gladly accept that guys could live for hundreds of years could have grasped the concept of a few billion for the creation of the earth?

Because understanding these things is not necessary for a person's salvation. It is totally irrelevant to it. The total focus of the Bible is redemption from the fallen condition that our first parents brought upon us. So in relation to that -- God considered all these other things are trivia.

it would have been nice for god to have imparted some of this knowledge at the time don't you think?

Yes I agree.
But he considered it unnecessary for our guidence.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God_breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Or are they examples of the bible interpretations fitting what we have discovered? Also, correlation does not equate to causality.

Is a Bible reader supposed to shut his eyes at the obvious for fear that he will be accused of interpreting to fit?

About correlation,
Repeated positive correlation is scientifically accepted as being a strong indicator of causality and is a justifiable basis upon which to make the inductive leap leading to a deductive premise involving a generalization.

For example, the Temporal priority of lightning is repeatedly observed in relation to thunder.
So a positive correlation here has been understood as indicating causation.

Skeptical Greg

22nd June 2004, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

First, I don't like dealing with sarcasm, snide remarks, heckling and jacking, or any other type of buffoonery. So if you wish to continue to communicate with me I strongly suggest that you modify your approach.

.................... So, any form of criticism constitutes any or all of the above?

Second, who I ignore or don't ignore should be none of your concern. I am well within the accepted parameters of forum rules. If you have a beef with forum rules take your gripe to the administrators.

You mistake ' observation ' for ' concern '.. I would think one who throws around Bible quotes so freely, might respond to someone who answers with an apparent knowledge of your source..

Astronomy is a lifelong hobby of mine.
That small insignificant innacuracy was caused by the exhaustion of answering too many posts.

Everyone makes mistakes...........

Skeptical Greg

22nd June 2004, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

Sin?
Sin is whenever we purposefully causes unnecessary harm to another creature or or ourseves.

This would indicate you do not believe in the concept of ' original sin ' ..

By your definition, it would seem to me that Adam and Eve did not sin when they ate from the tree of knowledge, since before they ate the fruit, they had no knowledge of good and evil?

Beancounter

22nd June 2004, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

The operative word here is "made"hayah which can be translated as "become; cause to appear or arise;

In view that God already tells us that he had created the universe--it is logical to concluded that what "hayah" here means is not "create "but made to appear" .

Since there was a water canopy between earth and the heavenly bodies, the thinning out of this canopy in order to make the heavenly bodies visible is logically what the Hebrew word refers to.

Ok, again the thinning part is being interpolated from the "facts". As to whether there was water up in space or whereever, that has been discussed elsewhere. Incidently, how did it stay up? And if it stayed up, why did it come down?

Because understanding these things is not necessary for a person's salvation. It is totally irrelevant to it. The total focus of the Bible is redemption from the fallen condition that our first parents brought upon us. So in relation to that -- God considered all these other things are trivia.

So why have we discovered this now? If it is all irrelevant surely an omniscient god would disseminate scientific information on a need to know basis - i.e. we would still be living in tents around camp fires and hunting with spears

Yes I agree.
But he considered it unnecessary for our guidence.

See above

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God_breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

I emphasize the all - there is some pretty rough stuff in there as well - but I suppose that is for the rebuking and correcting part - "naughty humans!". Makes you feel a bit worthless, a bit like a pet, don't you think.

Is a Bible reader supposed to shut his eyes at the obvious for fear that he will be accused of interpreting to fit?

No, but my concern is that things only appear to be "obvious" (and I have my reservations about many of the interpretations cited) after the event. Hindsight is a perfect science - see my comment on the ET thread - lets assume ET's do exist, is there a ref. to this in the bible? If yes, where, if no then can you categorically say that, per the bible, ETs do not exist? If they then arrive? Irrelevant to our salvation? If they are warlike I suspect they may have quite a big say in our continued existence.

About correlation,
Repeated positive correlation is scientifically accepted as being a strong indicator of causality and is a justifiable basis upon which to make the inductive leap leading to a deductive premise involving a generalization.

For example, the Temporal priority of lightning is repeatedly observed in relation to thunder.
So a positive correlation here has been understood as indicating causation.

I would agree with you 100% except that the correlation is between actual events and extreme interpretations of the bible not the bible as it was written (lightniong and thunder on the other hand are unadulterated phenomena). If one was to re-write the bible today with all of the interpretations that are being made by the christian scientists et al it would be a very different book to the one that exists in my book shop. I just can't help feeling that it smacks of the treatment given to the prophesies of Nostradamus and I am sure you don't give much creedence to him.

Lord Emsworth

22nd June 2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Woodpecker
Since there was a water canopy between earth and the heavenly bodies, the thinning out of this canopy in order to make the heavenly bodies visible is logically what the Hebrew word refers to.

The waters are ABOVE the heaven (=firmament) and the heavenly bodies are IN the firmament.

Genesis: (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/gen001.htm)

"1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. [...]

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,"

The heavenly bodies are between the waters above and the earth and not vice versa.

Doctor X

22nd June 2004, 09:20 AM

Diogenes:

He is simply afraid to question.

--J.D.

Radrook

23rd June 2004, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

The waters are ABOVE the heaven (=firmament) and the heavenly bodies are IN the firmament.

Genesis: (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/gen001.htm)

"1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. [...]

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,"

The heavenly bodies are between the waters above and the earth and not vice versa.

That's the way they would appear to situated from our vantage point on earth.

Excerpt:

The Order of Creation According to the Bible
Creation of the entire physical universe (matter,1 energy,2 space3 and time4) from the invisible (16 x 109 years ago).

5 This creation event includes an expanding universe,6 which continues to expand at this time.

6 Preparation of planet earth for the creation of life.
The Bible describes the Earth's initial conditions following its creation when the Sun is already shining. The Bible also says that the Earth is controlled by the heavens and not the other way around (geocentrism is refuted).

7 The original Earth is described as being without any oceans or water at all (4.5 x 109 years ago).

8 Science tells us that the Earth's water probably came from cometary collisions that were common during the early history of the Solar System.

9 The main biblical creation account (Genesis 1) begins after the formation of the Earth's oceans with a description of the Earth as a water-covered planet covered by dense clouds (4.0 x 109 years ago).

10 The dense atmosphere is partially cleared so that light can strike the surface of the earth. (3.9 x 109 years ago).
Formation of a stable water cycle (3.9 x 109 years ago).

11
Formation of continents, including an accurate description of the tectonic activity that produced the continents (2.7 x 109 years ago)

12
Creation of plants on the land and their subsequent "production by the land," possibly including some naturalistic processes (0.9 x 109 years ago).

13 Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent transparent as the Sun, Moon, and stars show through the atmosphere. (0.9-0.6 x 109 years ago)
Creation of swarms of small sea animals and their subsequent "great increase" or "teeming by the water" (consistent with the Cambrian explosion) possibly involving some naturalistic processes. (0.5-0.3 x 109 years ago)

14 Creation of birds (140-60 x 106 years ago)

15 Creation of sea mammals (60-50 x 106 years ago)

16 Creation of land mammals that interact with humans (30-15 x 106 years ago)

17 creeping land mammals (e.g., rodents)
large quadraped land mammals (e.g., cattle)
wild land mammals (e.g., carnivores)
Creation of modern humans (100-50 x 103 years ago)18

The Bible is unique among ancient creation accounts in that its description of the order of creation is 100% accurate.

Biblical Creationary Model for the Universe and Life on Earth
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/model.html