It could have been SO easy, but apparently god likes to complicate things. Maybe it's because god just wanted us to discover how he did things through scientific research. OOPS that backfired!
First, the Christian approach to Genesis was taken in an abstract/metaphorical/allegorical sense long before legitimate empirical science could really challenge the the account of Genesis. Augustine was very big on an allegorical interpretation against a concrete one and I don't think he was alone.
Now the author of this movie thinks that God could've inspired the author to come up with the scientific facts, but why would that have been culturally relevant at the time. Some (if not all) of Genesis is written in ways that are relevent to the time period, such as the lack of a name for the sun and moon (called the greater light and lesser light) which is a slight to the religious worship of those bodies.
Furthermore, who's to say that God didn't want man to figure out much of the science on his own (as he has and is in the process of doing). The development of science has been a rich part of human history and has been an example of mankind's reflection of God (even though it has also been used in warped ways that we'd expect from broken and rebellious humanity, such as the improvement of killing techniques and the development of industries that greatly damage our environment).
I don't know why the author thinks that this version written for our cultural biases would've inspired belief in any period of time. Go back to the ancient greek civilization for instance and the heliocentricm would've conflicted with the Ptolemaic view of the universe.
And he left out what is one of the most important and profound details of Genesis, the creation of man (and it would seem more specifically, the creation of male and female as a unit together) in the image of God.
In the field of textual criticism, what could be more unscholarly than to take known corroborating manuscripts and deliberately devise a known corrupt text? I remember playing Monopoly as a child and bending every rule so that I could own whatever I wanted. Having all the money, Boardwalk and Park Place felt good but I wasn’t really playing the game. Such is the “Revised Reality Version”. Every rule is bent with the goal of having it “your way”. Evidently, such wishful thinking is practiced among atheist “theologians” but the end result is like a supermodel pinup poster instead of a wife; a Car & Driver magazine instead of a car; viewing a “reality” show instead of living life for yourself.
History repeats itself: From 2nd - 4th century AD we have the Gnostic gospels which bend doctrine and history every which way to satisfy someone’s personal agenda. Then beginning about 10 years ago, a similar flood of misinformation found its way onto the internet giving rise to the “myth busters”: snopes.com, urbanlegendsonline.com, and scambusters.org
Rob R wrote: Some (if not all) of Genesis is written in ways that are relevent to the time period, such as the lack of a name for the sun and moon (called the greater light and lesser light) which is a slight to the religious worship of those bodies.
Modern Nomenclature Mathematics: major axis, minor axis Astronomy: Ursa Major; Ursa Minor Anatomy: large intestine; small intestine
Future advancements in language may produce more specific names for McDonald’s large & small fries: “macfri” & “micfri”
// First, the Christian approach to Genesis was taken in an abstract/metaphorical/allegorical sense long before legitimate empirical science could really challenge the the account of Genesis. Augustine was very big on an allegorical interpretation against a concrete one and I don't think he was alone. //
I am the author of this movie, just so we're clear.
Augustine took "some" of Genesis to be allegorical, but certainly not all. And I do not have to point out the obvious: Millions of Christians 'today' take a literal bend.
Rob, I think you've missed the point here. There is absolutely 'nothing' in those 9 verses which constitute science per-se. Yes, it is far more scientifically accurate, but just look on my YT channel and see how many atheists would have been more inclined to believe a deity inspired the writing.
The harsh bottom line is Genesis, despite whatever allegorical slant you want to place on the document, is "wrong" -- and a god that plays peek-a-boo with mankind is not a deity I would bow to regardless of the circumstances.
Your comments on the development of science (this coming from a scientist) is ... well, almost laughable. You can trace religion's suppression of science as far back as Genesis itself, and it's still quite evident today.
I maintain that Yahweh could have effortlessly inspired the text and still been both metaphorical (the pinching of the earth; the moon giving night a companion) while not being flat-out wrong.
Lastly, you must not have watched the entire video as I cover the creation of man "accurately" and with a bit more eloquence than Genesis; and without the needless misogyny that went on to plague womankind for the following 4,000 years.
// In the field of textual criticism, what could be more unscholarly than to take known corroborating manuscripts and deliberately devise a known corrupt text? //
If you think this was a textual critique approach, you missed the point.
I did not make Genesis the way "I" wanted it to be. I made it both more accurate and more telling of a supernatural influence.
Genesis 1 as-is contains absolutely nothing that a bronze-age man could not have deduced simply by using his own imagination. It is replete with error.
To me, this is unthinkable logically speaking.
Example: If a man came up to me and said, "The true God Balak just revealed Her word to me -- and SHE created Yahveh!", my first reaction would be, "Prove it."
This man shows me a document that Balak "inspired" him to write. The document begins, "In the beginning, Balak created woman, and gave all women horns for all time." Naturally, I would say, "This is utter nonsense. Women do not have horns, nor have they ever had horns."
"It's a metaphor," he says.
As silly as this sounds, that is exactly what believers do with Genesis 1, in particular 1:2. When you say, "This is the God of the universe," and I say, "Wait - there is no water in the vacuum of space, nor without the presence of gravity could the earth..." etc. You say, "Metaphor." "Allegorical."
It's still "wrong". And every meaning necessary could have easily been transmitted with facts rather than falsehoods. The result would, in my opinion, been a far less bloody history and many more believers as time went on to prove the statements true.
It's a bitter pill to swallow, but at least it's the red pill.
Lastly, who is to say that the Gnostic or even the Ebionite texts were not the "accurate" ones? Can you not read between the lines when reading, say, James or Matthew as compared to the earlier works of Paul?
Jesus was Hellenized by Paul -- that was my stance when I was a minister and it's my stance now as an agnostic.
// Go back to the ancient greek civilization for instance and the heliocentricm would've conflicted with the Ptolemaic view of the universe. //
I don't think Ptolemy's belief or lack of belief was affected by Genesis or anything Jewish for that matter. A Greco-Roman in... what, 100 AD? (memory doesn't serve) was hardly a ripe-for-convert kinda guy. Besides, not all Greeks shared his belief. Let's not forget Pythagoras.
i am not so sure that those choices that the writer made would "go over" with people at that time not only because of them being "ancient" but being of a different "culture" and "language."
the filmaker forgot that some of those phrases might be difficult in the original hebrew, and that perhaps the people at that time might actually *LOOSE FAITH* if what they saw with their eyes contradicted the passage i.e the Light from the Sun on the Moon. This would go against what they plainly saw.
// i am not so sure that those choices that the writer made would "go over" with people at that time not only because of them being "ancient" but being of a different "culture" and "language." //
I'm enjoying the feedback on this.
Please point out what would not have gone over culturally. Nothing in the language is exempt from the language of the day; each word has a Hebrew equivalent.
// the filmaker forgot that some of those phrases might be difficult in the original hebrew, and that perhaps the people at that time might actually *LOOSE FAITH* if what they saw with their eyes contradicted the passage i.e the Light from the Sun on the Moon. This would go against what they plainly saw.//
Now let's consider this thought.
The people of the day could not see, for example, a missing rib where woman was created. Did any lose faith? Later down the timeline, they surely would have had a hard time imagining the world being flooded with water, or Lot's wife turned to salt.
Each of these defy common sight, but they were accepted, as surely as a burning bush that talked was accepted.
I find it quite a stretch to presume that a passage of greater understanding (the sun shines on the moon) would have caused a people willing to commit mass murder on the basis of their prophets and leader's words alone a contingency for disbelief.
In short, I think you give the Israelites way too much credit for critical thought. ; )
It is a good illustration of what a real God could have done. I agree much more belief would have been inspired.
Also, consider that we're pretty clever apes. God could also have revealed unto us a 'true mystery' to 'meditate and pray upon.' Somehthing far beyond the technology of the time. The germ theory of illness for instance. Perhaps we wouldn't have understood it at the time, but we'd have really tried to, and eventually we would have.
Instead we get the mishmash of programming with a sweet Jesus center that is the bible. Filled with cognitave-dissonance-inducing contradictory statements that are required to be believed simultaneously. God is love, and if you don't believe that He'll roast you for eternity, that sort of thing. It makes what could have been a genuine spiritual path a walk through psychosis park.
For me the strongest indictments of the truth claims of the various Christianities derives from the special meld of what their gods both put in and left out of their holy book.
Much of what their deity included, the entire civilized world now rejects. I immediately think of their diety's dietary restrictions, maiming or killing for petty crimes, killing adulterers, killing those found working on the sabbath, keeping slaves after military victory, keeping virgins after military victory, and advice for those confronted with menstruation.
Much of what their deity left out would have benefited mankind immensely. Wash your hands. Cook your pork well-done. Slavery is always wrong. A clear elucidation of evolution would have greatly improved man's understanding of his home planet and his place in it.
Those writing the Bible could easily have understood it since at the time the earliest books of the Bible were written, man had been farming and domesticating animals and plants for millenia. That is, man had already been actively involved in hand's-on evolution of species. Dogs, cattle, goats, camels, horses, swine, cabbage family, and grasses like wheat, rye and barley had all undergone millenia of active selective breeding by humans before the Bible was written. Dogs diverged from wolves more than 15,000 years ago, and have been living among men and evolved to men's needs all this time.
Unfortunately, the knowledge possessed by the Christian gods is precisely that possessed by the Bible's authors. Those creating the Biblical god were fear-stricken, ignorant and superstitious, and their god was created exactly the same way. The ignorant authors of the Bible could not imbue their deity with a knowledge and understanding they lacked themselves.
I just saw a TV commercial for an energy drink. It said that the drink was low calorie and caffeine free, made from all-natural ingredients, and non-addictive. Hard to say why, but I am not jumping in my car to go buy a few cases of it.
Maybe it's because I know it's a TV commercial and not a presentation at a scientific conference that underwent double-blind peer review. Maybe it's because I know it's a TV commercial and not an objective declaration of fact. Maybe I know that it's just a TV commercial and that I need to find other ways to corroborate its claims before I drink the product.
I imagine the creators of this drink belive they have concocted something that can genuinely help some people who need an energy boost. Sure, they also realize they are selling a product. I could, however, also take the position that these folks had a diabolical or ignorance-based superstitious reason to create the drink and pay for a massive marketing campaign.
However, I choose to see it for what it is -- a TV commercial designed for a specific purpose. To read more into it or to extrapolate more out of it would be to turn it into something that it's not.
Trent wrote:I did not make Genesis the way "I" wanted it to be. I made it both more accurate and more telling of a supernatural influence.
In your own words, the way YOU wanted it was "more accurate" and "more telling". So you ended up with exactly what YOU WANTED. In scientific experimentation there is a problem known as "finding what you are looking for". Your "Revised Reality Version" provides more insight into YOU than the Bible which you are supposedly expounding upon.
Something else to consider is that you didn’t make yourself nor did your ancestors as far as you can trace them in recorded history. So the physical evidences allude to the possibility that you were created by the one whom you question. Actually “question” is not accurate since your approach is to teach with authority. If my suspicions are true, and I think they are, your choices have landed you into the realm of a “strong delusion”. It’s somewhat of a mystery to me how it works but I’ve witnessed the following:
A people subjugated to a corrupt ruler that they elected after believing false promises.
2 Thess 2:11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
Person A says to Person B, "You're ignorant and deluded. But good news, we can fix this! Let me help."
Person B says to Person A, "No, you are quite wrong. It is in fact YOU who are ignorant and deluded, and your delusion has even been added to by the Great Invisible Being. I know this to be true because the Great Invisible Being gave visions and special revelation to this ancient man that I trust."
Hmmm, as an outside observer, how should I process such an exchange? Maybe I have a bias, but I'm suspicious about the person using invisible beings and visions to make his claims.
// In your own words, the way YOU wanted it was "more accurate" and "more telling". So you ended up with exactly what YOU WANTED. In scientific experimentation there is a problem known as "finding what you are looking for". Your "Revised Reality Version" provides more insight into YOU than the Bible which you are supposedly expounding upon. //
Alan, in this paragraph you simply state what Trent himself gives as his reasons at the very beginning of the video. Yes, his goal (what he wanted) was to create a rendering of Genesis 1 that was more accurate and thereby as an actual all-knowing God would have made. And?
You're spending a paragraph to state the all-together obvious. I think you mean to draw some conclusion of significance by it, but it's quite the mystery as to what that would be as you don't state anything beyond what the author himself admits as his intent and demonstrates as what he in fact does.
In your second paragraph you suggest that Trent - if the god you believe in is in fact the real one - might simply here be questioning your god. Yet you present no reason why anyone should consider the god you believe in as real over any other of the concepts of gods in human culture. You're basically begging the case here. What's worse is your doing so in response to something that calls into question your particular god as an actual all-knowing God by arguing from the assumption that he is real.
I wonder how you don't see how silly this should come across to even former believers like myself, let alone anyone who never shared your view in the past.
Trent, I like your movie. I've thought about doing this same sort of project.
I've never bought into the line of reasoning that you're addressing: "Genesis 1 and 2 aren't science books! Ancient people could not possibly understand modern science. So it's allegory. See, isn't that easy? Now we can have Science and Faith. It's the best of both worlds!"
I took a quick look, and found one case of this on my bookshelf. Francis Collins in The Language of God says "The intention of the Bible was (and is) to reveal the nature of God to humankind. Would it have served God's purposes thirty-four hundred years ago to lecture to His people about radioactive decay, geologic strata, and DNA?" (pg 175 of the paperback edition).
Well, of course not!! Genesis isn't purporting to be Science, it's purporting to be History! Good grief, a creation story doesn't need to be full of modern scientific knowledge to be historically accurate.
Your short movie easily demonstrates that using a little bit of imagination, it would be trivial to create a simple creation narrative that would eventually be confirmed by modern discoveries. It could easily meet the needs of both ancient and modern men, and still explain the relationship between the Creator and the created.
Does anyone know if any Young Earthers have also made this same argument? It would suit their case just as well as yours.
Russ wrote:Much of what their deity included, the entire civilized world now rejects. I immediately think of their diety's dietary restrictions, maiming or killing for petty crimes, killing adulterers, killing those found working on the sabbath, keeping slaves after military victory, keeping virgins after military victory, and advice for those confronted with menstruation.
// In your own words, the way YOU wanted it was "more accurate" and "more telling". So you ended up with exactly what YOU WANTED. //
The comments made by DJ Wilkins would be my own to this statement.
Again, this is not what I personally want, at least as much as a writer can detach himself from what's written. It's what I believe 'could' have been written to make the claims more than empty, allegorical nonsense.
// In scientific experimentation there is a problem known as "finding what you are looking for". Your "Revised Reality Version" provides more insight into YOU than the Bible which you are supposedly expounding upon. //
Nonsense.
First, I 'am' a scientist, so I'm quite familiar with the issues at hand.
Your statements is more than a tad ironic, as Christian "scientists" and apologists seek to prove something based on a preconceived notion of truth.
Irony indeed.
Nonetheless, this is not what's going on here. I am not taking a "conclusion" (other than sheer reality) and trying to prove it post-facto. I am asserting, rather forcefully, that Genesis is poorly written. It could have easily been written, had a deity been involved that wanted mankind to understand him APART FROM the age of superstition.
That my friend is what you are omitting from your argument. In ancient times, anything deemed "holy" would have been accepted by its followers. This is painfully obvious from scripture.
No, the real test of a supernatural claim would come later in history when science caught up to the claims. My contention is simply that science would have eventually proven the concepts in the "rewritten" version correct, thus ensuring believers in the age of doubt.
// Something else to consider is that you didn’t make yourself nor did your ancestors as far as you can trace them in recorded history. //
So? That is covered in my version of Genesis, and attributed to your god in the process. It is merely accurate; no less 'mystical' than forming man from mud, and far more profound in my opinion. More of a love story, if I may be so sappy.
// Actually “question” is not accurate since your approach is to teach with authority. If my suspicions are true, and I think they are, your choices have landed you into the realm of a “strong delusion”. //
Er... no.
I'm a skeptic, part-time philosopher, former minister (that you can hold against me... ; ) and rational thinker. Nothing more.
I'm not trying to teach with authority - I'm trying to get people like you to think beyond the ridges of the box. But thinking scares many people, hence the power of religion -- which, btw, is usually followed by....
well, just look at your tagline.
Threats. "Strong delusion."
Circular reasoning. You're taking a book of mayhem and using it's most radical and rejected (in the day) author, Paul, and quoting this as if it were God himself authoring it.
That is delusional. But of course you're free to believe whatever you wish.
Finally, I do not mean to be confrontational here. I have nothing against believers. I'm not Chris Hitchens. I just enjoy philosophical thought.
Wrong. Dietary restriction was quite nicely covered in Torah. And Jesus practiced Torah; he upheld his Jewishness until Paul dismantled it.
// Maiming or killing for NO crime //
See Numbers 31. Or any number of passages to which you will assert there "was" a crime (disbelief).
And oh how the maiming continued throughout the Crusades... silly argument here Alan.
// Idolizing adulterers //
"You have heard it said, 'You should not commit adultery.' But I say unto you..."
You know the rest.
So, are you willing to step up to the plate and say the folks YOU "idolize" (we all have our heroes) have never THOUGHT about adultery?
Give me a freakin' break man...
// Protecting rights to violate virgins //
Surely you jest.
The Bible never says a WORD regarding what we not consider pedophilia. In my previous Numbers 31 example, Moses' army was commanded to violate virgins, unless you're just hopelessly naive as to what "booty" entailed in Jewish wars.
And then there's the selling of your daughters into slavery... and then there's Lot, trading his virgin daughters in exchange for protection of "angels", only later to shag them silly in a drunken state, and never once reprimanded for doing so...
... and so-on.
I wonder Alan how much OT scholarship you've actually done. Do tell.
// Keeping slaves after economic victory //
If I have to point out the dross here, I'll puke.
I take it your standard for slavery being "okay" is economic downturn. That would make slavery acceptable in most parts of the world today, would it not?
No Alan, we grew up in the civilized world. We realized that owning another person is NEVER right. EVER.
Human morality evolves, just as human beings evolve.
Yahweh unfortunately got left behind in that evolution of morality, as least as far as his mandates (and Jesus' neither here-nor-there stance) is concerned.
Finally, I have to say this: I find it quite pious and hypocritical of one who profanes the work of "modern society" while they reap all of the benefits they agree with.
-- Immunization against Yahweh's nifty viruses.
-- Medical advances from the study of evolutionary biology (part of my field.)
-- Even air flight, which was widely condemned by church leaders of the time. Funny but true story. The old adage, "If God wanted men to fly he would have given him wings" actually came from a well-known minister making a public declaration against the "evils of science."
Or, let me just quote someone you're familiar with:
“There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity…It is this which drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature, those secrets beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which men should not wish to learn…”
// Your short movie easily demonstrates that using a little bit of imagination, it would be trivial to create a simple creation narrative that would eventually be confirmed by modern discoveries. It could easily meet the needs of both ancient and modern men, and still explain the relationship between the Creator and the created. //
Thank you Jim. I appreciate your kind words and feedback, and thanks to John for posting this on his blog.
This is just part of an entire book that I hope to have published before year's end, that tackles the entire book of Genesis.
Thanks DJ! That's the read I'm going for, obviously with a touch of old English for nothing more than poetry's sake.
Frankly, I think the Bible's view of God is horrifically narrow. The universe shows us far more than this deity ever did; and if there is a god, he/she/they are worthy of more than tribalism and irresponsibility.
The Bible’s seemingly harsh death penalty for adultery is instituted in the United States currently. While the government stands idly by, the due process is carried out by cheated spouses in the form of murder. How many murders occur daily that are motivated by retaliating spouses? Under Judeo law, the Theocratic government provided a due process for dealing with this evil that was superior to an individual in a state of rage without lawful recourse. The entire O. J. Simpson tragedy would undoubtedly have been avoided under Judeo law. Critics of Old Testament law have erected a straw man since the law was given specifically to the nation of Israel and was never intended to bring its adherents to perfection as evidenced by the following:
Galations 3:24-25Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Romans 8:3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.
// The Bible’s seemingly harsh death penalty for adultery is instituted in the United States currently. //
Oh, is it? Please do point that out to me within the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. I'd be curious to read the bit where "stoning a non-virgin upon your wedding day" is 'also' mandated by our constitution.
The rest of your response is rife with contradiction, unless you are Jewish (obviously not as you continually quote Paul. ; )
Again: Jesus' upgrade to Torah 2.0: THOUGHT of adultery is adultery.
Please do post a link to anything remotely close to this mandate within our governmental charters.
Meanwhile, I'll be happy to provide you with quotes from Adams, Jefferson, et. al that clearly spell out the need for a secular government.
Alan, may I suggest a book? Read Barrie Wilson's "How Jesus Became Christian." It's not written from an atheist or agnostic perspective. Barrie is a scholar and his understanding of Jewish history is quite excellent.
// How about giving these suggestions in the original language Genesis was written in. //
For one thing, I cannot write in Hebrew. Even if I could, I doubt it would be understood.
// Since neither you nor the author of this video ever read the original how do you know what is and is not in it? //
I am the author of the video. And we do not have any original autographs, so would that, in your view, make the point of 'any' critique (positive or negative) worthless? Or are you referring to the oldest manuscripts? If so, I was forced to read what I could in college, but I always sucked at languages.
Besides, the point is moot. The idea behind the video is overlooked. It's simple: If God wanted mankind to really 'believe' he authored or inspired something, it would have been easy to provide just a few lines of text to do just that.
Either he clearly did NOT, making him at best a very dubious deity, or (in all probability) these books are the works of primitive people trying to understand the world around them.
In many English versions (such as the King James Bible) simply forces a creedal Christian theology on to the Hebrew Bible and glosses over the Semitic terms for the place of all the dead such as Sheol, the pit (or the grave) with the bogus term Hell.
Also, in the Greek New Testament, the terms Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus are all glossed over and simply termed Hell in English to agree with orthodox creedal Christianity.
Likewise, what is plainly expressed as polytheism in Genesis 1: 1 “בראשית ברא אלהים”is simply glossed over by the Jews translating the LXX in Alexandria, Egypt as monotheism: “εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεός”.
But the grammatical muscular plural אלהים in Genesis 1:1 is NOT the Hebrew singular אל which is used for all gods in the Hebrew Bible including Yahweh.
The fact that this polytheistic term is linked to Israel’s personal god in Genesis 2:7 as יהוה אלהים is nothing but a conflation of the older polytheism account of creation coupled with Yahweh or literally “Yahweh Gods”. This is glossed over in the late LXX text to conform to orthodox Jewish monotheism as “ο θεός”.
The New Testament author qoute ONLY from the LXX to avoid any form of polytheism in the polytheistic Greco-Roman world.
In short, the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 have different gods and god really doing the creations.
Christianity assigns Genesis to only one God in their English texts which follows the late orthodox monotheism of the LXX.
The people of the day could not see, for example, a missing rib where woman was created. Did any lose faith? Later down the timeline, they surely would have had a hard time imagining the world being flooded with water, or Lot's wife turned to salt."
my point was that there would be things that would contradict what their eyes saw, the rib analogy regards something 'they do not see.'
they see things in terms of days of the week, in terms of things 'being there.'
they see the 'sun' they see the 'moon', in their mind the light from the sun is not hitting the moon so to suggest this would be a direct contradiction to what they saw.
moreover, the idea might lead to scientific discoveries in much future generations 'before the appropiate time' in terms of the plan that God would have in mind.
What's this idiotic talk about having this said in Hebrew? As far as I know God could've created English as the language of that day and said exactly the words used in this video.
Sheesh, such stupid objections...No wonder some people believe. They're stupid! ;-)
The video opens with the following text: The Consensus: A long standing contention of many Christian apologists…
The above is a worn-out ad populum argument.
Genesis was never meant to be a book of science but rather a book of understanding.
Let’s test the above statement: Gen 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
Since people don’t live this long today, is the account metaphorical?
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
The tedious detail given to the exact date ruins the metaphorical nature. The “windows of heaven were opened” is indeed a metaphor but if someone told me that it rained cats and dogs during the Midwest 1937 flood, does that mean this flood was metaphorical?
Gen 8:3-4 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
More tedious dates and a present-day mountain bearing the exact same name located in the middle of the “cradle of civilization”. Dostoyevsky’s “Crime & Punishment” novel refers to “Voznesensky Prospect” which is a street in present-day St. Petersburg but we know for a fact that his story is fictionl because Dostoyevsky never hid this fact when he began writing his story in 1865.
Gen 8:13-14 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
A 150-day period is described starting on the seventeenth day of the second month, and ending on the seventeenth day of the seventh month (Genesis 7:11,24 and 8:3-4). Subtracting between the two, we have 5 months (which are referred to as 150 days). If 150 days = 5 months, then 1 mo. = 30 days 30 days x 12 mo. = 360 days/year
If the Genesis account was fabricated or borrowed, then why did the author convey an unconvincing and erroneous 360-day year? If the lunar year at the time of the supposed Flood was indeed 360 days, then Genesis would be vindicated and elevated to the status of a “scientific instrument” of great value. I’m not aware of any conclusive proof that a 360-day pre-flood year could NOT have existed but I am aware of corroborating evidences that support this idea:
Early Egyptians assumed a 360-day year, until they realized that the Nile was flooding later and later each year according to that calendar. Because Egypt’s earliest settlers probably would not have adopted a 360-day year while in Egypt, they presumably brought that outdated understanding with them. [See J. Norman Lockyer, The Dawn of Astronomy (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press, 1964), pp. 243–248.]
Babylonian astronomers, thousands of years ago, divided a circle into 360 degrees. Why did they choose 360, instead of something easier such as 100 or 1,000? Probably because a year had 360 days before the flood—one degree for each day of the year. This would have been the average daily motion of the Sun among the stars, a relatively easy measurement. If so, either earth’s spin rate or its orbital period around the Sun increased during the flood. Increasing earth’s orbital period requires a large, unknown energy source; increasing the spin rate does not. Therefore, the spin rate probably increased. [Walt Brown, “In The Beginning” 8th Ed.]
The ones who brought up the whole Hebrew language stuff are skeptics not dumb Christians. Not that the person who brought it up is stupid either, just clarifying. You should apologize to somebody, I think?
// what are you qualifications as a hebrew scholar? //
I'm sorry DVD, I didn't know I had to have any to make the point. After all, the author of Genesis 1 was hardly a "scholar", yet you seem to buy into it without much of a problem. In fact, Yahveh loved using the "lowly" to express his higher views.
I'm not saying this is the case with me at all, obviously, but ad hom against my "Hebrew" scholarship (I am degreed in theology) is moot. Deal with the issue: A God-inspired document could have easily contained nuggets of information pertinent to ALL ages, not merely the superstitious, bronze-age tribal cultures.
DEBUNKED REVISED REALITY VERSION DEBUNKED Critique part #1
// The above is a worn-out ad populum argument. //
Nonsense. "of many" -- not of all, and it's not an argument of ad populum and more than saying, "Many people believe in God." Unless I am making this statement to prove MY POINT, which I am not (it is made as an statement of fact; just do your homework ... read Craig, Boyd, etc.)
You then attempt to assert that Genesis WAS meant to be a book of science. This is where it gets fun...
// Gen 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
Since people don’t live this long today, is the account metaphorical? //
So, let me understand you:
1. We have absolutely zero evidence of life spans beyond 122 years. None. Yet you contend that because Genesis says someone lived 600 years it proves that Genesis is "science"? This is just absurd; hardly worthy of rebuttal. But I'll make one:
Show us any evidence of this from a scientific point of view. Any evidence will do. Speculation will be tossed out like yesterday's garbage.
// Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
The tedious detail given to the exact date ruins the metaphorical nature. The “windows of heaven were opened” is indeed a metaphor but if someone told me that it rained cats and dogs during the Midwest 1937 flood, does that mean this flood was metaphorical? //
1. You simply missed the "of MANY", not "of ALL". You're welcome to believe that Genesis is literal. That makes for an even more entertaining debate.
Tell me Alan, exactly HOW were there waters on the earth prior to gravity and heat? Do tell. Please. The masses want to know.
Then tell me Alan why EVERY branch of science support an ancient earth. Or how the sun formed after the earth. Or how plants before the sun.
I'll expect reasonable answers. "God can do anything" is circular nonsense.
// Gen 8:3-4 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. //
Please provide the mathematical equations for this volume of water (a) being able to be contained on earth; (b) evaporating in 150 days; and (c) how the miracle animals managed to eat once the waters receded, as all vegetation would have been utterly destroyed.
Again, we await the science with eagerness.
// More tedious dates and a present-day mountain bearing the exact same name located in the middle of the “cradle of civilization”. Dostoyevsky’s “Crime & Punishment” novel refers to “Voznesensky Prospect” which is a street in present-day St. Petersburg but we know for a fact that his story is fictionl because Dostoyevsky never hid this fact when he began writing his story in 1865. //
So, because the author NAMES Ararat it's science? And then you quote a FICTION book as an analogy? That's a hoot. Ararat was referenced back in Babylonian history. It's a "mountain" with a "name". Nothing more. This proves absolutely nothing other than the fact the writer of Genesis knew the name of a mountain.
// If the Genesis account was fabricated or borrowed, then why did the author convey an unconvincing and erroneous 360-day year? If the lunar year at the time of the supposed Flood was indeed 360 days, then Genesis would be vindicated and elevated to the status of a “scientific instrument” of great value. I’m not aware of any conclusive proof that a 360-day pre-flood year could NOT have existed but I am aware of corroborating evidences that support this idea: //
Don't even try to go there. This one is simple: The Egyptian calendars of the time were based on 360-day years thanks to a lack of understanding of leap years. This is History 101. They were wrong. They later corrected the error, as did anyone with the understanding to do so.
So your "argument" is that the author of Genesis got it wrong and it just so happened to be as "wrong" as the Egyptian culture he was no-doubt very well aware of.
Hmm... and this makes Genesis a book of science?
Your quote of Brown is just scientific absurdity from a creationist trying to support his agenda. Let's just spell it out:
Quote ONE scientist or ONE peer-reviewed paper suggesting that we have "increased" our days from 360 to 365 at any time in recent history.
Just ONE.
You cannot, because none exist. You have gross speculation (i.e. Brown) using words like "probably" and ad hoc "before the flood" statements, who never bothered to consider the obvious:
1. The way early Egyptians counted; 2. The fact that 360 was divisible by 2. 3. The lack of understanding of leap years. 4. A slowing of rotation or moving the earth closer to the sun would have been utterly disastrous and, of course, these disasters were never recorded.
There is no evidence that the Earth's orbit or rotation about its axis has changed significantly in the historical past. In fact, other than the very gradual slowing of the Earth's rotation due to tidal interactions with the moon the orbital period of Earth and its revolution about its axis have been remarkably constant through most of the solar system's lifetime.
Creationists like yourself must resort to wild theories (like shorter days and years) to make your holy books remain holy. This level of intellectual dishonesty is appalling to me.
Why is it that atheists need to reference a “god” in order to define themselves? The word “a – theist” is a negative of “theist”. Defining one’s belief system as a negative rather than a positive must be wearisome. I was wondering if an atheist manifesto existed somewhere that articulated exactly what atheists BELIEVED, rather than NOT BELIEVED. I’m aware that atheists don’t believe in Jesus’ divinity but rather than being anti-Jesus or anti-Christ, perhaps atheists could turn this negative into something more positive such as pro-matter, pro-dirt, pro-self, or pro-Darwin. The idea of pro-Satan would obviously have no appeal since this character is considered fictitious but Satan’s approach of questioning God in Genesis and offering opposite interpretations should bode well for atheists. So perhaps “pro-Luciferian” would be a good motto. John Loftus and Harry McCall should take me serious because how could they not love article #1 of the “Lucifer Manifesto”:
1. God as the Universal Father did not exist. Physical gravity and space-energy were inherent in the universe. Time-space Deity, he said, invented the myth that a Father existed somewhere in order to maintain the rule of the universes under such a fiction. No one could describe, he declared, what the Father was like even though they supposedly met him.
Actually, this is only the beginning of the bliss that is waiting for those who dig just a little deeper so I’ll stop here and let the above enticement take due course.
DEBUNKED: REVISED REALITY VERSION DEBUNKED Critique part #2
// Why is it that atheists need to reference a “god” in order to define themselves? //
We do not. This is conjecture. Stick to facts if you want to debunk something. We do not define "our selves" because we do not believe in a god or gods. This is a "part" of who we are.
I prefer the term rationalist, thank you very much.
// I was wondering if an atheist manifesto existed somewhere that articulated exactly what atheists BELIEVED, rather than NOT BELIEVED. //
See above: "Rational thought." Viewing reality through the eyes of reason, evidence, and in my case optimism. We have no "manifesto" because disbelief is not a religion.
// I’m aware that atheists don’t believe in Jesus’ divinity but rather than being anti-Jesus or anti-Christ, perhaps atheists could turn this negative into something more positive such as pro-matter, pro-dirt, pro-self, or pro-Darwin. //
We are pro-SCIENCE. You do not have much of a scientific leg to stand on. We view the natural "as" reality; therefore our reality can be defined, tested, proven false, improved upon, etc.
// The idea of pro-Satan would obviously have no appeal since this character is considered fictitious but Satan’s approach of questioning God in Genesis and offering opposite interpretations should bode well for atheists. So perhaps “pro-Luciferian” would be a good motto. //
What a moronic statement. Rationalists do not believe in "lucifer" either.
// John Loftus and Harry McCall should take me serious because how could they not love article #1 of the “Lucifer Manifesto”:
1. God as the Universal Father did not exist. Physical gravity and space-energy were inherent in the universe. Time-space Deity, he said, invented the myth that a Father existed somewhere in order to maintain the rule of the universes under such a fiction. No one could describe, he declared, what the Father was like even though they supposedly met him. //
You would agree with many things Nietzsche wrote, the Gnostics wrote, the Ebionites wrote... does that make you one with their beliefs?
Nonetheless, we would NOT agree with this as it evokes "lucifer", yet another fairy tale manifestation.
// Actually, this is only the beginning of the bliss that is waiting for those who dig just a little deeper so I’ll stop here and let the above enticement take due course. //
// Alan: Why is it that atheists need to reference a “god” in order to define themselves? The word “a – theist” is a negative of “theist”. Defining one’s belief system as a negative rather than a positive must be wearisome.//
Alan, you're really changing the subject here, but I'm happy to take up your point regardless.
I think we might be surprised to learn how many non-theists there are out there that do not "define" themselves as being "non-theists" just as many Christians out there do not define themselves as being "non-Muslums" (though I've encoutered some that define themselves as being "non-liberals" and to some degree "non-sinners" - more on that below ;P)
As for the non-theists, I am one such example. I am a non-theist (I don't believe in a diety as I don't see any evidence of it - and that all we have is a concept born of human superstition.) But I define myself first and foremost a human being and secondly by the things I love, believe in and am living for, my relationships, my passions, my values, dreams, goals, etc. I believe in universal human values and like to think of myself as a "mere human" (thank you, C.S. Lewis.)
I personally see people defining themselves as an "atheist" as being a sign that that person is defining him/herself more by what their against then for (or in a state of rebellion against something - which suggests it still has some power over them.) Then again, if someone lives in a society where most people say they are something and that something has people aggressively trying to force it in some way, shape or form on the rest of society - such a rebellious stance is not beyond empathy (and it does influence their world - and may be worthy of confronting.)
Never the less, I think you're point is a reasonable one, but I also think it cuts both ways. I've known many Christians and have at times in my past been just such a Christian who defined himself by what he was against ("sin" - partying, drinking, blah blah etc) more so then what he was for. And many people who are not religious find many Christians and other religious individuals to come across exactly this way. They find many Christians to present themselves in a way that has them defined in the experience of others just so.
Think about it... for many Christians, what one is against is a BIG part of what calling themselves Christian means.
All that said, I find it be topic well worth discussing and appreciate you bringing it up - even if "out of context" here.
Trent wrote: The people of the day could not see, for example, a missing rib where woman was created. Did any lose faith? Later down the timeline, they surely would have had a hard time imagining the world being flooded with water, or Lot's wife turned to salt.
RogerS: God’s subtle use of miracle and symbolic overtones are often lost on the unregenerated.
Concerning Adam's rib, read the following personal account: During the 5 1/2 months in hospital, and for years afterwards, I had a series of operations to reconstruct various parts of me, particularly the bones of my face. These operations often required using my own bone for grafting. I noticed that the plastic surgeon would keep going back to the right side of my ribcage, through the same horizontal scar, actually, to get more bone for these procedures. One day, I asked him why he hadn't 'run out of bone'. He looked at me blankly, and then explained that he and his team took the whole rib out, each time. 'We leave the periosteum intact, so the rib usually just grows right back again.'source RogerS: I confided in another medical doctor who confirmed that a rib can regenerate with the periosteum membrane remaining intact.
You are right Trent about the lack of imagination for the world being flooded with water. Rather, there is plenty of imagination for all the major mountain ranges being below sea level in order to explain the overlay of sedimentary layers containing fossilized sea life (mountains lowered & raised at various times of course so as not to be construed to a certain event). You may benefit from looking up requirements for formation of “sedimentary rock”. It is also interesting that coal, oil, and sedimentary layers are still full of “hot” C14 with a half-life of only 5730 years.
Trent wrote:You would agree with many things Nietzsche wrote, the Gnostics wrote, the Ebionites wrote... does that make you one with their beliefs?
Sometimes a book can be judged correctly by its cover. I've saved myself hours of needless contamination by not opening books or magazines with covers depicting unclothed women with their legs spread wide open. Nietzsche? Gnostics? Ebionites? If a publication has 1/2 price coupons on airfare, does that redeem it? People tend to take on attributes of those with whom they associate and admire. The similarities between the "Lucifer Manifesto" and "Revised Reality Version" are uncanny. Perhaps you can tell me what you don't agree with on article #1 of the Lucifer Manifesto other than its evocation of "Lucifer".
Missionary Don Richardson had great difficulty in relating the Gospel message to a remote tribe in Papua New Guinea. "In their eyes, Judas, not Jesus, was the hero of the Gospels, Jesus was just the dupe to be laughed at." Richardson told me that the tribal people valued "treachery" above all else.
I really think you are selling yourself short by distancing yourself from Lucifer just because you think him to be fictitious. The IDEAS are what you should focus on. You cannot deny the fluidity and artistry of the following:
"Mary who herself was impregnated by her own Father God so He could be born into the very fallen world of sin the Creator so detested and cursed the created creatures with."
// God’s subtle use of miracle and symbolic overtones are often lost on the unregenerated. //
Yes, yes, Roger... we're used to being insulted right off the bat. So I will be happy to reply in the same vein.
My point was a bit sarcastic with the rib comment, I'll grant you that. Yes, in some cases ribs can regenerate, not that it would matter as DNA would pass along the proper coding.
So, let's try something more literal for you:
Are you 'seriously' going to contend that the god who created the universe has never had to overcome what appeared to be common sense when it came to delivering his truth? Are you freakin' kidding me? Do you think Noah leapt on the ark concept right away? Abraham on the child concept?
The point was simple: People will question what they cannot readily see. They did. They would in my version. It makes no difference at ALL to the story. Once "god said it", it would have been fact -- just as surely as the far-fetched and yet-to-be-realized Davidic prophecies were no-doubt questioned in the light of Roman onslaught.
// You are right Trent about the lack of imagination for the world being flooded with water. Rather, there is plenty of imagination for all the major mountain ranges being below sea level in order to explain the overlay of sedimentary layers containing fossilized sea life //
Yeah... those silly geologists. What do they know?
No, Mr. Generated, you missed the point by a country mile. At no time has ALL THE EARTH been submerged. The mathematics of this was debunked by Marty Leipzig years ago. If you're as good at math as you are at fantasy, have a look:
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm
// It is also interesting that coal, oil, and sedimentary layers are still full of “hot” C14 with a half-life of only 5730 years. //
More AiG nonsense. Read some non-biased science on the matter:
http://tinyurl.com/l3tbkd
Creationists love trying the C14 and carbon dating issues, but they just keep coming up with one epic fail after another.
I'd suggest you expand your library beyond the Dr. Craigs' of the world.
// Sometimes a book can be judged correctly by its cover. I've saved myself hours of needless contamination by not opening books or magazines with covers depicting unclothed women with their legs spread wide open. Nietzsche? Gnostics? Ebionites? //
This is too moronic to respond to (i.e. equating philosophy and the history of your own damn religion with porn.)
You've proven your own willingness to ignore history and thought that opposes your preconceived notions.
My point is your lack of understanding of Hebrew. You have no idea what Genesis actually says because your command of Hebrew is too poor. So how can you suggest an alternative? How do you know that the poor translations you read are accurate? (I assure you they are not.)
If you are going to discuss our Bible then learn Hebrew very very well, otherwise you have no standing.
And in case you are wondering I am bi-lingual and completely fluent in Hebrew. It's a very simple and at the same time extremely complex language that you cannot begin to really understand unless you are very fluent and study it for years.
No they are not stupid. Your lack of understanding of the Hebrew language is. And your insistence of using poor interpretations of the Bible is even stupider.
If you're going to discuss the Bible then learn the language. Because if you can't read the original you can't understand the Bible.
There is no way to accurately translate the Bible. If you knew Hebrew and were able to read the original you would already know this. Unfirtunately you are too uneducated to understand.
Trent wrote:THE EXCUSE [of many Christians is] quantum physics, evolution and the big bang would not have made any sense to early man, so god spoke in a hyperbolic or parabolic language that they could easily understand.
Trent has built a beautiful straw man personage of a “Christian”. Where did the above statement come from? The nearest similitude I could Google was from a NON-CHRISTIAN:
“Frankly I feel like knowing too much background info sometimes kills of the mystique of life. Apart from quantum physics, evolution and the big bang. That shit is awesome.” (source)
The same person goes on to say, “If you ask me how the internet works I can safely tell you: by magic.” The bottom line here is Trent has cooked up his entire straw man premise because the phrase “hyperbolic or parabolic language” is absent from the entire internet likewise. Perhaps the “Christian” Trent is trying to assimilate is one who is already half-baked with liberal, modernist, “rational”, humanist, materialist, philosophy. Notice the grouping of “quantum physics" with "evolution and the big bang”. The technique is to sell the latter two on the merits of the first to non-discerning consumers. Actually this is not the immediate goal of “Revised Reality Version” but it provides a glimpse into Trent’s world-view via a Freudian slip.
Trent wrote:I have rewritten genesis chapter 1 complete with just enough fact to win over the most skeptical…
Many will not be won over by your “revised” version of Genesis for the simple reason that your grammar exposes you as a charlatan:
God values strong faith more than we can imagine. To him, it is more precious than most things. This revised version of Genesis assumes that God's main goal is to "try" and get the greatest amount of people to believe in Him as possible. But what good is that great plethora of people who believe in Him if it really doesn't cost them anything?
If God is God, then He could make himself known to the whole world if he wanted to in a burst of glory. But he chooses not to. Why? Because all the miracles in the world aren't enough to get us to love Him, which He desires more than people merely believing in Him. As the Bible says, even the demons believe...and shudder. Is God pleased with demons? Of course not. Without genuine faith, it is impossible to please God. If God showed his hand, according to the Bible, we would not have the opportunity to please Him by choosing to have faith in Him. Praise God that He allows us to have faith and please Him. Blessed are those who have not seen and believe... that's straight from Jesus's mouth.
A faith in something seen is no faith at all. If we "saw" how God created the world in every detail, then there would be less opportunity to exercise faith in God. That is God's standard, like it or not, and He won't back down. It's called faith for a reason.
Verse 7 ends with: "You shall knowest me as I knowest you"
I know you want to give the archaic feel of KJV English -- but that's not how that sentence would have been written by the writers of the KJV. The suffix "-est" is for the 2nd person present tense, and would not appear in either place in the proposed sentence above -- the first instance is the future tense (and is covered by "shall"), and the second instance is the 1st person, and the verb has an unmodifed ending.
"You shall know me as I know you" is fine.
Another linguistic point worth making is that "planet" is from the Greek, meaning "wandering" -- the planets were called wandering stars. Hebrew also had (and has) this distinction.
I think that if you were trying to convey the basics of astronomy, you might want to emphasize the similarity between the sun and the stars, and the distinction between the remote stars and the orbiting planets. You could modify "2" and "3" a bit. Perhaps something like: "And thus were kindled the sun, and the stars which are distant suns, more numerous than the sands of the ocean, which have kindred wanderers, like the sun has." [...] "...upon the Earth and positioned it in a special place {where water is neither all ice nor all steam}, among the wanderers that circleth the sun, reflecting its light from afar. [...] "Let the moon reflect the light of the sun, as the waters reflect the sun during the day [...]"
Just some suggestions. The bit in curly braces helps emphasize why the "place" is special, but that may drag the verse out too much. The part about water reflecting the sun is to give a familiar example of reflection in general, so that the idea that the moon is simply a reflector rather than a generator of its own light is easier to grasp.
In response to the idea that the ancient Hebrews would have had a problem believing this -- if you look at the moon during the daytime, you can see that the lit side faces the sun. The idea that the moon continues to reflect the light of the sun after the sun sets is really not that much harder to grasp.
Indeed, I am pretty sure that many ancient astronomers made that very same observation. This is really not rocket science.
By the way, some additional basic science points that might be worked into the Revised Reality Version of the bible -- not necessarily in Genesis -- might be that the Earth is round like a ball, and the opposite ends are cold and ice-covered, but the middle is very warm, and that the Earth, as it goes around the sun, is at an angle, such that when one end is pointing towards the sun, it is summer in that part of the Earth, and when it is pointing away from the sun, it is winter in that part of the Earth.
Which Hebrew texts are most accurate then? More ancient versions, later versions that are much longer than the earliest copies? Isaiah was wrote over several hundred years? Which versions of Isaiah are most accurate? How about Jeremiah are the early, much shorter versions the better ones, or did God need to perfect them over time? Hector Avalos in his book, "The End of Biblical Studies" makes a compelling argument that the Hebrew scriptures themselves have been highly corrupted through time. I would guess that Avalos' PhD from Princeton and expertise in Hebrew qualifies him to have some input on the subject. Also, in Bible College and Seminary I knew several theologians with decades of study in Biblical languages, and none of them ever said anything like what you said. In fact, they argued that God's message was simple and that all could understand it. Finally, even if you are fluent in ancient Hebrew, it doesn't mean that your interpretation is necessarily more accurate than anyone else's. Can you claim to understand the precise cultural elements, customs, idioms, nuances, etc from thousands of years ago?! No intelligent person would ever make such an idiotic claim. One may know a lot about ancient Hebrews, but there's more we don't know. There's compelling evidence to strongly suggest that Moses was not a real person! We can't even know that for sure, yet you claim your understanding of anceint Hebrew qualifies you more than everyone else here?
If your idiodic premise that one has to be fluent in Hebrew to be qualified to intelligently comment on it is true, then it is equally true that you have to have read every anceint Hebrew manuscript in existence to make any judgments about them. Afterall, with your limited knowledge of the extant copies you couldn't possibly know if the Hebrew version you read was accurate at all.
By the way, Alan Clarke, would you like to explain to your nice new blog hosts just how it was that you knew that searching torrents for the word "barely" would bring up... that particular kind of result?
Now your saying that the writer would not have been a "Hebrew Scholar." Probably but how would you know that they would not be sophisticated in their language? Do you have definitive evidence for such a statement?
Now my asking about scholarship is essential. If writers of that time were not scholars, they did use a language that SPOKE TO THE CULTURE, and that is Important and we rely on Scholars for such in today's world.
So checking how this would read in the Hebrew is one thing, but also how this might be received in the culture.
I also don't see your point on the Ribs, since this event happened PRE-FALL, so How exactly do the "FEEL" for something that might have been drastically altered, as seen by the sudden nakedness and shame that occured after? ...
I also repeat---- that hinting at things in Genesis and being more obvious instead of subtle could lead to Scientific Discovries Before there Time which would go against the plan of God. A good expample is the Light of the Moon coming from the Sun or the Expansion of the Universe etc.
Who knows what Newton might have come up with? He believed in the text as did many other scientists and there is no telling if this would upset the balance of history.
Geonite wrote, "Trent, My point is not moot." Yet, Trent's reply was to the blogger named DVD. Are you DVD, but posting as Geonite too? I suppose there is nothing wrong with this, but it is confusing. Maybe I missed another moot point you brought up that Trent responded to as well?
Trent,
Your patience astonishes me! I loved the video and reading your replies. Excellent work on both counts.
// Trent has built a beautiful straw man personage of a “Christian”. Where did the above statement come from? The nearest similitude I could Google was from a NON-CHRISTIAN: //
You're correct with this Alan (the first thing so far... kudos.... ; )
That was in poor taste on my part. But again, this is NOT a debate, nor a formal argument. My intention, however misplaced in that statement, was not a straw man whatsoever, as what I am tackling "IS" Genesis itself, not Christians.
It was just an unnecessary comment.
// Many will not be won over by your “revised” version of Genesis for the simple reason that your grammar exposes you as a charlatan: //
My "grammar"?
Well, I suggest you check my YouTube channel. Some hard-core atheists on there saying, "I'd still believe"... so I suppose my "grammar" (whatever that means) isn't such a charade.
Also, the use of the term "charlatan" is absurd. I'm not out to deceive or fool anyone -- just make them think.
Please: At least use proper grammar if you're going to critique mine.
«"I also repeat---- that hinting at things in Genesis and being more obvious instead of subtle could lead to Scientific Discovries Before there Time which would go against the plan of God."»
How do you know what God's plan is or what would go against it?
«"A good expample is the Light of the Moon coming from the Sun"»
I see that Anaxagoras, who died in 428 BCE, was the first who is recorded as pointing out that the moon reflects the sun. But either way: How does this interfere with (or support) God's alleged plan?
«"or the Expansion of the Universe"»
Again: Why would humans being told that the universe is expanding interfere with God's plan?
// Verse 7 ends with: "You shall knowest me as I knowest you" //
Yeah. That was a joke. I'm quite serious.
The King James-style lingo was put into place for sheer comedy in an otherwise serious piece. In the actual book it's edited to almost exactly your suggestion.
"Knowest" is obviously not even a word... I thought it was pithy. I suppose it was a bit too dry... ; )
The rest of your comments are well-taken. Thanks man!
// Again: Why would humans being told that the universe is expanding interfere with God's plan? //
As you properly note, none of it would.
This little exercise reminds me of when The Dallas Cowboys went from Landry to Johnson. To this very day, you have long-timers saying it was blasphemy, wrong, etc, etc - despite the fact that Johnson built a more winning team than Landry in a third the time.
Both were great coaches, but people 'hate' change, especially when it deals with what they consider sacred.
So, even I were to have written the greatest slice of literature in all of history, creationists and literalists would create holes and rag on it.
I didn't of course, but the fact remains they have humped Genesis (and the other books) for so long they simply cannot see the rather obvious holes.
I'd also lay a cold grand on the table that you could dupe most everyone on here with a James Randi-style "discovery of a lost text", replete with fictitious scholars backing it up. Within a generation you'd have all the "deep meaning" behind it's nonsense and an entire genre of new believers.
Hell, people may even try it with my book. Wouldn't that be a hoot and a holler... ; )
// ou could modify "2" and "3" a bit. Perhaps something like: "And thus were kindled the sun, and the stars which are distant suns, more numerous than the sands of the ocean, which have kindred wanderers, like the sun has." [...] "...upon the Earth and positioned it in a special place {where water is neither all ice nor all steam}, among the wanderers that circleth the sun, reflecting its light from afar. [...] "Let the moon reflect the light of the sun, as the waters reflect the sun during the day [...]" //
A bit too scientific. I really wanted to avoid almost anything overly scientific, but there may be a way to suggest it.
Someone pointed out that not mentioning "sun" and "moon" due to false god worship was an issue, but obviously the Bible has no problem with these names as they're all over the place.
Trent on 6:52 PM, July 08, 2009 Trent, if you are relying on “Uncle Marty’s” math to disprove the flood, you have been duped. The basic tenants are laughable: “All we have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; then we subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth.” First of all, the present height of Everest is based on current sea level. He has no idea of the topography of a prediluvian world or if the greater part of Everest’s height was realized sometime after the flood. The biblical account in Genesis 7:11 states “…the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up,…” and in Genesis 2:5-6 “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.” From these passages it is obvious that the water cycle of the original design was unique with great reserves of water underground. Since the average depth of the oceans and the average land mass height above sea level pre-flood is unknown, a more legitimate question becomes, “Is there an ample supply of water currently on earth so that the highest pre-flood mountain could be covered by 15 cubits or 22.5 ft.?” Consider the total volume of earth’s water in comparison to volume of land above sea level today: mean continental height = .840 km land area = 148.94 million sq km land volume = 148.94 million sq km x .840 km = 125.11 million cu km Current volume of oceans = 1.3-1.5 billion cu km = 1.4 billion cu km (using average) Ratio of volumes, ocean : land = 1.4 billion cu km / 125.11 million cu km = 11.2 : 1
As we can see, we have 11.2 times as much water volume compared to land volume. Looking at it another way, the percentage of land volume to water volume is only 8.9%!!! The sheer combined weight of water contributed to by “all the fountains of the great deep broken up” plus the collapse of “the waters which were above the firmament” (Gen 1:7) over thin ocean basin crusts could form a greater depth of ocean basins and subsequent mountain range uplifts due to displacement of underlying magma. For Genesis 7:20 to be true, from the flood cresting point about 4,400 years ago to the current sea level of today would require over 8.9% of the ocean’s volume in land uplift by magma displacement. A stretch of the imagination? I would say absolutely not.
Another gem from “Uncle Marty”: Therefore, although extensive, the glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the size of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and EASILY recognizable and measurable effects on the lands. -I guess he overlooked all the buried fossil fuels, stratified coal, deep sedimentary rock on all continents and all the unusual preservation of marine life and other fossils hydrologically sorted. Or that one continuous Jurassic SEDIMENTARY rock formation (Morison) with an area greater than Iraq, Spain, and Ukraine combined (deposited by many streams –laugh). “Uncle Marty” again: Even allowing for partial dissolving of the atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood waters; and it boils off into space. -Am I missing something here? The mass of the earth would essentially be the same, the molecular weight of the various atmospheric gases is constant, you also have the column of various gases above the ocean surface creating pressure. Is he saying as I think he is saying, that the atmospheric pressure at sea level during the flood would have been much less by using today’s sea level elevation as an absolute height/pressure reference? Wow, time for a Physics refresher.
Trent wrote:At no time has ALL THE EARTH been submerged. The mathematics of this was debunked by Marty Leipzig years ago.
Here is where Marty Leipzig erred: He ASSUMED that Mt. Everest was the same height before the Flood. Secondly, he falsely assumes that the Flood’s water source was the Earth's atmosphere. More than likely, the major portion of flood waters had subterrestrial origins:
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
71% of the Earth is CURRENTLY covered by water. The Pacific Ocean is one huge sunken BASIN. The mid-Atlantic obviously split down the middle and separated which gave rise to mountains on the adjacent continents. At one time, the idea of water lower than 5 miles below continental crusts was unthinkable. The 7.6 mile Kola Superdeep Borehole in Russia proved this idea to be wrong:
This water, unlike surface water, must have come from deep-crust minerals and had been unable to reach the surface because of a layer of impermeable rock. (source)
Leipzig is so far off base in his assumptions that I too would doubt if I were in his shoes.
Oh, and I am almost certain that translating the Revised Reality Version into biblical Hebrew would not be a problem. Basic concepts are basic, no matter what the language. And what is not basic can be defined.
As for the sun and the moon -- really, all that is necessary from a theological standpoint, is to emphasize that they were created things, not gods in and of themselves.
// First of all, the present height of Everest is based on current sea level. He has no idea of the topography of a prediluvian world or if the greater part of Everest’s height was realized sometime after the flood. //
I'm sorry, but are you seriously wanting to make the claim that Everest has changed its height in less than 5,000 years? Or are you one of those "it could have been a million years ago" nut-jobs? You don't strike me as the latter, so I'll go with the former.
Er... you're just wrong. Laughable is right on the money. Everest has been going up and down by a few "meters" over the past 100 or so years, and there is ZERO evidence that it could have been as low as would have been necessary to support your claims.
Naturally, you belittle the critique with zero evidence to support it.
You then quote Genesis and the "never rained" theory. This is truly laughable -- ask any botanist. It's simply absurd, but because the holy book says so, our atmosphere magically changed in less than 5,000 years. Got it.
And remember, "Uncle Marty" is the funny one.
// would require over 8.9% of the ocean’s volume in land uplift by magma displacement. //
Do you have ANY clue what this would do to the tectonic structure and land formations? Have you bothered to account for the devastation of the vegetation? Geez...
Stretch of the imagination... more like stretch of reality.
// Am I missing something here? The mass of the earth would essentially be the same, the molecular weight of the various atmospheric gases is constant, you also have the column of various gases above the ocean surface creating pressure. Is he saying as I think he is saying, that the atmospheric pressure at sea level during the flood would have been much less by using today’s sea level elevation as an absolute height/pressure reference? //
That I cannot answer, but Uncle Marty could.
Email him. Pass your rebuttal by him.
In the meantime, I'll stick with the 99% or so of geologists and paleontologists who say, patently, that there is zero evidence of a global flood some 5,000 years ago.
Thanks everyone for the feedback, both pro and con. I'm sure you'll have plenty to say when the entire book is completed.
I only hope to stir up some thought. If I do that, it's a success. If not, well hey... best shot was taken.
That said: Those who refuse to look at the heart of the issue may indeed be the same crew who can justify God's institution of slavery and various infanticides as perfectly acceptable theology.
This may irk you, but I speak for a lot of folks when I say "that" god irks us. More than that, the justification of that god, to me (my personal opinion) is a sad testimony to the lengths mankind will stoop to believe he is more than he is.
In case it is not completely obvious, Alan C and Roger are a tag-team of YECs who love the Fountains of the Great Deep™, and reject anything like actual scientific evidence.
They haunted Pharyngula for many months with their YECish YECiry, until Alan C convicted himself with his own words, and Roger bailed on his own.
Rather than waiting for them to spew their arguments again here, you can see the sort of thing they do here, and also here.
They refused to change at all for months. They vary somewhat in style and approach, but remain otherwise exactly the same.
Teh FooooooOOOOOuntaaaaaaains o' teh GreeeeeEEEAAAAaaaat DeeeeeeeEEEEEEEeeeeep™, LOL
Is there anything in the flood story of Genesis that was not a concept basically taken over from earlier myths such as the non-Semitic and non-Semitic (Sumerian) Flood tales dating from the Old Babylonian period where a pious King Ziusudra is forewarned by the gods who plan to flood the entire earth?
Or from the much fuller account in the Akkadian Myth of Atrahasis which survives in fragments from both the Old and Neo-Babylonian periods. Here Atrahasis is told in a dream by god Enki about the world wide flood and he builds a boat to survive?
Or, more notably, from the best known myth the Epic of Gilgamesh where Gilgamesh seeks out Utnapishtim (or Noah’s counterpart)?
Basically Alan, please answer me this. If the Genesis account is not based on older myths, then tell me how you date the cuneiform syllabic scripts (as noted above) as later than the Hebrew alphabetic script of Genesis?
Even if we use the oldest Hebrew text known which was written in the Phoenician script, you still have not pre-dated these flood story “pagan” cuneiform texts!
Plus, if you try and claim that these cuneiform texts do contain Genesis flood “truth”, than just why aren’t the polytheistic gods of these text true also?
Moreover, symbolic numbers such as 3, 6, 7, 12, 40, 72 are also given divine meanings and are used repeatedly by Jesus himself and the writers of the New Testament (especially in the book of Revelation) to reveal divine mysteries. These same six numbers can be found used as symbolic and magical numbers in much older stories and religious texts from ancient Semitic language families such as Akkadian, Phoenician, and Ugaritic.
In light of this fact (as argued by Christian apologist) to claim that “God” uses known symbols and terms of the ancient pagan world again only begs the question as to any real the exclusive truthfulness of both Judaism and Christianity.
Fact is Alan, the West Semitic language of Hebrew (of the Israelites) is a direct dialect of the hated Canaanites reed stylus script: Ugaritic (Note: That the late Hebrew alphabetic script when compared to the ancient reed logographic script proves which came first).
Likewise, the symbols used in the Book of Revelation such as of the seven- headed beast (Rev. 13) was a concept already about 1000 years old when the writer of this Christian book chose to plagiarize it (see: Ancient Near Eastern Text in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton University Press).
What this tells us is that even the New Testament writers often depended on and needed popular pagan symbols and stories to create an accepted and factual base for their new faith so the Christian tradition would fit right in to a competing “pagan” religious context
Yeah, so it appeared. YECers are a trip. But they stumble on Genesis 1:2. It's my favorite among the "how wrong can wrong get" bits of Genesis.
YECers seem fairly agile when it comes to bending reason to make it appear to the layman to contort to the Bible, but I've yet to hear one of their "scientists" propose a theory of how the earth was not just a frozen ball of ice without radiation, light, stars, our sun, etc, etc.
They've tried to mangle the Hebrew word for "waters" - unsuccessfully given it's used in the rest of the narrative.
The only argument thus far: "God can do anything."
Trent wrote: I'm sorry, but are you seriously wanting to make the claim that Everest has changed its height in less than 5,000 years? Or are you one of those "it could have been a million years ago" nut-jobs? You don't strike me as the latter, so I'll go with the former. RogerS: Undaunted by the crash, India plowed north relentlessly, pushing rocks that had once made up the Tethys ocean floor to some of the world's highest reaches. Writer John McPhee suggests in his book "Assembling California" that plate tectonics can be put in human terms by noting there are sea shells at the top of Everest.Source Trent, it looks like the burden of proof requires more extreme claims of you than for me. First of all, Everest WAS covered by sea by evidence of sea shells. I simply claim that there was more uniformity and less relief in pre-flood topography allowing sea level to cover Everest and deposit shells after which the sea level was offset by a greater increase of average sea basin depth due to overburden weight and evacuation and collapse of “all the fountains of the great deep”. A sinking in of the Pacific Ocean basin would be a displacement mechanism for more rapid continental uplifts. You must be one of those that require Everest to be BELOW sea level and then rise the ENTIRE 29,029 ft (or 29,035 ft going by GPS) all by tectonic plate action alone. In order to swallow this one, only add the “pixie dust” of millions and millions of years. Can ALL historical texts be ignored? The number of references for specific causes of past world calamities in Thompson's Index is as follows: deluge 122, fire 19, continuous winter 6, large stones 2, misc. 4. It is noteworthy that common causes of calamities such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, pestilence, and drought are not listed.(ref) BTW, “Uncle Marty” in using his Earth radius calculation was likely unaware that the earth is not a sphere but is more elliptical with the greatest diameter at the equator, the polar diameter being 43 km less than the equatorial diameter, significantly affecting his water volume calculation.
// Trent, it looks like the burden of proof requires more extreme claims of you than for me. First of all, Everest WAS covered by sea by evidence of sea shells.//
Yes...dated millions of years old, might you add. There are also fossils dated the same. Nothing dated 4500 years, sorry.
// In order to swallow this one, only add the “pixie dust” of millions and millions of years. //
Yes, that blasted, science-based pixie dust.
Of course, the earth being formed in the vacuum of space with water and no radiation makes perfect sense to you.
I think we know whose been snorting the pixie dust between the two of us.
// Can all history texts be denied? //
Er... what history texts can you point to that say, "Oh, look... Everest is under water." Can you be more specific ... or better yet, any less vague?
// BTW, “Uncle Marty” in using his Earth radius calculation was likely unaware that the earth is not a sphere but is more elliptical with the greatest diameter at the equator, the polar diameter being 43 km less than the equatorial diameter, significantly affecting his water volume calculation. //
Even I can answer that - if anything it would be greater. Like I said, take it up with him. I'd enjoy seeing that discussion.
However, you just did a masterful job of proving scripture inaccurate:
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." Isaiah 40:22
Then again, I fully expect the hoops and hurdles around this bit of Yahveh scientific truth to be...well, dismissed. You guys are quite good at it.
Trent wrote: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." Isaiah 40:22 Then again, I fully expect the hoops and hurdles around this bit of Yahveh scientific truth to be...well, dismissed. You guys are quite good at it. "Well, 'circle' doesn't really MEAN 'circle'..."
RogerS: From the top perspective, the earth would appear circular and the small equatorial bulge would only have a minor elliptical shape from a side view. Isaiah 40:22 stands.
I" see that Anaxagoras, who died in 428 BCE, was the first who is recorded as pointing out that the moon reflects the sun. But either way: How does this interfere with (or support) God's alleged plan?"
Because, in history at critical times, a lot more people who were in the sciences like Newton took the biblical record seriously, unlike what you mentioned.
«"Because, in history at critical times, a lot more people who were in the sciences like Newton took the biblical record seriously, unlike what you mentioned."»
...And?
Oh, and Newton certainly did not accept the biblical record literally (among other things, he rejected the concept of the Trinity). Indeed, the whole point of his additions to astronomy and physics was to account for what was seen in reality, not what it said in the bible. The net effect was to weaken the biblical record and make it appear less authoritative.
Is that what you're saying God's plan was? To make the bible look weak as a source of explanations about reality?
// From the top perspective, the earth would appear circular and the small equatorial bulge would only have a minor elliptical shape from a side view. Isaiah 40:22 stands. //
But of COURSE it does.
I.E. "A circle <=> A circle." Skewed only by the view of an almighty god who, of course, "knew" better but chose not to mention it.
Seriously. You guys crack me up. The only greater vantage point for seats in the front row of Denial-Land is at a B-list celebrity gathering.
"Finally, even if you are fluent in ancient Hebrew, it doesn't mean that your interpretation is necessarily more accurate than anyone else's. Can you claim to understand the precise cultural elements, customs, idioms, nuances, etc from thousands of years ago?! No intelligent person would ever make such an idiotic claim."
Thank you for making my point Toby.
But to answer your question to me, I'd have to say that since I've study thousands of Jewish texts I probably have a much better understanding of those things than you do. I find that Christians tend to ignore Jewish sages.
Like English, Hebrew (and as you should know), Hebrew has a history especially in it’s historical etymologies in its context with Northwest Semitic; especially Phoenician (Paleo-Hebrew) and Ugaritic.
As such, problems have been point out by the late James Barr in his ground breaking work: Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford University Press, 1961) and again the historical Biblical Hebrew text was more full addressed by him in his Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford University Press, 1972).
Since most rabbinic Jewish texts (such as the Talmud) are written in Mishnahic Hebrew, one trained in reading the Mishnah and the Gemara need a specialization unto itself has the major rabbinic scholar Jacob Neusner has pointed out.
Thirdly, any one who speaks modern Hebrew needs specialized training in Biblical Hebrew. Thus, a number of textbooks address this issue such as: Biblical Hebrew for Students of Modern Israeli Hebrew by Professor Marc Zvi Brettler.
I’ve discussed this problem with Bill Holladay editor of (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: Based upon the Lexical Work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (Eerdmans, 1972)).
He had the responsibility of revising the New English Bible Old Testament section which was first headed by Sir Godfrey Rolls Driver (Son of the great 20th century Hebrew scholar Samuel Rolls Driver both of Oxford). Sir Godfrey was professor of Semitic Philology at Oxford University until his death in 1975.
Since the meaning of many Biblical Hebrew words are hapax legomenon, scholars often use other Semitic languages to tell what a possible meaning might be. As such, Sir Godfrey felt Arabic could be used to understand Biblical Hebrew for this.
The results where, according to Bill Holladay, disastrous! He and his team had to rework Driver’s etymologies, which if you have read in the first edition of the New English Bible (Old Testament) indeed has some very odd translations (But this was on par for Sir Godfrey who claimed for years - like Solomon Zeitlin- that the Qumran Scrolls were late medieval forgeries).
Finally, publisher EJ Brill’s major work: The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of The Old Testament (4 Volumes) with Supplemental Aramaic Volume (5 Volume Complete Set) by Ludwig; Baumgartner, Walter; Stamm, Johann J.; Richardson, M. E. and now on CD-rom is now one of our best lexicons on this ancient Biblical language.
But to answer your question to me, I'd have to say that since I've study thousands of Jewish texts I probably have a much better understanding of those things than you do.
Then lend us the hand of real scholarship. A teacher who says "You are wrong." Is not a very good teacher. Especially when the teacher's answer for why the student is wrong is, "Because I'm smarter than you."
I find that Christians tend to ignore Jewish sages.
A sage is a profoundly wise person, irregaurdless of their nationality, heritage, or religion. Start saying things with more wisdom in them and I will listen better. You claim to be a scholar, so show us some of the scholarship! I look forward to you teaching us, rather than just saying how stupid were are.
Trent, have you seen John's Science and Religion: A Truce post? He presents a promise / warning from Science to Religion in the style of the Old Testament prophets.
It hit me like a great way to end the book you're working on (just a thought.) Maybe you guys can collaborate or something.
84 comments:
It could have been SO easy, but apparently god likes to complicate things. Maybe it's because god just wanted us to discover how he did things through scientific research. OOPS that backfired!
First, the Christian approach to Genesis was taken in an abstract/metaphorical/allegorical sense long before legitimate empirical science could really challenge the the account of Genesis. Augustine was very big on an allegorical interpretation against a concrete one and I don't think he was alone.
Now the author of this movie thinks that God could've inspired the author to come up with the scientific facts, but why would that have been culturally relevant at the time. Some (if not all) of Genesis is written in ways that are relevent to the time period, such as the lack of a name for the sun and moon (called the greater light and lesser light) which is a slight to the religious worship of those bodies.
Furthermore, who's to say that God didn't want man to figure out much of the science on his own (as he has and is in the process of doing). The development of science has been a rich part of human history and has been an example of mankind's reflection of God (even though it has also been used in warped ways that we'd expect from broken and rebellious humanity, such as the improvement of killing techniques and the development of industries that greatly damage our environment).
I don't know why the author thinks that this version written for our cultural biases would've inspired belief in any period of time. Go back to the ancient greek civilization for instance and the heliocentricm would've conflicted with the Ptolemaic view of the universe.
And he left out what is one of the most important and profound details of Genesis, the creation of man (and it would seem more specifically, the creation of male and female as a unit together) in the image of God.
In the field of textual criticism, what could be more unscholarly than to take known corroborating manuscripts and deliberately devise a known corrupt text? I remember playing Monopoly as a child and bending every rule so that I could own whatever I wanted. Having all the money, Boardwalk and Park Place felt good but I wasn’t really playing the game. Such is the “Revised Reality Version”. Every rule is bent with the goal of having it “your way”. Evidently, such wishful thinking is practiced among atheist “theologians” but the end result is like a supermodel pinup poster instead of a wife; a Car & Driver magazine instead of a car; viewing a “reality” show instead of living life for yourself.
History repeats itself: From 2nd - 4th century AD we have the Gnostic gospels which bend doctrine and history every which way to satisfy someone’s personal agenda. Then beginning about 10 years ago, a similar flood of misinformation found its way onto the internet giving rise to the “myth busters”: snopes.com, urbanlegendsonline.com, and scambusters.org
Rob R wrote: Some (if not all) of Genesis is written in ways that are relevent to the time period, such as the lack of a name for the sun and moon (called the greater light and lesser light) which is a slight to the religious worship of those bodies.
Modern Nomenclature
Mathematics: major axis, minor axis
Astronomy: Ursa Major; Ursa Minor
Anatomy: large intestine; small intestine
Future advancements in language may produce more specific names for McDonald’s large & small fries: “macfri” & “micfri”
// First, the Christian approach to Genesis was taken in an abstract/metaphorical/allegorical sense long before legitimate empirical science could really challenge the the account of Genesis. Augustine was very big on an allegorical interpretation against a concrete one and I don't think he was alone. //
I am the author of this movie, just so we're clear.
Augustine took "some" of Genesis to be allegorical, but certainly not all. And I do not have to point out the obvious: Millions of Christians 'today' take a literal bend.
Rob, I think you've missed the point here. There is absolutely 'nothing' in those 9 verses which constitute science per-se. Yes, it is far more scientifically accurate, but just look on my YT channel and see how many atheists would have been more inclined to believe a deity inspired the writing.
The harsh bottom line is Genesis, despite whatever allegorical slant you want to place on the document, is "wrong" -- and a god that plays peek-a-boo with mankind is not a deity I would bow to regardless of the circumstances.
Your comments on the development of science (this coming from a scientist) is ... well, almost laughable. You can trace religion's suppression of science as far back as Genesis itself, and it's still quite evident today.
I maintain that Yahweh could have effortlessly inspired the text and still been both metaphorical (the pinching of the earth; the moon giving night a companion) while not being flat-out wrong.
Lastly, you must not have watched the entire video as I cover the creation of man "accurately" and with a bit more eloquence than Genesis; and without the needless misogyny that went on to plague womankind for the following 4,000 years.
Trent
// In the field of textual criticism, what could be more unscholarly than to take known corroborating manuscripts and deliberately devise a known corrupt text? //
If you think this was a textual critique approach, you missed the point.
I did not make Genesis the way "I" wanted it to be. I made it both more accurate and more telling of a supernatural influence.
Genesis 1 as-is contains absolutely nothing that a bronze-age man could not have deduced simply by using his own imagination. It is replete with error.
To me, this is unthinkable logically speaking.
Example: If a man came up to me and said, "The true God Balak just revealed Her word to me -- and SHE created Yahveh!", my first reaction would be, "Prove it."
This man shows me a document that Balak "inspired" him to write. The document begins, "In the beginning, Balak created woman, and gave all women horns for all time." Naturally, I would say, "This is utter nonsense. Women do not have horns, nor have they ever had horns."
"It's a metaphor," he says.
As silly as this sounds, that is exactly what believers do with Genesis 1, in particular 1:2. When you say, "This is the God of the universe," and I say, "Wait - there is no water in the vacuum of space, nor without the presence of gravity could the earth..." etc. You say, "Metaphor." "Allegorical."
It's still "wrong". And every meaning necessary could have easily been transmitted with facts rather than falsehoods. The result would, in my opinion, been a far less bloody history and many more believers as time went on to prove the statements true.
It's a bitter pill to swallow, but at least it's the red pill.
Lastly, who is to say that the Gnostic or even the Ebionite texts were not the "accurate" ones? Can you not read between the lines when reading, say, James or Matthew as compared to the earlier works of Paul?
Jesus was Hellenized by Paul -- that was my stance when I was a minister and it's my stance now as an agnostic.
Trent
// Go back to the ancient greek civilization for instance and the heliocentricm would've conflicted with the Ptolemaic view of the universe. //
I don't think Ptolemy's belief or lack of belief was affected by Genesis or anything Jewish for that matter. A Greco-Roman in... what, 100 AD? (memory doesn't serve) was hardly a ripe-for-convert kinda guy. Besides, not all Greeks shared his belief. Let's not forget Pythagoras.
i am not so sure that those choices that the writer made would "go over" with people at that time not only because of them being "ancient" but being of a different "culture" and "language."
the filmaker forgot that some of those phrases might be difficult in the original hebrew, and that perhaps the people at that time might actually *LOOSE FAITH* if what they saw with their eyes contradicted the passage i.e the Light from the Sun on the Moon. This would go against what they plainly saw.
// i am not so sure that those choices that the writer made would "go over" with people at that time not only because of them being "ancient" but being of a different "culture" and "language." //
I'm enjoying the feedback on this.
Please point out what would not have gone over culturally. Nothing in the language is exempt from the language of the day; each word has a Hebrew equivalent.
// the filmaker forgot that some of those phrases might be difficult in the original hebrew, and that perhaps the people at that time might actually *LOOSE FAITH* if what they saw with their eyes contradicted the passage i.e the Light from the Sun on the Moon. This would go against what they plainly saw.//
Now let's consider this thought.
The people of the day could not see, for example, a missing rib where woman was created. Did any lose faith? Later down the timeline, they surely would have had a hard time imagining the world being flooded with water, or Lot's wife turned to salt.
Each of these defy common sight, but they were accepted, as surely as a burning bush that talked was accepted.
I find it quite a stretch to presume that a passage of greater understanding (the sun shines on the moon) would have caused a people willing to commit mass murder on the basis of their prophets and leader's words alone a contingency for disbelief.
In short, I think you give the Israelites way too much credit for critical thought. ; )
It is a good illustration of what a real God could have done. I agree much more belief would have been inspired.
Also, consider that we're pretty clever apes. God could also have revealed unto us a 'true mystery' to 'meditate and pray upon.' Somehthing far beyond the technology of the time. The germ theory of illness for instance. Perhaps we wouldn't have understood it at the time, but we'd have really tried to, and eventually we would have.
Instead we get the mishmash of programming with a sweet Jesus center that is the bible. Filled with cognitave-dissonance-inducing contradictory statements that are required to be believed simultaneously. God is love, and if you don't believe that He'll roast you for eternity, that sort of thing. It makes what could have been a genuine spiritual path a walk through psychosis park.
For me the strongest indictments of the truth claims of the various Christianities derives from the special meld of what their gods both put in and left out of their holy book.
Much of what their deity included, the entire civilized world now rejects. I immediately think of their diety's dietary restrictions, maiming or killing for petty crimes, killing adulterers, killing those found working on the sabbath, keeping slaves after military victory, keeping virgins after military victory, and advice for those confronted with menstruation.
Much of what their deity left out would have benefited mankind immensely. Wash your hands. Cook your pork well-done. Slavery is always wrong. A clear elucidation of evolution would have greatly improved man's understanding of his home planet and his place in it.
Those writing the Bible could easily have understood it since at the time the earliest books of the Bible were written, man had been farming and domesticating animals and plants for millenia. That is, man had already been actively involved in hand's-on evolution of species. Dogs, cattle, goats, camels, horses, swine, cabbage family, and grasses like wheat, rye and barley had all undergone millenia of active selective breeding by humans before the Bible was written. Dogs diverged from wolves more than 15,000 years ago, and have been living among men and evolved to men's needs all this time.
Unfortunately, the knowledge possessed by the Christian gods is precisely that possessed by the Bible's authors. Those creating the Biblical god were fear-stricken, ignorant and superstitious, and their god was created exactly the same way. The ignorant authors of the Bible could not imbue their deity with a knowledge and understanding they lacked themselves.
I just saw a TV commercial for an energy drink. It said that the drink was low calorie and caffeine free, made from all-natural ingredients, and non-addictive. Hard to say why, but I am not jumping in my car to go buy a few cases of it.
Maybe it's because I know it's a TV commercial and not a presentation at a scientific conference that underwent double-blind peer review. Maybe it's because I know it's a TV commercial and not an objective declaration of fact. Maybe I know that it's just a TV commercial and that I need to find other ways to corroborate its claims before I drink the product.
I imagine the creators of this drink belive they have concocted something that can genuinely help some people who need an energy boost. Sure, they also realize they are selling a product. I could, however, also take the position that these folks had a diabolical or ignorance-based superstitious reason to create the drink and pay for a massive marketing campaign.
However, I choose to see it for what it is -- a TV commercial designed for a specific purpose. To read more into it or to extrapolate more out of it would be to turn it into something that it's not.
Trent wrote: I did not make Genesis the way "I" wanted it to be. I made it both more accurate and more telling of a supernatural influence.
In your own words, the way YOU wanted it was "more accurate" and "more telling". So you ended up with exactly what YOU WANTED. In scientific experimentation there is a problem known as "finding what you are looking for". Your "Revised Reality Version" provides more insight into YOU than the Bible which you are supposedly expounding upon.
Something else to consider is that you didn’t make yourself nor did your ancestors as far as you can trace them in recorded history. So the physical evidences allude to the possibility that you were created by the one whom you question. Actually “question” is not accurate since your approach is to teach with authority. If my suspicions are true, and I think they are, your choices have landed you into the realm of a “strong delusion”. It’s somewhat of a mystery to me how it works but I’ve witnessed the following:
A people subjugated to a corrupt ruler that they elected after believing false promises.
2 Thess 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
Person A says to Person B, "You're ignorant and deluded. But good news, we can fix this! Let me help."
Person B says to Person A, "No, you are quite wrong. It is in fact YOU who are ignorant and deluded, and your delusion has even been added to by the Great Invisible Being. I know this to be true because the Great Invisible Being gave visions and special revelation to this ancient man that I trust."
Hmmm, as an outside observer, how should I process such an exchange? Maybe I have a bias, but I'm suspicious about the person using invisible beings and visions to make his claims.
// In your own words, the way YOU wanted it was "more accurate" and "more telling". So you ended up with exactly what YOU WANTED. In scientific experimentation there is a problem known as "finding what you are looking for". Your "Revised Reality Version" provides more insight into YOU than the Bible which you are supposedly expounding upon. //
Alan, in this paragraph you simply state what Trent himself gives as his reasons at the very beginning of the video. Yes, his goal (what he wanted) was to create a rendering of Genesis 1 that was more accurate and thereby as an actual all-knowing God would have made. And?
You're spending a paragraph to state the all-together obvious. I think you mean to draw some conclusion of significance by it, but it's quite the mystery as to what that would be as you don't state anything beyond what the author himself admits as his intent and demonstrates as what he in fact does.
In your second paragraph you suggest that Trent - if the god you believe in is in fact the real one - might simply here be questioning your god. Yet you present no reason why anyone should consider the god you believe in as real over any other of the concepts of gods in human culture. You're basically begging the case here. What's worse is your doing so in response to something that calls into question your particular god as an actual all-knowing God by arguing from the assumption that he is real.
I wonder how you don't see how silly this should come across to even former believers like myself, let alone anyone who never shared your view in the past.
Trent, I like your movie. I've thought about doing this same sort of project.
I've never bought into the line of reasoning that you're addressing: "Genesis 1 and 2 aren't science books! Ancient people could not possibly understand modern science. So it's allegory. See, isn't that easy? Now we can have Science and Faith. It's the best of both worlds!"
I took a quick look, and found one case of this on my bookshelf. Francis Collins in The Language of God says "The intention of the Bible was (and is) to reveal the nature of God to humankind. Would it have served God's purposes thirty-four hundred years ago to lecture to His people about radioactive decay, geologic strata, and DNA?" (pg 175 of the paperback edition).
Well, of course not!! Genesis isn't purporting to be Science, it's purporting to be History! Good grief, a creation story doesn't need to be full of modern scientific knowledge to be historically accurate.
Your short movie easily demonstrates that using a little bit of imagination, it would be trivial to create a simple creation narrative that would eventually be confirmed by modern discoveries. It could easily meet the needs of both ancient and modern men, and still explain the relationship between the Creator and the created.
Does anyone know if any Young Earthers have also made this same argument? It would suit their case just as well as yours.
Russ wrote: Much of what their deity included, the entire civilized world now rejects. I immediately think of their diety's dietary restrictions, maiming or killing for petty crimes, killing adulterers, killing those found working on the sabbath, keeping slaves after military victory, keeping virgins after military victory, and advice for those confronted with menstruation.
Improvements made by modern society:
Dietary restriction
Maiming or killing for NO crime
Idolizing adulterers
Protecting rights to violate virgins
Keeping slaves after economic victory
// In your own words, the way YOU wanted it was "more accurate" and "more telling". So you ended up with exactly what YOU WANTED. //
The comments made by DJ Wilkins would be my own to this statement.
Again, this is not what I personally want, at least as much as a writer can detach himself from what's written. It's what I believe 'could' have been written to make the claims more than empty, allegorical nonsense.
// In scientific experimentation there is a problem known as "finding what you are looking for". Your "Revised Reality Version" provides more insight into YOU than the Bible which you are supposedly expounding upon. //
Nonsense.
First, I 'am' a scientist, so I'm quite familiar with the issues at hand.
Your statements is more than a tad ironic, as Christian "scientists" and apologists seek to prove something based on a preconceived notion of truth.
Irony indeed.
Nonetheless, this is not what's going on here. I am not taking a "conclusion" (other than sheer reality) and trying to prove it post-facto. I am asserting, rather forcefully, that Genesis is poorly written. It could have easily been written, had a deity been involved that wanted mankind to understand him APART FROM the age of superstition.
That my friend is what you are omitting from your argument. In ancient times, anything deemed "holy" would have been accepted by its followers. This is painfully obvious from scripture.
No, the real test of a supernatural claim would come later in history when science caught up to the claims. My contention is simply that science would have eventually proven the concepts in the "rewritten" version correct, thus ensuring believers in the age of doubt.
// Something else to consider is that you didn’t make yourself nor did your ancestors as far as you can trace them in recorded history. //
So? That is covered in my version of Genesis, and attributed to your god in the process. It is merely accurate; no less 'mystical' than forming man from mud, and far more profound in my opinion. More of a love story, if I may be so sappy.
// Actually “question” is not accurate since your approach is to teach with authority. If my suspicions are true, and I think they are, your choices have landed you into the realm of a “strong delusion”. //
Er... no.
I'm a skeptic, part-time philosopher, former minister (that you can hold against me... ; ) and rational thinker. Nothing more.
I'm not trying to teach with authority - I'm trying to get people like you to think beyond the ridges of the box. But thinking scares many people, hence the power of religion -- which, btw, is usually followed by....
well, just look at your tagline.
Threats. "Strong delusion."
Circular reasoning. You're taking a book of mayhem and using it's most radical and rejected (in the day) author, Paul, and quoting this as if it were God himself authoring it.
That is delusional. But of course you're free to believe whatever you wish.
Finally, I do not mean to be confrontational here. I have nothing against believers. I'm not Chris Hitchens. I just enjoy philosophical thought.
Trent
// Improvements made by modern society:
Dietary restriction //
Wrong. Dietary restriction was quite nicely covered in Torah. And Jesus practiced Torah; he upheld his Jewishness until Paul dismantled it.
// Maiming or killing for NO crime //
See Numbers 31. Or any number of passages to which you will assert there "was" a crime (disbelief).
And oh how the maiming continued throughout the Crusades... silly argument here Alan.
// Idolizing adulterers //
"You have heard it said, 'You should not commit adultery.' But I say unto you..."
You know the rest.
So, are you willing to step up to the plate and say the folks YOU "idolize" (we all have our heroes) have never THOUGHT about adultery?
Give me a freakin' break man...
// Protecting rights to violate virgins //
Surely you jest.
The Bible never says a WORD regarding what we not consider pedophilia. In my previous Numbers 31 example, Moses' army was commanded to violate virgins, unless you're just hopelessly naive as to what "booty" entailed in Jewish wars.
And then there's the selling of your daughters into slavery... and then there's Lot, trading his virgin daughters in exchange for protection of "angels", only later to shag them silly in a drunken state, and never once reprimanded for doing so...
... and so-on.
I wonder Alan how much OT scholarship you've actually done. Do tell.
// Keeping slaves after economic victory //
If I have to point out the dross here, I'll puke.
I take it your standard for slavery being "okay" is economic downturn. That would make slavery acceptable in most parts of the world today, would it not?
No Alan, we grew up in the civilized world. We realized that owning another person is NEVER right. EVER.
Human morality evolves, just as human beings evolve.
Yahweh unfortunately got left behind in that evolution of morality, as least as far as his mandates (and Jesus' neither here-nor-there stance) is concerned.
Finally, I have to say this: I find it quite pious and hypocritical of one who profanes the work of "modern society" while they reap all of the benefits they agree with.
-- Immunization against Yahweh's nifty viruses.
-- Medical advances from the study of evolutionary biology (part of my field.)
-- Even air flight, which was widely condemned by church leaders of the time. Funny but true story. The old adage, "If God wanted men to fly he would have given him wings" actually came from a well-known minister making a public declaration against the "evils of science."
Or, let me just quote someone you're familiar with:
“There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity…It is this which drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature, those secrets beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which men should not wish to learn…”
- St. Augustine
How nifty...
Trent
// Your short movie easily demonstrates that using a little bit of imagination, it would be trivial to create a simple creation narrative that would eventually be confirmed by modern discoveries. It could easily meet the needs of both ancient and modern men, and still explain the relationship between the Creator and the created. //
Thank you Jim. I appreciate your kind words and feedback, and thanks to John for posting this on his blog.
This is just part of an entire book that I hope to have published before year's end, that tackles the entire book of Genesis.
One book at a time... : )
Trent
Awesome Trent. Look forward to checking out the book ;)
(Really appreciate the way you capture the feel of Genesis in your writing this new version. It definately had the feel of reading the Bible for me.)
Thanks DJ! That's the read I'm going for, obviously with a touch of old English for nothing more than poetry's sake.
Frankly, I think the Bible's view of God is horrifically narrow. The universe shows us far more than this deity ever did; and if there is a god, he/she/they are worthy of more than tribalism and irresponsibility.
(I should begin writing my will, eh? ; )
The Bible’s seemingly harsh death penalty for adultery is instituted in the United States currently. While the government stands idly by, the due process is carried out by cheated spouses in the form of murder. How many murders occur daily that are motivated by retaliating spouses? Under Judeo law, the Theocratic government provided a due process for dealing with this evil that was superior to an individual in a state of rage without lawful recourse. The entire O. J. Simpson tragedy would undoubtedly have been avoided under Judeo law. Critics of Old Testament law have erected a straw man since the law was given specifically to the nation of Israel and was never intended to bring its adherents to perfection as evidenced by the following:
Galations 3:24-25 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.
// The Bible’s seemingly harsh death penalty for adultery is instituted in the United States currently. //
Oh, is it? Please do point that out to me within the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. I'd be curious to read the bit where "stoning a non-virgin upon your wedding day" is 'also' mandated by our constitution.
The rest of your response is rife with contradiction, unless you are Jewish (obviously not as you continually quote Paul. ; )
Again: Jesus' upgrade to Torah 2.0: THOUGHT of adultery is adultery.
Please do post a link to anything remotely close to this mandate within our governmental charters.
Meanwhile, I'll be happy to provide you with quotes from Adams, Jefferson, et. al that clearly spell out the need for a secular government.
Trent
Alan, may I suggest a book? Read Barrie Wilson's "How Jesus Became Christian." It's not written from an atheist or agnostic perspective. Barrie is a scholar and his understanding of Jewish history is quite excellent.
Trent
How about giving these suggestions in the original language Genesis was written in.
Since neither you nor the author of this video ever read the original how do you know what is and is not in it?
// How about giving these suggestions in the original language Genesis was written in. //
For one thing, I cannot write in Hebrew. Even if I could, I doubt it would be understood.
// Since neither you nor the author of this video ever read the original how do you know what is and is not in it? //
I am the author of the video. And we do not have any original autographs, so would that, in your view, make the point of 'any' critique (positive or negative) worthless? Or are you referring to the oldest manuscripts? If so, I was forced to read what I could in college, but I always sucked at languages.
Besides, the point is moot. The idea behind the video is overlooked. It's simple: If God wanted mankind to really 'believe' he authored or inspired something, it would have been easy to provide just a few lines of text to do just that.
Either he clearly did NOT, making him at best a very dubious deity, or (in all probability) these books are the works of primitive people trying to understand the world around them.
Alan Clark quotes the Bible:
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. (2Thess. 2:11).
So what does this verse tell us?
It tells us God is not all good, and is very able and capable at doing evil. In short, God CAN (and does) lie!
So Alan, just when do we KNOW God is ever telling the truth?
Just which parts of the Bible are and are not “strong delusion(s)”?
Remember, this verse emphatically states the “strong delusion” or the lie comes from God himself and NOT man.
@ Harry McCall:
I think Yahveh sent Paul a strong delusion and The James Gang had it right all the time. ; )
In many English versions (such as the King James Bible) simply forces a creedal Christian theology on to the Hebrew Bible and glosses over the Semitic terms for the place of all the dead such as Sheol, the pit (or the grave) with the bogus term Hell.
Also, in the Greek New Testament, the terms Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus are all glossed over and simply termed Hell in English to agree with orthodox creedal Christianity.
Likewise, what is plainly expressed as polytheism in Genesis 1: 1 “בראשית ברא אלהים”is simply glossed over by the Jews translating the LXX in Alexandria, Egypt as monotheism: “εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεός”.
But the grammatical muscular plural אלהים in Genesis 1:1 is NOT the Hebrew singular אל which is used for all gods in the Hebrew Bible including Yahweh.
The fact that this polytheistic term is linked to Israel’s personal god in Genesis 2:7 as
יהוה אלהים is nothing but a conflation of the older polytheism account of creation coupled with Yahweh or literally “Yahweh Gods”. This is glossed over in the late LXX text to conform to orthodox Jewish monotheism as “ο θεός”.
The New Testament author qoute ONLY from the LXX to avoid any form of polytheism in the polytheistic Greco-Roman world.
In short, the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 have different gods and god really doing the creations.
Christianity assigns Genesis to only one God in their English texts which follows the late orthodox monotheism of the LXX.
Trent
You said this:
"Now let's consider this thought.
The people of the day could not see, for example, a missing rib where woman was created. Did any lose faith? Later down the timeline, they surely would have had a hard time imagining the world being flooded with water, or Lot's wife turned to salt."
my point was that there would be things that would contradict what their eyes saw, the rib analogy regards something 'they do not see.'
they see things in terms of days of the week, in terms of things 'being there.'
they see the 'sun' they see the 'moon', in their mind the light from the sun is not hitting the moon so to suggest this would be a direct contradiction to what they saw.
moreover, the idea might lead to scientific discoveries in much future generations 'before the appropiate time' in terms of the plan that God would have in mind.
trent
you said:
Nothing in the language is exempt from the language of the day; each word has a Hebrew equivalent.
just because there is an equivalent in hebrew, does not mean that the passage would read well in hebrew if such was expressed in that way.
what are you qualifications as a hebrew scholar?
What's this idiotic talk about having this said in Hebrew? As far as I know God could've created English as the language of that day and said exactly the words used in this video.
Sheesh, such stupid objections...No wonder some people believe. They're stupid! ;-)
REVISED REALITY VERSION DEBUNKED
Critique part #1
The video opens with the following text:
The Consensus: A long standing contention of many Christian apologists…
The above is a worn-out ad populum argument.
Genesis was never meant to be a book of science but rather a book of understanding.
Let’s test the above statement:
Gen 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
Since people don’t live this long today, is the account metaphorical?
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
The tedious detail given to the exact date ruins the metaphorical nature. The “windows of heaven were opened” is indeed a metaphor but if someone told me that it rained cats and dogs during the Midwest 1937 flood, does that mean this flood was metaphorical?
Gen 8:3-4 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
More tedious dates and a present-day mountain bearing the exact same name located in the middle of the “cradle of civilization”. Dostoyevsky’s “Crime & Punishment” novel refers to “Voznesensky Prospect” which is a street in present-day St. Petersburg but we know for a fact that his story is fictionl because Dostoyevsky never hid this fact when he began writing his story in 1865.
Gen 8:13-14 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
A 150-day period is described starting on the seventeenth day of the second month, and ending on the seventeenth day of the seventh month (Genesis 7:11,24 and 8:3-4). Subtracting between the two, we have 5 months (which are referred to as 150 days).
If 150 days = 5 months, then 1 mo. = 30 days
30 days x 12 mo. = 360 days/year
If the Genesis account was fabricated or borrowed, then why did the author convey an unconvincing and erroneous 360-day year? If the lunar year at the time of the supposed Flood was indeed 360 days, then Genesis would be vindicated and elevated to the status of a “scientific instrument” of great value. I’m not aware of any conclusive proof that a 360-day pre-flood year could NOT have existed but I am aware of corroborating evidences that support this idea:
Early Egyptians assumed a 360-day year, until they realized that the Nile was flooding later and later each year according to that calendar. Because Egypt’s earliest settlers probably would not have adopted a 360-day year while in Egypt, they presumably brought that outdated understanding with them. [See J. Norman Lockyer, The Dawn of Astronomy (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press, 1964), pp. 243–248.]
Babylonian astronomers, thousands of years ago, divided a circle into 360 degrees. Why did they choose 360, instead of something easier such as 100 or 1,000? Probably because a year had 360 days before the flood—one degree for each day of the year. This would have been the average daily motion of the Sun among the stars, a relatively easy measurement. If so, either earth’s spin rate or its orbital period around the Sun increased during the flood. Increasing earth’s orbital period requires a large, unknown energy source; increasing the spin rate does not. Therefore, the spin rate probably increased. [Walt Brown, “In The Beginning” 8th Ed.]
from the video >> Genesis was never meant to be a book of science but rather a book of understanding.
Alan then proceeds to provide examples against this view.
Alan, do agree with Trent that Christians who take Genesis 1-3 as metaphor and bend it to match some modern ideas are wrong?
I suspect that you both agree on this matter, but for very different reasons.
Alan
I think it did rain cats and dogs, I should know, I stepped in a poodle.
late, feeno
Alan,
Can I get a clarificatin here. Do you think the flood actually happened and Noah was 600 years old? Do you think the earth is 6,000 years old?
I just want to know what you are ultimately arguing for.
John
The ones who brought up the whole Hebrew language stuff are skeptics not dumb Christians. Not that the person who brought it up is stupid either, just clarifying. You should apologize to somebody, I think?
see ya soon, peace homie, feeno
// my point was that there would be things that would contradict what their eyes saw, the rib analogy regards something 'they do not see. //
You cannot see ribs, but you can most certainly feel them. And no-doubt, the curious Jews did some counting.
feeno, you know I call them as I see them. Stupid is as stupid does.
C'ya tomorrow. Your treat, remember?
// what are you qualifications as a hebrew scholar? //
I'm sorry DVD, I didn't know I had to have any to make the point. After all, the author of Genesis 1 was hardly a "scholar", yet you seem to buy into it without much of a problem. In fact, Yahveh loved using the "lowly" to express his higher views.
I'm not saying this is the case with me at all, obviously, but ad hom against my "Hebrew" scholarship (I am degreed in theology) is moot. Deal with the issue: A God-inspired document could have easily contained nuggets of information pertinent to ALL ages, not merely the superstitious, bronze-age tribal cultures.
But that's exactly how the book is written.
@ Alan
DEBUNKED REVISED REALITY VERSION DEBUNKED
Critique part #1
// The above is a worn-out ad populum argument. //
Nonsense. "of many" -- not of all, and it's not an argument of ad populum and more than saying, "Many people believe in God." Unless I am making this statement to prove MY POINT, which I am not (it is made as an statement of fact; just do your homework ... read Craig, Boyd, etc.)
You then attempt to assert that Genesis WAS meant to be a book of science. This is where it gets fun...
// Gen 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
Since people don’t live this long today, is the account metaphorical? //
So, let me understand you:
1. We have absolutely zero evidence of life spans beyond 122 years. None. Yet you contend that because Genesis says someone lived 600 years it proves that Genesis is "science"? This is just absurd; hardly worthy of rebuttal. But I'll make one:
Show us any evidence of this from a scientific point of view. Any evidence will do. Speculation will be tossed out like yesterday's garbage.
// Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
The tedious detail given to the exact date ruins the metaphorical nature. The “windows of heaven were opened” is indeed a metaphor but if someone told me that it rained cats and dogs during the Midwest 1937 flood, does that mean this flood was metaphorical? //
1. You simply missed the "of MANY", not "of ALL". You're welcome to believe that Genesis is literal. That makes for an even more entertaining debate.
Tell me Alan, exactly HOW were there waters on the earth prior to gravity and heat? Do tell. Please. The masses want to know.
Then tell me Alan why EVERY branch of science support an ancient earth. Or how the sun formed after the earth. Or how plants before the sun.
I'll expect reasonable answers. "God can do anything" is circular nonsense.
// Gen 8:3-4 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. //
Please provide the mathematical equations for this volume of water (a) being able to be contained on earth; (b) evaporating in 150 days; and (c) how the miracle animals managed to eat once the waters receded, as all vegetation would have been utterly destroyed.
Again, we await the science with eagerness.
// More tedious dates and a present-day mountain bearing the exact same name located in the middle of the “cradle of civilization”. Dostoyevsky’s “Crime & Punishment” novel refers to “Voznesensky Prospect” which is a street in present-day St. Petersburg but we know for a fact that his story is fictionl because Dostoyevsky never hid this fact when he began writing his story in 1865. //
So, because the author NAMES Ararat it's science? And then you quote a FICTION book as an analogy? That's a hoot. Ararat was referenced back in Babylonian history. It's a "mountain" with a "name". Nothing more. This proves absolutely nothing other than the fact the writer of Genesis knew the name of a mountain.
(cont)
(cont…)
// If the Genesis account was fabricated or borrowed, then why did the author convey an unconvincing and erroneous 360-day year? If the lunar year at the time of the supposed Flood was indeed 360 days, then Genesis would be vindicated and elevated to the status of a “scientific instrument” of great value. I’m not aware of any conclusive proof that a 360-day pre-flood year could NOT have existed but I am aware of corroborating evidences that support this idea: //
Don't even try to go there. This one is simple: The Egyptian calendars of the time were based on 360-day years thanks to a lack of understanding of leap years. This is History 101. They were wrong. They later corrected the error, as did anyone with the understanding to do so.
So your "argument" is that the author of Genesis got it wrong and it just so happened to be as "wrong" as the Egyptian culture he was no-doubt very well aware of.
Hmm... and this makes Genesis a book of science?
Your quote of Brown is just scientific absurdity from a creationist trying to support his agenda. Let's just spell it out:
Quote ONE scientist or ONE peer-reviewed paper suggesting that we have "increased" our days from 360 to 365 at any time in recent history.
Just ONE.
You cannot, because none exist. You have gross speculation (i.e. Brown) using words like "probably" and ad hoc "before the flood" statements, who never bothered to consider the obvious:
1. The way early Egyptians counted;
2. The fact that 360 was divisible by 2.
3. The lack of understanding of leap years.
4. A slowing of rotation or moving the earth closer to the sun would have been utterly disastrous and, of course, these disasters were never recorded.
There is no evidence that the Earth's orbit or rotation about its axis has changed significantly in the historical past. In fact, other than the very gradual slowing of the Earth's rotation due to tidal interactions with the moon the orbital period of Earth and its revolution about its axis have been remarkably constant through most of the solar system's lifetime.
Creationists like yourself must resort to wild theories (like shorter days and years) to make your holy books remain holy. This level of intellectual dishonesty is appalling to me.
Trent
REVISED REALITY VERSION DEBUNKED
Critique part #2
Why is it that atheists need to reference a “god” in order to define themselves? The word “a – theist” is a negative of “theist”. Defining one’s belief system as a negative rather than a positive must be wearisome. I was wondering if an atheist manifesto existed somewhere that articulated exactly what atheists BELIEVED, rather than NOT BELIEVED. I’m aware that atheists don’t believe in Jesus’ divinity but rather than being anti-Jesus or anti-Christ, perhaps atheists could turn this negative into something more positive such as pro-matter, pro-dirt, pro-self, or pro-Darwin. The idea of pro-Satan would obviously have no appeal since this character is considered fictitious but Satan’s approach of questioning God in Genesis and offering opposite interpretations should bode well for atheists. So perhaps “pro-Luciferian” would be a good motto. John Loftus and Harry McCall should take me serious because how could they not love article #1 of the “Lucifer Manifesto”:
1. God as the Universal Father did not exist. Physical gravity and space-energy were inherent in the universe. Time-space Deity, he said, invented the myth that a Father existed somewhere in order to maintain the rule of the universes under such a fiction. No one could describe, he declared, what the Father was like even though they supposedly met him.
Actually, this is only the beginning of the bliss that is waiting for those who dig just a little deeper so I’ll stop here and let the above enticement take due course.
DEBUNKED: REVISED REALITY VERSION DEBUNKED
Critique part #2
// Why is it that atheists need to reference a “god” in order to define themselves? //
We do not. This is conjecture. Stick to facts if you want to debunk something. We do not define "our selves" because we do not believe in a god or gods. This is a "part" of who we are.
I prefer the term rationalist, thank you very much.
// I was wondering if an atheist manifesto existed somewhere that articulated exactly what atheists BELIEVED, rather than NOT BELIEVED. //
See above: "Rational thought." Viewing reality through the eyes of reason, evidence, and in my case optimism. We have no "manifesto" because disbelief is not a religion.
// I’m aware that atheists don’t believe in Jesus’ divinity but rather than being anti-Jesus or anti-Christ, perhaps atheists could turn this negative into something more positive such as pro-matter, pro-dirt, pro-self, or pro-Darwin. //
We are pro-SCIENCE. You do not have much of a scientific leg to stand on. We view the natural "as" reality; therefore our reality can be defined, tested, proven false, improved upon, etc.
// The idea of pro-Satan would obviously have no appeal since this character is considered fictitious but Satan’s approach of questioning God in Genesis and offering opposite interpretations should bode well for atheists. So perhaps “pro-Luciferian” would be a good motto. //
What a moronic statement. Rationalists do not believe in "lucifer" either.
// John Loftus and Harry McCall should take me serious because how could they not love article #1 of the “Lucifer Manifesto”:
1. God as the Universal Father did not exist. Physical gravity and space-energy were inherent in the universe. Time-space Deity, he said, invented the myth that a Father existed somewhere in order to maintain the rule of the universes under such a fiction. No one could describe, he declared, what the Father was like even though they supposedly met him. //
You would agree with many things Nietzsche wrote, the Gnostics wrote, the Ebionites wrote... does that make you one with their beliefs?
Nonetheless, we would NOT agree with this as it evokes "lucifer", yet another fairy tale manifestation.
// Actually, this is only the beginning of the bliss that is waiting for those who dig just a little deeper so I’ll stop here and let the above enticement take due course. //
It's course will be short-lived, I'm sure.
Trent
// Alan: Why is it that atheists need to reference a “god” in order to define themselves? The word “a – theist” is a negative of “theist”. Defining one’s belief system as a negative rather than a positive must be wearisome.//
Alan, you're really changing the subject here, but I'm happy to take up your point regardless.
I think we might be surprised to learn how many non-theists there are out there that do not "define" themselves as being "non-theists" just as many Christians out there do not define themselves as being "non-Muslums" (though I've encoutered some that define themselves as being "non-liberals" and to some degree "non-sinners" - more on that below ;P)
As for the non-theists, I am one such example. I am a non-theist (I don't believe in a diety as I don't see any evidence of it - and that all we have is a concept born of human superstition.) But I define myself first and foremost a human being and secondly by the things I love, believe in and am living for, my relationships, my passions, my values, dreams, goals, etc. I believe in universal human values and like to think of myself as a "mere human" (thank you, C.S. Lewis.)
I personally see people defining themselves as an "atheist" as being a sign that that person is defining him/herself more by what their against then for (or in a state of rebellion against something - which suggests it still has some power over them.) Then again, if someone lives in a society where most people say they are something and that something has people aggressively trying to force it in some way, shape or form on the rest of society - such a rebellious stance is not beyond empathy (and it does influence their world - and may be worthy of confronting.)
Never the less, I think you're point is a reasonable one, but I also think it cuts both ways. I've known many Christians and have at times in my past been just such a Christian who defined himself by what he was against ("sin" - partying, drinking, blah blah etc) more so then what he was for. And many people who are not religious find many Christians and other religious individuals to come across exactly this way. They find many Christians to present themselves in a way that has them defined in the experience of others just so.
Think about it... for many Christians, what one is against is a BIG part of what calling themselves Christian means.
All that said, I find it be topic well worth discussing and appreciate you bringing it up - even if "out of context" here.
Trent wrote: The people of the day could not see, for example, a missing rib where woman was created. Did any lose faith? Later down the timeline, they surely would have had a hard time imagining the world being flooded with water, or Lot's wife turned to salt.
RogerS: God’s subtle use of miracle and symbolic overtones are often lost on the unregenerated.
Concerning Adam's rib, read the following personal account:
During the 5 1/2 months in hospital, and for years afterwards, I had a series of operations to reconstruct various parts of me, particularly the bones of my face.
These operations often required using my own bone for grafting. I noticed that the plastic surgeon would keep going back to the right side of my ribcage, through the same horizontal scar, actually, to get more bone for these procedures.
One day, I asked him why he hadn't 'run out of bone'. He looked at me blankly, and then explained that he and his team took the whole rib out, each time. 'We leave the periosteum intact, so the rib usually just grows right back again.'source
RogerS: I confided in another medical doctor who confirmed that a rib can regenerate with the periosteum membrane remaining intact.
You are right Trent about the lack of imagination for the world being flooded with water. Rather, there is plenty of imagination for all the major mountain ranges being below sea level in order to explain the overlay of sedimentary layers containing fossilized sea life (mountains lowered & raised at various times of course so as not to be construed to a certain event). You may benefit from looking up requirements for formation of “sedimentary rock”. It is also interesting that coal, oil, and sedimentary layers are still full of “hot” C14 with a half-life of only 5730 years.
Trent wrote: You would agree with many things Nietzsche wrote, the Gnostics wrote, the Ebionites wrote... does that make you one with their beliefs?
Sometimes a book can be judged correctly by its cover. I've saved myself hours of needless contamination by not opening books or magazines with covers depicting unclothed women with their legs spread wide open. Nietzsche? Gnostics? Ebionites? If a publication has 1/2 price coupons on airfare, does that redeem it? People tend to take on attributes of those with whom they associate and admire. The similarities between the "Lucifer Manifesto" and "Revised Reality Version" are uncanny. Perhaps you can tell me what you don't agree with on article #1 of the Lucifer Manifesto other than its evocation of "Lucifer".
Missionary Don Richardson had great difficulty in relating the Gospel message to a remote tribe in Papua New Guinea. "In their eyes, Judas, not Jesus, was the hero of the Gospels, Jesus was just the dupe to be laughed at." Richardson told me that the tribal people valued "treachery" above all else.
I really think you are selling yourself short by distancing yourself from Lucifer just because you think him to be fictitious. The IDEAS are what you should focus on. You cannot deny the fluidity and artistry of the following:
"Mary who herself was impregnated by her own Father God so He could be born into the very fallen world of sin the Creator so detested and cursed the created creatures with."
// God’s subtle use of miracle and symbolic overtones are often lost on the unregenerated. //
Yes, yes, Roger... we're used to being insulted right off the bat. So I will be happy to reply in the same vein.
My point was a bit sarcastic with the rib comment, I'll grant you that. Yes, in some cases ribs can regenerate, not that it would matter as DNA would pass along the proper coding.
So, let's try something more literal for you:
Are you 'seriously' going to contend that the god who created the universe has never had to overcome what appeared to be common sense when it came to delivering his truth? Are you freakin' kidding me? Do you think Noah leapt on the ark concept right away? Abraham on the child concept?
The point was simple: People will question what they cannot readily see. They did. They would in my version. It makes no difference at ALL to the story. Once "god said it", it would have been fact -- just as surely as the far-fetched and yet-to-be-realized Davidic prophecies were no-doubt questioned in the light of Roman onslaught.
// You are right Trent about the lack of imagination for the world being flooded with water. Rather, there is plenty of imagination for all the major mountain ranges being below sea level in order to explain the overlay of sedimentary layers containing fossilized sea life //
Yeah... those silly geologists. What do they know?
No, Mr. Generated, you missed the point by a country mile. At no time has ALL THE EARTH been submerged. The mathematics of this was debunked by Marty Leipzig years ago. If you're as good at math as you are at fantasy, have a look:
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm
// It is also interesting that coal, oil, and sedimentary layers are still full of “hot” C14 with a half-life of only 5730 years. //
More AiG nonsense. Read some non-biased science on the matter:
http://tinyurl.com/l3tbkd
Creationists love trying the C14 and carbon dating issues, but they just keep coming up with one epic fail after another.
I'd suggest you expand your library beyond the Dr. Craigs' of the world.
// Sometimes a book can be judged correctly by its cover. I've saved myself hours of needless contamination by not opening books or magazines with covers depicting unclothed women with their legs spread wide open. Nietzsche? Gnostics? Ebionites? //
This is too moronic to respond to (i.e. equating philosophy and the history of your own damn religion with porn.)
You've proven your own willingness to ignore history and thought that opposes your preconceived notions.
In short, you are not worthy of my time.
Trent
Trent,
My point is not moot.
My point is your lack of understanding of Hebrew. You have no idea what Genesis actually says because your command of Hebrew is too poor. So how can you suggest an alternative? How do you know that the poor translations you read are accurate? (I assure you they are not.)
If you are going to discuss our Bible then learn Hebrew very very well, otherwise you have no standing.
And in case you are wondering I am bi-lingual and completely fluent in Hebrew. It's a very simple and at the same time extremely complex language that you cannot begin to really understand unless you are very fluent and study it for years.
John,
No they are not stupid. Your lack of understanding of the Hebrew language is. And your insistence of using poor interpretations of the Bible is even stupider.
If you're going to discuss the Bible then learn the language. Because if you can't read the original you can't understand the Bible.
There is no way to accurately translate the Bible. If you knew Hebrew and were able to read the original you would already know this. Unfirtunately you are too uneducated to understand.
REVISED REALITY VERSION DEBUNKED
Critique part #3
Trent wrote: THE EXCUSE [of many Christians is] quantum physics, evolution and the big bang would not have made any sense to early man, so god spoke in a hyperbolic or parabolic language that they could easily understand.
Trent has built a beautiful straw man personage of a “Christian”. Where did the above statement come from? The nearest similitude I could Google was from a NON-CHRISTIAN:
“Frankly I feel like knowing too much background info sometimes kills of the mystique of life. Apart from quantum physics, evolution and the big bang. That shit is awesome.” (source)
The same person goes on to say, “If you ask me how the internet works I can safely tell you: by magic.” The bottom line here is Trent has cooked up his entire straw man premise because the phrase “hyperbolic or parabolic language” is absent from the entire internet likewise. Perhaps the “Christian” Trent is trying to assimilate is one who is already half-baked with liberal, modernist, “rational”, humanist, materialist, philosophy. Notice the grouping of “quantum physics" with "evolution and the big bang”. The technique is to sell the latter two on the merits of the first to non-discerning consumers. Actually this is not the immediate goal of “Revised Reality Version” but it provides a glimpse into Trent’s world-view via a Freudian slip.
Trent wrote: I have rewritten genesis chapter 1 complete with just enough fact to win over the most skeptical…
Many will not be won over by your “revised” version of Genesis for the simple reason that your grammar exposes you as a charlatan:
You shall knowest me as I knowest you.
Read and learn:
KJV Grammar Lesson
Top 30 Big Bang Problems
The Selling of Evolution
God values strong faith more than we can imagine. To him, it is more precious than most things. This revised version of Genesis assumes that God's main goal is to "try" and get the greatest amount of people to believe in Him as possible. But what good is that great plethora of people who believe in Him if it really doesn't cost them anything?
If God is God, then He could make himself known to the whole world if he wanted to in a burst of glory. But he chooses not to. Why? Because all the miracles in the world aren't enough to get us to love Him, which He desires more than people merely believing in Him. As the Bible says, even the demons believe...and shudder. Is God pleased with demons? Of course not. Without genuine faith, it is impossible to please God. If God showed his hand, according to the Bible, we would not have the opportunity to please Him by choosing to have faith in Him. Praise God that He allows us to have faith and please Him. Blessed are those who have not seen and believe... that's straight from Jesus's mouth.
A faith in something seen is no faith at all. If we "saw" how God created the world in every detail, then there would be less opportunity to exercise faith in God. That is God's standard, like it or not, and He won't back down. It's called faith for a reason.
Hi Trent,
I have a grammatical complaint:
Verse 7 ends with: "You shall knowest me as I knowest you"
I know you want to give the archaic feel of KJV English -- but that's not how that sentence would have been written by the writers of the KJV. The suffix "-est" is for the 2nd person present tense, and would not appear in either place in the proposed sentence above -- the first instance is the future tense (and is covered by "shall"), and the second instance is the 1st person, and the verb has an unmodifed ending.
"You shall know me as I know you" is fine.
Another linguistic point worth making is that "planet" is from the Greek, meaning "wandering" -- the planets were called wandering stars. Hebrew also had (and has) this distinction.
I think that if you were trying to convey the basics of astronomy, you might want to emphasize the similarity between the sun and the stars, and the distinction between the remote stars and the orbiting planets. You could modify "2" and "3" a bit. Perhaps something like: "And thus were kindled the sun, and the stars which are distant suns, more numerous than the sands of the ocean, which have kindred wanderers, like the sun has." [...] "...upon the Earth and positioned it in a special place {where water is neither all ice nor all steam}, among the wanderers that circleth the sun, reflecting its light from afar. [...] "Let the moon reflect the light of the sun, as the waters reflect the sun during the day [...]"
Just some suggestions. The bit in curly braces helps emphasize why the "place" is special, but that may drag the verse out too much. The part about water reflecting the sun is to give a familiar example of reflection in general, so that the idea that the moon is simply a reflector rather than a generator of its own light is easier to grasp.
In response to the idea that the ancient Hebrews would have had a problem believing this -- if you look at the moon during the daytime, you can see that the lit side faces the sun. The idea that the moon continues to reflect the light of the sun after the sun sets is really not that much harder to grasp.
Indeed, I am pretty sure that many ancient astronomers made that very same observation. This is really not rocket science.
By the way, some additional basic science points that might be worked into the Revised Reality Version of the bible -- not necessarily in Genesis -- might be that the Earth is round like a ball, and the opposite ends are cold and ice-covered, but the middle is very warm, and that the Earth, as it goes around the sun, is at an angle, such that when one end is pointing towards the sun, it is summer in that part of the Earth, and when it is pointing away from the sun, it is winter in that part of the Earth.
Basics, really.
Geonite,
Which Hebrew texts are most accurate then? More ancient versions, later versions that are much longer than the earliest copies? Isaiah was wrote over several hundred years? Which versions of Isaiah are most accurate? How about Jeremiah are the early, much shorter versions the better ones, or did God need to perfect them over time? Hector Avalos in his book, "The End of Biblical Studies" makes a compelling argument that the Hebrew scriptures themselves have been highly corrupted through time. I would guess that Avalos' PhD from Princeton and expertise in Hebrew qualifies him to have some input on the subject. Also, in Bible College and Seminary I knew several theologians with decades of study in Biblical languages, and none of them ever said anything like what you said. In fact, they argued that God's message was simple and that all could understand it. Finally, even if you are fluent in ancient Hebrew, it doesn't mean that your interpretation is necessarily more accurate than anyone else's. Can you claim to understand the precise cultural elements, customs, idioms, nuances, etc from thousands of years ago?! No intelligent person would ever make such an idiotic claim. One may know a lot about ancient Hebrews, but there's more we don't know. There's compelling evidence to strongly suggest that Moses was not a real person! We can't even know that for sure, yet you claim your understanding of anceint Hebrew qualifies you more than everyone else here?
If your idiodic premise that one has to be fluent in Hebrew to be qualified to intelligently comment on it is true, then it is equally true that you have to have read every anceint Hebrew manuscript in existence to make any judgments about them. Afterall, with your limited knowledge of the extant copies you couldn't possibly know if the Hebrew version you read was accurate at all.
By the way, Alan Clarke, would you like to explain to your nice new blog hosts just how it was that you knew that searching torrents for the word "barely" would bring up... that particular kind of result?
Trent
The Hebrew is essential to the discussion.
Now your saying that the writer would not have been a "Hebrew Scholar." Probably but how would you know that they would not be sophisticated in their language? Do you have definitive evidence for such a statement?
Now my asking about scholarship is essential. If writers of that time were not scholars, they did use a language that SPOKE TO THE CULTURE, and that is Important and we rely on Scholars for such in today's world.
So checking how this would read in the Hebrew is one thing, but also how this might be received in the culture.
I also don't see your point on the Ribs, since this event happened PRE-FALL, so How exactly do the "FEEL" for something that might have been drastically altered, as seen by the sudden nakedness and shame that occured after? ...
I also repeat---- that hinting at things in Genesis and being more obvious instead of subtle could lead to Scientific Discovries Before there Time which would go against the plan of God. A good expample is the Light of the Moon coming from the Sun or the Expansion of the Universe etc.
Who knows what Newton might have come up with? He believed in the text as did many other scientists and there is no telling if this would upset the balance of history.
Geonite wrote, "Trent, My point is not moot." Yet, Trent's reply was to the blogger named DVD. Are you DVD, but posting as Geonite too? I suppose there is nothing wrong with this, but it is confusing. Maybe I missed another moot point you brought up that Trent responded to as well?
Trent,
Your patience astonishes me! I loved the video and reading your replies. Excellent work on both counts.
Geonite,
Tell you what -- I have a friend who is a Rabbinical scholar and fluent in Hebrew. I'll run this by him.
Wanna lay a wager that with minor edits it can be made just as "Hebrew-worthy" as the original?
Let me know if you're up for it.
Trent
P.S. You're still missing the point of this exercise. Nothing personal.
// Trent has built a beautiful straw man personage of a “Christian”. Where did the above statement come from? The nearest similitude I could Google was from a NON-CHRISTIAN: //
You're correct with this Alan (the first thing so far... kudos.... ; )
That was in poor taste on my part. But again, this is NOT a debate, nor a formal argument. My intention, however misplaced in that statement, was not a straw man whatsoever, as what I am tackling "IS" Genesis itself, not Christians.
It was just an unnecessary comment.
// Many will not be won over by your “revised” version of Genesis for the simple reason that your grammar exposes you as a charlatan: //
My "grammar"?
Well, I suggest you check my YouTube channel. Some hard-core atheists on there saying, "I'd still believe"... so I suppose my "grammar" (whatever that means) isn't such a charade.
Also, the use of the term "charlatan" is absurd. I'm not out to deceive or fool anyone -- just make them think.
Please: At least use proper grammar if you're going to critique mine.
«"I also repeat---- that hinting at things in Genesis and being more obvious instead of subtle could lead to Scientific Discovries Before there Time which would go against the plan of God."»
How do you know what God's plan is or what would go against it?
«"A good expample is the Light of the Moon coming from the Sun"»
I see that Anaxagoras, who died in 428 BCE, was the first who is recorded as pointing out that the moon reflects the sun. But either way: How does this interfere with (or support) God's alleged plan?
«"or the Expansion of the Universe"»
Again: Why would humans being told that the universe is expanding interfere with God's plan?
@ Owlmirror:
// Verse 7 ends with: "You shall knowest me as I knowest you" //
Yeah. That was a joke. I'm quite serious.
The King James-style lingo was put into place for sheer comedy in an otherwise serious piece. In the actual book it's edited to almost exactly your suggestion.
"Knowest" is obviously not even a word... I thought it was pithy. I suppose it was a bit too dry... ; )
The rest of your comments are well-taken. Thanks man!
Trent
@ Owlmirror:
// Again: Why would humans being told that the universe is expanding interfere with God's plan? //
As you properly note, none of it would.
This little exercise reminds me of when The Dallas Cowboys went from Landry to Johnson. To this very day, you have long-timers saying it was blasphemy, wrong, etc, etc - despite the fact that Johnson built a more winning team than Landry in a third the time.
Both were great coaches, but people 'hate' change, especially when it deals with what they consider sacred.
So, even I were to have written the greatest slice of literature in all of history, creationists and literalists would create holes and rag on it.
I didn't of course, but the fact remains they have humped Genesis (and the other books) for so long they simply cannot see the rather obvious holes.
I'd also lay a cold grand on the table that you could dupe most everyone on here with a James Randi-style "discovery of a lost text", replete with fictitious scholars backing it up. Within a generation you'd have all the "deep meaning" behind it's nonsense and an entire genre of new believers.
Hell, people may even try it with my book. Wouldn't that be a hoot and a holler... ; )
Trent
@ Owlmirror;
Second thoughts about this bit:
// ou could modify "2" and "3" a bit. Perhaps something like: "And thus were kindled the sun, and the stars which are distant suns, more numerous than the sands of the ocean, which have kindred wanderers, like the sun has." [...] "...upon the Earth and positioned it in a special place {where water is neither all ice nor all steam}, among the wanderers that circleth the sun, reflecting its light from afar. [...] "Let the moon reflect the light of the sun, as the waters reflect the sun during the day [...]" //
A bit too scientific. I really wanted to avoid almost anything overly scientific, but there may be a way to suggest it.
Someone pointed out that not mentioning "sun" and "moon" due to false god worship was an issue, but obviously the Bible has no problem with these names as they're all over the place.
Trent on 6:52 PM, July 08, 2009
Trent, if you are relying on “Uncle Marty’s” math to disprove the flood, you have been duped. The basic tenants are laughable:
“All we have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; then we subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth.”
First of all, the present height of Everest is based on current sea level. He has no idea of the topography of a prediluvian world or if the greater part of Everest’s height was realized sometime after the flood. The biblical account in Genesis 7:11 states “…the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up,…” and in Genesis 2:5-6 “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.” From these passages it is obvious that the water cycle of the original design was unique with great reserves of water underground. Since the average depth of the oceans and the average land mass height above sea level pre-flood is unknown, a more legitimate question becomes, “Is there an ample supply of water currently on earth so that the highest pre-flood mountain could be covered by 15 cubits or 22.5 ft.?”
Consider the total volume of earth’s water in comparison to volume of land above sea level today:
mean continental height = .840 km
land area = 148.94 million sq km
land volume = 148.94 million sq km x .840 km = 125.11 million cu km
Current volume of oceans = 1.3-1.5 billion cu km = 1.4 billion cu km (using average)
Ratio of volumes, ocean : land = 1.4 billion cu km / 125.11 million cu km = 11.2 : 1
As we can see, we have 11.2 times as much water volume compared to land volume. Looking at it another way, the percentage of land volume to water volume is only 8.9%!!!
The sheer combined weight of water contributed to by “all the fountains of the great deep broken up” plus the collapse of “the waters which were above the firmament” (Gen 1:7) over thin ocean basin crusts could form a greater depth of ocean basins and subsequent mountain range uplifts due to displacement of underlying magma. For Genesis 7:20 to be true, from the flood cresting point about 4,400 years ago to the current sea level of today would require over 8.9% of the ocean’s volume in land uplift by magma displacement. A stretch of the imagination? I would say absolutely not.
Another gem from “Uncle Marty”:
Therefore, although extensive, the glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the size of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and EASILY recognizable and measurable effects on the lands.
-I guess he overlooked all the buried fossil fuels, stratified coal, deep sedimentary rock on all continents and all the unusual preservation of marine life and other fossils hydrologically sorted. Or that one continuous Jurassic SEDIMENTARY rock formation (Morison) with an area greater than Iraq, Spain, and Ukraine combined (deposited by many streams –laugh).
“Uncle Marty” again:
Even allowing for partial dissolving of the atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood waters; and it boils off into space.
-Am I missing something here? The mass of the earth would essentially be the same, the molecular weight of the various atmospheric gases is constant, you also have the column of various gases above the ocean surface creating pressure. Is he saying as I think he is saying, that the atmospheric pressure at sea level during the flood would have been much less by using today’s sea level elevation as an absolute height/pressure reference?
Wow, time for a Physics refresher.
Trent wrote: At no time has ALL THE EARTH been submerged. The mathematics of this was debunked by Marty Leipzig years ago.
Here is where Marty Leipzig erred: He ASSUMED that Mt. Everest was the same height before the Flood. Secondly, he falsely assumes that the Flood’s water source was the Earth's atmosphere. More than likely, the major portion of flood waters had subterrestrial origins:
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
71% of the Earth is CURRENTLY covered by water. The Pacific Ocean is one huge sunken BASIN. The mid-Atlantic obviously split down the middle and separated which gave rise to mountains on the adjacent continents. At one time, the idea of water lower than 5 miles below continental crusts was unthinkable. The 7.6 mile Kola Superdeep Borehole in Russia proved this idea to be wrong:
This water, unlike surface water, must have come from deep-crust minerals and had been unable to reach the surface because of a layer of impermeable rock. (source)
Leipzig is so far off base in his assumptions that I too would doubt if I were in his shoes.
Regarding the hyperbolic and parabolic language of biblical apologists...
Gaze upon the Framework interpretation of Genesis
Oh, and I am almost certain that translating the Revised Reality Version into biblical Hebrew would not be a problem. Basic concepts are basic, no matter what the language. And what is not basic can be defined.
As for the sun and the moon -- really, all that is necessary from a theological standpoint, is to emphasize that they were created things, not gods in and of themselves.
@ Roger
// First of all, the present height of Everest is based on current sea level. He has no idea of the topography of a prediluvian world or if the greater part of Everest’s height was realized sometime after the flood. //
I'm sorry, but are you seriously wanting to make the claim that Everest has changed its height in less than 5,000 years? Or are you one of those "it could have been a million years ago" nut-jobs? You don't strike me as the latter, so I'll go with the former.
Er... you're just wrong. Laughable is right on the money. Everest has been going up and down by a few "meters" over the past 100 or so years, and there is ZERO evidence that it could have been as low as would have been necessary to support your claims.
Naturally, you belittle the critique with zero evidence to support it.
You then quote Genesis and the "never rained" theory. This is truly laughable -- ask any botanist. It's simply absurd, but because the holy book says so, our atmosphere magically changed in less than 5,000 years. Got it.
And remember, "Uncle Marty" is the funny one.
// would require over 8.9% of the ocean’s volume in land uplift by magma displacement. //
Do you have ANY clue what this would do to the tectonic structure and land formations? Have you bothered to account for the devastation of the vegetation? Geez...
Stretch of the imagination... more like stretch of reality.
// Am I missing something here? The mass of the earth would essentially be the same, the molecular weight of the various atmospheric gases is constant, you also have the column of various gases above the ocean surface creating pressure. Is he saying as I think he is saying, that the atmospheric pressure at sea level during the flood would have been much less by using today’s sea level elevation as an absolute height/pressure reference? //
That I cannot answer, but Uncle Marty could.
Email him. Pass your rebuttal by him.
In the meantime, I'll stick with the 99% or so of geologists and paleontologists who say, patently, that there is zero evidence of a global flood some 5,000 years ago.
But you're welcome to dream.
@ All:
Thanks everyone for the feedback, both pro and con. I'm sure you'll have plenty to say when the entire book is completed.
I only hope to stir up some thought. If I do that, it's a success. If not, well hey... best shot was taken.
That said: Those who refuse to look at the heart of the issue may indeed be the same crew who can justify God's institution of slavery and various infanticides as perfectly acceptable theology.
This may irk you, but I speak for a lot of folks when I say "that" god irks us. More than that, the justification of that god, to me (my personal opinion) is a sad testimony to the lengths mankind will stoop to believe he is more than he is.
Trent
In case it is not completely obvious, Alan C and Roger are a tag-team of YECs who love the Fountains of the Great Deep™, and reject anything like actual scientific evidence.
They haunted Pharyngula for many months with their YECish YECiry, until Alan C convicted himself with his own words, and Roger bailed on his own.
Rather than waiting for them to spew their arguments again here, you can see the sort of thing they do here, and also here.
They refused to change at all for months. They vary somewhat in style and approach, but remain otherwise exactly the same.
Teh FooooooOOOOOuntaaaaaaains o' teh GreeeeeEEEAAAAaaaat DeeeeeeeEEEEEEEeeeeep™, LOL
For Alan Clark:
Is there anything in the flood story of Genesis that was not a concept basically taken over from earlier myths such as the non-Semitic and non-Semitic (Sumerian) Flood tales dating from the Old Babylonian period where a pious King Ziusudra is forewarned by the gods who plan to flood the entire earth?
Or from the much fuller account in the Akkadian Myth of Atrahasis which survives in fragments from both the Old and Neo-Babylonian periods. Here Atrahasis is told in a dream by god Enki about the world wide flood and he builds a boat to survive?
Or, more notably, from the best known myth the Epic of Gilgamesh where Gilgamesh seeks out Utnapishtim (or Noah’s counterpart)?
Basically Alan, please answer me this. If the Genesis account is not based on older myths, then tell me how you date the cuneiform syllabic scripts (as noted above) as later than the Hebrew alphabetic script of Genesis?
Even if we use the oldest Hebrew text known which was written in the Phoenician script, you still have not pre-dated these flood story “pagan” cuneiform texts!
Plus, if you try and claim that these cuneiform texts do contain Genesis flood “truth”, than just why aren’t the polytheistic gods of these text true also?
Moreover, symbolic numbers such as 3, 6, 7, 12, 40, 72 are also given divine meanings and are used repeatedly by Jesus himself and the writers of the New Testament (especially in the book of Revelation) to reveal divine mysteries. These same six numbers can be found used as symbolic and magical numbers in much older stories and religious texts from ancient Semitic language families such as Akkadian, Phoenician, and Ugaritic.
In light of this fact (as argued by Christian apologist) to claim that “God” uses known symbols and terms of the ancient pagan world again only begs the question as to any real the exclusive truthfulness of both Judaism and Christianity.
Fact is Alan, the West Semitic language of Hebrew (of the Israelites) is a direct dialect of the hated Canaanites reed stylus script: Ugaritic (Note: That the late Hebrew alphabetic script when compared to the ancient reed logographic script proves which came first).
Likewise, the symbols used in the Book of Revelation such as of the seven- headed beast (Rev. 13) was a concept already about 1000 years old when the writer of this Christian book chose to plagiarize it (see: Ancient Near Eastern Text in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton University Press).
What this tells us is that even the New Testament writers often depended on and needed popular pagan symbols and stories to create an accepted and factual base for their new faith so the Christian tradition would fit right in to a competing “pagan” religious context
@ OwlMirror
Yeah, so it appeared. YECers are a trip. But they stumble on Genesis 1:2. It's my favorite among the "how wrong can wrong get" bits of Genesis.
YECers seem fairly agile when it comes to bending reason to make it appear to the layman to contort to the Bible, but I've yet to hear one of their "scientists" propose a theory of how the earth was not just a frozen ball of ice without radiation, light, stars, our sun, etc, etc.
They've tried to mangle the Hebrew word for "waters" - unsuccessfully given it's used in the rest of the narrative.
The only argument thus far: "God can do anything."
Round and round we go...
Trent wrote: I'm sorry, but are you seriously wanting to make the claim that Everest has changed its height in less than 5,000 years? Or are you one of those "it could have been a million years ago" nut-jobs? You don't strike me as the latter, so I'll go with the former.
RogerS:
Undaunted by the crash, India plowed north relentlessly, pushing rocks that had once made up the Tethys ocean floor to some of the world's highest reaches. Writer John McPhee suggests in his book "Assembling California" that plate tectonics can be put in human terms by noting there are sea shells at the top of Everest.Source
Trent, it looks like the burden of proof requires more extreme claims of you than for me.
First of all, Everest WAS covered by sea by evidence of sea shells. I simply claim that there was more uniformity and less relief in pre-flood topography allowing sea level to cover Everest and deposit shells after which the sea level was offset by a greater increase of average sea basin depth due to overburden weight and evacuation and collapse of “all the fountains of the great deep”. A sinking in of the Pacific Ocean basin would be a displacement mechanism for more rapid continental uplifts. You must be one of those that require Everest to be BELOW sea level and then rise the ENTIRE 29,029 ft (or 29,035 ft going by GPS) all by tectonic plate action alone. In order to swallow this one, only add the “pixie dust” of millions and millions of years.
Can ALL historical texts be ignored?
The number of references for specific causes of past world calamities in Thompson's Index is as follows: deluge 122, fire 19, continuous winter 6, large stones 2, misc. 4. It is noteworthy that common causes of calamities such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, pestilence, and drought are not listed.(ref)
BTW, “Uncle Marty” in using his Earth radius calculation was likely unaware that the earth is not a sphere but is more elliptical with the greatest diameter at the equator, the polar diameter being 43 km less than the equatorial diameter, significantly affecting his water volume calculation.
// Trent, it looks like the burden of proof requires more extreme claims of you than for me.
First of all, Everest WAS covered by sea by evidence of sea shells.//
Yes...dated millions of years old, might you add. There are also fossils dated the same. Nothing dated 4500 years, sorry.
// In order to swallow this one, only add the “pixie dust” of millions and millions of years. //
Yes, that blasted, science-based pixie dust.
Of course, the earth being formed in the vacuum of space with water and no radiation makes perfect sense to you.
I think we know whose been snorting the pixie dust between the two of us.
// Can all history texts be denied? //
Er... what history texts can you point to that say, "Oh, look... Everest is under water." Can you be more specific ... or better yet, any less vague?
// BTW, “Uncle Marty” in using his Earth radius calculation was likely unaware that the earth is not a sphere but is more elliptical with the greatest diameter at the equator, the polar diameter being 43 km less than the equatorial diameter, significantly affecting his water volume calculation. //
Even I can answer that - if anything it would be greater. Like I said, take it up with him. I'd enjoy seeing that discussion.
However, you just did a masterful job of proving scripture inaccurate:
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." Isaiah 40:22
Then again, I fully expect the hoops and hurdles around this bit of Yahveh scientific truth to be...well, dismissed. You guys are quite good at it.
"Well, 'circle' doesn't really MEAN 'circle'..."
Meh...
Trent wrote:
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." Isaiah 40:22
Then again, I fully expect the hoops and hurdles around this bit of Yahveh scientific truth to be...well, dismissed. You guys are quite good at it.
"Well, 'circle' doesn't really MEAN 'circle'..."
RogerS:
From the top perspective, the earth would appear circular and the small equatorial bulge would only have a minor elliptical shape from a side view. Isaiah 40:22 stands.
Owlmirror
I" see that Anaxagoras, who died in 428 BCE, was the first who is recorded as pointing out that the moon reflects the sun. But either way: How does this interfere with (or support) God's alleged plan?"
Because, in history at critical times, a lot more people who were in the sciences like Newton took the biblical record seriously, unlike what you mentioned.
«"Because, in history at critical times, a lot more people who were in the sciences like Newton took the biblical record seriously, unlike what you mentioned."»
...And?
Oh, and Newton certainly did not accept the biblical record literally (among other things, he rejected the concept of the Trinity). Indeed, the whole point of his additions to astronomy and physics was to account for what was seen in reality, not what it said in the bible. The net effect was to weaken the biblical record and make it appear less authoritative.
Is that what you're saying God's plan was? To make the bible look weak as a source of explanations about reality?
// From the top perspective, the earth would appear circular and the small equatorial bulge would only have a minor elliptical shape from a side view. Isaiah 40:22 stands. //
But of COURSE it does.
I.E. "A circle <=> A circle." Skewed only by the view of an almighty god who, of course, "knew" better but chose not to mention it.
Seriously. You guys crack me up. The only greater vantage point for seats in the front row of Denial-Land is at a B-list celebrity gathering.
Trent
"Finally, even if you are fluent in ancient Hebrew, it doesn't mean that your interpretation is necessarily more accurate than anyone else's. Can you claim to understand the precise cultural elements, customs, idioms, nuances, etc from thousands of years ago?! No intelligent person would ever make such an idiotic claim."
Thank you for making my point Toby.
But to answer your question to me, I'd have to say that since I've study thousands of Jewish texts I probably have a much better understanding of those things than you do. I find that Christians tend to ignore Jewish sages.
Geonite:
Like English, Hebrew (and as you should know), Hebrew has a history especially in it’s historical etymologies in its context with Northwest Semitic; especially Phoenician (Paleo-Hebrew) and Ugaritic.
As such, problems have been point out by the late James Barr in his ground breaking work: Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford University Press, 1961) and again the historical Biblical Hebrew text was more full addressed by him in his Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford University Press, 1972).
Since most rabbinic Jewish texts (such as the Talmud) are written in Mishnahic Hebrew, one trained in reading the Mishnah and the Gemara need a specialization unto itself has the major rabbinic scholar Jacob Neusner has pointed out.
Thirdly, any one who speaks modern Hebrew needs specialized training in Biblical Hebrew. Thus, a number of textbooks address this issue such as: Biblical Hebrew for Students of Modern Israeli Hebrew by Professor Marc Zvi Brettler.
I’ve discussed this problem with Bill Holladay editor of (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: Based upon the Lexical Work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (Eerdmans, 1972)).
He had the responsibility of revising the New English Bible Old Testament section which was first headed by Sir Godfrey Rolls Driver (Son of the great 20th century Hebrew scholar Samuel Rolls Driver both of Oxford). Sir Godfrey was professor of Semitic Philology at Oxford University until his death in 1975.
Since the meaning of many Biblical Hebrew words are hapax legomenon, scholars often use other Semitic languages to tell what a possible meaning might be.
As such, Sir Godfrey felt Arabic could be used to understand Biblical Hebrew for this.
The results where, according to Bill Holladay, disastrous! He and his team had to rework Driver’s etymologies, which if you have read in the first edition of the New English Bible (Old Testament) indeed has some very odd translations (But this was on par for Sir Godfrey who claimed for years - like Solomon Zeitlin- that the Qumran Scrolls were late medieval forgeries).
Finally, publisher EJ Brill’s major work: The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of The Old Testament (4 Volumes) with Supplemental Aramaic Volume (5 Volume Complete Set)
by Ludwig; Baumgartner, Walter; Stamm, Johann J.; Richardson, M. E. and now on CD-rom is now one of our best lexicons on this ancient Biblical language.
Geonite wrote,
But to answer your question to me, I'd have to say that since I've study thousands of Jewish texts I probably have a much better understanding of those things than you do.
Then lend us the hand of real scholarship. A teacher who says "You are wrong." Is not a very good teacher. Especially when the teacher's answer for why the student is wrong is, "Because I'm smarter than you."
I find that Christians tend to ignore Jewish sages.
A sage is a profoundly wise person, irregaurdless of their nationality, heritage, or religion. Start saying things with more wisdom in them and I will listen better. You claim to be a scholar, so show us some of the scholarship! I look forward to you teaching us, rather than just saying how stupid were are.
Trent, have you seen John's Science and Religion: A Truce post? He presents a promise / warning from Science to Religion in the style of the Old Testament prophets.
It hit me like a great way to end the book you're working on (just a thought.) Maybe you guys can collaborate or something.
Cheers.
Post a Comment