The assumption that what the bible says about itself is in any way reliable with out being tested is crazy, go back and read the first two chapters of Genesis and really try to have no preconceived notions about it. Does it make sense? Truly? Does it contain no contradictions? Really? The first two chapters of Genesis is so incomprehensible I can't believe it isn't filed under fiction 200 years ago or at least poetry. Then the story of Noah, pure bunk! Every animal by two? Check out how many animals species there are including insects, between 3 and 30 million! So collect 6 to 60 million animals insects included, house them and feed them for a couple months? The Ark would have to be size of 20 cruise ships unless you are Dr. Who and have a TARDIS, and this was all to be done by 8 people? Come on! get a freaking clue!
Seth
That is interesting Seth. 20 cruise ships, huh? I would like to see a breakdown of these species. I wonder just how many of these 60 million were aquatic, not being affected by a flood. I wonder how many were birds like ducks and such, who could float and eat fish. Your remark needs much further delineation to be a valid argument, if you care to show us all the breakdown.
And in your list, please don't forget to account for the "mass distinctions" which happened prior to the flood in Noah's time, according to what paleontologists (among the many other disciplines within the science community) have proven as historically factual. That should further limit your "original list" quite substantially.
And somewhere you also need to somehow prove precisely how much time had passed since those extinctions until the flood, so we may properly account for any possible further evolution of the remaining species. However, not believing the scriptures are valid, I doubt you could even get started with some reasonably believable timeline.
I know this is quite a task to undertake, but if you are willing to try, there are many who may consider your remarks as worthy of further investigation.
On the topic of nostalgia for the old TWI research, etc., someone recently asked me what were the hallmarks of an "offshoot" leader. I found this quote in a book called The True Believer - Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, by Eric Hoffer published in 1951 and think it is apt for such a discussion. I've put a couple of my own comments in [ ]:
Pg. 150 : “...he cannot help being awed by the tremendous achievements of faith and spontaneity in the early days of the movement [nostalgia for the good old TWI days?] when a mighty instrument of power was conjured out of the void. The memory of it is still extremely vivid. He takes, therefore, great care to preserve in the new institutions an impressive façade of faith, and maintains an incessant flow of fervent propaganda, though he relies mainly on the persuasiveness of force [psychological not physical necessarily]. His orders are worded in pious vocabulary, and the old formulas and slogans are continually on his lips. The symbols of faith are carried high and given reverence [the Bible, the classes, etc.]. The men of words and the fanatics of the early period are canonized. Though the steel fingers of coercion make themselves felt everywhere and great emphasis is placed on mechanical drill [mindless repetition of verses, theological ideas], the pious phrases and fervent propaganda give to coercion a semblance of persuasion, and to habit a semblance of spontaneity.”
On the topic of nostalgia for the old TWI research, etc., someone recently asked me what were the hallmarks of an "offshoot" leader. I found this quote in a book called The True Believer - Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, by Eric Hoffer published in 1951 and think it is apt for such a discussion. I've put a couple of my own comments in [ ]:
Pg. 150 : “...he cannot help being awed by the tremendous achievements of faith and spontaneity in the early days of the movement [nostalgia for the good old TWI days?] when a mighty instrument of power was conjured out of the void. The memory of it is still extremely vivid. He takes, therefore, great care to preserve in the new institutions an impressive façade of faith, and maintains an incessant flow of fervent propaganda, though he relies mainly on the persuasiveness of force [psychological not physical necessarily]. His orders are worded in pious vocabulary, and the old formulas and slogans are continually on his lips. The symbols of faith are carried high and given reverence [the Bible, the classes, etc.]. The men of words and the fanatics of the early period are canonized. Though the steel fingers of coercion make themselves felt everywhere and great emphasis is placed on mechanical drill [mindless repetition of verses, theological ideas], the pious phrases and fervent propaganda give to coercion a semblance of persuasion, and to habit a semblance of spontaneity.”
Thanks PENWORKS.
More and more I see how wrong I was about TWI... and what it really truely was!
What Flood? You keep referring to a flood that was I'm guessing worldwide? Is that even possible? It is not according to the scientific evidence. So strike one, no flood no need for Noah.
Ok I concede the fact that a significant number of the 3 to 30 million species are aquatic and in some other form immune to death by flood.
Alright then, how many species could fit in this Ark, with enough food to make the voyage for a couple months? The figures I have are from http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html ark displacement 22,000 tons, gross tonnage 15,000, volume 1.5 million cubic feet, equal to 569 railroad stock cars. Now to satisfy the biblical requirement Noah may only have needed between 2,000 and around 35,000 animals, an ark of this size would easily fit 40,000 animals leaving 70% of it free for food and living quarters.
OK fine, but this is what get's me. There are a high number of species that are unique to certain geographical locations. Australia has Kangaroo's, Wallabies and Koalas along with a dozen or so others I can't remember, did Noah go all the way to Australia to get them? What about the giant Panda and lesser Pandas from China, did he go to China for those? OK let's assume he did, now after the flood did he go back to Australia to return the indigenous species, and did he do the same for China?
Your question of knowing how many were extinct is a loaded question because it would fail to explain the huge diversity in species of dog horse cat and other animals within the relatively short time of 4,000 to 5,000 years.
The other thing that also get's me is that there would have to be a significant hazard from all the dangerous predators and venomous animals, every venomous snake would need to be onboard. I mean you'd have hungry lions and tigers, and bears, oh my!
8 people took care of all these things? I just don't know. The more I think about it, it just doesn't add up.
Seth
That is interesting Seth. 20 cruise ships, huh? I would like to see a breakdown of these species. I wonder just how many of these 60 million were aquatic, not being affected by a flood. I wonder how many were birds like ducks and such, who could float and eat fish. Your remark needs much further delineation to be a valid argument, if you care to show us all the breakdown.
And in your list, please don't forget to account for the "mass distinctions" which happened prior to the flood in Noah's time, according to what paleontologists (among the many other disciplines within the science community) have proven as historically factual. That should further limit your "original list" quite substantially.
And somewhere you also need to somehow prove precisely how much time had passed since those extinctions until the flood, so we may properly account for any possible further evolution of the remaining species. However, not believing the scriptures are valid, I doubt you could even get started with some reasonably believable timeline.
I know this is quite a task to undertake, but if you are willing to try, there are many who may consider your remarks as worthy of further investigation.
OK fine, but this is what get's me. There are a high number of species that are unique to certain geographical locations. Australia has Kangaroo's, Wallabies and Koalas along with a dozen or so others I can't remember, did Noah go all the way to Australia to get them? What about the giant Panda and lesser Pandas from China, did he go to China for those? OK let's assume he did, now after the flood did he go back to Australia to return the indigenous species, and did he do the same for China?
The other thing that also get's me is that there would have to be a significant hazard from all the dangerous predators and venomous animals, every venomous snake would need to be onboard. I mean you'd have hungry lions and tigers, and bears, oh my!
8 people took care of all these things? I just don't know. The more I think about it, it just doesn't add up.
Seth
Seth: It is nice of you to keep trying to understand, and wise to concede certain points when they make sense to you. And thank you for the fine link. There was lots of interesting things there.
As far as Noah having to travel to China and Austrailia, we are mindful that Noah did not have to gather the animals himself. They were "inspired" by some sort of "instinct" to come to the ark and go inside. Just how God did this is not explained.
If you have read the account of how Daniel survived in the lion's den, you can also understand why there was no need to fear any dangerous species which were aboard the ark. God made sure they were all safe.
As far as "taking care" of the animals...perhaps there was an "onboard ecology" whereby nature worked in similar ways with that of today. Species which ate flesh did not starve...there was plenty for them to eat for a few months.
Most animals in nature do not require human intervention to survive in the wild. Perhaps it was like that on the ark to a certain degree.
The more you look at the details, the more will "add up". There is no reason to quit. If you want answers, keep asking and searching. You will find.
Dude I'm not looking for answers, I'm trying to get people to actually think about what they are reading. You did not answer my questions. You used no science.
The Koala's and kangaroos swam from Australia to Africa and walked all the way to the ark?
Seth
Seth: It is nice of you to keep trying to understand, and wise to concede certain points when they make sense to you. And thank you for the fine link. There was lots of interesting things there.
As far as Noah having to travel to China and Austrailia, we are mindful that Noah did not have to gather the animals himself. They were "inspired" by some sort of "instinct" to come to the ark and go inside. Just how God did this is not explained.
If you have read the account of how Daniel survived in the lion's den, you can also understand why there was no need to fear any dangerous species which were aboard the ark. God made sure they were all safe.
As far as "taking care" of the animals...perhaps there was an "onboard ecology" whereby nature worked in similar ways with that of today. Species which ate flesh did not starve...there was plenty for them to eat for a few months.
Most animals in nature do not require human intervention to survive in the wild. Perhaps it was like that on the ark to a certain degree.
The more you look at the details, the more will "add up". There is no reason to quit. If you want answers, keep asking and searching. You will find.
Dude I'm not looking for answers, I'm trying to get people to actually think about what they are reading. You did not answer my questions. You used no science.
The Koala's and kangaroos swam from Australia to Africa and walked all the way to the ark?
Seth
Seth -- I see your true colors coming out, as expected. (Actually, I sort of goaded you into being truthful -- you didn't really think I was so gullible I could actually believe you you were looking for answers after the way you started your involvement in this thread, did you?) You want science? Ever heard of Pangaea? You want more science? Wait until my book comes out.
My apologies to all those who are serious about this thread. My responses to Seth are ENDED. Pr 26:20 Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.
Seth -- I see your true colors coming out, as expected. (Actually, I sort of goaded you into being truthful -- you didn't really think I was so gullible I could actually believe you you were looking for answers after the way you started your involvement in this thread, did you?) You want science? Ever heard of Pangaea? You want more science? Wait until my book comes out.
My apologies to all those who are serious about this thread. My responses to Seth are ENDED. Pr 26:20 Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.
:biglaugh: ROFLMAO!! I love it, just _love_ it! "I see your true colors coming out, as expected." ((insert wicked chortles here )) What's next, guy? Gonna see the '666' magically appearing on his forehead?
"You want science? Ever heard of Pangaea? You want more science?" ... I believe he does. It just wasn't gonna come from you. Hell, *I* could see that all you were giving out was guesswork after flawed guesswork, and based on nothing more than this near rabid desire to maintain and protect the 'scientific integrity' of the Genesis account. (Which is kinda difficult, since the scientific integrity of a religious book is based upon religious claims of faith, ... thus making said 'scientific integrity' non-existent.)
"Wait till my book comes out." ... I'm sorry, but I thought that was supposed to be John Lynn's line. <_<
No, Garth, my responses to you are not ended. You do speak your mind, and I respect that. As far as my book is concerned, comparing me to John Lynn wasn't entirely fair, but that's OK. I only wish I felt safe to share what I found, but the time is not quite yet, as the info needs protection for the present, until published.
You might find it interesting once I reveal it. At the least, I am sure it will be both provocative and controversial, depending upon the reader. It will be a few months.
No, Garth, my responses to you are not ended. You do speak your mind, and I respect that. As far as my book is concerned, comparing me to John Lynn wasn't entirely fair, but that's OK. I only wish I felt safe to share what I found, but the time is not quite yet, as the info needs protection for the present, until published.
You might find it interesting once I reveal it. At the least, I am sure it will be both provocative and controversial, depending upon the reader. It will be a few months.
Peace,
SPEC
:)
"safe to share" I'm sorry, do you think someone is going to come after you? But if you mean whether you will receive automatic approval - that remains to be seen. As for me, I'm always curious about how people wrap their minds around things.
I worked for nearly 30 years to have a "rational" faith and I always wondered why I could just never get that sold out thing going. This year I finally figured out that the more you try to make it all make sense, the more knots you have to tie yourself into. The irony is that until around the 1400s no one really felt there had to be anything rational about faith. A rational faith requires some kind of "proof" and no matter how you slice it or dice it, the "evidence" is anecdotal and circumstantial at best. All the "evidence" in (at least) Jerusalem is anecdotal at best because it was destroyed in 70AD, and back then that meant pulverizing things (but for all the rest of the wall [surrounding Jerusalem], it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it [Jerusalem] had ever been inhabited.--Josephus.)
I digress - proof was not a necessary factor back then and I think we need to move away from the proof and evidence model of belief. It only causes strife.
Thanks Oakspear! I love the Onion too. Tonto turned me on to it - matter of fact she brought home a book they have "Our Dumb World" - tell ya what - their humorous creativity runs a close second to vp's "creative" research, imho - I agree with Penworks, it does make a fine point - the Bible is a religious book - which imho leaves itself open to a wide variety of interpretations.
But the sciences [Physics, Geology, Astronomy, Paleontology, etc.] deal with data, facts, observations & experiments in the real world - and usually there's not a whole lot of room for skewed interpretations of something that every other scientist in that field can plainly observe as well. They may argue on the implications or applications but not on the actual raw data - but even so I tend to think most scientists would not have a cognitive disconnect when it comes to reality.. .Of course this is just all my opinion and need I remind you I'm prone to suffering from galactic delusions while daydreaming in a parallel universe on a perpendicular universe basis, if you catch my cosmic drift.
Please feel free to use this thread to discuss it.
@ Penworks: Great article!
I must say, I'm continually impressed by how well ex-TWIers write. I noticed this when I first reconnected with my ex-Way friend via emails (she may have some unusual beliefs, but damn if she can't write!), and it is also evident (for the most part) on this forum.
WRT the Way's idea of "research", I see it as being similar to E.W. Bullinger's methodology: start with the premise that the Bible is "perfect" and go from there. Whenever the facts don't seem to add up, jump through hoops (six denials, four crucified, etc.) and use "leaps of faith" (no pun intended) to reconcile them.
Dude I'm not looking for answers, I'm trying to get people to actually think about what they are reading. You did not answer my questions. You used no science.
From a scientific standpoint there are literally dozens of problems with Genesis. I do love reading it, though. If one can accept it as an allegory, or (gasp!) admit that there may be some factual errors in the story, then there are many lessons a reader can take way from it. The story of Cain and Abel, for example, with its themes of jealousy and sibling rivalry is a story for the ages that has played itself out countless times. Almost everyone knows a family where two brothers are estranged because of their differences.
The things that bother me about Genesis don't seem to bother other people as much. For example, Adam and Even lived for 900+ years, if I'm not mistaken. If there were a pre-diluvian race of individuals whose life span was nearly a thousand years, wouldn't there be some archeological evidence of it, flood or no flood?
Along these lines of thinking about Genesis, a very helpful book is Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman, which I first read in about 1989 and it only enriched my understanding about who wrote the Bible (a question I had not allowed myself to ask aloud while in TWI). To me, that's the first question I ask now when I pick up any book.
Here's a portion from it:
"The hypothesis that the Five Books of Moses were the result of such a combining of several older sources by different authors was exceptionally important because it prepared the way to deal with a new item of evidence that was developed by three investigators in the following century [after 1688 A.D.]: the doublet.
A doublet is a case of the same story being told twice. Even in translation it is easy to observe that biblical stories often appear with variations of detail in two different places in the Bible. There are two different stories of the creation of the world. There are two stories of the covenant between God and the patriarch Abraham, two stories of the naming of Abraham's son Isaac... (pg 22).
... proof was not a necessary factor back then and I think we need to move away from the proof and evidence model of belief. It only causes strife.
(emphasis mine)
Oh, *hell* no! We need to have more of that kind of model. ... Only causes more strife?! Only in the lazy minds of those who hold to this backwards point of view.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
39
63
36
Popular Days
Feb 8
30
Nov 3
21
Nov 4
20
Feb 12
18
Top Posters In This Topic
geisha779 43 posts
waysider 39 posts
penworks 63 posts
spectrum49 36 posts
Popular Days
Feb 8 2010
30 posts
Nov 3 2009
21 posts
Nov 4 2009
20 posts
Feb 12 2010
18 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
Hold everything. Some people can believe that they are not sure they believe in God. That is another topic that belongs in a different thread, IMO. I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and lo
Sunesis
With all due respect Spectrum, who cares when this thread will end? Most people here have enjoyed reading the posts and having their say. Sure, threads meander here, there, everywhere. Its the Body
penworks
I've been thinking about these sorts of things a long time, myself. One thing I found is that there are other ways to value the Bible besides thinkig it is has to be either "God's Word" (thereby it h
HAPe4me
it is good to have you around the cafe Penworks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Agreed wholeheartedly!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
That is interesting Seth. 20 cruise ships, huh? I would like to see a breakdown of these species. I wonder just how many of these 60 million were aquatic, not being affected by a flood. I wonder how many were birds like ducks and such, who could float and eat fish. Your remark needs much further delineation to be a valid argument, if you care to show us all the breakdown.
And in your list, please don't forget to account for the "mass distinctions" which happened prior to the flood in Noah's time, according to what paleontologists (among the many other disciplines within the science community) have proven as historically factual. That should further limit your "original list" quite substantially.
And somewhere you also need to somehow prove precisely how much time had passed since those extinctions until the flood, so we may properly account for any possible further evolution of the remaining species. However, not believing the scriptures are valid, I doubt you could even get started with some reasonably believable timeline.
I know this is quite a task to undertake, but if you are willing to try, there are many who may consider your remarks as worthy of further investigation.
SPEC
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
On the topic of nostalgia for the old TWI research, etc., someone recently asked me what were the hallmarks of an "offshoot" leader. I found this quote in a book called The True Believer - Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, by Eric Hoffer published in 1951 and think it is apt for such a discussion. I've put a couple of my own comments in [ ]:
Pg. 150 : “...he cannot help being awed by the tremendous achievements of faith and spontaneity in the early days of the movement [nostalgia for the good old TWI days?] when a mighty instrument of power was conjured out of the void. The memory of it is still extremely vivid. He takes, therefore, great care to preserve in the new institutions an impressive façade of faith, and maintains an incessant flow of fervent propaganda, though he relies mainly on the persuasiveness of force [psychological not physical necessarily]. His orders are worded in pious vocabulary, and the old formulas and slogans are continually on his lips. The symbols of faith are carried high and given reverence [the Bible, the classes, etc.]. The men of words and the fanatics of the early period are canonized. Though the steel fingers of coercion make themselves felt everywhere and great emphasis is placed on mechanical drill [mindless repetition of verses, theological ideas], the pious phrases and fervent propaganda give to coercion a semblance of persuasion, and to habit a semblance of spontaneity.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Me too !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
Thanks PENWORKS.
More and more I see how wrong I was about TWI... and what it really truely was!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Due to the interest in this thread, I'll start a topic called True Believers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seth R.
What Flood? You keep referring to a flood that was I'm guessing worldwide? Is that even possible? It is not according to the scientific evidence. So strike one, no flood no need for Noah.
Ok I concede the fact that a significant number of the 3 to 30 million species are aquatic and in some other form immune to death by flood.
Alright then, how many species could fit in this Ark, with enough food to make the voyage for a couple months? The figures I have are from http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html ark displacement 22,000 tons, gross tonnage 15,000, volume 1.5 million cubic feet, equal to 569 railroad stock cars. Now to satisfy the biblical requirement Noah may only have needed between 2,000 and around 35,000 animals, an ark of this size would easily fit 40,000 animals leaving 70% of it free for food and living quarters.
OK fine, but this is what get's me. There are a high number of species that are unique to certain geographical locations. Australia has Kangaroo's, Wallabies and Koalas along with a dozen or so others I can't remember, did Noah go all the way to Australia to get them? What about the giant Panda and lesser Pandas from China, did he go to China for those? OK let's assume he did, now after the flood did he go back to Australia to return the indigenous species, and did he do the same for China?
Your question of knowing how many were extinct is a loaded question because it would fail to explain the huge diversity in species of dog horse cat and other animals within the relatively short time of 4,000 to 5,000 years.
The other thing that also get's me is that there would have to be a significant hazard from all the dangerous predators and venomous animals, every venomous snake would need to be onboard. I mean you'd have hungry lions and tigers, and bears, oh my!
8 people took care of all these things? I just don't know. The more I think about it, it just doesn't add up.
Seth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Seth: It is nice of you to keep trying to understand, and wise to concede certain points when they make sense to you. And thank you for the fine link. There was lots of interesting things there.
As far as Noah having to travel to China and Austrailia, we are mindful that Noah did not have to gather the animals himself. They were "inspired" by some sort of "instinct" to come to the ark and go inside. Just how God did this is not explained.
If you have read the account of how Daniel survived in the lion's den, you can also understand why there was no need to fear any dangerous species which were aboard the ark. God made sure they were all safe.
As far as "taking care" of the animals...perhaps there was an "onboard ecology" whereby nature worked in similar ways with that of today. Species which ate flesh did not starve...there was plenty for them to eat for a few months.
Most animals in nature do not require human intervention to survive in the wild. Perhaps it was like that on the ark to a certain degree.
The more you look at the details, the more will "add up". There is no reason to quit. If you want answers, keep asking and searching. You will find.
SPEC
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Or it could just be a story told to make a point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seth R.
Dude I'm not looking for answers, I'm trying to get people to actually think about what they are reading. You did not answer my questions. You used no science.
The Koala's and kangaroos swam from Australia to Africa and walked all the way to the ark?
Seth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Seth -- I see your true colors coming out, as expected. (Actually, I sort of goaded you into being truthful -- you didn't really think I was so gullible I could actually believe you you were looking for answers after the way you started your involvement in this thread, did you?) You want science? Ever heard of Pangaea? You want more science? Wait until my book comes out.
My apologies to all those who are serious about this thread. My responses to Seth are ENDED. Pr 26:20 Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.
SPEC
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
"You want science? Ever heard of Pangaea? You want more science?" ... I believe he does. It just wasn't gonna come from you. Hell, *I* could see that all you were giving out was guesswork after flawed guesswork, and based on nothing more than this near rabid desire to maintain and protect the 'scientific integrity' of the Genesis account. (Which is kinda difficult, since the scientific integrity of a religious book is based upon religious claims of faith, ... thus making said 'scientific integrity' non-existent.)
"Wait till my book comes out." ... I'm sorry, but I thought that was supposed to be John Lynn's line. <_<
What now? ... Your responses to me are ENDED now too? (I think that's called taking a play from the Sarah Palin playbook. Stop responding to people who challenge what you state as indisputable Truth ©, ... not that that helped her cause any.
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
No, Garth, my responses to you are not ended. You do speak your mind, and I respect that. As far as my book is concerned, comparing me to John Lynn wasn't entirely fair, but that's OK. I only wish I felt safe to share what I found, but the time is not quite yet, as the info needs protection for the present, until published.
You might find it interesting once I reveal it. At the least, I am sure it will be both provocative and controversial, depending upon the reader. It will be a few months.
Peace,
SPEC
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
"safe to share" I'm sorry, do you think someone is going to come after you? But if you mean whether you will receive automatic approval - that remains to be seen. As for me, I'm always curious about how people wrap their minds around things.
I worked for nearly 30 years to have a "rational" faith and I always wondered why I could just never get that sold out thing going. This year I finally figured out that the more you try to make it all make sense, the more knots you have to tie yourself into. The irony is that until around the 1400s no one really felt there had to be anything rational about faith. A rational faith requires some kind of "proof" and no matter how you slice it or dice it, the "evidence" is anecdotal and circumstantial at best. All the "evidence" in (at least) Jerusalem is anecdotal at best because it was destroyed in 70AD, and back then that meant pulverizing things (but for all the rest of the wall [surrounding Jerusalem], it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it [Jerusalem] had ever been inhabited.--Josephus.)
I digress - proof was not a necessary factor back then and I think we need to move away from the proof and evidence model of belief. It only causes strife.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/sumerians_look_on_in_confusion_as
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Fantastic. Love the point made so clearly!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Evolution Going Great, Reports Trilobite
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolution_going_great_reports
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks Oakspear! I love the Onion too. Tonto turned me on to it - matter of fact she brought home a book they have "Our Dumb World" - tell ya what - their humorous creativity runs a close second to vp's "creative" research, imho
- I agree with Penworks, it does make a fine point - the Bible is a religious book - which imho leaves itself open to a wide variety of interpretations.
But the sciences [Physics, Geology, Astronomy, Paleontology, etc.] deal with data, facts, observations & experiments in the real world - and usually there's not a whole lot of room for skewed interpretations of something that every other scientist in that field can plainly observe as well. They may argue on the implications or applications but not on the actual raw data - but even so I tend to think most scientists would not have a cognitive disconnect when it comes to reality.. .Of course this is just all my opinion and need I remind you I'm prone to suffering from galactic delusions while daydreaming in a parallel universe on a perpendicular universe basis, if you catch my cosmic drift.
http://www.amazon.co...JACC9TFMVE66RX8
this link shows it in paperback - but my wife has some class, she bought it in hardcover!
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
@ Penworks: Great article!
I must say, I'm continually impressed by how well ex-TWIers write. I noticed this when I first reconnected with my ex-Way friend via emails (she may have some unusual beliefs, but damn if she can't write!), and it is also evident (for the most part) on this forum.
WRT the Way's idea of "research", I see it as being similar to E.W. Bullinger's methodology: start with the premise that the Bible is "perfect" and go from there. Whenever the facts don't seem to add up, jump through hoops (six denials, four crucified, etc.) and use "leaps of faith" (no pun intended) to reconcile them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
From a scientific standpoint there are literally dozens of problems with Genesis. I do love reading it, though. If one can accept it as an allegory, or (gasp!) admit that there may be some factual errors in the story, then there are many lessons a reader can take way from it. The story of Cain and Abel, for example, with its themes of jealousy and sibling rivalry is a story for the ages that has played itself out countless times. Almost everyone knows a family where two brothers are estranged because of their differences.
The things that bother me about Genesis don't seem to bother other people as much. For example, Adam and Even lived for 900+ years, if I'm not mistaken. If there were a pre-diluvian race of individuals whose life span was nearly a thousand years, wouldn't there be some archeological evidence of it, flood or no flood?
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Along these lines of thinking about Genesis, a very helpful book is Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman, which I first read in about 1989 and it only enriched my understanding about who wrote the Bible (a question I had not allowed myself to ask aloud while in TWI). To me, that's the first question I ask now when I pick up any book.
Here's a portion from it:
"The hypothesis that the Five Books of Moses were the result of such a combining of several older sources by different authors was exceptionally important because it prepared the way to deal with a new item of evidence that was developed by three investigators in the following century [after 1688 A.D.]: the doublet.
A doublet is a case of the same story being told twice. Even in translation it is easy to observe that biblical stories often appear with variations of detail in two different places in the Bible. There are two different stories of the creation of the world. There are two stories of the covenant between God and the patriarch Abraham, two stories of the naming of Abraham's son Isaac... (pg 22).
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
(emphasis mine)
<_<
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.