Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Bennett.]

The language in Genesis clearly denotes a normal day, with specific mentions of evening and morning marking the end of that day. That's on top of the genealogies that make it even more apparent that the writers of the Bible believed that God had created quite recently. To argue otherwise is nothing more than trying to fit in scientific discoveries with scripture, because to do otherwise would be laughable.

you need to be veeeeerryy careful with that line of thinking. There are numerous possibilities in regards to these periods called days.
There is never anything explicit at all in regards to the timing. In this case it is in fact YOU who are trying to twist scripture to suit an argument.

Ironic, no?

 

[Roylion]

Are you peeved?

Not at all. Highly amusing that you've resorted to ad hominem arguments. Says a lot.

 

[bombermick]

Some people believe, others conjure things to believe in.

I'd bet London to a brick that there will be a new dating scheme in the next couple of hundred years that crushes that. Then there will be another one.....ad infinitum.

We can only go on what the scientific method allows us to make sense of now. These dates seem to verify each other and fit into the puzzle of earth's and life's history; that is, they make sense. Furthermore, long ages of rocks comfortably pre-date evolutionary theory. Could they be wrong? Sure, but they're the best we have.

 

[bombermick]

you need to be veeeeerryy careful with that line of thinking. There are numerous possibilities in regards to these periods called days.
There is never anything explicit at all in regards to the timing. In this case it is in fact YOU who are trying to twist scripture to suit an argument.

Ironic, no?

Specific mentions of day and night, plus genealogies all the way back to Adam isn't explicit enough? Does it need to say "And the Lord God created the world x number of years before I, Moses, wrote down this account?" Not only are the time periods wrong, but the order of creation is wrong as well. Although they write bullshit, I credit the AIG crowd for at least sticking to their guns with a straightforward version of Genesis, which textually makes the most sense.

 

[Roylion]

As it is yours,

As I have already pointed out I'm agnostic. Whether the Bible scriptures are 'true' is largely immaterial to me. It makes little to no difference to my life either way.

What I'm suggesting and have always suggested that claims of the inerrancy of Bible scripture as 'historical truth' is not, in many cases, backed up by empirical evidence. So when someone suggests that Adam and Eve were an actual literal couple that populated the earth, or that a global flood occurred, or that Moses was Senenmut, or that the Exodus occurred as described in scripture (or indeed at all) or that the Israelites violently conquered Canaan, then I want to see robust empirical evidence (from archaeology, genetics, palaentology or whatever) that backs up that view. That's all I've ever said and I believe that I'm quite reasonable in asking for those making the claims, to provide such evidence in support. If I think it's poor evidence or there's better evidence pointing to another view I'll say so and present that evidence here.

You attempting to sideline this with questions about my "spirituality" or whatever do nothing to enhance your argument. Not does any attempt to alter the course of the argument. I am discussing the events described in the Bible that are claimed to be real history. Nothing else.

but as a result of my experiences I've come to a conclusion.

And in terms of historicity, I have come to certain conclusions about Biblical 'history' based on the evidence. It doesn't tally in many cases with your perceived world-view. However if you wish to present alternative evidence about such 'historical' events and providing I have the time to do so, I'm quite happy to debate that.

 

[Roylion]

genealogies all the way back to Adam isn't explicit enough?

The genealogies post Adam and post Noah are clearly based heavily on old Sumerian king lists and have a fair bit of invention thrown in for good measure. The invention of exalted ancestors for a particular individual or a particular family is very common. The Anglo-Saxon kings for example invented genealogies stretching back to the god Wodan.

 

[Roylion]

Always the victim eh Roy?

There you go. Case in point.

 

[Bennett.]

There you go. Case in point.

I'm sorry, did I say something incorrect?
You present opinions as facts and then get upset when called on it, and act as though you are just the
well educated and nice guy, which you probably and genuinely are, without seeing that you do the exact
same thing yourself.

 

[hardon]

You said you were entitled to take the piss out of whomever may or may not exist. Entitled in YOUR opinion.

NO. you first thought i was deciding who may or may not exist. i showed you i didn't. now you've changed it into something else.

And if I presented a WIKIPEDIA article to support my arguments, I'd cop all sorts of abuse.

my words again: "you can start at wikipedia" "...start at wikipedia". start there, and if you are interested you could go further.

So you either have no meaning to exist or are nothing according to that view. Dust in the wind hey?

yes, i think by what i'm just guessing might be your definition of 'meaning' then i probably don't have a 'meaning to exist'. i think the universe is indifferent to my being, and it doesn't owe me any kind of meaning. but i'm here and i'll make good of it, i hope.

anyway, it either came from somewhere or what was dead in you became alive. Interesting.

i think being alive, or consciousness, is probably a state that arises when brain activity reaches some threshold, coupled with an accumulation of experience, and an ability to recall and use those experiences to formulate future responses to your environment. or something along those lines. i don't know if this is the realm of philosophy or neuroscience or whatever, but it is something i haven't devoted much thought to yet.

 

[bombermick]

The genealogies post Adam and post Noah are clearly based heavily on old Sumerian king lists and have a fair bit of invention thrown in for good measure. The invention of exalted ancestors for a particular individual or a particular family is very common. The Anglo-Saxon kings for example invented genealogies stretching back to the god Wodan.

I get the political nature of such genealogies. My point is trying to read long periods of time into the Bible is the theological equivalent of tying yourself into knots. Proponents of such theology - including Dr.Hugh Wirth - reject a global flood, which then causes even more theological issues and causes one to wonder when The Bible made the move from myth into historical fact.

 

[Pie eyed]

you need to be veeeeerryy careful with that line of thinking. There are numerous possibilities in regards to these periods called days.
There is never anything explicit at all in regards to the timing. In this case it is in fact YOU who are trying to twist scripture to suit an argument.

Ironic, no?

There is little explicit at all.
Until you deem it so..no?

 

[Roylion]

You present opinions as facts and then get upset when called on it,

Very happy to debate the evidence for 'historical facts' in the Bible.

Where have I got upset about it?

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Not at all. Highly amusing that you've resorted to ad hominem arguments. Says a lot.

Just aping you, Roy.

No harm in that, is there?

 

[GetDimmaBack]

The genealogies post Adam and post Noah are clearly based heavily on old Sumerian king lists and have a fair bit of invention thrown in for good measure. The invention of exalted ancestors for a particular individual or a particular family is very common. The Anglo-Saxon kings for example invented genealogies stretching back to the god Wodan.

Let's continue what has become nothing more than a circular argument:

This is all fact, Roy?

Conclusively and indisputably?

 

[GetDimmaBack]

You attempting to sideline this with questions about my "spirituality" or whatever do nothing to enhance your argument. Not does any attempt to alter the course of the argument. I am discussing the events described in the Bible that are claimed to be real history. Nothing else.

That's where you lose cred as far as I'm concerned.

Stick to your safe parameters, bring all other arguments back to said parameters, let nothing else in. That's fear, isn't it?

Let me guess: what else is there?

And you decry the title of "Dodger"?

 

[GetDimmaBack]

What would you say are the 'basic facts'?

Ask fishardansin. He's the one I quoted on that.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

well i think that all of us here are made of lifeless 'stardust' if you like. the many particles and molecules (lifeless by themselves) that were used, are used, and are to be used in sustaining my life, were lifeless by themselves before being incorporated into my structure, support my consciousness while i am 'alive' and will be lifeless again when i die.

Do you realise how close you are to Christian belief here?

"From dust we were made, and to dust we will return".

However, you don't say how these lifeless particles brought you into the state of being 'alive'.
Believers say this life is created by God, and is indeed the soul, which is eternal.

If you don't agree with this, can you explain where this aliveness came from? From lifeless particles?

Now that is a hudge leap of faith. Abiogenesis notwithstanding! Harder to believe than any theology.

Yes, I know it is "possible", but to paraphrase Dawkins, "it is such an infinitely small possiblity as to be easily rejected altogether".

 

[Roylion]

That's where you lose cred as far as I'm concerned.

So be it. I'm not particularly concerned about that. I'll continue to post and challenge any historical claims made for the 'truth' of the Bible, if I disagree with the assertions, or wish to offer an alternative, based on the available empirical evidence.

Stick to your safe parameters, bring all other arguments back to said parameters, let nothing else in. That's fear, isn't it?

Fear on your part it appears. You don't like my answers and you're certainly not prepared to debate them. They don't fit in with your world view.

 

[Roylion]

This is all fact, Roy?



Conclusively and indisputably?

Indisputable? Of course not.

However the evidence from extant sources and given what we do know about how Genesis was written, it appears likely that's where the names came from.

In the view of some experts, the Biblical Adam most probably comes in part from Alulim (king of Eridu), the first king in the Sumerian King List. He ruled for 28,800 years. We do know in regards to 'Adam' that geneticists have dismissed the notion of a first couple from which all humanity is subsequently descended.

The Sumerian tale of Emesh and Enten reflects the later story found in the Bible of Cain and Abel.

The 11th tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh contains the Utnapishtim flood myth and has a number of parallels to the Noah flood myth of Genesis 6–9.

Enmunderana appears to be the forerunner of the Biblical Enoch. In Enoch's case, both Enoch and Enmunderana are the seventh name in a list of patriarchs with long lifespans. Enmendurana is associated with Sippar (which was associated with sun worship) while Enoch's lifespan in the Bible is 365 years which is parallel to the number of days in a solar year.

Anyway I look forward to your alternative explanation for the origins of the genealogies found in Genesis. Not surprising that older material was used since Genesis appears to have been written about the time of the Babylonian exile when the Mesopotamian source material would have been easy to access.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Indisputable? Of course not.

However the evidence from extant sources and given what we do know about how Genesis was written, it appears likely that's where the names came from.

In the view of some experts, the Biblical Adam most probably comes in part from Alulim (king of Eridu), the first king in the Sumerian King List. He ruled for 28,800 years. We do know in regards to 'Adam' that geneticists have dismissed the notion of a first couple from which all humanity is subsequently descended.

The Sumerian tale of Emesh and Enten reflects the later story found in the Bible of Cain and Abel.

The 11th tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh contains the Utnapishtim flood myth and has a number of parallels to the Noah flood myth of Genesis 6–9.

Enmunderana appears to be the forerunner of the Biblical Enoch. In Enoch's case, both Enoch and Enmunderana are the seventh name in a list of patriarchs with long lifespans. Enmendurana is associated with Sippar (which was associated with sun worship) while Enoch's lifespan in the Bible is 365 years which is parallel to the number of days in a solar year.

Anyway I look forward to your alternative explanation for the origins of the genealogies found in Genesis. Not surprising that older material was used since Genesis appears to have been written about the time of the Babylonian exile when the Mesopotamian source material would have been easy to access.

Circle jerk. Deja vu - all over again. We know you are learned.

Let me ask you three simple questions:

1. Have you ever experienced love?

2. Have you ever been angry?

3. have you ever had a spiritual expereince? ie, a subjective experience of the numinous, defining it as:




a). of, pertaining to, or like a numen; spiritual or supernatural.

b). surpassing comprehension or understanding; mysterious: that element in artistic expression that remains numinous.

 

[fishardansin]

Do you realise how close you are to Christian belief here?

"From dust we were made, and to dust we will return".

However, you don't say how these lifeless particles brought you into the state of being 'alive'.
Believers say this life is created by God, and is indeed the soul, which is eternal.

If you don't agree with this, can you explain where this aliveness came from? From lifeless particles?

Now that is a hudge leap of faith. Abiogenesis notwithstanding! Harder to believe than any theology.

Yes, I know it is "possible", but to paraphrase Dawkins, "it is such an infinitely small possiblity as to be easily rejected altogether".

Personally I was made from ooze.

 

[fishardansin]

Circle jerk. Deja vu - all over again. We know you are learned.

Let me ask you three simple questions:

1. Have you ever experienced love?

2. Have you ever been angry?

3. have you ever had a spiritual expereince? ie, a subjective experience of the numinous, defining it as:




a). of, pertaining to, or like a numen; spiritual or supernatural.

b). surpassing comprehension or understanding; mysterious: that element in artistic expression that remains numinous.

How on earth do any of these experiences have anything to do with whether the Bible gives us a clear description of the creator of the universe and how his plans have been carried out on earth?

 

[evo]

Let me ask you three simple questions:

1. Have you ever experienced love?
2. Have you ever been angry?
3. have you ever had a spiritual expereince? ie, a subjective experience of the numinous, defining it as:

While you are waiting for Roylion's response, I wouldn't mind asking you are question if I may.

What do you see as the relationship between those 3 ideas and Christianity? Put another way: why or how does Christianity enhance or enable our experience to feel love or to experience the numinous?

 

[Contra Mundum]

How on earth do any of these experiences have anything to do with whether the Bible gives us a clear description of the creator of the universe and how his plans have been carried out on earth?

Even the most ardent theist would say such a thing is not possible. If I may quote St Paul writing to those meddlesome Greeks:
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then shall I know, even as also I am known.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Circle jerk. Deja vu - all over again. We know you are learned.

Let me ask you three simple questions:

1. Have you ever experienced love?

2. Have you ever been angry?

3. have you ever had a spiritual expereince? ie, a subjective experience of the numinous, defining it as:

a). of, pertaining to, or like a numen; spiritual or supernatural.

b). surpassing comprehension or understanding; mysterious: that element in artistic expression that remains numinous.

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3a. Possibly

3b. Yes

All achieved without any semblance of a god being present.

What is your point?