|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 2:22:18 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
The solution is not in reinterpreting the creation story, but rejecting it all together. If the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme is true, then the Creation story is a creation myth. We can't re-interpret it into the GUS without denying the story all together.
Are you saying that a myth is to be rejected because it is a myth? Is it beyond possibility to you that God would inspire the biblical writers to produce a creation myth for the Hebrew people?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
The solution is not in reinterpreting the creation story, but rejecting it all together. If the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme is true, then the Creation story is a creation myth. We can't re-interpret it into the GUS without denying the story all together.
Do you need to deny the book "Animal Farm" in order to believe that pigs don't talk? Or are myths and allegories a legitimate way of conveying truth?
It is hard for me to understand why creationists have such a hard time finding truth in myths and allegories.
Since the word "myth" implies that it is not actually true, then I wouldn't think that it would be a legitimate way of conveying divinely inspired truth. I would agree that a spiritual lesson could be taught if the story was told in a way that people know that it is parabolic. Veggie Tails is a good example, and so are the stories of Christ. We have every reason to believe that the first chapter is history, just like we have every reason to believe that First and Second Kings is history. Inspired and accurate history. Since it is divinely inspired, a charge could conceivably be leveled against God for giving history that is untrue. If David never existed, then 1 and 2nd Samuel is a divinely inspired lie. I have philosophical objections to such a scenario.
Talking snakes, trees of life are all clues that the story is parabolic. What more could you ask for?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 2:52:59 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
DanJames,
What do you think of my idea that "the devil is in the details" and he could be contradicted there also?
You may have missed that post.
Why can't proponents of ID -- or, heck! just avowed and interested Christians! -- look at the details of scientific claims in the hopes of finding an INTERNAL contradiction. Does the devil control logic? Or can it be a tool to find him out?
Thanks,
Nathan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 2:59:19 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
The solution is not in reinterpreting the creation story, but rejecting it all together.
If the events of the story of the Good Samaritan did not actually occur, would you "reject it all together"?
We're once again mixing two different genre's. Christ often told stories to present a spiritual lesson. It's not necessary for it to be true since the story was a parable. Parables, similes, and metaphores don't need to have actually happened.
The words that came out of Jesus' mouth were not historical facts, but we both agree that this doesn't mean he was lying.
So the question is, how are you so certain that the Genesis story is not a parable or metaphor? On what basis have you decided that the Good Samaritan was a tale crafted in order to teach a lesson, but Genesis could not have been? Even if Genesis is not literally true, that doesn't mean it's a lie.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 4:15:53 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Are you saying that a myth is to be rejected because it is a myth? Is it beyond possibility to you that God would inspire the biblical writers to produce a creation myth for the Hebrew people?
Since the word "myth" implies that it is not actually true,
Actually, that is not necessarily the case. Like many words, "myth" has multiple meanings. In some circumstances it does imply "false". But used as a technical term in the analysis of literature, it does not imply "false". A literary myth can be true.
Of course, I am not sure what you mean by "actually" true. Many moderns equate "truth" with "scientifically verifiable fact". I would certainly agree that a myth is not true in that sense. But I also think it is wrong to limit the definition of "truth" to "scientifically verifiable fact". As already noted, the parables don't need to be true in that sense in order to teach truth. So, as I see it, a myth can be actually true, even though the way it presents truth is different from the scientific or factual way.
quote:
I would agree that a spiritual lesson could be taught if the story was told in a way that people know that it is parabolic.
Well, that would be known to the people of ancient times. Myth served as the "science" of a pre-scientific age. It was not actual science, of course, but it did fill the function of answering many of the questions people asked, whether it was big questions like "Where did this whole world come from?" "Why do people suffer?" to little ones like "Why do I get thorns instead of barley in my field?"
quote:
We have every reason to believe that the first chapter is history,
Do we? I think that is a very questionable statement.
quote:
If David never existed, then 1 and 2nd Samuel is a divinely inspired lie. I have philosophical objections to such a scenario.
I agree. And if fruit trees did not exist until well after land animals, then Genesis 1 as history is a divinely inspired lie. I have theological objections to such a scenario. If God intended us to understand Genesis 1 as history, why does the physical evidence not agree with that history?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 5:09:10 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
And if fruit trees did not exist until well after land animals, then Genesis 1 as history is a divinely inspired lie. Can you verify the existence of fruit trees before land animals? Of course you cannot, gluadys, but you insist on your double-standard for Biblical history while accepting by faith the timelines of uniformitarian evolution. Shame on you!
quote:
The words that came out of Jesus' mouth were not historical facts You know, es, it might really help if you would actually read the Bible instead of making grossly misinformed judgements about its content. Here are but a few of the "historical facts that came out of Jesus' mouth":
Matt 8:4 - Then Jesus said to him, "See that you don't tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."
Matt 10:15 - "I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."
Matt 12:40 - "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Matt 12;42 - "The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here."
Luke 13:4 - "Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?"
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 6:01:50 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
You know, es, it might really help if you would actually read the Bible instead of making grossly misinformed judgements about its content.
I have read it. My statement was in the context of the parable of the Good Samaritan.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 6:18:50 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1133
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Can you verify the existence of fruit trees before land animals? Of course you cannot, gluadys, but you insist on your double-standard for Biblical history while accepting by faith the timelines of uniformitarian evolution. Shame on you!
If Genesis is an accurate history then you should be able to evidence it. So where is the evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 8:11:34 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Can you verify the existence of fruit trees before land animals?
No. All available evidence suggests that land animals existed well before fruit trees did. Land animals appear in the Paleozoic era: first insects, later vertebrates. The only plants co-existing with them were mosses and ferns. Seed-bearing plants appear in the Mesozoic, but flowering plants (including fruit trees) do not appear until around the late Mesozoic or the Cenozoic.
This is true whether or not one accepts the scientific dating. That is simply the order in which they appear in the fossil record. Perhaps you would like to explain why tetrapod, amphibian, turtle, snake, crocodile, dinosaur, early mammal and bird fossils are all found lower in the fossil record if fruit trees existed before they did. If fruit trees existed before the first salamander, how is it that not a single tree, trunk, leaf or pollen grain appears in the lower strata along with the fossilized skeletons of these creatures? Irrespective of the dating, if the trees and the animals co-existed, their fossils ought to co-exist, too. And they don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 8:32:14 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
So where is the evidence? You're the expert microbiologist posting here, Method. By all means, show us bacteria that have descended from a different kind of ancestral bacteria. Cultures of E coli remain E coli for thousands of generations, cultures of Staph aureus remain Staph aureus for thousands of generations, cultures of Mycobacterium tuberculosis remain Mycobacterium tuberculosis... Get the picture?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 9:06:01 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
So where is the evidence? You're the expert microbiologist posting here, Method. By all means, show us bacteria that have descended from a different kind of ancestral bacteria. Cultures of E coli remain E coli for thousands of generations, cultures of Staph aureus remain Staph aureus for thousands of generations, cultures of Mycobacterium tuberculosis remain Mycobacterium tuberculosis... Get the picture?
Yes, and this is the picture we expect from an evolutionary process. Until you understand that, you don't understand evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 9:13:22 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Nope, gluadys, it is you who fail to understand "evolution"! After thousands of generations, evolutionists should expect at least one beneficial mutation to have produced at least one novel pathway, mechanism, or complex structure which any reasonable microbiologist would immediately identify as a new kind of organism compared to the ancestral stock. This has never happened and Biblical creationism predicts it is not now happening nor will it ever happen. So, enjoy your myth while you can!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 9:18:08 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 627
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Talking snakes, trees of life are all clues that the story is parabolic. What more could you ask for?
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
The words that came out of Jesus' mouth were not historical facts, but we both agree that this doesn't mean he was lying.
So the question is, how are you so certain that the Genesis story is not a parable or metaphor? On what basis have you decided that the Good Samaritan was a tale crafted in order to teach a lesson, but Genesis could not have been? Even if Genesis is not literally true, that doesn't mean it's a lie.
First, it appears that we've moved on from a discussion of whether or not Genesis agrees with the the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme. Good! The we all agree that Genesis must be a parable/myth/divinely-inspired-lie or the truth.
I don't know specifically what aspects of a story would qualify it as history or parable. It seems to be obvious with Christ's teachings because it says that he often spoke in parables and it even says, "then he taught them with this parable...". Genesis is a book of beginnings, the history of the calling of Israel. It is history from Joseph, back to Abraham, back to the Tower of Babel , back to Noah, back to the creation. At no point do we have an indication that we've moved from parable to history. The only reason we would have to believe that it is myth is that you believe that science has proven it untrue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 10:04:21 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
I don't know specifically what aspects of a story would qualify it as history or parable. It seems to be obvious with Christ's teachings because it says that he often spoke in parables and it even says, "then he taught them with this parable...". Genesis is a book of beginnings, the history of the calling of Israel. It is history from Joseph, back to Abraham, back to the Tower of Babel , back to Noah, back to the creation. At no point do we have an indication that we've moved from parable to history. The only reason we would have to believe that it is myth is that you believe that science has proven it untrue.
This takes us right back to the beginning of this thread. The Bible speaks of the foundations of the earth. It is clear that the early Hebrews (and many Christians in following centuries) believed that these were literal foundations, but now the phrase is considered a mere figure of speech. How did this change in interpretation come about?
I submit that it was knowledge of the world that led believers to interpret the Bible non-literally in these passages.
Modern flat-earthers and geocentrists are adamant that science can't tell them what the Bible says, and they fall into error.
If you insist that science can't help you interpret the Bible, then you are liable to fall into a similar error. How would you ever know whether you have fallen into error?
You need another source of verification to test your interpretation. Science is one tool that you can use. But if you are to use this tool correctly, you cannot start out with the position that science cannot help you.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 10:31:12 AM
|
|
|
EcclesFruitcake
Posts: 45
Joined: 1/15/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Nope, gluadys, it is you who fail to understand "evolution"! After thousands of generations, evolutionists should expect at least one beneficial mutation to have produced at least one novel pathway, mechanism, or complex structure which any reasonable microbiologist would immediately identify as a new kind of organism compared to the ancestral stock. This has never happened and Biblical creationism predicts it is not now happening nor will it ever happen. So, enjoy your myth while you can!
Could you please reference the data or formula scientists are using which allows you to reason an expected beneficial mutation after such and such number of generations.
Do you submit that for a scientist to capture a beneficial mutation the mutation not only must be relevant to the bacteria current environment but also be prevalent in the population?
If so how can a scientist recognise the beneficial mutations which do not pertain to a populations current environment or those which while beneficial fail to propagate sufficiently to be noted.
Futher, in a previous post you reference some strains of bacteria, which I presume you accept have adapted, yet uphold their nomenclature. Is the significance of their new traits pertaining to evolutionary processes dependent on whether they get given a new name?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 11:52:26 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1133
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
I don't know specifically what aspects of a story would qualify it as history or parable.
When put in a historical context it becomes apparent, IMHO. In Sumerian myth past kings and heroes are said to have lived thousands of years. It is my suspicion that people of the time would know right away who is historical and who is not by their lifespans. Also, the parallels to Babylonian myths, such as the creation account and the flood account, make them obvious parables to the people of the time. As an analogy, most of us pick up on retellings of Romeo and Juliet or the Wizard of Oz without the story having to explicitly tell us.
I really think that the Babylonian captivity had a strong influence on the final version of the Torah that we have today.
quote:
It seems to be obvious with Christ's teachings because it says that he often spoke in parables and it even says, "then he taught them with this parable...".
It is also important to note that Jesus himself does not state that they are parables. The gospel writers do. Jesus launched right into these parables without any preface, and I think anyone listening would have understood that they were parables. Also, the truth contained in the parables does not depend on the people in the parable being real people. The story of redemption is the same even if the Prodigal Son is not a real person.
quote:
The only reason we would have to believe that it is myth is that you believe that science has proven it untrue.
If the map and the territory are in conflict which one do we reinterpret? If the map shows that there is a mountain range where no mountain range exists is the Earth wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 12:12:15 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 627
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
What if it seems to some people that astronomical bodies, such as the earth itself, formed before organisms on it? Would it not be worth considering the details of what has led them to think this? If God made the Universe intelligible, don't you think we ought to look at various apparent facts and decide whether they might be true on an objective level? Such as, as if it appears that the earth is 4 billion or however many years old while in fact it is relatively much younger, what intelligible facts have geologists been missing to get it wrong? What went wrong? Obviously, there does not have to be any sense in lies -- but couldn't one find the NONSENSE if one looked, that is, in an objective way. As in: if teh devil is in the details, then he can be discovered there, and his lies contradicted there, also.
Also, I am curious and will have to look in a moment whether the two accounts of creation in Genesis exhibit the same chronological sequence of events.
quote:
DanJames,
What do you think of my idea that "the devil is in the details" and he could be contradicted there also?
You may have missed that post.
Why can't proponents of ID -- or, heck! just avowed and interested Christians! -- look at the details of scientific claims in the hopes of finding an INTERNAL contradiction. Does the devil control logic? Or can it be a tool to find him out?
Thanks,
Nathan
Well, I was bound to miss one. I don't think I can answer everybody's questions. It looks like you're suggesting is a couple of things. 1: the evidence that the earth is old. I have considered it, as you have suggested. I do think that it is worth looking at. I don't think that there are any conspiracies. I think that people are examining the evidence within their paradigm, their dogma. Some evidence lends itself to an old earth, such as radioisotopes. These things are held lofty as undisputed evidence of an old earth. That, combined with the acceptance of rock layers as representing eons upon eons, and you can't look at dirt without immediately assuming it's billions of years old.
Second, you mentioned the two Genesis accounts. Keep in mind that they are two different accounts. One gives the creation of the universe, the other to the events surrounding Adam's first moments and the creation of Eve.
Third:
quote:
Why can't proponents of ID -- or, heck! just avowed and interested Christians! -- look at the details of scientific claims in the hopes of finding an INTERNAL contradiction. Does the devil control logic? Or can it be a tool to find him out?
I'm not sure what you mean. You'll have to elaborate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 12:27:53 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 627
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
This takes us right back to the beginning of this thread. The Bible speaks of the foundations of the earth. It is clear that the early Hebrews (and many Christians in following centuries) believed that these were literal foundations, but now the phrase is considered a mere figure of speech. How did this change in interpretation come about?
I submit that it was knowledge of the world that led believers to interpret the Bible non-literally in these passages.
Modern flat-earthers and geocentrists are adamant that science can't tell them what the Bible says, and they fall into error.
If you insist that science can't help you interpret the Bible, then you are liable to fall into a similar error. How would you ever know whether you have fallen into error?
You need another source of verification to test your interpretation. Science is one tool that you can use. But if you are to use this tool correctly, you cannot start out with the position that science cannot help you.
It was scientific inquiry that showed that the earth is round. It was scientific inquiry that led to the discovery that the earth was not the center of the universe. From the ground, the earth looks flat. Looking into the sky, it looks like the cosmic bodies spin around the earth. There are verses in the Bible that some would say agree with these observations. You're claiming that some used the verses that speak of the "foundations of the earth" as demonstrating that the earth is flat. Fine, maybe someone did. The discovery of a round earth does not suggest that this verse is in error. The earth does have strong mantle on which the continental crust floats. YES, I reinterpreted the verse based on scientific discovery. I don't think I would equate reinterpreting "foundations of the earth" to mean the "foundations of a round earth" to say that we have to decide that the first 11 chapters of a history book are a long parable. The Grand Uniformitarian Scheme does not have the death grip on science that you want to think that it does.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 12:39:07 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 627
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Actually, that is not necessarily the case. Like many words, "myth" has multiple meanings. In some circumstances it does imply "false". But used as a technical term in the analysis of literature, it does not imply "false". A literary myth can be true.
Of course, I am not sure what you mean by "actually" true. Many moderns equate "truth" with "scientifically verifiable fact". I would certainly agree that a myth is not true in that sense. But I also think it is wrong to limit the definition of "truth" to "scientifically verifiable fact". As already noted, the parables don't need to be true in that sense in order to teach truth. So, as I see it, a myth can be actually true, even though the way it presents truth is different from the scientific or factual way.
Sure, fine. I really didn't want this to develop into a discussion of what the word "myth" means. We all know what is implied by the context.
quote:
Well, that would be known to the people of ancient times. Myth served as the "science" of a pre-scientific age. It was not actual science, of course, but it did fill the function of answering many of the questions people asked, whether it was big questions like "Where did this whole world come from?" "Why do people suffer?" to little ones like "Why do I get thorns instead of barley in my field?"
Sure, several cultures believed myths. Why would God who claims to never lie or change his mind (Numbers 23:19) inspire a myth? If it is a myth then it is untrue. Besides all of this, I don't think we have any reason to believe it is a myth because the empirical evidence readily lends itself to a young earth interpretation.
quote:
I agree. And if fruit trees did not exist until well after land animals, then Genesis 1 as history is a divinely inspired lie. I have theological objections to such a scenario. If God intended us to understand Genesis 1 as history, why does the physical evidence not agree with that history?
I'm repeating myself, but the evidence readily lends itself to a young earth interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 12:47:03 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
I'm repeating myself, but the evidence readily lends itself to a young earth interpretation.
I apologize if you've gone over this before, but which evidence is this?
If it's too off-topic to discuss here, drj11 recently created a new thread for presenting such evidence.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 12:50:48 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Nope, gluadys, it is you who fail to understand "evolution"! After thousands of generations, evolutionists should expect at least one beneficial mutation to have produced at least one novel pathway, mechanism, or complex structure which any reasonable microbiologist would immediately identify as a new kind of organism compared to the ancestral stock. This has never happened and Biblical creationism predicts it is not now happening nor will it ever happen. So, enjoy your myth while you can!
Actually, novel pathways, etc. have been reported in various studies of bacteria. See the thread on E.coli bacteria who have developed a pathway for metabolizing citrate for example.
What one would NOT expect is that E. coli would cease to be E. coli or that Staph aureus would cease ot be Staph aureus or that Mycobacterium tuberculosis would cease to be Mycobacterium tuberculosis. They can develop all the novel pathways, mechanisms, structures you please. But they will not evolve out of their clade. They will not become a new kind of organism compared to the ancestral stock. They will become a modified form of the ancestral stock. That, and not your strawman, is what ToE predicts.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 12:52:56 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 627
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
When put in a historical context it becomes apparent, IMHO. In Sumerian myth past kings and heroes are said to have lived thousands of years. It is my suspicion that people of the time would know right away who is historical and who is not by their lifespans. Also, the parallels to Babylonian myths, such as the creation account and the flood account, make them obvious parables to the people of the time. As an analogy, most of us pick up on retellings of Romeo and Juliet or the Wizard of Oz without the story having to explicitly tell us.
I really think that the Babylonian captivity had a strong influence on the final version of the Torah that we have today.
Well, you don't know that. It could just as easily have been copied into the Torah by Moses off of a divinely-inscribed tablet. Then the Babylonians and the whomevers could have copied that. Besides, the Babylonian captivity didn't take place until 600 BC. Moses prepared the Pentateuch (from which we get the book of Genesis) 800 years before hand.
quote:
It is also important to note that Jesus himself does not state that they are parables. The gospel writers do. Jesus launched right into these parables without any preface, and I think anyone listening would have understood that they were parables. Also, the truth contained in the parables does not depend on the people in the parable being real people. The story of redemption is the same even if the Prodigal Son is not a real person.
Well, it seems that a lot of your arguments are from what we can't know. A weak argument to begin with, but coincidentally we can know the stuff that you're saying we can't know. 1st, if Jesus didn't say that they were parables but the Gospel writers did, then they were parables because the Gospel writers were divinely inspired in their writings. Besides that, Jesus did say that he was teaching in parables:
quote:
Matthew 13:10 Then 13 the disciples came to him and said, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 13:11 He replied, 14 “You have been given 15 the opportunity to know 16 the secrets 17 of the kingdom of heaven, but they have not. 13:12 For whoever has will be given more, and will have an abundance. But whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 18 13:13 For this reason I speak to them in parables: Although they see they do not see, and although they hear they do not hear nor do they understand.
quote:
If the map and the territory are in conflict which one do we reinterpret? If the map shows that there is a mountain range where no mountain range exists is the Earth wrong?
I'll repeat myself again. The empirical evidence is just as easily interpreted as that of a young earth. I'm not violating my scientific integrity by saying that the earth is young. In other words, science is not necessarily on your side, or the side of the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 12:54:21 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 627
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
I'm repeating myself, but the evidence readily lends itself to a young earth interpretation.
I apologize if you've gone over this before, but which evidence is this?
If it's too off-topic to discuss here, drj11 recently created a new thread for presenting such evidence.
I may not have. I was only repeating myself in that I've said that sentence before. Thanks for starting a new thread, though. Most people don't have the presence of mind to take off-topic topics elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 12:57:35 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Sure, fine. I really didn't want this to develop into a discussion of what the word "myth" means. We all know what is implied by the context.
No, if the assumption is that "myth" implies "not true" that is an incorrect assumption and we do not all know what is implied by the context.
quote:
Sure, several cultures believed myths. Why would God who claims to never lie or change his mind (Numbers 23:19) inspire a myth? If it is a myth then it is untrue.
You see what I mean? If a myth is necessarily untrue, then of course God would not inspire a myth. But a myth is no more untrue than a parable or a dream vision or an allegory. We agree that God has inspired all of these, so why not a myth?
It is not myth that is the problem. It is your assumption that "if it is a myth, it is untrue". That is not a correct assumption.
quote:
Besides all of this, I don't think we have any reason to believe it is a myth because the empirical evidence readily lends itself to a young earth interpretation.
If you believe that you are either ignorant of the evidence or you are in a state of denial about it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 1:04:10 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 627
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Sure, fine. I really didn't want this to develop into a discussion of what the word "myth" means. We all know what is implied by the context.
No, if the assumption is that "myth" implies "not true" that is an incorrect assumption and we do not all know what is implied by the context.
quote:
Sure, several cultures believed myths. Why would God who claims to never lie or change his mind (Numbers 23:19) inspire a myth? If it is a myth then it is untrue.
You see what I mean? If a myth is necessarily untrue, then of course God would not inspire a myth. But a myth is no more untrue than a parable or a dream vision or an allegory. We agree that God has inspired all of these, so why not a myth?
It is not myth that is the problem. It is your assumption that "if it is a myth, it is untrue". That is not a correct assumption.
Gluadys, what are you doing? If the Bible gives an age of 6000ish years, and states that he cosmic bodies were created after flowering plants, then the Bible is untrue according to the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme. Whether we use the word "myth" to describe such a scenario or not is not an issue. I think the word "myth" fits just fine because it implies that the story bears little basis in reality.
quote:
If you believe that you are either ignorant of the evidence or you are in a state of denial about it.
Or perhaps both. I think I've examined it enough to come to at least some educated conclusion. But I think I've got the advantage since I'm siding with the word of God.
< Message edited by DanJames -- 6/20/2008 1:11:21 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/20/2008 1:39:54 PM
|
|
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
