Chance or by Design ?

Originally posted by jaywill
Come on wolfgang. Where's your rebuttal ?

I know "speed kills" but this is ridiculous!
I thought this would be a five minute slam dunk for you for sure.
Ten Minutes ?
Twenty ?

He lives in New Zealand, it's the middle of the night there at this moment in time.

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't suddenly make the "assumption" it is factual.

I didn't suggest that you did. You are just feeling too defensive. Go back and read what I actually wrote in context.

Originally posted by jaywill

This is rediculous and evasive. In order to preserve your position in the face of argument, you rely on such a narrow and vague version of the Biblical account of the origin of the Earth and its living species as to be empty.

No, I call it God havng priorities in revelation which may differ from your priorities. I call it God being econo ...[text shortened]... ention to the book which reveals God's plan of salvation for the world ?

Have to go.

Since God did not get around to telling us very much about the natural world in the Bible, it is hardly a lot of use then in seeking to understand the natural world, nor is it capable of presenting an alternative to the scientific approch to such understanding. There is no alternative Creationist account if there is no account.

I can apprecite your use of the Bible to tell you how to achieve salvation. I can't appreciate your support for Creationist propoganda dismissing and misrepresenting responsible science.

Originally posted by finnegan
Since God did not get around to telling us very much about the natural world in the Bible, it is hardly a lot of use then in seeking to understand the natural world, nor is it capable of presenting an alternative to the scientific approch to such understanding. There is no alternative Creationist account if there is no account.

I can apprecite your use ate your support for Creationist propoganda dismissing and misrepresenting responsible science.

Since God did not get around to telling us very much about the natural world in the Bible, it is hardly a lot of use then in seeking to understand the natural world, nor is it capable of presenting an alternative to the scientific approch to such understanding. There is no alternative Creationist account if there is no account.

There is no factual error that I can see that you pointed out in Genesis 1.
I saw nothing flatly and totally contradicting the Bible.

Now let's consider what some corners of science theory is today and see how it compares with the Bible's Genesis.

There are a number of castastrophy theories about previous ecosystems wiped out. I have heard the culprit was comets. I have heard the culprit was explosive gas bubbling up from the floor of the ocean. I have heard of killer asterloids.


At any rate there are a couple of catastrophy models to explain where the dinos went. As a kid I noticed that much of the art work about dinosaurs in science books was accompanied by active volcanoes in the backround. The impression I received was that volcanic activity was quite frequent in prehistoric times.

Anyway, more and more scientists believe that something cut short and destroyed a previous ecosystem - not once but perhaps more than once.

Well, for thousands of years what has been written in Scripture in Genesis 1:1,2 can be translated as thus (as seen in Concordant greek, Emphasized Bible, and Recovery Version) - all English translations.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep." (Gen. 1:1)

Some readers will object to the words "became" in verse 1. But the word and tense is used in Genesis 19:26 when the wife of Lot was judged by God and "became a pillar of salt".

Some Hebrew language scholars have agreed that "the earth BECAME ..." is a permissible translation. If so, it would indicate a destruction / reconstruction model of the earth. Whatever it was created originally in the beginning, it BECAME in a condition as the prophetic seer viewed it as "waste and void" .

A couple of points - This would be in harmony with perhaps, a catastrophic theory of modern science. Ie. Something in the earth's ancient past caused a massive extinction of previous life on earth before the appearance of mankind.

Another legitimate point. Could such a view of correspondence between a destruction / reconcstruction view of Genesis merely be an accomodation to 18th century theories of geology and evolution ?

Perhaps with some it is just accomodation - making Scripture agree with modern science theory. But perhaps NOT with those who had such an UNDERSTANDING of the original Hebrew of Genesis 1 BEFORE the invention of geology or the formation of a biological evolution theory. I speak of Hebrew reader such as those in the end of first and beginning of second century AD, who had no reason to make Genesis agree with geological theories which did not yet exist.

A sample would be a translation of rabbinical liturature Hazzohar attributed to a certain Simeon ben Jochai who was a decisple of Akiba ben Joseph, preseident of the School Bene Barek. The teacher was executed in 135 A.D. The pupil went on to pass on the teacher's expositions of the Hebrew Bible in the latter part of the first century and early part of the second.

With this backround, let's see what these first and second century AD Hebrew READERS understood Genesis to be conveying to them:

In a commentary on Genesis 2:4-6 we see this comment:

"These are the generations (ie., this is the historuy of ....) heaven and earth .... Now wherever there is written the word 'these' ... the previous words are put aside. And these are the generations of the DESTRUCTION which is signified in verse 2 of chapter 1. The earth was Tohu and Bohu. These indeed are the worlds of which it is said trhat the blessed God created them AND DESTROYED THEM, and, ON THAT ACCOUNT, the earth was desolate and empty." [my emphasis]

This is now first century / second century commentary by native Hebrew reading and speaking rabbis. And at least THESE of this school understood this by reading Genesis -

God had DESTROYED previous worlds. And because of that destruction, the verse of Genesis 1:1 says the earth was desolate and empty. It had been judged by God and ruined.

Granted - a divinely judged world is not an item of scienctific study. However, the theology, if factual, if their understanding is right, could explain the catastrophism of modern theories of killer meteors, killer comets, etc.

Before man arrived the earth became a destroyed and ruined planet. Who knows WHAT previous inhabitants were wiped out in that destruction ?


Flat and total contradiction of science information and the word of God ? Maybe not.

Now the two Hebrew words forming the play on sounds, which translates into English "without form and void" - tohu bohu are found together elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. When the two words are found TOGETHER making that "topsy / turvy" like play on sound, they refer to a divine judgment of God upon some situation.

A note from Rotherham's Emphasized Bible is confirming:

"Now the earth had become waste and wild, and darkness was on the face of the roaring deep - but the Spirit of God was brooding on the face of the waters."

[/b] Ratherham's footnote on "waste and wild" - "tohu wa-bohu. Evidently an idiomatic phrase, with a play on the sound ("assonance" ) The two words occur together only in Is. xxxiv.11; Jer. iv.23; examples which favour the conclusion that here also they describe the result of previous overthrow. Tohu by itself is found in several pther texts (Deu. xxxii.10; Job xii.24; Ps. cvii.40; Is xxiv.10; xxxiv 11; etc).

This Bible translator above said the usage of the words favors an interpretation of the earth becoming waste and wild as a result of God's judgment.

Rather than flat and total contradition, I am considering something where science and God's revelation might actually concur. For all truth is God's truth.

I can apprecite your use of the Bible to tell you how to achieve salvation. I can't appreciate your support for Creationist propoganda dismissing and misrepresenting responsible science.

And on the way to speaking about salvation and God's eternal purpose there is also some useful information about the history of the world. And this we might not know at all except that God told us something - revelation.

Originally posted by jaywill

Since God did not get around to telling us very much about the natural world in the Bible, it is hardly a lot of use then in seeking to understand the natural world, nor is it capable of presenting an alternative to the scientific approch to such understanding. There is no alternative Creationist account if there is no account.

There i ...[text shortened]... ll except that God [b] told us something - revelation.[/b]

"And on the way to speaking about salvation and God's eternal purpose there is also some useful information about the history of the world. And this we might not know at all except that God told us something - revelation."


Are there things we WOULD not know about the history of the world, "except that God told us something - revelation?" Are you willing to say this?

It's OK if you aren't, but the "might" is a bit of a hedge. If you are willing to say this, it would allow discussion of the idea of historical events known to us only by revelation.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
He lives in New Zealand, it's the middle of the night there at this moment in time.

He lives in New Zealand, it's the middle of the night there at this moment in time.

You mean it is on the other side of the planet and is dark over there now ??

Hmmm. Maybe that is why Jesus said that in the time of the rapture some would be working in the field (during the day) and some would be in the bed sleeping (during the night).

Ooops. That's not suppose to happen. The Bible is suppose to always be upstaged by modern science. Jesus wasn't suppose to refer to a moment in time in which it would be work time one place and sleep time another ?

Compare: "I tell you, In that night there will be two on one bed; the one will be taken and the other will be lift. ... Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left." (Luke 17:24-36)

God knew that the earth was round anyway.

Originally posted by JS357
"And on the way to speaking about salvation and God's eternal purpose there is also some useful information about the history of the world. And this we might not know at all except that God told us something - revelation."


Are there things we WOULD not know about the history of the world, "except that God told us something - revelation?" Are you willing would allow discussion of the idea of historical events known to us only by revelation.

Are there things we WOULD not know about the history of the world, "except that God told us something - revelation?" Are you willing to say this?

I think I understand you.

If God did not tell man SOME things by revelation in His Holy Word, we would never find it out. We'd simply never know.

Now there is a whole lot of things man's good smart mind CAN figure out. Thank God He blessed us with such intelligence.

There are other things which these little tiny creatures on this huge ball, swinging through space, would never find out, unless God told us. That's revelation.


Things like, there was a first couple - Adam and Eve.

Things like, Christ is the SECOND MAN, the last Adam who came to right the wrong things instituted by the FIRST man Adam.

Things like there is a last judgment of all human beings. And God has appointed a MAN to preside over that judgment -

"Because He [God] has a day in which He is to judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He has designated, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)

Originally posted by jaywill

Genesis IS a conglomeration. The fact that people have published it as one 'book' does not change the fact.

Genesis is ONE BOOK. It has been so for a long long time.
Care to document when it was regarded as more than one book ?

JPED - Documentary Hypothesis is a [b] theory dude.

[quote]
So, since we can use conglom ...[text shortened]... ime in a far off land".

Any geneologies in Aesop's fables ? ? ?

Hmmm.[/b]

How about right now?

Here's how the Jews read it - by section, and each section has a name, not just a range of chapter and verse.

Bereish it, on Genesis 1-6: Creation, Eden, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Lamech, wickedness
Noach, on Genesis 6-11: Noah’s Ark, the Flood, Noah’s drunkenness, the Tower of Babel
Lech-Lecha, on Genesis 12-17: Abraham, Sarah, Lot, covenant, Hagar and Ishmael, circumcision
Vayeira, on Genesis 18-22: Abraham's visitors, Sodomites, Lot’s visitors and flight, Hagar expelled, binding of Isaac
Chayei Sarah, on Genesis 23-25: Sarah buried, Rebekah for Isaac
Toledot, on Genesis 25-28: Esau and Jacob, Esau's birthright, Isaac’s blessing
Vayetze, on Genesis 28-32: Jacob flees, Rachel, Leah, Laban, Jacob’s children and departure
Vayishlach, on Genesis 32-36: Jacob’s reunion with Esau, the rape of Dinah
Vayeshev, on Genesis 37-40: Joseph's dreams, coat, and slavery, Judah with Tamar, Joseph and Potiphar
Miketz, on Genesis 41-44: Pharaoh’s dream, Joseph's in government, Joseph’s brothers visit Egypt
Vayigash, on Genesis 44-47: Joseph reveals himself, Jacob moves to Egypt
Vayechi, on Genesis 47-50: Jacob’s blessings, death of Jacob and of Joseph

I've no idea what JPED is.

The locations of events in AF are various places, like a town, a country, a pasture, a forest, etc.

Thankfully, there are no genealogies in AF. 🙂

Originally posted by SwissGambit
How about right now?

Here's how the Jews read it - by section, and each section has a name, not just a range of chapter and verse.

Bereish it, on Genesis 1-6: Creation, Eden, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Lamech, wickedness
Noach, on Genesis 6-11: Noah’s Ark, the Flood, Noah’s drunkenness, the Tower of Babel
Lech-Lec wn, a country, a pasture, a forest, etc.

Thankfully, there are no genealogies in AF. 🙂

How about right now?

Here's how the Jews read it - by section, and each section has a name, not just a range of chapter and verse.

Bereish it, on Genesis 1-6: Creation, Eden, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Lamech, wickedness
Noach, on Genesis 6-11: Noah’s Ark, the Flood, Noah’s drunkenness, the Tower of Babel
Lech-Lecha, on Genesis 12-17: Abraham, Sarah, Lot, covenant, Hagar and Ishmael, circumcision
Vayeira, on Genesis 18-22: Abraham's visitors, Sodomites, Lot’s visitors and flight, Hagar expelled, binding of Isaac
Chayei Sarah, on Genesis 23-25: Sarah buried, Rebekah for Isaac
Toledot, on Genesis 25-28: Esau and Jacob, Esau's birthright, Isaac’s blessing
Vayetze, on Genesis 28-32: Jacob flees, Rachel, Leah, Laban, Jacob’s children and departure

This proves nothing. Who said Genesis could not be divided up into sections ?

Going back thousands of years the first FIVE books of Moses were that, Five Books. One of the FIVE was Genesis.

Recognizing change of subject matter, and biographies, and stories today or then don't effect that it was ONE of the five books of Moses.

Too bad you're not making your argument about Chronicles or Kings. Then you might have a point. Genesis is one book.

Vayishlach, on Genesis 32-36: Jacob’s reunion with Esau, the rape of Dinah
Vayeshev, on Genesis 37-40: Joseph's dreams, coat, and slavery, Judah with Tamar, Joseph and Potiphar
Miketz, on Genesis 41-44: Pharaoh’s dream, Joseph's in government, Joseph’s brothers visit Egypt
Vayigash, on Genesis 44-47: Joseph reveals himself, Jacob moves to Egypt
Vayechi, on Genesis 47-50: Jacob’s blessings, death of Jacob and of Joseph

So what ?

I've no idea what JPED is.

I may have the letters in wrong order. (JEPD?)

If you have never heard of the Documentary Hypothesis, then you may not know what I refer to. Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis agues for multiple writings hammered together to make Genesis.

But, I am not saying multiple sources may not be involved. I am saying the book has been ONE BOOK, ie. one of the Five Books of Moses with other books - Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deutoronomy, for as long as I think scholars remember, modern and ancient.

If you have other information, I'll look at it. But differences in sections of Genesis does not qualify to consider it more than ONE book.

The locations of events in AF are various places, like a town, a country, a pasture, a forest, etc.

Thankfully, there are no genealogies in AF.

Thanks and appreciation is another issue. The point is that in Aesop's fables you have an entirely different kind of tradition.

Genesis is history. And the places it names obviously must have been familiar to the readers of the writing if they are no longer known today.

The land of Nod, ie. east of Eden is specific and geographic. There must be hundreds and hundreds of specific towns, cities, and locations mentioned in the Old Testament. Read about the dividing up of the Land of Canaan. Read about the land markers, boundaries, Joshua 17-19 etc.

It doesn't read like a fable at all. And you know it.

I dare you now to go read and read aloud Joshua chapters 17 - 19. Go read it. Then find me the equivalent style of prose in either Aesop's fables or Grimm's Fairy Tales.

Originally posted by jaywill

Are there things we WOULD not know about the history of the world, "except that God told us something - revelation?" Are you willing to say this?

I think I understand you.

If God did not tell man SOME things by revelation in His Holy Word, we would never find it out. We'd simply never know.

Now there is a whole lot of thin signated, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:31) [/b]

Thanks. So:

1. There may be things that we can know only by reasoning upon our observations of the world. IOW, God does not provide direct divine revelation of these things, but provides evidence, and the ability to reason on evidence, to produce knowledge of these things. There would be examples in some areas of science and in historical events not covered in the Bible.

2. There may be things that we can know only by direct divine revelation. You gave examples.

3. There may be things that God provides evidence/reasoning ability for, and also provides direct divine revelation of. An example would be pain during childbirth, which was revealed by word, and is evident by experience and observation.

It is the third category I am interested in. It seems that when God does this, God speaks one truth to us both ways, so knowledge obtained from reasoning upon evidence and knowledge gained from direct divine revelation should not contradict one another if properly understood. When after our best efforts we cannot resolve an apparent contradiction, which are we to believe? Does DDR take priority?

(As background: Some theologians think of Revelation as "the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature" where using the means of the ordinary course of nature are the other way God communicates truth. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm)

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] How about right now?

Here's how the Jews read it - by section, and each section has a name, not just a range of chapter and verse.

Bereish it, on Genesis 1-6: Creation, Eden, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Lamech, wickedness
Noach, on Genesis 6-11: Noah’s Ark, the Flood, Noah’s drunkenness, the Tower of Babel
Lech-Lecha, on Genesis 12-17: me the equivalent style of prose in either Aesop's fables or Grimm's Fairy Tales.

This proves nothing. Who said Genesis could not be divided up into sections ?

That's all I was after. It is valid to think of Genesis as a conglomeration of Bereish it, Noach, etc. just as it is valid to think of Aesop's Fables as a conglomeration of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, Androcles and the Lion, etc.

Going back thousands of years the first FIVE books of Moses were that, Five Books. One of the FIVE was Genesis.

You may not have to go as far back as you suppose. It seems the 'book' may have started with some traditions originating about the time of King Solomon (~1000 BCE), and the entire book was not completed until the 6th or 5th century BCE (obviously, by people who lived long, long after Moses). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis

Too bad you're not making your argument about Chronicles or Kings. Then you might have a point. Genesis is one book.

This is just deliberate obtuseness on your part. Obviously, Genesis, even if I accepted that ALL of it LITERALLY happened, had to have accumulated as a conglomeration of stories passed down from generation to generation (since there was no one person who was alive from the creation to Jacob) before it could have been 'one book'. (And, even after it was 'one book', it was STILL a conglomeration of stories.)

If you have other information, I'll look at it. But differences in sections of Genesis does not qualify to consider it more than ONE book.

'Book' is your word. I used (and still use) 'conglomeration of stories'.

Thanks and appreciation is another issue. The point is that in Aesop's fables you have an entirely different kind of tradition.

So? You asked for another work that addressed issues important to mankind.

Genesis is history. And the places it names obviously must have been familiar to the readers of the writing if they are no longer known today.

Let us not confuse history with myth, as in the example of Davy Crockett (historical figure) and 'killed him a 'bar when he was only 3'. Saying 'Genesis is history' is at best only partially true.

As for places familiar to the readers of the writing, do you think any of the audience had ever visited the garden of Eden? They didn't even know where it was any more accurately than between some rivers in Iraq somewhere.

The land of Nod, ie. east of Eden is specific and geographic.

The land of Mordor, South-East of the Shire, is also specific and geographic. And I bet you're familiar with those locations, so much so that you can tell me what book they appear in. (If not, I will also give you a reading assignment. 🙂)

Read about the dividing up of the Land of Canaan. Read about the land markers, boundaries, Joshua 17-19 etc.

Now hold on just a minute. I thought we were talking about Genesis here. 😛

It doesn't read like a fable at all. And you know it.

Wait, now you're cherry-picking from an entirely different book in the Bible? 😵

But, no matter. Again, if you want detail, I can give you reading assignments with comparable detail about the cities, who was mayor of the Shire hundreds of years ago, etc. etc. etc. (I am actually wishing I had picked these books as my example now 🙂)

I dare you now to go read and read aloud Joshua chapters 17 - 19. Go read it. Then find me the equivalent style of prose in either Aesop's fables or Grimm's Fairy Tales.

Move goalposts around much? 😵

Originally posted by SwissGambit

This proves nothing. Who said [b]Genesis could not be divided up into sections ?

That's all I was after. It is valid to think of Genesis as a conglomeration of Bereish it, Noach, etc. just as it is valid to think of Aesop's Fables as a conglomeration of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, Androcles and the Lion, etc.[quo ...[text shortened]... s fables or Grimm's Fairy Tales.[/quote]Move goalposts around much? 😵[/b]

You FAIL.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You FAIL.

I was thinking more along the lines of EPIC WIN. 😀

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I was thinking more along the lines of EPIC WIN. 😀

11. Thou shalt not feed the troll.