How can lie be justification for truth?
an...@sci.sci
to see what's outside, because when I was young my mother told me there
was a mad gunman stationned outside our house, ready to shoot anyone
who peeks out the window, and anytime I asked about the gunman she said
he's still there and I need to stay in my room.
Recently I discovered the telephone, and called the police, and asked
about the gunman. The police assured me that there's no such gunman.
So I asked my mother about it. She admitted the literal story of the
gunman was not true, but said there's a deeper theological truth, it's a
parable, and I should trust the conclusion despite learning the premise
was false. I still need to stay in my room the rest of my life, and
never look outside. She says the parable is from God, who passed it
down through the generations, and I need to tell the parable to my own
children, so they don't stray out of their room and get killed by
whatever the gunman represents.
How is that any different from Genesis, with the daylight and nightdark
cycling for three complete calendar days before the Sun was created,
and the Adam and Eve story, with the Garden of Eden, and the tree of
knowledge, which is all a complete fiction, but is somehow supposed to
reveal our relation to God and specify a code of behavior of rejecting
anything we learn from other sources except the Bible?
.
John Harshman
Wouldn't this be more appropriate for, say, alt.atheism? It doesn't seem
to have anything to do with evolution/creation.
Grendel
> All my life I've been hiding in my room, afraid to look out the window
> to see what's outside, because when I was young my mother told me there
> was a mad gunman stationned outside our house, ready to shoot anyone
> who peeks out the window, and anytime I asked about the gunman she said
> he's still there and I need to stay in my room.
>
> Recently I discovered the telephone, and called the police, and asked
> about the gunman. The police assured me that there's no such gunman.
>
> So I asked my mother about it. She admitted the literal story of the
> gunman was not true, but said there's a deeper theological truth, it's a
> parable, and I should trust the conclusion despite learning the premise
> was false. I still need to stay in my room the rest of my life, and
> never look outside. She says the parable is from God, who passed it
> down through the generations, and I need to tell the parable to my own
> children, so they don't stray out of their room and get killed by
> whatever the gunman represents.
>
> How is that any different from Genesis, with the daylight and nightdark
> cycling for three complete calendar days before the Sun was created,
Good question...and here is a good answer.
How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created
until the fourth day?
by Jonathan Sarfati
We know today that all it takes to have a day-night cycle is a rotating
Earth and light coming from one direction. The Bible tells us clearly
that God created light on the first day, as well as the Earth. Thus we
can deduce that the Earth was already rotating in space relative to this
created light.
God can, of course, create light without a secondary source. We are told
that in the new heavens and Earth there will be no need for sun or moon
(Rev 21:23). In Genesis, God even defines a day and a night in terms of
light or its absence.
‘Progressive creationists’ sometimes use the argument that the days are
really long periods, although God could have used words for that if He
had really meant that (see How long were the days of Genesis 1?). The
creation of the sun after the Earth undermines progressive creationists’
attempts to harmonise the Bible with billions of years. So they must
explain this teaching away. Some assert that what really happened on
this fourth ‘day’ was that the sun and other heavenly bodies ‘appeared’
when a dense cloud layer dissipated after millions of years. This is not
only fanciful science, but bad exegesis of Hebrew. The word ‘asah means
‘make’ throughout Genesis 1, and is sometimes used interchangeably with
‘create’ (bara’), e.g. in Genesis 1:26–27. It is pure desperation to
apply a different meaning to the same word in the same grammatical
construction in the same passage, just to fit in with atheistic
evolutionary ideas like the ‘big bang’. If God had meant ‘appeared’,
then He presumably would have used the Hebrew word for appear (ra’ah),
as when the dry land ‘appeared’ as the waters gathered in one place on
Day 3 (Genesis 1:9). We have checked over 20 major translations, and all
clearly teach that the sun, moon and stars were made on the fourth day.
The evidence that ordinary days are being referred to is so overwhelming
that even liberal Hebrew scholars admit that the author can have had no
other intent — particularly when the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are
used from the first day. (See The Answers Book Chapter 2, and Six Days?
Honestly!)
On the fourth day the present system was instituted as the Earth’s
temporary light-bearers were made, so the diffused light from the first
day was no longer needed. [Interestingly, after writing this article, I
found that Calvin had made the same point (see Calvin says: Genesis
means what it says). This shows that once again, skeptics just repeat
arguments long ago refuted by Bible believing scholars.]
Notes
1.
This would have been very significant to pagan world views which
tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. God seems to be
making it pointedly clear that the sun is secondary to His Creatorhood
as the source of everything. He doesn’t ‘need’ the sun in order to
create life (in contrast to theistic evolutionary beliefs.)
2.
This unusual, counter-intuitive order of creation (light before
sun) actually adds a hallmark of authenticity. If the Bible had been the
product of later ‘editors’, as many critics allege (see Did Moses really
write Genesis?), they would surely have modified this to fit with their
own understanding. It is only recently that the astronomical fact has
been realized that a day-night cycle needs only light plus rotation.
Having ‘day’ without the sun would have been generally inconceivable to
the ancients.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp
> and the Adam and Eve story, with the Garden of Eden, and the tree of
> knowledge, which is all a complete fiction, but is somehow supposed to
> reveal our relation to God and specify a code of behavior of rejecting
> anything we learn from other sources except the Bible?
The Bible is not a science book. That is not it's purpose. It's purpose
is to tell us how a perfectly holy God can have a relationship with
sinners like me and you.
However, the Bible is correct in areas it touches on, like biology,
astronomy...etc.
The Bible and science go hand and hand...no problems what so ever.
The contradictions are between evolutionary science and the Bible.
Because, the Bible and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.
> .
>
rev.goetz
How old were you when you "Recently I discovered the telephone"?
rupert....@gmail.com
> apply a different meaning to the same word in the same grammatical
> construction in the same passage, just to fit in with atheistic
> evolutionary ideas like the 'big bang'. If God had meant 'appeared',
> then He presumably would have used the Hebrew word for appear (ra'ah),
> as when the dry land 'appeared' as the waters gathered in one place on
> Day 3 (Genesis 1:9). We have checked over 20 major translations, and all
> clearly teach that the sun, moon and stars were made on the fourth day.
>
> The evidence that ordinary days are being referred to is so overwhelming
> that even liberal Hebrew scholars admit that the author can have had no
You know, you could be right. Maybe god does create light with no
physical source. I'm sure he has his reasons for doing it that way
round. He not only *can* do this, but *does* do it, and *writes* about
it in his book. So how can I believe what I read in the bible? For all
I know, the light entering my eyes is not reflected off the paper (and
less so off the ink) at all, but put there by god directly. The paper
copy of the bible may totally fail to be the inspired word of god, and
yet whenever I read it, the inspired word of god is all I will see.
Because no matter what I read, be it the bible, Origin of Species, or
Mein Kampf, it is inconceivable that god would allow me to read
anything that was not the truth.
I don't know why god would do this. I also don't know why he did things
the hard way during creation week, instead of creating the sun first so
he could see what he was doing.
Ray Martinez
> apply a different meaning to the same word in the same grammatical
> construction in the same passage, just to fit in with atheistic
> evolutionary ideas like the 'big bang'. If God had meant 'appeared',
> then He presumably would have used the Hebrew word for appear (ra'ah),
> as when the dry land 'appeared' as the waters gathered in one place on
> Day 3 (Genesis 1:9). We have checked over 20 major translations, and all
> clearly teach that the sun, moon and stars were made on the fourth day.
>
> The evidence that ordinary days are being referred to is so overwhelming
> that even liberal Hebrew scholars admit that the author can have had no
This is a super post to say the least !
I might add: the "days" of Genesis, whatever their length, were written
to convey a short length of time - diametrically opposite of
evolutionary claims.
Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
"Light".
Light is CENTRAL to all scientific theories (except Darwinism - how
ironic !)
Which creation account is true ?
Whichever text gives light preeminence. Science has therefore confirmed
the factuality of Genesis where light is a central component.
Ray
Dale
news:1138236533....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> This is a super post to say the least !
>
> I might add: the "days" of Genesis, whatever their length, were written
> to convey a short length of time - diametrically opposite of
> evolutionary claims.
>
> Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
> "Light".
>
> Light is CENTRAL to all scientific theories (except Darwinism - how
> ironic !)
>
> Which creation account is true ?
>
> Whichever text gives light preeminence. Science has therefore confirmed
> the factuality of Genesis where light is a central component.
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138236533....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
So, what is "super" about it? It's just a cut and past from AiG. Remember,
you don't like AiG.
\
>
> I might add: the "days" of Genesis, whatever their length, were written
> to convey a short length of time - diametrically opposite of
> evolutionary claims.
The theory of evolution says nothing about the length of days. Exactly how
long a day might be is entirely irrelevant to any theory of evolution.
>
> Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
> "Light".
Which is not what the Bible says.
>
> Light is CENTRAL to all scientific theories (except Darwinism - how
> ironic !)
Light is not central to many scientific theories, such as gravity, germ
theory, most theories of formation of the earth, theories of chemical
interactions, etc, etc.
>
> Which creation account is true ?
The one that matches the evidence, obviously.
>
> Whichever text gives light preeminence.
That doesn't follow.
> Science has therefore confirmed
> the factuality of Genesis where light is a central component.
Not unless by "confirmed the factuality of" you mean "has not lent any
support to"
DJTd
Dale
news:hoSBf.133755$6K2.15608@edtnps90...
[...]
> How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn't created
> until the fourth day?
> by Jonathan Sarfati
>
> We know today that all it takes to have a day-night cycle is a rotating
> Earth and light coming from one direction. The Bible tells us clearly
> that God created light on the first day, as well as the Earth. Thus we
> can deduce that the Earth was already rotating in space relative to this
> created light.
We can DEDUCE? Did he say DEDUCE? Excuse me, I'm not sure, but I think I
read the word "DEDUCE" in that paragraph. Oh I see, nobody was there to see
it, and the Bible didn't tell us what really happened, so we must DEDUCE
what really happened?
Here's a deduction for you,
We can determine the Earth age by observing the following:
1. the amount of Uranium isotopes U235 and U238 that can be found nowadays
is in the ratio N235/N238=0.07
2. the two isotopes of Uranium have a half life of 4.5 billion years for
U238 and 0.7 billion years for U235
3. at the formation of Earth the two isotopes were to be found in a
proportion of 1:1
A radioactive element decays with time according to the law:
N(t)=N0exp(-a*t) (1)
From (1) we can can calculate the coefficient a if we know the half life.
For example, in the case of U235:
N(0.7)=N0/2 (2)
Therefore :
a235=ln2/0.7 (3)
In the case of U238 we obtain:
a238=ln2/4.5 (4)
Because today's ratio of U235 to U238 is 0.07 we have:
0.07=exp(-a235*t)/ exp(-a238*t)=exp(a238 - a235)t (5)
If we assume that at the formation of the Earth the isotopes U235 and U238
could be found in equal amounts then the time t represents the time elapsed
from the beginning of the Earth. Solving (5) for t we obtain:
t=(1/0.7-1/4.5)*ln2/(ln100-ln7) or approximately 4.6 billion years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
[...]
> This unusual, counter-intuitive order of creation (light before
> sun) actually adds a hallmark of authenticity. If the Bible had been the
> product of later 'editors', as many critics allege (see Did Moses really
> write Genesis?), they would surely have modified this to fit with their
> own understanding. It is only recently that the astronomical fact has
> been realized that a day-night cycle needs only light plus rotation.
> Having 'day' without the sun would have been generally inconceivable to
> the ancients.
That is the most astonishing bit of sophistry I have ever read.
Joe Blow
"In his day, God did the creation thing." Would this mean the God was
only effective for a short time?
> Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
> "Light".
Oh, is that where the myth originated?
> Light is CENTRAL to all scientific theories (except Darwinism - how
> ironic !)
Central to dark matter?
> Which creation account is true ?
Whatever "true" means.
> Whichever text gives light preeminence. Science has therefore confirmed
> the factuality of Genesis where light is a central component.
Is that supposed to make sense? What are you talking about?
--
Joe
rupert....@gmail.com
Neither the bible, nor anything written by Gene Scott, was originally
written in Sanskrit. Why are you citing the work of heretics and
atheists to prove your point?
Bobby D. Bryant
> Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
> "Light".
I don't suppose you're going to show us the etymology...
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
wf...@comcast.net
>The Bible and science go hand and hand...no problems what so ever.
statement 1
>The contradictions are between evolutionary science and the Bible.
and since evolution is science this contradicts statement 1
>Because, the Bible and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.
>
in his opinion. his view of the bible is that it's literally true
funny that, nowhere in the bible does it say this.
Lee Oswald Ving
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
> "Light".
Your god's name is Jyoti? Or maybe Prabha?
What cult did you say you belonged to again?
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>
>Light is CENTRAL to all scientific theories (except Darwinism - how
>ironic !)
guess he's never heard of photosynthesis and its role in plant
develpment...
>
johnetho...@yahoo.com
I can't imagine Ray suggesting anything that sensible.
John Wilkins
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
John Wilkins
Raymond Griffith
On 1/25/06 4:50 PM, in article hoSBf.133755$6K2.15608@edtnps90, "Grendel"
<na...@trynot.com> wrote:
> ŒProgressive creationists‚ sometimes use the argument that the days are
> really long periods, although God could have used words for that if He
> had really meant that (see How long were the days of Genesis 1?). The
> creation of the sun after the Earth undermines progressive creationists‚
> attempts to harmonise the Bible with billions of years. So they must
> explain this teaching away. Some assert that what really happened on
> this fourth Œday‚ was that the sun and other heavenly bodies Œappeared‚
> when a dense cloud layer dissipated after millions of years. This is not
> only fanciful science, but bad exegesis of Hebrew. The word Å’asah means
> Œmake‚ throughout Genesis 1, and is sometimes used interchangeably with
> Œcreate‚ (bara‚), e.g. in Genesis 1:26ˆ27. It is pure desperation to
> apply a different meaning to the same word in the same grammatical
> construction in the same passage, just to fit in with atheistic
> evolutionary ideas like the Œbig bang‚. If God had meant Œappeared‚,
> then He presumably would have used the Hebrew word for appear (ra‚ah),
> as when the dry land Œappeared‚ as the waters gathered in one place on
> Day 3 (Genesis 1:9). We have checked over 20 major translations, and all
> clearly teach that the sun, moon and stars were made on the fourth day.
>
> The evidence that ordinary days are being referred to is so overwhelming
> that even liberal Hebrew scholars admit that the author can have had no
> other intent ˜ particularly when the words Œevening‚ and Œmorning‚ are
> used from the first day. (See The Answers Book Chapter 2, and Six Days?
> Honestly!)
Certainly the story does refer to ordinary days. Whether the story was meant
to be literally true is something else altogether.
>
> On the fourth day the present system was instituted as the Earth‚s
> temporary light-bearers were made, so the diffused light from the first
> day was no longer needed. [Interestingly, after writing this article, I
> found that Calvin had made the same point (see Calvin says: Genesis
> means what it says). This shows that once again, skeptics just repeat
> arguments long ago refuted by Bible believing scholars.]
> Notes
>
> 1.
>
> This would have been very significant to pagan world views which
> tended to worship the sun as the source of all life.
This is patently false. The Creation Myths of most cultures did not begin
with the sun. Life was usually well along before the sun was created.
Since ancient peoples were very much centered on where they lived and
usually did not travel great distances, each culture tends to see where they
are as the center of creation. The earth is usually (almost always) created
first out of some kind of disorder or chaos, but usually some material is
present to create from. Often the sun and moon and stars begin as people or
gods who then make their home in the sky.
An examination of the creation myths of the world in any significant detail
will reveal this. But Sarfati, for his own purposes of misdirection does not
tell us. It would blow his story.
While the Creation story of the Bible does have some unique points, it
shares common features with many creation myths.
> God seems to be
> making it pointedly clear that the sun is secondary to His Creatorhood
> as the source of everything. He doesn‚t Œneed‚ the sun in order to
> create life (in contrast to theistic evolutionary beliefs.)
Nor was the sun needed to create life in most creation myths around the
world.
> 2.
>
> This unusual, counter-intuitive order of creation (light before
> sun) actually adds a hallmark of authenticity.
Not at all. As noted above, in culture after culture, the "sun" is almost
always created after the earth, and is almost always created after some kind
of life activity is already going on.
> If the Bible had been the
> product of later Œeditors‚, as many critics allege (see Did Moses really
> write Genesis?), they would surely have modified this to fit with their
> own understanding.
They certainly did. One understands that even in Ezra's day the sun was not
generally viewed as *the source* of light. The moon was also credited with
having light of its own, as was God, angels, etc. It was not thought that
without the sun there would be no light.
In fact, in the book of Revelation, the sun is seen as unnecessary for
light, for "the Lamb is the light thereof" in heaven.
> It is only recently that the astronomical fact has
> been realized that a day-night cycle needs only light plus rotation.
> Having Œday‚ without the sun would have been generally inconceivable to
> the ancients.
Shoot, they not only thought of it, they incorporated it into their
mythology.
I find it interesting that Creationists have to lie to make their point.
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp
>
>
>> and the Adam and Eve story, with the Garden of Eden, and the tree of
>> knowledge, which is all a complete fiction, but is somehow supposed to
>> reveal our relation to God and specify a code of behavior of rejecting
>> anything we learn from other sources except the Bible?
>
> The Bible is not a science book.
This is perhaps the first true thing said (or quoted) by you today!
> That is not it's purpose.
Too right.
> It's purpose
> is to tell us how a perfectly holy God can have a relationship with
> sinners like me and you.
> However, the Bible is correct in areas it touches on, like biology,
> astronomy...etc.
Uhh, no. Hares and rabbits do not chew cud. And there is no biological
information in the Bible that other ancients did not think of first.
And wouldn't you know it? They thought the organ of thought and emotion was
the physical heart, not the brain!
> The Bible and science go hand and hand...no problems what so ever.
> The contradictions are between evolutionary science and the Bible.
> Because, the Bible and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.
No sir. Your interpretation of the Bible may be 100% exclusive of science or
common sense (or truth, for that matter).
But as a Christian, I am offended by the lies you so readily parrot.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> .
>>
>
VoiceOfReason
Grendel wrote:
<...>
> How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn't created
> until the fourth day?
Obviously, Genesis isn't meant to be taken literally.
> The Bible is not a science book.
Bingo.
> That is not it's purpose. It's purpose
> is to tell us how a perfectly holy God can have a relationship with
> sinners like me and you.
> However, the Bible is correct in areas it touches on, like biology,
> astronomy...etc.
"The Bible is not a science book." (The sciences of biology and
astronomy weren't defined until thousands of years later.)
> the Bible and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.
Since most Christians don't believe that, it's an idiotic statement.
Richard Forrest
Grendel wrote:
<snipped>
Just to be clear, let's summarise Sarfarti's argument:
1) There was no sun until the fourth day of creation.
2) The day and night cycle was exactly the same before and after the
creation of the sun.
3) God provided a light to create that cycle, and replaced it when he
created the sun.
4) The day/night cycle was driven by the rotation of the earth about
its axis both before and after the creation of the sun.
By inference, the light God provided before the creation of the sun was
in the same place and of the same brightness as the sun, otherwise the
day/night cycle would have been different. So Sarfarti is asserting
that before the sun was created, there was a bright object in the
centre of the solar system, and of the same size and brightness as the
sun which was replaced by the sun on the fourth day of creation. This
apparently add credence to the biblical account of creation, and shows
how the bible is correct in matters of astronomy.
The argument strikes me as weak, not to say bizarre. I wonder how one
can tell the difference between the sun and an object identical to the
sun using scientific tools?
Obviously I'm not me. I'm just someone who was created yesterday who is
physically identical to me, and has had all my memories and experience
magically implanted so that I think I'm me when in fact I'm not me at
all. This is true science.
RF
>
>
>
>
> > .
> >
Dogma Discharge
news:21ggt19ijr2ms2b55...@4ax.com...
Yup, plants are closer to god than you have ever imagined.
--
Kind Regards
Cameron
Raymond Griffith
"an...@sci.sci" <an...@sci.sci> wrote:
> All my life I've been hiding in my room, afraid to look out the window
> to see what's outside, because when I was young my mother told me there
> was a mad gunman stationned outside our house, ready to shoot anyone
> who peeks out the window, and anytime I asked about the gunman she said
> he's still there and I need to stay in my room.
>
> Recently I discovered the telephone, and called the police, and asked
> about the gunman. The police assured me that there's no such gunman.
>
> So I asked my mother about it. She admitted the literal story of the
> gunman was not true, but said there's a deeper theological truth, it's a
> parable, and I should trust the conclusion despite learning the premise
> was false. I still need to stay in my room the rest of my life, and
> never look outside. She says the parable is from God, who passed it
> down through the generations, and I need to tell the parable to my own
> children, so they don't stray out of their room and get killed by
> whatever the gunman represents.
Really now. Wasn't Logos bad enough? Now you have to go steal his style of
storytelling as if it has some merit? Gag me.
But you have very much misused the idea of a parable. The Lord Jesus used
parables, stories which no one would believe were true on a literal level to
convey moral truths. But they were never used as Grims' Fairy Tales to
frighten children. They were used to make you think.
In your case (assuming for the sake of maintaining your fiction), your
mother told you an outright lie.
>
> How is that any different from Genesis, with the daylight and nightdark
> cycling for three complete calendar days before the Sun was created,
> and the Adam and Eve story, with the Garden of Eden, and the tree of
> knowledge, which is all a complete fiction, but is somehow supposed to
> reveal our relation to God and specify a code of behavior of rejecting
> anything we learn from other sources except the Bible?
It is different on many levels. First of all, relative to the creation myths
of Egypt and Babylon, the stories are pretty tame. In those as well the sun
and stars were created after the earth was wrestled from chaos.
In short, the ancients explained the emergence of nature from Chaos by the
actions of gods who emerged from that Chaos as well. The watery Deep was
Chaos. And chaos was all around. Without constant infusions of order,
sacrifices to honor (and sometimes to strengthen) the gods, disorder would
swallow up the earth and everything in it.
The Story is indeed Myth. But what purpose did it serve? The ancients noted
the principle of cause and effect, but in their way of thinking, every cause
was ultimately personal. So if the wind blew, someone sent the wind -- or
breathed it out. If lightning struck a bush and it burned, someone or
SomeOne caused such an event. Gods and demigods were everywhere. Misfortune
was always judgment, whether just or not. Some gods simply had bad tempers,
and others were mischievous. Others were helpful. The Ashtoreth cults
prospered because the question "How do my crops grow" was a very important
one.
So all causes were ultimately personal, and this was reflected in the way
the peoples of the world saw themselves. And when answering the question,
"Why are we here?", they gave the best explanations they could.
The Hebrew stories differ in that they are not a struggle of a god and those
gods which emanate from him against a chaos that nearly overwhelms him. In
the Hebrew story, there is Chaos, but God commands and all of what is
responds. Man is not an accident or secondary creation, but the reason for
the work in progress. The first Hebrew creation story (Genesis 1) was
probably written after the second one (Genesis 2). The first one shows God
as speaking the world into shape from an original, unsourced chaos. The
second shows God as a potter, making man from clay and breathing him into
life.
So God was interested in man. Man was ultimately God's creation. And the
world responded to the voice of a God who had made man His crowning act.
This message was subtly different from the creation stories of the people
around them. God was in a different position. He was both personal (Genesis
2) and at the same time above all (Genesis 1).
Many of the messages of the story might have been able to be found in other
creation stories. But they did not provide God as a personal God Who would
find interest in His people.
We can talk about a code of behavior later.
But please -- keep the Logos-type stories to a minimum!
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
TomS
<dr9dre$jst$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, Bobby D. Bryant stated..."
>
>On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
>> "Light".
>
>I don't suppose you're going to show us the etymology...
>
Not many English words - or words in Hebrew, or Aramaic,
or Greek - trace their origins to Sanskrit. "Chukker" and
"punch" are a couple that come to English from a modern
Indic language, so we might count those. English does have
many roots which go back to a "common ancestor" with
Sanskrit, the reconstructed "Proto-Indo-European".
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
has an appendix on the Indo-European roots of all of the
English words in the dictionary, and the new 4th edition has
an appendix on the Semitic roots. The Indo-European "dyeu-"
has a meaning of "to shine, sky, heaven, god", and it is the
source of the Latin "Jove", Greek "Zeus", Old English "Tiw".
This seems to be about the closest to something like what
Ray is saying.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Joe Blow
Especially the tallest ones.
--
Joe
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"John Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:dr9iqt$2r5p$3...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
> Dale wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138236533....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> [...]
>>> This is a super post to say the least !
>>>
>>> I might add: the "days" of Genesis, whatever their length, were written
>>> to convey a short length of time - diametrically opposite of
>>> evolutionary claims.
>>>
>>> Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
>>> "Light".
>>>
>>> Light is CENTRAL to all scientific theories (except Darwinism - how
>>> ironic !)
>>>
>>> Which creation account is true ?
>>>
>>> Whichever text gives light preeminence. Science has therefore confirmed
>>> the factuality of Genesis where light is a central component.
>>
>> Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
>>
> No, but they might be carried by a swallow...
Would that be a European or an African swallow?
Grendel
That reply is typical of any good Bible scoffer.
>
> Since ancient peoples were very much centered on where they lived and
> usually did not travel great distances, each culture tends to see where they
> are as the center of creation. The earth is usually (almost always) created
> first out of some kind of disorder or chaos, but usually some material is
> present to create from. Often the sun and moon and stars begin as people or
> gods who then make their home in the sky.
>
> An examination of the creation myths of the world in any significant detail
> will reveal this. But Sarfati, for his own purposes of misdirection does not
> tell us. It would blow his story.
No Raymond, his "story" is completely compatible with what the Bible
teaches. It is no surprise then that you in another attempt to
discredit the Bible would scoff at what he says.
Further study here.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c024.html
*exerpt*
EVIDENCE FROM THE REST OF THE BIBLE
#
The principal people mentioned in Genesis chapters 1-11 are referred to
as real - historical, not mythical - people in the rest of the Bible,
often many times. For example, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah are
referred to in 15 other books of the Bible.
#
The Lord Jesus Christ referred to the Creation of Adam and Eve as a real
historical event, by quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in His teaching about
divorce (Matthew 19:3-6; Mark 10:2-9), and by referring to Noah as a
real historical person and the Flood as a real historical event, in His
teaching about the 'coming of the Son of man' (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke
17:26-27).
#
Unless the first 11 chapters of Genesis are authentic historical events,
the rest of the Bible is incomplete and incomprehensible as to its full
meaning. The theme of the Bible is Redemption, and may be outlined thus:
i. God's redeeming purpose is revealed in Genesis 1-11,
ii. God's redeeming purpose progresses from Genesis 12 to Jude 25, and
iii. God's redeeming purpose is consummated in Revelation 1-22.
But why does mankind need to be redeemed? What is it that he needs to be
redeemed from? The answer is given in Genesis 1-11, namely, from the
ruin brought about by sin. Unless we know that the entrance of sin to
the human race was a true historical fact, God's purpose in providing a
substitutionary atonement is a mystery. Conversely, the historical truth
of Genesis 1-11 shows that all mankind has come under the righteous
anger of God and needs salvation from the penalty, power, and presence
of sin.
>
> While the Creation story of the Bible does have some unique points, it
> shares common features with many creation myths.
Categorically not true Raymond. All the myths -without exception-
started with the factual history found in Genesis.
Of course a Bible scoffer like you would use any deception to discredit
the Bible, no surprise.
Study up here.
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html
>
>
>>God seems to be
>>making it pointedly clear that the sun is secondary to His Creatorhood
>>as the source of everything. He doesn‚t Œneed‚ the sun in order to
>>create life (in contrast to theistic evolutionary beliefs.)
>
>
> Nor was the sun needed to create life in most creation myths around the
> world.
Most myths are a twist based on the factual history of Genesis.
of course a bible scoffer like you would not see it that way.
>
>
>> 2.
>>
>> This unusual, counter-intuitive order of creation (light before
>>sun) actually adds a hallmark of authenticity.
>
>
> Not at all. As noted above, in culture after culture, the "sun" is almost
> always created after the earth, and is almost always created after some kind
> of life activity is already going on.
Like any Bible scoffer, you are obviously unable, for whatever reason,
to distinguish between creation myths and the historical truth of Genesis.
>
>
>>If the Bible had been the
>>product of later Œeditors‚, as many critics allege (see Did Moses really
>>write Genesis?), they would surely have modified this to fit with their
>>own understanding.
>
>
> They certainly did. One understands that even in Ezra's day the sun was not
> generally viewed as *the source* of light. The moon was also credited with
> having light of its own, as was God, angels, etc. It was not thought that
> without the sun there would be no light.
>
> In fact, in the book of Revelation, the sun is seen as unnecessary for
> light, for "the Lamb is the light thereof" in heaven.
Correct, the sun will not be required after the new heavens are established.
>
>
>
>>It is only recently that the astronomical fact has
>>been realized that a day-night cycle needs only light plus rotation.
>>Having Œday‚ without the sun would have been generally inconceivable to
>>the ancients.
>
>
> Shoot, they not only thought of it, they incorporated it into their
> mythology.
>
> I find it interesting that Creationists have to lie to make their point.
You Raymond , have been duped into believing in evolution.
2 Peter 3:3-5
3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers
fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the
creation.
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the
heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the
water:
>
>
>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp
>>
>>
>>
>>>and the Adam and Eve story, with the Garden of Eden, and the tree of
>>>knowledge, which is all a complete fiction, but is somehow supposed to
>>>reveal our relation to God and specify a code of behavior of rejecting
>>>anything we learn from other sources except the Bible?
>>
>>The Bible is not a science book.
>
>
> This is perhaps the first true thing said (or quoted) by you today!
>
>
>>That is not it's purpose.
>
>
> Too right.
>
>
>>It's purpose
>>is to tell us how a perfectly holy God can have a relationship with
>>sinners like me and you.
>>However, the Bible is correct in areas it touches on, like biology,
>>astronomy...etc.
>
>
> Uhh, no. Hares and rabbits do not chew cud. And there is no biological
> information in the Bible that other ancients did not think of first.
A typical bible scoffer taunt. Fortunately the truth can be found. Not
anywhere near you though.
Need to see how? This is not for you Raymond, just for any lurkers you
might be leading astray.
Do rabbits chew their cud?
The Bible beats the sceptics (again) …
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
>
> And wouldn't you know it? They thought the organ of thought and emotion was
> the physical heart, not the brain!
>
>
>>The Bible and science go hand and hand...no problems what so ever.
>>The contradictions are between evolutionary science and the Bible.
>>Because, the Bible and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.
>
>
> No sir. Your interpretation of the Bible may be 100% exclusive of science or
> common sense (or truth, for that matter).
>
> But as a Christian, I am offended by the lies you so readily parrot.
Then you must be offended by the Bible. You see, the Bible and
evolution aware %100 mutually exclusive.
It is sad to see you so duped by evolutionary thinking, to the point of
actually scoffing at what the Bible clearly teaches.
Grendel
> On 1/25/06 3:36 PM, in article 261d4$43d7e18e$c690c02a$28...@TSOFT.COM,
> "an...@sci.sci" <an...@sci.sci> wrote:
>
>
>>All my life I've been hiding in my room, afraid to look out the window
>>to see what's outside, because when I was young my mother told me there
>>was a mad gunman stationned outside our house, ready to shoot anyone
>>who peeks out the window, and anytime I asked about the gunman she said
>>he's still there and I need to stay in my room.
>>
>>Recently I discovered the telephone, and called the police, and asked
>>about the gunman. The police assured me that there's no such gunman.
>>
>>So I asked my mother about it. She admitted the literal story of the
>>gunman was not true, but said there's a deeper theological truth, it's a
>>parable, and I should trust the conclusion despite learning the premise
>>was false. I still need to stay in my room the rest of my life, and
>>never look outside. She says the parable is from God, who passed it
>>down through the generations, and I need to tell the parable to my own
>>children, so they don't stray out of their room and get killed by
>>whatever the gunman represents.
>
>
> Really now. Wasn't Logos bad enough? Now you have to go steal his style of
> storytelling as if it has some merit? Gag me.
>
>
> So God was interested in man. Man was ultimately God's creation. And the
> world responded to the voice of a God who had made man His crowning act.
> This message was subtly different from the creation stories of the people
> around them. God was in a different position. He was both personal (Genesis
> 2) and at the same time above all (Genesis 1).
>
> Many of the messages of the story might have been able to be found in other
> creation stories. But they did not provide God as a personal God Who would
> find interest in His people.
Thank-you Raymond for a good example of a typical scoffers comments on
creation and the Bible. For anyone interested on some biblically based
answers WTR to creation and the Bible, go here.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-arch1.html
What archaeological discovery would you point to as the most convincing
evidence for the Bible being God's Word?
Any one discovery can be explained away as coincidence, or an
alternative interpretation can be given to disassociate it from the
Bible. It is the weight of a myriad of discoveries that demonstrates the
Bible to be the Word of God.
These discoveries fall into three categories:
1.
Archaeological evidence demonstrates the historical and cultural
accuracy of the Bible.
2.
The Bible's message of a loving Creator God who interacts in the
affairs of mankind and has provided a means of salvation stands in sharp
contrast to the pagan fertility religions of the ancient world as,
revealed by archaeology.
3.
Archaeological findings demonstrate that the Biblical prophets
accurately predicted events hundreds of years before they occurred --
something that lies beyond the capability of mere men.
Should Genesis be taken literally?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c020.html
Does God expect us to read Genesis 1-11 as a record of authentic
historical fact, or is this simply a collection of parable-like stories?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c024.html
Nicholas
> Grendel wrote:
>
>>an...@sci.sci wrote:
>>The Bible is not a science book. That is not it's purpose. It's purpose
>>is to tell us how a perfectly holy God can have a relationship with
>>sinners like me and you.
>>However, the Bible is correct in areas it touches on, like biology,
>>astronomy...etc.
>>The Bible and science go hand and hand...no problems what so ever.
>>The contradictions are between evolutionary science and the Bible.
>>Because, the Bible and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.
The Bible is correct on astronomy?
Joshua 10:12-15
An event astronomically impossible and one that somehow seems to have
escaped the attention of chroniclers, poets and historians from every
other civilisation on the planet.
Are you sure God meant days literally?
2 Peter 3:8
According to Peter, God doesn't seem to be very good at measuring time
or really doesn't really measure it as literally as some would desire.
Nicholas
Grendel
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>>Grendel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>an...@sci.sci wrote:
>
>
>>>The Bible is not a science book. That is not it's purpose. It's purpose
>>>is to tell us how a perfectly holy God can have a relationship with
>>>sinners like me and you.
>>>However, the Bible is correct in areas it touches on, like biology,
>>>astronomy...etc.
>>>The Bible and science go hand and hand...no problems what so ever.
>>>The contradictions are between evolutionary science and the Bible.
>>>Because, the Bible and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.
>
>
> The Bible is correct on astronomy?
Absolutely.
>
> Joshua 10:12-15
> An event astronomically impossible and one that somehow seems to have
> escaped the attention of chroniclers, poets and historians from every
> other civilisation on the planet.
Can we explain the "long days" of Joshua and Hezekiah?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c016.html
>
> Are you sure God meant days literally?
The Bible agrees with it.
Should Genesis be taken literally?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c020.html
Does God expect us to read Genesis 1-11 as a record of authentic
historical fact, or is this simply a collection of parable-like stories?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c024.html
>
> 2 Peter 3:8
> According to Peter, God doesn't seem to be very good at measuring time
> or really doesn't really measure it as literally as some would desire.
The teaching there is that time is irrelevant to God...God is outside of
time.
2 Peter 3:8 — ‘one day is like a thousand years’
by Jonathan Sarfati
The text says ‘one day is like [or as] a thousand years’ — the word
‘like’ (or ‘as’) shows that it is a figure of speech, called a simile,
to teach that God is outside of time (because He is the Creator of time
itself). In fact, the figure of speech is so effective in its intended
aim precisely because the day is literal and contrasts so vividly with
1000 years — to the eternal Creator of time, a short period of time and
a long period of time may as well be the same.
The fact that the passage is actually contrasting a short and long
period can be shown by the fact that Peter is quoting Psalm 90:4
(Peter’s statement ‘do not forget’ implies that his readers were
expected to recall something, and this passage has this very teaching).
This reads:
‘For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone
by, or like a watch in the night.’
This is synonymous parallelism, where a long period of a thousand years
is contrasted with two short periods: a day, and a night watch. But
those who try to use this verse to teach that the days of Genesis might
be 1000 years long forget the additional part in bold. For if they were
consistent, they would have to say that a watch in the night here also
means 1000 years. It’s difficult to imagine that the same Psalmist
(Psalm 63:6) is thinking on his bed for thousands of years or that his
eyes stay open for thousands of years (Psalm 119:148).
The immediate context of the Psalm is the frailty of mere mortal man in
comparison to God. This verse amplifies the teaching, saying that no
matter how long a time interval is from man’s time-bound perspective,
it’s like a twinkling of an eye from God’s eternal perspective.
In any case, the meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1 is defined by the context
there — the Hebrew word for day, yôm, is used with the words ‘evening’
and ‘morning’, and the days are numbered (first day, second day, etc.).
Whenever yôm is used in such a context, it is always an ordinary day,
never a long period of time. The meaning of the days of creation as
ordinary days is also affirmed by Exodus 20:8–11, where God told the
Israelites to work for six days and rest on the seventh because God had
made all things in six days and rested on the seventh. For more
information, see other articles in Q&A: Genesis under ‘Days of Creation’.
rest here.....
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/day_thousandyears.asp
>
> Nicholas
>
Matt Silberstein
<jrs...@sbcglobal.net> in
<uI5Cf.20199$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
>
>"John Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
>news:dr9iqt$2r5p$3...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
>> Dale wrote:
>>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1138236533....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>> [...]
>>>> This is a super post to say the least !
>>>>
>>>> I might add: the "days" of Genesis, whatever their length, were written
>>>> to convey a short length of time - diametrically opposite of
>>>> evolutionary claims.
>>>>
>>>> Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
>>>> "Light".
>>>>
>>>> Light is CENTRAL to all scientific theories (except Darwinism - how
>>>> ironic !)
>>>>
>>>> Which creation account is true ?
>>>>
>>>> Whichever text gives light preeminence. Science has therefore confirmed
>>>> the factuality of Genesis where light is a central component.
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
>>>
>> No, but they might be carried by a swallow...
>
>Would that be a European or an African swallow?
I doubt that either Europeans or Africans can swallow a coconut.
Oh, I'm sorry, I seem to have wandered into the wrong joke.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Matt Silberstein
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> in
<148281560.000...@drn.newsguy.com> wrote:
>"On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:57:50 +0000 (UTC), in article
><dr9dre$jst$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, Bobby D. Bryant stated..."
>>
>>On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
>>> "Light".
>>
>>I don't suppose you're going to show us the etymology...
>>
>
> Not many English words - or words in Hebrew, or Aramaic,
>or Greek - trace their origins to Sanskrit. "Chukker" and
>"punch" are a couple that come to English from a modern
>Indic language, so we might count those. English does have
>many roots which go back to a "common ancestor" with
>Sanskrit, the reconstructed "Proto-Indo-European".
>
> The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
>has an appendix on the Indo-European roots of all of the
>English words in the dictionary, and the new 4th edition has
>an appendix on the Semitic roots. The Indo-European "dyeu-"
>has a meaning of "to shine, sky, heaven, god", and it is the
>source of the Latin "Jove", Greek "Zeus", Old English "Tiw".
>This seems to be about the closest to something like what
>Ray is saying.
Isn't this the same error people make when they talk of evolving from
fish/apes/etc.? It is so difficult to stop seeing humans/my culture as
the pinnacle of evolution (or design or history). The thing on the
furthest branch of the tree is the thing we have come from.
an...@sci.sci
> 1) There was no sun until the fourth day of creation.
> 2) The day and night cycle was exactly the same before and after the
> creation of the sun.
> 3) God provided a light to create that cycle, and replaced it when he
> created the sun.
> 4) The day/night cycle was driven by the rotation of the earth about
> its axis both before and after the creation of the sun.
> By inference, the light God provided before the creation of the sun was
> in the same place and of the same brightness as the sun, otherwise the
> day/night cycle would have been different. So Sarfarti is asserting
> that before the sun was created, there was a bright object in the
> centre of the solar system, and of the same size and brightness as the
> sun which was replaced by the sun on the fourth day of creation.
Nicely put, and it reminds me of those bogus "miracles" done by the
Catholic church, whereby ordinary grape juice is processed by a priest
who now claims it's actual blood, despite the fact that it still looks
and tastes exactly like grape juice. Even the suckers tricked by P.T.
Barnum wouldn't have been so stupid to believe a con like that!
> Obviously I'm not me. I'm just someone who was created yesterday who is
> physically identical to me, and has had all my memories and experience
> magically implanted so that I think I'm me when in fact I'm not me at
> all.
Yup. Once you declare that you can ignore all your senses, just say
things are different from how they seem, without any actual evidence to
show that some sort of illusion is the cause of the difference,
Omphalos and Last Thursdayism are just the same as any other denial of
evidence.
The Sun doesn't really "rise" and travel across the sky. Rather the
Earth rotates while the Sun remains relatively fixed in position
relative to the Earth. How do we know that? We work out the laws of
nature both ways, fixed-Earth orbiting-Sun, and rotating-Earth
fixed-Sun, and the math for fixed-Earth comes out absurd and useless
for any sort of planning of space flights, whereas the math for
roatating-Earth comes out reasoanble and useful for trips to the Moon
and to the other planets all working just fine as predicted. So in that
case we have evidence as to why we claim the way sunrises look is an
illusion.
Likewise if we look at diagrams:
\ / / \
>------< <------>
/ \ \ /
the middle bars look different sizes even though when we measure them
we learn they are the same size. So again we can claim an illusion
makes them look different from how they really are.
But the juice-to-blood or Genesis-light-before-sun have no such
reasonable explanation, so it would be perverse to accept those
stories, so Catholics are indeed perverse in that particular way
(juice-to-blood) and fundamentalists are indeed perverse in that other
way (light-before-Sun).
.
SeppoP
> Nicholas wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> Grendel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> an...@sci.sci wrote:
>>
>>>> The Bible is not a science book. That is not it's purpose. It's purpose
>>>> is to tell us how a perfectly holy God can have a relationship with
>>>> sinners like me and you.
>>>> However, the Bible is correct in areas it touches on, like biology,
>>>> astronomy...etc.
>>>> The Bible and science go hand and hand...no problems what so ever.
>>>> The contradictions are between evolutionary science and the Bible.
>>>> Because, the Bible and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.
>>
>> The Bible is correct on astronomy?
>
> Absolutely.
>
>> Joshua 10:12-15
>> An event astronomically impossible and one that somehow seems to have
>> escaped the attention of chroniclers, poets and historians from every
>> other civilisation on the planet.
>
> Can we explain the "long days" of Joshua and Hezekiah?
>
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c016.html
>
Wow!
Only a few miracles required! Now, if the cretins like grendel/jisty/u_nikks were just able to diminish the number of
miracles required to somewhere close to zero, they just *might* have something worthwhile (probaly not, however...).
<snip airhead crap>
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Ken Shackleton
So....where's the evidence for the Exodus? How about providing *any*
evidence that Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt.
> 2.
> The Bible's message of a loving Creator God who interacts in the
> affairs of mankind and has provided a means of salvation stands in sharp
> contrast to the pagan fertility religions of the ancient world as,
> revealed by archaeology.
Perhaps....but there is still no archaeological *evidence* to support
the existence of God.
> 3.
> Archaeological findings demonstrate that the Biblical prophets
> accurately predicted events hundreds of years before they occurred --
> something that lies beyond the capability of mere men.
>
> Should Genesis be taken literally?
Only if you have the mental capacity for complete self-delusion.
an...@sci.sci
> believe were true on a literal level to convey moral truths. But they
> were never used as Grims' Fairy Tales to frighten children. They were
> used to make you think.
He treated just about everyone as children too stupid to question his
lessons, scaring them shitless with alleged horrors of fire and
brimstone or eternal damnation etc. He allegedly destroyed plants that
displeased him, despite his requirements being impossible to satisfy so
that his punishment was for natural behavior that couldn't be changed
by the plant. Apparently the lesson was that it's impossible for anyone
to please him, so you're going to be punished anyway no matter what you
do, except if you give *everything* you own to the cult and work 24/7
for the cult then maybe you can eventually escape the most severe of
the punishments. His threats applied to adults and children equally,
although it was the parents who relayed the threats to the children
rather than he sending them directly. So how is that different from
frightening children in any significant way?
> In your case (assuming for the sake of maintaining your fiction), your
> mother told you an outright lie.
And the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels told outright lies too.
> The Story is indeed Myth.
At least we agree on that.
> The ancients noted the principle of cause and effect, but in their
> way of thinking, every cause was ultimately personal. So if the wind
> blew, someone sent the wind -- or breathed it out. ...
Yes. Now we know better, right?
> This message was subtly different from the creation stories of the people
> around them.
I take it you agree that Hebrew scriptures were nothing more than yet
another version of cultural evolution of mythology, nothing at all
revealed from a Creator himself as claimed by the Hebrews et al.
.
Tracy Hamilton
> Nicholas wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> Grendel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> an...@sci.sci wrote:
>>
>>>> The Bible is not a science book. That is not it's purpose. It's purpose
>>>> is to tell us how a perfectly holy God can have a relationship with
>>>> sinners like me and you.
>>>> However, the Bible is correct in areas it touches on, like biology,
>>>> astronomy...etc.
>>>> The Bible and science go hand and hand...no problems what so ever.
>>>> The contradictions are between evolutionary science and the Bible.
>>>> Because, the Bible and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.
>>
>> The Bible is correct on astronomy?
>
> Absolutely.
>
>> Joshua 10:12-15
>> An event astronomically impossible and one that somehow seems to have
>> escaped the attention of chroniclers, poets and historians from every
>> other civilisation on the planet.
>
> Can we explain the "long days" of Joshua and Hezekiah?
>
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c016.html
ROTFL!
That site gives no answer at all - how ironic in a
site called Christian Answers.
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
Grendel
>>The Lord [sic] Jesus used parables, stories which no one would
>>believe were true on a literal level to convey moral truths. But they
>>were never used as Grims' Fairy Tales to frighten children. They were
>>used to make you think.
>
>
> He treated just about everyone as children too stupid to question his
> lessons, scaring them shitless with alleged horrors of fire and
> brimstone or eternal damnation etc. He allegedly destroyed plants that
> displeased him, despite his requirements being impossible to satisfy so
> that his punishment was for natural behavior that couldn't be changed
> by the plant. Apparently the lesson was that it's impossible for anyone
> to please him, so you're going to be punished anyway no matter what you
> do, except if you give *everything* you own to the cult and work 24/7
> for the cult then maybe you can eventually escape the most severe of
> the punishments. His threats applied to adults and children equally,
> although it was the parents who relayed the threats to the children
> rather than he sending them directly. So how is that different from
> frightening children in any significant way?
>
>
>>In your case (assuming for the sake of maintaining your fiction), your
>>mother told you an outright lie.
>
>
> And the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels told outright lies too.
Raymond, along with all evolutionists would have to agree with you there....
>
>
>>The Story is indeed Myth.
>
>
> At least we agree on that.
It is relatively easy to achieve consensus with Raymond, just disagree
with the Bible.
>
>
>>The ancients noted the principle of cause and effect, but in their
>>way of thinking, every cause was ultimately personal. So if the wind
>>blew, someone sent the wind -- or breathed it out. ...
>
>
> Yes. Now we know better, right?
That's right, you and Raymond know better than God. Who needs all that
mythology in the Bible anyway!
>
>
>>This message was subtly different from the creation stories of the people
>>around them.
>
>
> I take it you agree that Hebrew scriptures were nothing more than yet
> another version of cultural evolution of mythology, nothing at all
> revealed from a Creator himself as claimed by the Hebrews et al.
Of course he agrees ...he's an evolutonist ain't he?
> .
>
an...@sci.sci
> as real - historical, not mythical - people in the rest of the Bible,
> often many times. For example, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah are
> referred to in 15 other books of the Bible.
> historical event, by quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in His teaching about
> divorce (Matthew 19:3-6; Mark 10:2-9), and by referring to Noah as a
> real historical person and the Flood as a real historical event, in His
> teaching about the 'coming of the Son of man' (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke
> 17:26-27).
That's part of why I am sure Jesus wasn't knowledgeable about much of
anything except his local culture (and he wasn't very good at that
either, getting himself sentenced to death). Or he was a blatant liar,
going along with what he knew to be false in order to manipulate people.
> Unless the first 11 chapters of Genesis are authentic historical events,
> the rest of the Bible is incomplete and incomprehensible as to its full
> meaning.
Correct. The Bible is a pack of lies, and from lies no truth can come.
> why does mankind need to be redeemed?
It's all quack medicine. Make up a false diagnosis, "treat" the person
to relieve that fake condition, and declare the person now cured.
> All the myths -without exception- started with the factual history
> found in Genesis.
Genesis contains or is based on no factual history whatsoever.
It's all a stupid myth, that's all.
> Most myths are a twist based on the factual history of Genesis.
No, most myths are made-up stories to cope with lack of actual
knowledge or understanding. Some are original but most, like Genesis,
are based on older stories. Cultural descent with modification.
... the historical truth of Genesis.
Ain't no such thing.
> Do rabbits chew their cud?
It depends entirely on your definition of "cud". In the strict sense of
the way cows do it, no. In the more general sense of chewing *anything*
that has been partially eaten and partially swallowed or partially
digested, regardless of whether they eat their own poop or cough up
stuff that was stuck in their throat or nasal passages or whereever the
food might have been lodged or passed prior to getting back into the
mouth to be chewed again, even I do that so what's the big deal? With
that loose definition, the ancient-Hebrew dietary laws are broken.
So the Bible is wrong regardless of whether you use the strict modern
definition or a very loose definition.
Let me ask you: Do you scoff at Grimm's Fairy Tales, or Mein Kampf, or
the Communist Manifesto, or the Pentagon Papers, or Weekend Update (on
Saturday Night LIve), or Origin of the Species, or Symbiosis in Cell
Evolution, or Peanuts (comic strip)?
.
Deadrat
"Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1138291498.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Grendel wrote:
> > Raymond Griffith wrote:
> > > On 1/25/06 3:36 PM, in article 261d4$43d7e18e$c690c02a$28...@TSOFT.COM,
> > > "an...@sci.sci" <an...@sci.sci> wrote:
> > These discoveries fall into three categories:
> > 1.
> >
> > Archaeological evidence demonstrates the historical and cultural
> > accuracy of the Bible.
>
> So....where's the evidence for the Exodus? How about providing *any*
> evidence that Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt.
There are just a few references to a people called the Hapiru, who among
other things are called slaves. Are the Hapiru the Hebrews? Who knows?
Certainly there is nothing corresponding to the story in Exodus. My own
personal belief is that the Jews were slaves in Egypt, that they did indeed
leave, and that nobody else in Egypt noticed. I imagine the following exchange
between two Egyptians I'll call Kemsa and Khenti:
Kemsa: I think the Jews have all left.
Khenti: No! Really? When?
Kemsa: Couple a months ago maybe. I'm not sure.
Khenti: Come to think of it, I haven't seen any Jews for a while.
Kemsa: You know what this means, don't you?
Khenti: Yeah. It means my accountant is gone. Who's gonna do
my taxes?
Kemsa: Never mind your taxes. Where am I going to get a decent
pastrami sandwich.
Just remember. Some events that loom large in your own eyes don't
mean much to everyone else.
<snip>
Deadrat
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Raymond E. Griffith
> > >
>
Deadrat
"Grendel" <na...@trynot.com> wrote in message news:VD7Cf.133931$6K2.8033@edtnps90...
> Nicholas wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> >>Grendel wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>an...@sci.sci wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>The Bible is not a science book. That is not it's purpose. It's purpose
> >>>is to tell us how a perfectly holy God can have a relationship with
> >>>sinners like me and you.
> >>>However, the Bible is correct in areas it touches on, like biology,
> >>>astronomy...etc.
> >>>The Bible and science go hand and hand...no problems what so ever.
> >>>The contradictions are between evolutionary science and the Bible.
> >>>Because, the Bible and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.
> >
> >
> > The Bible is correct on astronomy?
>
> Absolutely.
>
> >
> > Joshua 10:12-15
> > An event astronomically impossible and one that somehow seems to have
> > escaped the attention of chroniclers, poets and historians from every
> > other civilisation on the planet.
>
> Can we explain the "long days" of Joshua and Hezekiah?
>
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c016.html
From this link:
What really happened on that special day? As with all miracles,
it is futile to speculate with scientific theories. The details are unclear,
but we know that God could have refracted the light, or slowed the
earth's rotation, or stopped the entire universe--all with equal ease!
Yep. Goddidit. The all-purpose fundie explanation. I love the exegesis,
posted as thought it really had explanatory information. Thinking critically
is "futile." Note that "details are unclear." And I'm especially fond of the
off-hand claim that we "know" about God.
<snip>
That noise you keep hearing, Grendel? It's other people laughing near you.
Deadrat
> > Nicholas
> >
>
Stile4aly
jrs...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> "John Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
> news:dr9iqt$2r5p$3...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
> > Dale wrote:
> >> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1138236533....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> [...]
> >>> This is a super post to say the least !
> >>>
> >>> I might add: the "days" of Genesis, whatever their length, were written
> >>> to convey a short length of time - diametrically opposite of
> >>> evolutionary claims.
> >>>
> >>> Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
> >>> "Light".
> >>>
> >>> Light is CENTRAL to all scientific theories (except Darwinism - how
> >>> ironic !)
> >>>
> >>> Which creation account is true ?
> >>>
> >>> Whichever text gives light preeminence. Science has therefore confirmed
> >>> the factuality of Genesis where light is a central component.
> >>
> >> Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
> >>
> > No, but they might be carried by a swallow...
>
> Would that be a European or an African swallow?
Of course, your African swallow is non-migratory.
Deadrat
"Grendel" <na...@trynot.com> wrote in message news:a_5Cf.194887$OU5.116637@clgrps13...
> Raymond Griffith wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/25/06 4:50 PM, in article hoSBf.133755$6K2.15608@edtnps90, "Grendel"
> > <na...@trynot.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>an...@sci.sci wrote:
> >>
> > Uhh, no. Hares and rabbits do not chew cud. And there is no biological
> > information in the Bible that other ancients did not think of first.
>
> A typical bible scoffer taunt. Fortunately the truth can be found. Not
> anywhere near you though.
> Need to see how? This is not for you Raymond, just for any lurkers you
> might be leading astray.
>
> Do rabbits chew their cud?
> The Bible beats the sceptics (again) .
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
>
You must support whatever preconceived notions you have of texts
that were selected, redacted, and written in languages you don't read.
If you have to believe that the world was created in 144 hours, then
the word "day" has to be taken absolutely literally. But if you have to
believe that rabbits chew a cud, then you'll torture the words and their
translations into something that classifies rabbits and ruminants together.
Pathetic.
Deadrat
<snip>
Stile4aly
Ray Martinez wrote:
<snip>
> Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
> "Light".
Courtesy of newadvent.org:
(Anglo-Saxon God; German Gott; akin to Persian khoda; Hindu khooda).
God can variously be defined as:
the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the
Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and
worship;
the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in
polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine
worship rendered;
the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of
a god.
The root-meaning of the name (from Gothic root gheu; Sanskrit hub or
emu, "to invoke or to sacrifice to") is either "the one invoked" or
"the one sacrificed to." From different Indo-Germanic roots (div, "to
shine" or "give light"; thes in thessasthai "to implore") come the
Indo-Iranian deva, Sanskrit dyaus (gen. divas), Latin deus, Greek
theos, Irish and Gaelic dia, all of which are generic names; also Greek
Zeus (gen. Dios, Latin Jupiter (jovpater), Old Teutonic Tiu or Tiw
(surviving in Tuesday), Latin Janus, Diana, and other proper names of
pagan deities. The common name most widely used in Semitic occurs as
'el in Hebrew, 'ilu in Babylonian, 'ilah in Arabic, etc.; and though
scholars are not agreed on the point, the root-meaning most probably is
"the strong or mighty one."
So, as you can see, one possible Indo-Germanic root is "to give light"
but this is not necessarily the prehistoric root of the word "God."
Jehovah, Yahweh, or YHWH has nothing to do with light, nor does Eloi or
Elohim. Even if God did mean light and had no other ambiguous meanings
then the rest of your argument still wouldn't follow. In fact, it
would be more of an argument to worship the sun as a divinity.
Stile4aly
Deadrat
<an...@sci.sci> wrote in message news:c3c7b$43d90325$c690c02a$19...@TSOFT.COM...
> > Just to be clear, let's summarise Sarfarti's argument:
> > 1) There was no sun until the fourth day of creation.
> > 2) The day and night cycle was exactly the same before and after the
> > creation of the sun.
> > 3) God provided a light to create that cycle, and replaced it when he
> > created the sun.
> > 4) The day/night cycle was driven by the rotation of the earth about
> > its axis both before and after the creation of the sun.
> > By inference, the light God provided before the creation of the sun was
> > in the same place and of the same brightness as the sun, otherwise the
> > day/night cycle would have been different. So Sarfarti is asserting
> > that before the sun was created, there was a bright object in the
> > centre of the solar system, and of the same size and brightness as the
> > sun which was replaced by the sun on the fourth day of creation.
>
> Nicely put, and it reminds me of those bogus "miracles" done by the
> Catholic church, whereby ordinary grape juice is processed by a priest
> who now claims it's actual blood, despite the fact that it still looks
> and tastes exactly like grape juice. Even the suckers tricked by P.T.
> Barnum wouldn't have been so stupid to believe a con like that!
To be fair to the RCC, here, I believe that transubstantiation is a spiritual
transformation. After the sacrament, the "substantial" nature of the wine
contains the true presence of Jesus even though the "accidental" nature of
the wine (its physical properties) remain unchanged.
I think if you showed a priest identical before and after chemical analyses
of the sacramental wine, he would tell you that you were missing the point.
Catholics or the better informed may correct me.
Deadrat
<snip>
an...@sci.sci
> evidence for the Bible being God's Word?
Let me jump in and answer: No such discovery ever happened, in fact a
lot of discoveries have completely disproven so many different parts of
the Bible that the Bible must now be regarded as essentially a complete
fiction.
> It is the weight of a myriad of discoveries that demonstrates the
> Bible to be the Word of God.
No, you have it backwards. Christians who originally got into
archaeology had the idea that they would do as you say, discover things
which demonstrate the literal truth of the Bible. But as it turned out,
to their considerable dismay, it was the opposite, a clear and
convincing demonstration that the Bible is just a bunch of mistakes in
ancient guesswork, with just a few items halfway right by pure chance.
> Archaeological evidence demonstrates the historical and cultural
> accuracy of the Bible.
Nope, you're lying. I suppose in your particular religious denomination
"lying for Jesus" is encouraged? Tell any lie to get more money for
your particular religious demonination? I wish laws against consumer
fraud would be applied to your church. I'd like to see your church
leaders sentenced to twenty or thirty years in prison each, and ordered
to pay restitution to the victims who were suckered by your lies.
> The Bible's message of a loving Creator God who interacts in the
> affairs of mankind and has provided a means of salvation stands in
> sharp contrast to the pagan fertility religions of the ancient world
> as, revealed by archaeology.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Despite the variety in such
fictional stories/myths, none of them are any "better" in any factual
sense. If you like stories of Superman and Ka-El, or stories of
StarTrek and Captain Kirk, or stories of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill, or
stories of Gilgamesh, or stories of the Great Pumpkin, that's your
personal choice, just as you can listen to whatever kind of music you
happen to like, or masturbate with your hand or your mouth or mutually
with another fag, or have tattoos of whatever you want, or like the
Mona Lisa or Picasso or Monet, whatever you like. It's all personal
preference of fiction or art or music etc.
But live and let live! Don't try to push your particular kind of
fiction or music or art on somebody else! Just because you happen to
like the Bible better than the other myths, that's no reason for you to
try to force or coerce others to like the Bible too.
> Archaeological findings demonstrate that the Biblical prophets
> accurately predicted events hundreds of years before they occurred --
> something that lies beyond the capability of mere men.
Nope, no such evidence. Once again you are just lying.
> Should Genesis be taken literally?
As a fiction, sure. If you are reading a story of Superman, you pretty
much have ot take it literally that he can run faster than a speeding
bullet, that he's more powerful than a locomotive, that he can leap
tall buildings, or else none of the story makes any sense.
> Does God {sic] expect us to read Genesis 1-11 as a record of
> authentic historical fact, or is this simply a collection of
> parable-like stories?
There's no such person by that name, at least none that you're talking
about, so what said fictional character in your mind might expect is
pretty much nonsense. Does Superman expect you to help him defend
against kryptonite, or just watch him deal with it himself? Does the
tooth fairy expect you to put your teeth under the pollow, and get
upset when you don't, or does the tooth fairy just pay you money when
you do and not care when you don't? Does Saint Nicholas really care
whether you're naughty or nice?
.
Alan Morgan
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > "Light".
>>
>>
>> Bobby Bryant
>> Austin, Texas
>
>In the O.T. Hebrew God's name is 4 consonants: YHWH.
>
>It is through the acceptance of the German that the consonants have
>'evolved' ( I know that word gets you Darwinists hot and bothered -
>keep your mind above your waist) into JEHOVAH.
The first use of Jehovah was, I thought, by Tyndale. Although he was
influenced by Luther, this appears to have been his own invention.
>According to Dr. Scott, the name Jehovah is pictoral. Anything wanting
>or attempting to burst-forth = what Jehovah means.
I'd really like to see a source other than Dr. Scott for this.
>The N.T. was first written in Greek then many other languages. Greek
>descended from the Sanskrit.
Greek descended from Sanskrit? In what universe did this happen?
>The name "Jesus" is the Greek cognate for Joshua.
>
>Joshua evolved FROM Jehovah.
>
>The point is God named His Son after Himself.
Let me get this straight - God named his son after a name he wouldn't have
for about 1500 years? That seems like an unnecessarily complicated trick.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Grendel
>>EVIDENCE FROM THE REST OF THE BIBLE
>>The principal people mentioned in Genesis chapters 1-11 are referred to
>>as real - historical, not mythical - people in the rest of the Bible,
>>often many times. For example, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah are
>>referred to in 15 other books of the Bible.
>>The Lord [sic] Jesus Christ referred to the Creation of Adam and Eve as a real
>>historical event, by quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in His teaching about
>>divorce (Matthew 19:3-6; Mark 10:2-9), and by referring to Noah as a
>>real historical person and the Flood as a real historical event, in His
>>teaching about the 'coming of the Son of man' (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke
>>17:26-27).
>
>
> That's part of why I am sure Jesus wasn't knowledgeable about much of
> anything except his local culture (and he wasn't very good at that
> either, getting himself sentenced to death). Or he was a blatant liar,
> going along with what he knew to be false in order to manipulate people.
I am sure Raymond and most evolutionists would agree with you!
>
>
>>Unless the first 11 chapters of Genesis are authentic historical events,
>>the rest of the Bible is incomplete and incomprehensible as to its full
>>meaning.
>
>
> Correct. The Bible is a pack of lies, and from lies no truth can come.
You must have sat in on many of Raymond's Bible lessons.
>
>
>>why does mankind need to be redeemed?
>
>
> It's all quack medicine. Make up a false diagnosis, "treat" the person
> to relieve that fake condition, and declare the person now cured.
Amazing, you really are on par with Raymond.
>
>
>>All the myths -without exception- started with the factual history
>>found in Genesis.
>
>
> Genesis contains or is based on no factual history whatsoever.
> It's all a stupid myth, that's all.
Raymond could not have said it better himself.
>
>
Stile4aly
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
> > > "Light".
> >
> > I don't suppose you're going to show us the etymology...
> >
> > --
> > Bobby Bryant
> > Austin, Texas
>
> In the O.T. Hebrew God's name is 4 consonants: YHWH.
>
> It is through the acceptance of the German that the consonants have
> 'evolved' ( I know that word gets you Darwinists hot and bothered -
> keep your mind above your waist) into JEHOVAH.
>
> or attempting to burst-forth = what Jehovah means.
Notice what The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901, Volume 12, page 119,
states.
It thus becomes possible to determine with a fair degree of certainty
the historical pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, the results
agreeing with the statement of Ex. iii. 14, in which YHWH terms Himself
hyha. "I will be", a phrase which is immediately proceeded by the
fuller term "I will be that I will be," or, as in the English versions,
"I am" and "I am that I am."
Jehovah is an english transliteration of YHWH and didn't appear in a
Bible until approximately 1530
>
> The N.T. was first written in Greek then many other languages. Greek
> descended from the Sanskrit.
Greek and Sanskrit are not descendants of each other. Linguistically,
they are both descendents of an unknown Indo-European language.
>
> The name "Jesus" is the Greek cognate for Joshua.
>
> Joshua evolved FROM Jehovah.
>
> The point is God named His Son after Himself.
>
> Christ means "deliverer".
Christ is taken from a Greek word meaning "anointed." So, literally it
would be Jesus the anointed one.
>
> Hence "Jesus Christ" literally means: "Wanting to burst forth with
> Deliverance".
Nope
>
> Genesis 1 = light is central.
>
> Moses, when receiving the light of the law on Mt. Sinai placed a veil
> upon his face because it "shone". The point is that Moses had
> encountered God/light which literally affected his face.
>
> The Psalms repeatedly liken God's law with light.
>
> In Acts chapter 9 we have recorded the conversion of Saul. The text
> says a "great light from heaven" knocked Saul down and blinded him. The
> point is, again, God's presence is associated with light.
>
> Jesus said: "I am the light of the world".
>
> And of course, like Grendel has pointed out in Revelation, New
> Jerusalem will have no need of a sun because the light of God's
> presence will be its source.
>
> These are just a few examples; the point is: God's presence is
> associated WITH LIGHT.
God's presence may be associated with light, but it doesn't follow that
the word God means light. By that logic, the sun (the moon, fire,
COBE, etc) is also associated with light, and therefore is God.
>
> God's name and presence are synonymous with light. Where is any light
> in the mouth of christian Darwin ?
Well, if you stick the end of a flashlight in your mouth...
>
> Einstein sufficiently proved that time ceases to exist when travelling
> at the speed of light. God is universally agreed to be eternal -
> dwelling outside of time, hence God somehow has His Being at the speed
> of light. This explains His ability to seemingly be in two places at
> the same time from our perspective.
Time doesn't cease to exist when moving at the speed of light, time
comes to a halt for an observer moving at the speed of light. And why
would a divine being need to work within the laws of physics to being
omnipresent? Indeed, if God is moving at the speed of light, then his
mass must also be infinite.
>Of course this is just my theory based upon the aforementioned evidence.
>
> Ray
You've never let evidence stop you before. It's good to see you're
continuing that trend.
Stile4aly
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138301384.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
and ninety three times every second. right?
VoiceOfReason
To be more accurate, it ought to be called Fundy Lies.
VoiceOfReason
Joe Blow wrote:
> Dogma Discharge wrote:
> > <wf...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:21ggt19ijr2ms2b55...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>On 25 Jan 2006 16:48:53 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Light is CENTRAL to all scientific theories (except Darwinism - how
> >>>ironic !)
> >>
> >>develpment...
> >
> >
> > Yup, plants are closer to god than you have ever imagined.
>
> Especially the tallest ones.
So... redwoods are the Godliest? Or would it be the plants on the
tallest mountains?
VoiceOfReason
You hit the nail right on the head. (But I'm guessing it won't make
any difference to the poster.)
Joe Blow
I wouldn't just spill my seed on the ground when I can present
myself on the mountain top. A log up there would ge the most
Godliest of all.
--
Joe
Dana Tweedy
>> > "Light".
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bobby Bryant
>> Austin, Texas
>
> In the O.T. Hebrew God's name is 4 consonants: YHWH.
>
> It is through the acceptance of the German that the consonants have
> 'evolved' ( I know that word gets you Darwinists hot and bothered -
> keep your mind above your waist) into JEHOVAH.
"Jehovah" is coined by placing vowels into YHWH. I any case, scientists
are quite aware that language evolves over time, much like living things.
>
> According to Dr. Scott, the name Jehovah is pictoral. Anything wanting
> or attempting to burst-forth = what Jehovah means.
"Dr" Scott had a habit of making up his own meanings for words. That's not
the meaning of the term from the Hebrew.
>
> The N.T. was first written in Greek then many other languages. Greek
> descended from the Sanskrit.
What gives you that impression? Greek, as has been pointed out already is
not the ancestor of Greek. Sanskrit and Greek both descended from a common
ancestor, so to speak.
>
> The name "Jesus" is the Greek cognate for Joshua.
>
> Joshua evolved FROM Jehovah.
The name "Joshua" derives from the Hebrew Yeshua, which means "to save".
According to the Wikipedia, it does not contain the name of God, YHWH.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua
>
> The point is God named His Son after Himself.
That doesn't match the evidence. Is this more folk etymology by Scott?
>
> Christ means "deliverer".
As has been pointed out also, the Greek word "Christ" means "annointed", not
"deliverer". Apparently this is another one of Gene Scott's folk
etymologies.
>
> Hence "Jesus Christ" literally means: "Wanting to burst forth with
> Deliverance".
Wrong, as pointed out above. It means "annoited savior".
>
> Genesis 1 = light is central.
Light is mentioned. It's debatable to say it's "central".
>
> Moses, when receiving the light of the law on Mt. Sinai placed a veil
> upon his face because it "shone". The point is that Moses had
> encountered God/light which literally affected his face.
>
> The Psalms repeatedly liken God's law with light.
>
> In Acts chapter 9 we have recorded the conversion of Saul. The text
> says a "great light from heaven" knocked Saul down and blinded him. The
> point is, again, God's presence is associated with light.
>
> Jesus said: "I am the light of the world".
>
> And of course, like Grendel has pointed out in Revelation, New
> Jerusalem will have no need of a sun because the light of God's
> presence will be its source.
>
> These are just a few examples; the point is: God's presence is
> associated WITH LIGHT.
As we see with many religions.
>
> God's name and presence are synonymous with light.
That's an unsupported assertion.
> Where is any light
> in the mouth of christian Darwin ?
When he was at the dentist, probably.
Why Ray would expect Darwin's "mouth" to speak about light is anyone's
guess. Light (ie, energy from the sun) does play a part in evolution as
being the source of energy by which our biosphere operates, but it's not an
essential part of the theory. Any energy source will do to power biology.
In any case Darwin was talking about biology, not theology, and he was not
interested in supplanting God.
>
> Einstein sufficiently proved that time ceases to exist when travelling
> at the speed of light.
Add Einstein to the list of people Ray misrepresents.
> God is universally agreed to be eternal -
"universally agreed" by whom?
> dwelling outside of time, hence God somehow has His Being at the speed
> of light.
Do you mean to say that God is limited to 186,000 mps?
> This explains His ability to seemingly be in two places at
> the same time from our perspective.
Again, are you saying that God has a speed limit? Does that mean he takes
8 minutes to get to the Earth from the sun?
> Of course this is just my theory
> based upon the aforementioned evidence.
You didn't mention any evidence "afore". You made some false assertions,
repeated some false etymologies, and engaged in speculation.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> an...@sci.sci wrote:
>>>EVIDENCE FROM THE REST OF THE BIBLE
>>>The principal people mentioned in Genesis chapters 1-11 are referred to
>>>as real - historical, not mythical - people in the rest of the Bible,
>>>often many times. For example, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah are
>>>referred to in 15 other books of the Bible.
>>>The Lord [sic] Jesus Christ referred to the Creation of Adam and Eve as a
>>>real
>>>historical event, by quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in His teaching about
>>>divorce (Matthew 19:3-6; Mark 10:2-9), and by referring to Noah as a
>>>real historical person and the Flood as a real historical event, in His
>>>teaching about the 'coming of the Son of man' (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke
>>>17:26-27).
>>
>>
>> That's part of why I am sure Jesus wasn't knowledgeable about much of
>> anything except his local culture (and he wasn't very good at that
>> either, getting himself sentenced to death). Or he was a blatant liar,
>> going along with what he knew to be false in order to manipulate people.
>
> I am sure Raymond and most evolutionists would agree with you!
Then you'd be wrong. But that's something you should be used to by now.
>>
>>
>>>Unless the first 11 chapters of Genesis are authentic historical events,
>>>the rest of the Bible is incomplete and incomprehensible as to its full
>>>meaning.
>>
>>
>> Correct. The Bible is a pack of lies, and from lies no truth can come.
>
> You must have sat in on many of Raymond's Bible lessons.
Raymond didn't say anything like that.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>why does mankind need to be redeemed?
>>
>>
>> It's all quack medicine. Make up a false diagnosis, "treat" the person
>> to relieve that fake condition, and declare the person now cured.
>
> Amazing, you really are on par with Raymond.
Amazing, you are speaking falsely about someone else, in violation of the 10
commandments.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>All the myths -without exception- started with the factual history
>>>found in Genesis.
>>
>>
>> Genesis contains or is based on no factual history whatsoever.
>> It's all a stupid myth, that's all.
>
> Raymond could not have said it better himself.
Raymond didn't say anything like that.
DJT
John Wilkins
> "On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:57:50 +0000 (UTC), in article
> <dr9dre$jst$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, Bobby D. Bryant stated..."
>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
>>> "Light".
>> I don't suppose you're going to show us the etymology...
>>
>
> or Greek - trace their origins to Sanskrit. "Chukker" and
> "punch" are a couple that come to English from a modern
> Indic language, so we might count those. English does have
> many roots which go back to a "common ancestor" with
> Sanskrit, the reconstructed "Proto-Indo-European".
>
> The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
> has an appendix on the Indo-European roots of all of the
> English words in the dictionary, and the new 4th edition has
> an appendix on the Semitic roots. The Indo-European "dyeu-"
> has a meaning of "to shine, sky, heaven, god", and it is the
> source of the Latin "Jove", Greek "Zeus", Old English "Tiw".
> This seems to be about the closest to something like what
> Ray is saying.
>
>
The Sanskrit-first folk are nutters who rely on Hindu "fundamentalism" to
found their views of the originality of Sanskrit for all Indo-European languages.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
wf...@comcast.net
>
>Thank-you Raymond for a good example of a typical scoffers comments on
>creation and the Bible. For anyone interested on some biblically based
>answers WTR to creation and the Bible, go here.
>
>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-arch1.html
of course this presents the biblicall literalist point of view which
is, ironically enough...unbiblical since literalism is never mentioned
in the bible.
>
>What archaeological discovery would you point to as the most convincing
>evidence for the Bible being God's Word?
>
>Any one discovery can be explained away as coincidence, or an
>alternative interpretation can be given to disassociate it from the
>Bible. It is the weight of a myriad of discoveries that demonstrates the
>Bible to be the Word of God.
funny that evolution...certainly a discovery...shows that literalism
is wrong.
Nicholas
> Nicholas wrote:
>
>>Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Grendel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>an...@sci.sci wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The Bible is not a science book. That is not it's purpose. It's purpose
>>>>is to tell us how a perfectly holy God can have a relationship with
>>>>sinners like me and you.
>>>>However, the Bible is correct in areas it touches on, like biology,
>>>>astronomy...etc.
>>>>The Bible and science go hand and hand...no problems what so ever.
>>>>The contradictions are between evolutionary science and the Bible.
>>>>Because, the Bible and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.
>>
>>
>>The Bible is correct on astronomy?
>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>>Joshua 10:12-15
>>An event astronomically impossible and one that somehow seems to have
>>escaped the attention of chroniclers, poets and historians from every
>>other civilisation on the planet.
>
>
> Can we explain the "long days" of Joshua and Hezekiah?
>
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c016.html
An expected explanation: a miracle. The problem with this particular
miracle is its scope: it would be impossible for the entire planet not
to notice. How come there is *no* mention of such a momentus event
anywhere in any other chronicle, history (written or oral) anywhere else
on the planet?
>>Are you sure God meant days literally?
>
>
> The Bible agrees with it.
> Should Genesis be taken literally?
>
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c020.html
>
> Does God expect us to read Genesis 1-11 as a record of authentic
> historical fact, or is this simply a collection of parable-like stories?
>
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c024.html
The problem is that all the explanations are self-referential, always
refering back to the same text. There's no external confirmation.
I notice one of the links mentions the Flood, again a massive event for
which there is no physical evidence globally, although interestingly
there is evidence of more localised flood events, although not in the
Holy Land. I also wonder where all the water came from and went as if
the biblical description is true the entire planetary surface would have
had to have been covered to the height of Mount Everest. Not worked it
out but it also sounds infeasible that 40 days and nights of rain could
accomplish such a flood. And even given the Ark had some spatial anomly
allowing it to carry all the species that required saving, how did Noah
manage to get hold of those species on other continents, from China etc
without being able to float an Ark built inland.
Nicholas
John Wilkins
> TomS wrote:
>> "On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:57:50 +0000 (UTC), in article
>> <dr9dre$jst$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, Bobby D. Bryant stated..."
>>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
>>>> "Light".
>>> I don't suppose you're going to show us the etymology...
>>>
>> Not many English words - or words in Hebrew, or Aramaic,
>> or Greek - trace their origins to Sanskrit. "Chukker" and
>> "punch" are a couple that come to English from a modern
>> Indic language, so we might count those. English does have
>> many roots which go back to a "common ancestor" with
>> Sanskrit, the reconstructed "Proto-Indo-European".
>>
>> The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
>> has an appendix on the Indo-European roots of all of the
>> English words in the dictionary, and the new 4th edition has
>> an appendix on the Semitic roots. The Indo-European "dyeu-"
>> has a meaning of "to shine, sky, heaven, god", and it is the
>> source of the Latin "Jove", Greek "Zeus", Old English "Tiw".
>> This seems to be about the closest to something like what
>> Ray is saying.
>>
>>
> The Sanskrit-first folk are nutters who rely on Hindu "fundamentalism" to
> found their views of the originality of Sanskrit for all Indo-European languages.
>
<< Does this mean finding God is like spotting a "bright, shiny thing".
<< [ObRef blonde jokes]
Which means that worship boils down to "Ooh! Shiny!"???
Nicholas
It's hardly surprising that it wouldn't be noticed. According to Exodus
the population in Egypt went from 70 (Exo. 1:5) to 603550 adult men
(Num. 1:46) not including dependents and slaves in 430 years (Exo.
12:40) and Moses is Levi's grandson (and great-grandson), that's 3 or 4
generations only. And apparently the Egyptians had also been having the
new born boys killed as well as the Israelites were becoming such a big
problem. It just doesn't add up. And no mention of any such thing in the
Egyptian records. Is there any agreement yet as to when exactly, or even
during which reign, the Exodus was supposed to have happened?
And then of course this is the area with the big translation problem
with regard to the Red Sea and the Reed Sea, getting across the latter
being somewhat less miraculous than the former.
Nicholas
Bobby D. Bryant
FWIW, there are people who claim the same thing about Greek.
Nationalism/ethnicism probably causes more edit wars on Wikipedia than
religion does.
TomS
<drb41v$cho$2...@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>, Tracy Hamilton stated..."
>
>Grendel wrote:
>> Nicholas wrote:
>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>
>>>> Grendel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> an...@sci.sci wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The Bible is not a science book. That is not it's purpose. It's purpose
>>>>> is to tell us how a perfectly holy God can have a relationship with
>>>>> sinners like me and you.
>>>>> However, the Bible is correct in areas it touches on, like biology,
>>>>> astronomy...etc.
>>>>> The Bible and science go hand and hand...no problems what so ever.
>>>>> The contradictions are between evolutionary science and the Bible.
>>>>> Because, the Bible and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.
>>>
>>> The Bible is correct on astronomy?
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>>> Joshua 10:12-15
>>> An event astronomically impossible and one that somehow seems to have
>>> escaped the attention of chroniclers, poets and historians from every
>>> other civilisation on the planet.
>>
>> Can we explain the "long days" of Joshua and Hezekiah?
>>
>> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c016.html
>
>
>That site gives no answer at all - how ironic in a
>site called Christian Answers.
>
>
>Tracy P. Hamilton
>
At least it does note the the "urban legend" about the NASA
computers finding a missing day is an urban legend.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Grendel
> "Grendel" <na...@trynot.com> wrote in message
> news:Sw9Cf.133958$6K2.27704@edtnps90...
>
>>an...@sci.sci wrote:
>>
>>>>EVIDENCE FROM THE REST OF THE BIBLE
>>>>The principal people mentioned in Genesis chapters 1-11 are referred to
>>>>as real - historical, not mythical - people in the rest of the Bible,
>>>>often many times. For example, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah are
>>>>referred to in 15 other books of the Bible.
>>>>The Lord [sic] Jesus Christ referred to the Creation of Adam and Eve as a
>>>>real
>>>>historical event, by quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in His teaching about
>>>>divorce (Matthew 19:3-6; Mark 10:2-9), and by referring to Noah as a
>>>>real historical person and the Flood as a real historical event, in His
>>>>teaching about the 'coming of the Son of man' (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke
>>>>17:26-27).
>>>
>>>
>>>That's part of why I am sure Jesus wasn't knowledgeable about much of
>>>anything except his local culture (and he wasn't very good at that
>>>either, getting himself sentenced to death). Or he was a blatant liar,
>>>going along with what he knew to be false in order to manipulate people.
>>
>>I am sure Raymond and most evolutionists would agree with you!
>
>
> Then you'd be wrong. But that's something you should be used to by now.
Ahhh Mrs Griffith...nice to hear from you again. You are looking well.
Sorry to say that little Raymond has indeed been very disobedient. He
has in fact been trying to discredit the Bible again.
>
>
>>>
>>>>Unless the first 11 chapters of Genesis are authentic historical events,
>>>>the rest of the Bible is incomplete and incomprehensible as to its full
>>>>meaning.
>>>
>>>
>>>Correct. The Bible is a pack of lies, and from lies no truth can come.
>>
>>You must have sat in on many of Raymond's Bible lessons.
>
>
> Raymond didn't say anything like that.
My dear Mrs Griffith, Raymond has in fact suggested on numerous occasion
that the Bible cannot be trusted.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>why does mankind need to be redeemed?
>>>
>>>
>>>It's all quack medicine. Make up a false diagnosis, "treat" the person
>>>to relieve that fake condition, and declare the person now cured.
>>
>>Amazing, you really are on par with Raymond.
>
>
> Amazing, you are speaking falsely about someone else, in violation of the 10
> commandments.
Mrs Griffith, actually if you care to look up his previous posts, you
will see that Raymond does in fact align wit those who poo-poo what the
Bible says.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>All the myths -without exception- started with the factual history
>>>>found in Genesis.
>>>
>>>
>>>Genesis contains or is based on no factual history whatsoever.
>>>It's all a stupid myth, that's all.
>>
>>Raymond could not have said it better himself.
>
>
>
> Raymond didn't say anything like that.
Unfortunately Mrs Griffith, yes he did.
>
> DJT
>
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>My dear Mrs Griffith, Raymond has in fact suggested on numerous occasion
>that the Bible cannot be trusted.
>
Then he gets 10 out of 10 and passes the exam.
--
Bob.
Walter Bushell
Nicholas <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> An expected explanation: a miracle. The problem with this particular
> miracle is its scope: it would be impossible for the entire planet not
> to notice. How come there is *no* mention of such a momentus event
> anywhere in any other chronicle, history (written or oral) anywhere else
> on the planet?
And fifty or a hundred miles away the Moon was also stopped for another
battle. Like the holes in Jesus's palms it stinks of a latter redaction.
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
Walter Bushell
wrote:
> Let me jump in and answer: No such discovery ever happened, in fact a
> lot of discoveries have completely disproven so many different parts of
> the Bible that the Bible must now be regarded as essentially a complete
> fiction.
Ah, the story of the finding to the Torha in the second temple is
probably history, including the part about it coming as a complete
surprise to everyone. Except, of course, those who planted it, who would
of course, have to act suprized also.
Walter Bushell
"Deadrat" <ephe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In spite of the above the Church's position is that transubstantiation
causes a physical change to the substance, but not to the accidental
properties which are what we can physically determine.
This requires a certain metaphysics to make sense.
Walter Bushell
wrote:
> It's all quack medicine. Make up a false diagnosis, "treat" the person
> to relieve that fake condition, and declare the person now cured.
No, no, no. Say he has to come back for periodic maintenance. That way
you can keep sticking him for money.
VoiceOfReason
No, Ray has been explaining that most Christians don't interpret the
Bible literally, and explaining other common errors you make in your
personal interpretations.
> >>>>Unless the first 11 chapters of Genesis are authentic historical events,
> >>>>the rest of the Bible is incomplete and incomprehensible as to its full
> >>>>meaning.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Correct. The Bible is a pack of lies, and from lies no truth can come.
> >>
> >>You must have sat in on many of Raymond's Bible lessons.
> >
> >
> > Raymond didn't say anything like that.
>
> My dear Mrs Griffith, Raymond has in fact suggested on numerous occasion
> that the Bible cannot be trusted.
No, he's explained that in many cases it can't be taken literally.
Then again, didn't someone with your name state in this very thread
that the Bible is not a science book?
> >>>>why does mankind need to be redeemed?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It's all quack medicine. Make up a false diagnosis, "treat" the person
> >>>to relieve that fake condition, and declare the person now cured.
> >>
> >>Amazing, you really are on par with Raymond.
> >
> >
> > Amazing, you are speaking falsely about someone else, in violation of the 10
> > commandments.
>
> Mrs Griffith, actually if you care to look up his previous posts, you
> will see that Raymond does in fact align wit those who poo-poo what the
> Bible says.
Looking at his previous posts, I see nothing even close to that. Which
post are you referring to?
> >>>>All the myths -without exception- started with the factual history
> >>>>found in Genesis.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Genesis contains or is based on no factual history whatsoever.
> >>>It's all a stupid myth, that's all.
> >>
> >>Raymond could not have said it better himself.
> >
> >
> >
> > Raymond didn't say anything like that.
>
> Unfortunately Mrs Griffith, yes he did.
No, he said nothing even close to that.
So let's review. You tell lies about other people, display obvious
hypocrisy and show contempt for Christians with beliefs that differ
from your own. So far, the only thing you're convincing readers is
that you're a dishonest bigot. Will there be anything else?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
What they would have us believe is that the change is one that science
cannot detect. As science advances god has to hide himself in ever
smaller place - much easier to believe he just doesn't exist at all.
--
Bob.
an...@sci.sci
Disobeying a slave-owner or other tyrant is a fine quality.
> He has in fact been trying to discredit the Bible again.
That's a pretty easy task, given how flakey it is to begin with.
But I'll give him credit for showing the initiative in the face of your
terrible discouragement of all brain-use.
> Raymond has in fact suggested on numerous occasion that the Bible
> cannot be trusted.
He speaks the truth. The Bible was written by ignorant men, at a time
when there was no culture opposing shamanism or other con artistry.
> Raymond does in fact align wit those who poo-poo what the Bible says.
You have that backwards. The Bible is poo-poo, Raymond is tissue for
cleaning up some of that mess.
Caveat: I haven't seen what Raymond has done. I'm merely responding to
your false analysis of what he is stipulated to have done.
.
an...@sci.sci
If you really do believe that, you've been suckered by mumbo jumbo.
> After the sacrament, the "substantial" nature of the wine contains
> the true presence of Jesus even though the "accidental" nature of the
> wine (its physical properties) remain unchanged.
That's a metaphysical version of "he said, she said". The priest makes
up a bunch of mumbo jumbo to impress you, and you fool are impressed. I
say nothing was changed. The priest says something was changed, but
there's no way to observe that change. I say if it can't be observed
then the priest is lying to say as a fact that it really did change,
that the best he can say is that maybe it changed maybe it didn't and
there's no way to know, and you are a fool to believe what he said that
it changed.
> I think if you showed a priest identical before and after chemical
> analyses of the sacramental wine, he would tell you that you were
> missing the point.
Is the priest willing to stipulate that nothing measurable or
observable has changed? Is the priest willing to do a double-blind
experiment to test whether even the priest really knows whether the
true presence of Jesus is or is not within a paticular vial of grape
juice? If I put a sticker on the bottom of a vial, identifying it as
the one with the presence of Jesus in it, and I put a different sticker
on five other vials of grape juice that don't have the presence of
Jesus in any of them, does the presence of the sticker change whether
Jesus was present or not, or is presence of Jesus conserved across the
sticker-placing event? Can the Priest tell, without peeking at the
sticker, which vial really has the presence of Jesus in it? Or is the
priest just guessing whether the presence of Jesus is really there or
not?
Does James Randi have the power to remove the presence of Jesus which a
priest had previously installed in a vial of grape juice?
.
an...@sci.sci
Huh? That word "God" has no meaning. What does it mean to know better
than <meaningless word>?
If you're talking about one of the gods alleged in the Bible, even if
such a god might exist, we don't claim to know better than that god,
merely better than the ignorant fools who wrote the Bible, those
*humans* who didn't know any science, whereas *we* do now.
> Of course he agrees ...he's an evolutonist ain't he?
If by "evolutonist" you mean somebody who accepts that evolution
actually happens in nature, the only thing all us "evolutonists" agree
on is that one thing, that evolution indeed does happen in nature.
What makes you think we all agree about anything else?
If that's not what you mean by "evolutonist", please define the word.
According to Google Groups, that word first appeared in 1996, and has
appeared a total of only 99 times.
.
Deadrat
<an...@sci.sci> wrote in message news:3ff1c$43da60cc$c690c02a$27...@TSOFT.COM...
> > I believe that transubstantiation is a spiritual transformation.
>
> If you really do believe that, you've been suckered by mumbo jumbo.
Whoa, there, Hoss! I'm just responding to the claim that the sacrament is
some kind of failed sleight of hand. I didn't say I believed it.
> > After the sacrament, the "substantial" nature of the wine contains
> > the true presence of Jesus even though the "accidental" nature of the
> > wine (its physical properties) remain unchanged.
>
> That's a metaphysical version of "he said, she said". The priest makes
> up a bunch of mumbo jumbo to impress you, and you fool are impressed. I
> say nothing was changed. The priest says something was changed, but
> there's no way to observe that change. I say if it can't be observed
> then the priest is lying to say as a fact that it really did change,
> that the best he can say is that maybe it changed maybe it didn't and
> there's no way to know, and you are a fool to believe what he said that
> it changed.
What's got you so worked up that you have to call me names? I'm just
reporting my understanding of a religious rite. Everyone agrees that the
measurable, physical characteristics of the wine don't change. And that's
all that science cares about. Religion cares about other things even if you
don't.
> > I think if you showed a priest identical before and after chemical
> > analyses of the sacramental wine, he would tell you that you were
> > missing the point.
>
> Is the priest willing to stipulate that nothing measurable or
> observable has changed?
I think so. These things are the "accidental" properties of the wine,
and they don't change.
> Is the priest willing to do a double-blind
> experiment to test whether even the priest really knows whether the
> true presence of Jesus is or is not within a paticular vial of grape
> juice?
The priest would think you'd missed the point. Of course the priest
"knows." He knows because he believes. This isn't scientific knowledge.
> If I put a sticker on the bottom of a vial, identifying it as
> the one with the presence of Jesus in it, and I put a different sticker
> on five other vials of grape juice that don't have the presence of
> Jesus in any of them, does the presence of the sticker change whether
> Jesus was present or not, or is presence of Jesus conserved across the
> sticker-placing event? Can the Priest tell, without peeking at the
> sticker, which vial really has the presence of Jesus in it? Or is the
> priest just guessing whether the presence of Jesus is really there or
> not?
I'm out of my depth, here, but my understanding is that the presence of
Jesus invests with the performance of the sacrament, and that presence
is manifest in the spiritual effects on the worshipper.
> Does James Randi have the power to remove the presence of Jesus which a
> priest had previously installed in a vial of grape juice?
Of course not. I'd like to think that James Randi would have more insight into
this than you appear to have, and that he wouldn't consider the issue to relevant
to his investigations.
Deadrat
Grendel
>>... you and Raymond know better than God.
>
>
> Huh? That word "God" has no meaning. What does it mean to know better
> than <meaningless word>?
>
>
> If that's not what you mean by "evolutonist", please define the word.
> According to Google Groups, that word first appeared in 1996, and has
> appeared a total of only 99 times.
Don't tell me...you are a windows guy, right?
Exit out of IE..reboot your machine and call the nearest sys admin for help.
> .
>
John Drayton
Don't tell me, you failed spelling, right?
Exit out of usenet....reboot your brain and call the nearest
primary school teacher for help.
HTH
--
John Drayton
>
>
>
> > .
> >
Grendel
Wow... you windoze guys sure stik together......
Walter Bushell
wrote:
If a bug eats a consecrated wafer, does he eat Jesus?
Walter Bushell
"Deadrat" <ephe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I'm out of my depth, here, but my understanding is that the presence of
> Jesus invests with the performance of the sacrament, and that presence
> is manifest in the spiritual effects on the worshipper.
Are these measurable and if so how?
Deadrat
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-23113B....@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <JvuCf.28107$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Deadrat" <ephe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm out of my depth, here, but my understanding is that the presence of
> > Jesus invests with the performance of the sacrament, and that presence
> > is manifest in the spiritual effects on the worshipper.
>
> Are these measurable and if so how?
Of course, and you'll have to ask the spiritually affected. If you're looking
for "objective" measurement in the scientific sense (ask different measurers
and compare the results), then the priest will tell you again that you've missed
the point.
Deadrat
<snip>
Deadrat
I presume so, since the host may be desecrated.
Deadrat
<snip>
Nick Roberts
"Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> <snip>
> > Scholars have traced the name of God to the Sanskrit: His name means
> > "Light".
[SNIP]
> So, as you can see, one possible Indo-Germanic root is "to give
> light" but this is not necessarily the prehistoric root of the word
> "God." Jehovah, Yahweh, or YHWH has nothing to do with light, nor
> does Eloi or Elohim. Even if God did mean light and had no other
> ambiguous meanings then the rest of your argument still wouldn't
> follow. In fact, it would be more of an argument to worship the sun
> as a divinity.
ObWhich, not to long ago I came across a claim that the Hebrews
"caught" monotheism from Akhenaton.
It didn't strike me as terribly credible, but it's not my areas of
expertise. Any comments?
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
John Drayton
Hmmm ... your slower and thicker than what I thought.
The sequence of letters "evolutonist" - as you typed - does
indeed first appear on usenet in 1996 according to google
groups.
You'll get the same answer no matter which browser you
are using, and no matter what platform this browser is
hosted on.
On the the hand, if you type "evolutionist" you'll get a different
answer.
--
John Drayton
Walter Bushell
"Deadrat" <ephe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I prefer to think of it as not being bamboozeled.
One would think contact with the source of all good would have some
influence on people's lives, one should be able to measure it.
Deadrat
> In article <p0BCf.39721$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Deadrat" <ephe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:proto-23113B....@reader2.panix.com...
> > > In article <JvuCf.28107$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > "Deadrat" <ephe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm out of my depth, here, but my understanding is that the presence of
> > > > Jesus invests with the performance of the sacrament, and that presence
> > > > is manifest in the spiritual effects on the worshipper.
> > >
> > > Are these measurable and if so how?
> >
> > Of course, and you'll have to ask the spiritually affected. If you're
> > looking
> > for "objective" measurement in the scientific sense (ask different measurers
> > and compare the results), then the priest will tell you again that you've
> > missed
> > the point.
> >
> > Deadrat
> >
> > <snip>
>
> I prefer to think of it as not being bamboozeled.
Or even bamboozled. Of course. Up to you.
>
> One would think contact with the source of all good would have some
> influence on people's lives, one should be able to measure it.
And millions of people claim that this contact does influence their lives
and can tell you how they measure it. You seem to expect a *scientific*
measurement. That's why the priest will tell you that you're missing
the point.
Deadrat
<snip>
an...@sci.sci
> change to the substance,
And what is their definition of "physical change"?
Everybody else's definition is a change in physical properties.
Obviously they mean something else, but what exactly??
.
an...@sci.sci
> cannot detect.
You're talking as if science were a sentient being. Science is just a
methodology used by people. It's people, not science, who observe
things.
But the truth about the Catholic ritual is that no human can observe
the alleged change, and no instrument can observe the change and then
report to humans what it observed, and no instrument can record the
change and later show it to humans for analysis, etc. etc. In short
there's no way that anybody can directly or indirectly know that any
change occurred at all, or later that said change has stuck rather than
reverted back to the pre-change state. Not even the priest who claims
to have performed the rite knows whether he was successful, and no
other priest can check whether the first priest did it or not.
.
Deadrat
<an...@sci.sci> wrote in message news:1b9e7$43dbd441$c690c02a$23...@TSOFT.COM...
> > the Church's position is that transubstantiation causes a physical
> > change to the substance,
>
> And what is their definition of "physical change"?
It's a change to the "true substance," something different from
the "accidental" physically-measurable properties. As WB
pointed out this requires a certain amount of metaphysics to
understand. And that's why scientists don't argue about "true."
> Everybody else's definition is a change in physical properties.
Not everybody else. Scientists and others who adopt a strictly
naturalistic view of these things.
> Obviously they mean something else, but what exactly??
I don't think there's an "exactly" that will satisfy you.
Deadrat
Ye Old One
In other words - it is yet another religious con trick.
--
Bob.
an...@sci.sci
> > If you really do believe that, you've been suckered by mumbo jumbo.
> Whoa, there, Hoss! I'm just responding to the claim that the sacrament is
> some kind of failed sleight of hand. I didn't say I believed it.
Thanks for correcting the impression you left in this reader. So what
you really meant to say is that the Catholics claim that it's a
"spiritual transformation", although you personally don't believe it's
any transformation or change of any kind whatsoever, I presume.
So do they define what "spiritual transformation" actually means?
How can a puddle of grape juice in a drinking container have a soul?
And how can *any* soul be transformed except by simply replacing it
with another soul gotten from somewhere else to fill its place?
> Everyone agrees that the measurable, physical characteristics of the
> wine don't change.
It's not just measurable, it's observable. Nobody, not even the priest,
can observe whether a particular puddle of grape juice in a drinking
container really has the spirit of Jesus or not. he may believe that he
performed the ritual correctly, hence he has summoned the spirit of
Jesus out of the void to go into the grape juice, but how does he know
somebody wasn't blocking Jesus at that particular moment so that he
couldn't make the trip, and how does hw know that somebody hasn't
summoned the spirit of Jesus to leave that grape juice and go elsewhere
between the time the priest did the ritual and a few minutes later when
somebody drinks some of it as part of "communion"/"mass" ceremony? How
does the person drinking it know the priest didn't fake the whole
thing, or any of the other options I listed whereby it'd be just grape
juice with no spirit in it?
> And that's all that science cares about.
Science isn't a sentient/emotional being, so science can't care about anything.
What do you really mean to say there?
> These things are the "accidental" properties of the wine, and they
> don't change.
My Greek philosophy may be a bit rusty, so bear with me. I thought it
was the accidental properties that *can* change, and the essential
properties which *cannot* change (except by simply substituting one
object for another of course). The "soul" or "spirit" of something is
supposed to be the essential property, which cannot change, right?
> Of course the priest "knows." He knows because he believes.
Is his alleged knowledge based on having observed the ritual and having
carefully watched the vial of grape juice from that point forward to
make sure no anti-ritual occurred? Or is his alleged knowledge based
directly on understanding the nature of the grape juice itself whenever
he's in its presence even if he didn't observe the ritual which had
previously occurred, or he did observe it but didn't watch the vial
from that time forward? Does he sense the actual presence of Jesus's
spirit, or does he simply remember the ritual and assume it must have
taken effect and not yet been cancelled?
When somebody later drinks some of the wine, os some of the spirit of
Jesus supposed to be in the person now? Can the priest directly know
that whenever he's in the presence of such a person, or does he only
remmeber the chain of events from ritual through careful watching to
drinking? How long is some of the spirit supposed to be in the person?
What part of his body is it in, his mouth then his throat then his
stomach then his intestines then his blood then his urine then in the
latrine?
> that presence is manifest in the spiritual effects on the worshipper.
Can the priest observe these effects? Can any priest oberve them?
If one of five people get these effects, and all five are presented to
the Pope, can the Pope sense which of the five has it?
> > Does James Randi have the power to remove the presence of Jesus which a
> > priest had previously installed in a vial of grape juice?
> Of course not.
So in theory, James Randi could conduct a careful test to determine
whether there really is any change in the grape juice detectable by
priests or not, and the priests couldn't complain that James Randi
removed the spirit from the wine and use that as an excuse for failing
the test?
.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
><an...@sci.sci> wrote in message news:1b9e7$43dbd441$c690c02a$23...@TSOFT.COM...
>> > the Church's position is that transubstantiation causes a physical
>> > change to the substance,
>>
>> And what is their definition of "physical change"?
>
>It's a change to the "true substance," something different from
>the "accidental" physically-measurable properties.
The "true substance" of something can only be determined by physical
measurment.
>As WB
>pointed out this requires a certain amount of metaphysics to
>understand. And that's why scientists don't argue about "true."
Mumbo-jumbo to cover up another religious con trick.
>
>> Everybody else's definition is a change in physical properties.
>
>Not everybody else. Scientists and others who adopt a strictly
>naturalistic view of these things.
No other view makes sense.
>
>> Obviously they mean something else, but what exactly??
>
>I don't think there's an "exactly" that will satisfy you.
You could try.
>
>Deadrat
--
Bob.
an...@sci.sci
> > > Jesus invests with the performance of the sacrament, and that presence
> > > is manifest in the spiritual effects on the worshipper.
Who exactly is "the worshipper"? Do you mean:
- One specific person, such as "the President of the USA" (G.W.Bush) or
"the winning party in last week's election in Palestine" (Hamas)?
- Universally across all members of a class, such as "the zebra has
stripes" or "the gorilla is closely related to the chimpanzee"?
- Some but not all of a class, such as "the cowboy spends most of his
life out on the open range" or "the female Anopheles freeborni mosquito
passes malaria to humans"?
How, according to Catholic dogma, does said worshipper obtain the
effects, by witnessing the ritual of conjuring the spirit of Jesus
(doens't need to drink the juice afterward), or by drinking the juice
afterward (didn't need to see the ritual), or are *both* necessary in
order to get the effects? If drinking is the key factor in getting the
effects, which is the key factor that enables the effect from drinking,
that the juice actually got the spirit (even if the worshipper didn't
know it, wasn't told it, was just handed "grape juice" without any
advistory that it was special in any way), or by being told the juice
had gotten the sacrament (even if that was a lie the effects are still
obtained just by the belief that the sacrament had been obtained on
that particular juice, or are *both* necessary for the same person in
order for that person to get the benefit?
> > Are these measurable and if so how?
> Of course, and you'll have to ask the spiritually affected.
So if I just ask a bunch of random people on the street, is there a way
to tell which of them got the effects and which didn't, by the way they
answer my questions? Otherwise, what would be the value in asking??
> If you're looking for "objective" measurement in the scientific sense
> (ask different measurers and compare the results), then the priest will
> tell you again that you've missed the point.
I'd be satisfied if the person affected him/herself were the only
person able to recognize the effects, if that person can answer
questions in such a way as to demonstrate a difference from the way
non-affected people would answer the same questions.
.
an...@sci.sci
> > influence on people's lives, one should be able to measure it.
> And millions of people claim that this contact does influence their lives
> and can tell you how they measure it.
And are they willing to tell the rest of us what those measurements
are? If so, will those reported measurements correlate best with
whether they witness the ceremony which was supposed to put the spirit
of Jesus in the wine, or whether the juice they drank was in fact the
same juice that had the ceremony done to it? For example, if the priest
performs the ceremony on one container of juice, while the people
watch, and leaves another container untreated, and then some people
drink from the one that they saw treated while the others drink only
the regular juice that wasn't treated, but unbeknownst to them the two
containers are swapped so they get the opposite of what they believe
they are getting, will the effect follow the actual treated vial or the
false belief of the drinker? Is the effect based on an actual change in
the treated juice, or a placebo effect in those who believe they have
the treated juice when they really don't?
.
an...@sci.sci
> > According to Google Groups, that word first appeared in 1996, and has
> > appeared a total of only 99 times.
> Don't tell me...you are a windows guy, right?
Please define what "windows guy" means as you use it there.
Before you post your reply, look at these:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/679c6809b54dcb48>
= Message-ID: <2f70a$43c575e4$c690c02a$82...@TSOFT.COM>
<http://groups.google.com/group/wpg.general/msg/4d1b71ba5d592516>
= Message-ID: <ef980$43a5238e$c690c02a$27...@TSOFT.COM>
<http://groups.google.com/group/wpg.general/msg/4d1b71ba5d592516>
=Message-ID: <ef980$43a5238e$c690c02a$27...@TSOFT.COM>
> Exit out of IE..reboot your machine and call the nearest sys admin for help.
Um, to whom are you talking there? Not me, that's for sure.
.
Deadrat
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:sdnnt1pcti9f83sas...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:55:34 GMT, "Deadrat" <ephe...@sbcglobal.net>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >
> ><an...@sci.sci> wrote in message news:1b9e7$43dbd441$c690c02a$23...@TSOFT.COM...
> >> > the Church's position is that transubstantiation causes a physical
> >> > change to the substance,
> >>
> >> And what is their definition of "physical change"?
> >
> >It's a change to the "true substance," something different from
> >the "accidental" physically-measurable properties.
>
> The "true substance" of something can only be determined by physical
> measurment.
So you say.
>
> >As WB
> >pointed out this requires a certain amount of metaphysics to
> >understand. And that's why scientists don't argue about "true."
>
> Mumbo-jumbo to cover up another religious con trick.
I'd call it a con job, if transubstantiation made provably false claims.
But that's not the case here. No one is saying that after the sacrament,
you can use the (former) wine for transfusions.
> >
> >> Everybody else's definition is a change in physical properties.
> >
> >Not everybody else. Scientists and others who adopt a strictly
> >naturalistic view of these things.
>
> No other view makes sense.
To you. I've already said that was OK. What do you want, blood?
(Sometimes I even annoy myself.)
> >
> >> Obviously they mean something else, but what exactly??
> >
> >I don't think there's an "exactly" that will satisfy you.
>
> You could try.
I have tried. You're not buying it. The "true substance" of the
consecrated host is a spiritual one, and its effect is on the spiritual
life of the taker of communion. There is no meter is measure this.
This is a matter of belief and not scientific understanding.
Deadrat
> Bob.
>
Deadrat
<an...@sci.sci> wrote in message news:e501$43dc211a$c690c02a$12...@TSOFT.COM...
> > > One would think contact with the source of all good would have some
> > > influence on people's lives, one should be able to measure it.
> > And millions of people claim that this contact does influence their lives
> > and can tell you how they measure it.
>
> And are they willing to tell the rest of us what those measurements
> are?
I assume some would tell you. I'd guess they differ from person to person.
> If so, will those reported measurements correlate best with
> whether they witness the ceremony which was supposed to put the spirit
> of Jesus in the wine, or whether the juice they drank was in fact the
> same juice that had the ceremony done to it? For example, if the priest
> performs the ceremony on one container of juice, while the people
> watch, and leaves another container untreated, and then some people
> drink from the one that they saw treated while the others drink only
> the regular juice that wasn't treated, but unbeknownst to them the two
> containers are swapped so they get the opposite of what they believe
> they are getting, will the effect follow the actual treated vial or the
> false belief of the drinker? Is the effect based on an actual change in
> the treated juice, or a placebo effect in those who believe they have
> the treated juice when they really don't?
You're still missing the point. There aren't any double-blind, controlled
experiments that will work. This isn't a scientific issue. If that doesn't
float your boat, then don't take communion.
Deadrat
Deadrat
<an...@sci.sci> wrote in message news:185e8$43dc01a1$c690c02a$28...@TSOFT.COM...
> > > > I'm out of my depth, here, but my understanding is that the presence of
> > > > Jesus invests with the performance of the sacrament, and that presence
> > > > is manifest in the spiritual effects on the worshipper.
>
> Who exactly is "the worshipper"?
I believe that would be the person who properly takes communion.
Do you mean:
> - One specific person, such as "the President of the USA" (G.W.Bush) or
> "the winning party in last week's election in Palestine" (Hamas)?
> - Universally across all members of a class, such as "the zebra has
> stripes" or "the gorilla is closely related to the chimpanzee"?
> - Some but not all of a class, such as "the cowboy spends most of his
> life out on the open range" or "the female Anopheles freeborni mosquito
> passes malaria to humans"?
>
> How, according to Catholic dogma, does said worshipper obtain the
> effects, by witnessing the ritual of conjuring the spirit of Jesus
> (doens't need to drink the juice afterward), or by drinking the juice
> afterward (didn't need to see the ritual), or are *both* necessary in
> order to get the effects?
We're a little bit out of my depth, but I don't believe that the taker
of communion need witness the sacrament.
> If drinking is the key factor in getting the
> effects, which is the key factor that enables the effect from drinking,
> that the juice actually got the spirit (even if the worshipper didn't
> know it, wasn't told it, was just handed "grape juice" without any
> advistory that it was special in any way), or by being told the juice
> had gotten the sacrament (even if that was a lie the effects are still
> obtained just by the belief that the sacrament had been obtained on
> that particular juice, or are *both* necessary for the same person in
> order for that person to get the benefit?
>
> > > Are these measurable and if so how?
You'd have to ask the person affected. There's no meter available.
>
> > Of course, and you'll have to ask the spiritually affected.
>
> So if I just ask a bunch of random people on the street, is there a way
> to tell which of them got the effects and which didn't, by the way they
> answer my questions?
Of course, not. If you ask a bunch of random people on the street to
think of a number between one and ten, how do you verify the answers.
> Otherwise, what would be the value in asking??
You're the one asking for a way to tell. I'm not saying there's a value
in asking.
>
> > If you're looking for "objective" measurement in the scientific sense
> > (ask different measurers and compare the results), then the priest will
> > tell you again that you've missed the point.
>
> I'd be satisfied if the person affected him/herself were the only
> person able to recognize the effects, if that person can answer
> questions in such a way as to demonstrate a difference from the way
> non-affected people would answer the same questions.
And why would that satisfy you?
Deadrat