I have a number of problems reading of the bible which I cannot get answered. Can you help.
Me
reading past contributions, you might be able to clear up. I have
always been taught that the bible is inerrant. it is never wrong.
The bible says that hares and conies are unclean because they "chew
the cud" but do not part the hoof. Leviticus 11:5-6 But hares and
coneys are not ruminants and they do not "chew the cud." How can this
be? Have they changed or are there different kinds of hares and
conies?
Allso in both Leviticus 11:13-19 & Deuteronomy 14:11-18
bats are down as birds. On the same vein some birds have four feet
Leviticus 11:20-21. All the birds I know have two feet. Am I missing
something here?
The two really puzzling ones are Unicorns (Deuteronomy 33:17) and
fiery serpents (Numbers 21:6). Fiery serpents are said to have lived
in certain cities. I have always been taught that the Unicorn on the
Scottish Arms is a mythical animal and that fire breathing animals
cannot possibly exist. Anyone help here?
I would like a bit of help here. I am turning up a lot more examples
of this sort of problem. Any books I can read on this?
Dave.
neonwerk
JASON LONG
Dave, the Bible is not inerrant, nor is it the word of God. I'm in
the process of finishing up my first book entitled An Introduction to
Biblical Nonsense. However, the overview is that you are only a
Christian because the Romans accepted it and spread it thru Europe.
Thus, each generation has been conditioned to believe the Bible is
inerrant. God is almost entriely evil in his treatment of people
especially slaves and women. He allows rape and murder of children
if they don't worship him. Scientific errors, as you listed above,
are very abundant, especially concerning the shape and age of the
Earth. Noah's ark is ridiculous and predated by other flood myths.
The Tower of Babel is ridiculous, as you have no doubt thought
before. The first five books in the Bible were not written by Moses,
but by 4-5 authors around 700 BCE. There are about ten evidences of
this. Thus, these are oral traditions handed down by a few
individuals to maninpulate others. There are hundreds of
contradictions and absurdities. The exodus and conquests did not
happen. There's no evidence for the existence of Moses and certain
passages reinforce his nonexistence. Jesus may or may not have been
based on a real person. Paul, the first Christian, did not speak of
Jesus as an earthly figure. No historical references of Jesus appear
until the gospels (90CE?) and none outside the Bible until about
150CE. There were many contemporary Jewish historians who lived well
after Jesus but never wrote about him. This is a summation. The
book will be done in a couple months and will be temporarily free on
the net. I think it's a good comprehensive starting point for you.
As for bats and birds, bats are mammals in our arbitrary
classification. Personally, I don't consider this a 100% error.
Others disagree. You are correct about hares and four legged birds.
There is no evidence for unicorns, and fiery serpents are ridiculous
exaggerations. Hope this helps. I'd be glad to provide a rebuttal
for whatever justification someone offers to these points.
dustbird
> Dave, the Bible is not inerrant, nor is it the word of God.
God is almost entriely evil in his treatment of people
> especially slaves and women. He allows rape and murder of children
> if they don't worship him.
I trust that your second statement refers back to the first, and
is not
an expression of your personal faith (you're not a muslim, are you?)
I don't know what text(s) you are referring to, so I'll pick one:
Deut
2.34 JPS "At that time we captured all his [Sihon's] towns, and we
doomed
every town - men, women, and children - leaving no survivor."
There is no mention of rape here, and there is no explanation that
the
people were killed because they didn't worship God.
Denis Giron
news:<o8sdmvo8sih5rdg9u...@4ax.com>...
> God is almost entriely evil in his treatment of people
> especially slaves and women.
God certainly does come off as unsympathetic towards a number of
people in the depictions presented in the Hebrew Bible... but "evil"?
How exactly do you determine evil? I sense a hint of an appeal to
emotion in all this...
> Scientific errors, as you listed above,
> are very abundant, especially concerning the shape and age of the
> Earth.
Scientific errors in the Bible boil down to a matter of
interpretation. If one can come up with an interpretation that is
harmonious with science, then there ceases to be a contradiction. As
for the shape and age of the earth, the Bible seems to be vague on
both fronts (though a number of people have interpreted the Bible in
ways that resulted in them coming up with shapes/ages for the earth
that contradict the current scientific concensus).
> Noah's ark is ridiculous and predated by other flood myths.
"Ridiculous" is a loaded term, and being predated by other flood
legends does not help us determine the story's veracity (or lack
thereof).
> There are hundreds of contradictions and absurdities.
Hundreds of contradictions? I can think of a few possible
contradictions, but not hundreds. I bet you're abusing the word
"contradiction". For example, what happened to the money given to
Judas can be considered a possible contradiction, but what happened to
Judas (hanged vs falling head-long and bursting open) cannot be
considered a contradiction. Do you know why this is?
> The exodus and conquests did not happen.
That's one heck of a bold positive assertion. What could you possibly
be basing it on?
> There's no evidence for the existence of Moses and certain
> passages reinforce his nonexistence.
Well, I'll certainly agree with the first conjunct of this
proposition. Regarding the second part, I'm sincerely curious as to
what you have.
> Jesus may or may not have been based on a real person.
I agree 100%, but then this is a tautology, so how could I not agree?
I may or may not be a brilliant NASA trained chimp masquerading as a
human...
> Paul, the first Christian, did not speak of
> Jesus as an earthly figure.
Assuming Paul is an historical figure, and assuming Paul is the author
of the epistles to the Corinthians, the above is plainly false. 1
Corinthians 15:3-8, for example, recognized by many scholars as being
part of one of the earliest strata of the New Testament, is clearly
referring to an earthly figure. Why would Paul (again, working under
the above-mentioned assumptions) repeat this ancient tradition if he
did not believe Jesus to be an earthly figure?
-Denis Giron
neonwerk
> > God is almost entriely evil in his treatment of people
> > especially slaves and women.
DENIS
> God certainly does come off as unsympathetic towards a number of
> people in the depictions presented in the Hebrew Bible...
but "evil"?
> How exactly do you determine evil? I sense a hint of an appeal to
> emotion in all this...
JASON LONG
Evil is definitely subjective. To me, evil is: drowning children in
a flood, drowning animals in a flood, giving rules for slavery
instead of banishing it, allowing women to be bought and sold as sex
slaves, punishing children for the sins of their father, killing
people due to their ignorance, bragging about making the handicapped,
killing firstborn children for the actions of one man, sending
plagues, setting people on fire, killing people for looking in a box,
killing people due to a census, killing children for making fun of a
bald man, assisting in slaughters of millions for worshipping other
gods, ordering cruel animal sacrifices, ordering rebellious children,
homosexuals, cursers, wizards, adulterers, fornicators, purjerers,
Sabbath workers, divergent family members put to death, torturing a
man to prove a point to Satan, threatning to have family members eat
each other, threatning people with eternal hellfire for not paying
him attention, forcing women to be totally obedient to men, forcing
women to prove virginity to avoid death, allowing rape of captured
slaves, engaging in the slave trade. Now, you may not think these
acts are evil because a supreme being engages in them. To me, these
things are evil. I would feel worried if you deemed these acts not
evil.
JASON LONG
> > Scientific errors, as you listed above,
> > are very abundant, especially concerning the shape and age of the
> > Earth.
DENIS
> Scientific errors in the Bible boil down to a matter of
> interpretation. If one can come up with an interpretation that is
> harmonious with science, then there ceases to be a contradiction. As
> for the shape and age of the earth, the Bible seems to be vague on
> both fronts (though a number of people have interpreted the Bible in
> ways that resulted in them coming up with shapes/ages for the earth
> that contradict the current scientific concensus).
JASON
A contradiction does not cease because one finds a far-fetched
explanation to rectify the problem. The Bible is not vague on the
age of man, animals, plants, stars, Sun, and Moon. 6000 years.
Genesis 1, 5, and Matthew 1 provide the date back to Adam.
Furthermore, the Earth does not have a solid dome above it. The
Earth is not flat and observable from a single point. The Earth
cannot be turned upside down. The Earth does not have pillars
holding it up. The Earth shakes from the movement of plates, not
God's anger. The stars are not tiny balls of light that fall to
Earth. Genetic phenotype is controlled by DNA, not branches.
Insects do not have four legs. Populations do not explode into
millions overnight. Seizures, blindness, deafness, etc. are not
caused by demons. The Tower of Babel...don't get me started.
JASON
> > Noah's ark is ridiculous and predated by other flood myths.
DENIS
> "Ridiculous" is a loaded term, and being predated by other flood
> legends does not help us determine the story's veracity (or lack
> thereof).
JASON
Being predated by other flood myths certainly helps us determine the
veracity of Noah's flood. The stories are far too similar to be
independent. Noah is a copy of Gilgamesh or an earlier tale.
Furthermore, records from other civilizations exist undisturbed in
this era. No wooden boat over 300 feet is seaworthy. The population
could not rebound post-flood. There is no evidence of a large enough
water supply. The water would boil off from impact, lava, asteroids,
limestone formation, and whatever else is argued to be present. No
mass extinction on ocean floors. No evidence in ice layers. Coral
reefs still intact. No crater erosion. No equal mountain range
erosion. Even time-dependent fossil deposits. Algae deposition
requring sunlight. Countless animal and plant problems.
Microorganism/virus survival. Tree ring data. Common strand DNA
ancestry. These are but a few reasons why the story is "ridiculous".
JASON LONG
> > There are hundreds of contradictions and absurdities.
DENIS
> Hundreds of contradictions? I can think of a few possible
> contradictions, but not hundreds. I bet you're abusing the word
> "contradiction". For example, what happened to the money given to
> Judas can be considered a possible contradiction, but what happened
to
> Judas (hanged vs falling head-long and bursting open) cannot be
> considered a contradiction. Do you know why this is?
JASON LONG
Being hanged versus falling head-long and bursting open is a
contradiction. I'm interested to hear your "how-it-could-have-been"
scenario.
JASON LONG
> > The exodus and conquests did not happen.
DENIS
> That's one heck of a bold positive assertion. What could you
possibly
> be basing it on?
JASON LONG
Answered below.
JASON LONG
> > There's no evidence for the existence of Moses and certain
> > passages reinforce his nonexistence.
DENIS
> Well, I'll certainly agree with the first conjunct of this
> proposition. Regarding the second part, I'm sincerely curious as to
> what you have.
JASON LONG
The Pentateuch was written 800-500 BCE for a number of reasons.
There are obviously four authors and an editor. The writing styles
vary, their word choice varies, their viewpoints vary, their oral
traditions vary. Passages are recorded in duplicate and triplicate.
>From my book (work in progress):
The mention of city names and tribes yet to exist in Moses' era is
even more damning to the Moses authorship claim. Genesis 11:31 says
the Chaldees lived in the city of Ur during the time of Abraham, but
they didn't even exist as a tribe until well after the death of Moses
one thousand years later. Furthermore, they didn't become a
prominent group until the sixth century BCE. Genesis 14:14 mentions
the city of Dan, but it didn't acquire that name until it was
allegedly taken one thousand years later via conquest. As I
mentioned earlier, the list of kings proposed as an addition in the
eleventh century contained some names that didn't come to power until
well after Moses was dead. Genesis 36:31 speaks of a time before any
king reigned over Israel. This heavily implies the passage was
written well after Moses died. Kings are mentioned again in
Deuteronomy 17:17-19. Camels are used by many of the Genesis
characters, such as Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph; but, recent
archaeological evidence indicates camels weren't domesticated any
earlier than 1200 BCE. Furthermore, they weren't trained to carry
people and other heavy loads for years later. Genesis 37:25 mentions
traders with spicery, balm, and myrrh; but, these weren't the primary
trade products until the eighth century BCE. Isaac went to King
Abimelech of Gerar in Genesis 26:1, but the city didn't exist until
after Isaac's death and wouldn't have been powerful enough to require
a king until the eighth century BCE. The descendents of Esau are
called kings of Edom, but there is no record there were ever kings in
Edom until the eighth century BCE.
Exodus 13:17 details the apprehension of Moses entering the
land of the Philistines in Canaan, but they didn't occupy land in the
area until the thirteenth century BCE and didn't become sufficiently
organized to pose a threat until a few hundred years later. Moses
makes reference to "Palestine," the only known mention of that name
for hundreds of years (Exodus 15:14). In Deuteronomy 3:11, Moses
also mentions the city of Rabbath and Og's location within the
region; but, no one outside of Rabbath could have known that until it
was conquered hundreds of years later. Jacob is referred to as a
wandering Aramean, but the Aramenas didn't have contact with the
Israelites until the ninth century BCE. Some particular names
mentioned in Genesis 14 and 25 (Chedorlaomer, Kadesh, Sheba, Tema,
Nebaioth, and Adbeel) are consistent with names of people recorded by
the Assyrians as alive during the sixth through eighth centuries
BCE. Finally, many of the passages state certain aspects of their
society are still the same "unto this day" (e.g. Genesis 26:33).
This wording greatly implies the complete record was written well
after the events took place.
For this reason, the Pentateuch is not a primary source.
Exodus: food requirements couldn't be met, water requirements
couldn't be met, no archaelogical evidence for 3 million people
camping in Kadesh-barnea, no evidence of Canaan invasion, Raamses was
built by Egyptians following order of Raamses II after 1320 BCE (not
by Israelites before 1447 BCE), no record of Egyptian outposts
mentioning Exodus, 14th century Amarna and Boghazkoy letters don't
mention Israel, Mernepath Stele indicates Israel was a small group
Conquests: army way too large, Arad, Hormah, Heshbon, Dibon, Ai,
Gibeon, Hebron weren't occupied in the time of Joshua. Aroer was
occupied 200 years after conquest. Jericho was destroyed during
Moses era, not Joshua. Kings mentioned differ from Amarna letters.
For these reasons, we can certainly conclude Moses wasn't who the
Bible made him out to be.
JASON LONG
> > Jesus may or may not have been based on a real person.
DENIS
> I agree 100%, but then this is a tautology, so how could I not
agree?
> I may or may not be a brilliant NASA trained chimp masquerading as a
> human...
JASON LONG
I think it was obvious I was referring to the non-existence of a
supernatural Jesus.
JASON LONG
> > Paul, the first Christian, did not speak of
> > Jesus as an earthly figure.
DENIS
> Assuming Paul is an historical figure, and assuming Paul is the
author
> of the epistles to the Corinthians, the above is plainly false. 1
> Corinthians 15:3-8, for example, recognized by many scholars as
being
> part of one of the earliest strata of the New Testament, is clearly
> referring to an earthly figure. Why would Paul (again, working under
> the above-mentioned assumptions) repeat this ancient tradition if he
> did not believe Jesus to be an earthly figure?
JASON LONG
Dan Barker is more qualified to answer this.
DAN
Here's the hymn [I Corinthians 15:3-8]:
"Christ died for our sins
in accordance with the Scriptures,
and was buried.
"And he was raised on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures
and he appeared to Cephas," which is Peter,
"and then to the twelve."
(I thought there were only eleven there. But anyway.)
"Afterward, he appeared to more than 500 brethren, most of whom are
still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
"Afterward he appeared to James,
and then to all the missionaries." (Or to all the apostles.)
"Last of all, as to one untimely born,
he appeared also to me."
Paul is saying, "Hey, you can trust me. Jesus has appeared to me,
too, not just to the early ones."
Now, notice this. This is very simple. Very stark. We don't have any
earthquakes, we don't have any eclipses or astronomical events, we
don't have any angels, we don't have any women telling stories, we
don't have any of these fantastic embellishments. We just have a
simple recognition of what the early Christians believed. Paul is
passing this on, from what other people believed.
There's three words I want you to look at in this hymn, in this
legendary-style hymn that Paul is quoting.
The first word is the word "buried." The word there is "etaphe,"
which is from the Greek word for "taphos," which just means "burial."
It does not mean "tomb," it does not mean "sepulchre." The word for
tomb is "mnema," and sepulchre is "mnemeion," (if I pronounced it
correctly). It's just a place of burial. And if Jesus was truly
crucified by the Roman authorities, it was their practice in those
days to throw the decayed corpses of the crucified people into a
common grave.
Paul is not talking about a tomb here. He is simply talking about a
man who died. Just like when Moses died, in Deuteronomy, he was
thrown in a grave -- nobody knows where the grave was, somewhere in
Moab -- yet Moses was seen resurrected bodily from the dead. Did you
know that? But nobody assumes that therefore there must have been an
empty tomb of Moses. Remember in Matthew 17, when Peter goes up into
the mountain with Jesus, James, and John, and Jesus is transfigured,
and suddenly, who does he see? Moses and Elijah. There he is. Are we
to assume that there is an empty tomb of Moses because Peter saw
Moses up there? Of course we don't assume that.
Paul did not have a belief in an empty tomb, and he doesn't say that
he did. Now, if you think he did, you're committing a historical no-
no here. What you are doing is you're committing a kind of "Back To
The Future" kind of historical analysis. You think you know what is
in Paul's mind because you know what the later Gospel writers in the
80s and 90s, you think you know what they said about a bodily
resurrection, so you are imposing that, back in time, on to Paul's
mind because you think you know better. Paul was just kind of simple,
but you know what he really meant. But the earliest Christians didn't
mention any of these exaggerated bodily things.
The second word I want you to look at is the word "raised." He
said "he was buried. And he was raised on the third day." That's not
the word "resurrected." The word resurrected is "anastasis [noun],"
or "anistimi [verb]." The word that Paul used here for "raised" is
the word "egeiro" -- "egergetai." That is the word that is used
throughout the New Testament for the word "to wake up," to "awaken."
Remember when the disciples were on this boat and there was a storm
and Jesus was asleep down below? They were scared, and they went down
below and they woke him up? [Matthew 8:25] They used that
word "egeiro": They "woke him up." "Jesus, help, help!" And all
through the New Testament we find this word "egeiro" being used not
for a bodily resurrection, but for a spiritual awakening, or for just
waking up.
JASON LONG
Further evidences against Jesus: no Earthly mentions of Jesus in
Paul's writing, no mention from Philo (15 BCE - 50 CE) even though he
was a Jewish historian, none from Justus, none from Pliny, none from
Josephus save the obvious interpolations, 90-120 years later stories
appear about his life. They contradict and they exaggerate as the
dates progress. Jesus was entirely unoriginal considering male heir
theme, Zarathustra's logos, Horus similarities, birth year
contradiction, etc. etc.
Remember to tag your comments like I did above.
Denis Giron
>...
Pax Vobis Jason Long... sorry for the delay in response...
A number of things will be snipped from the post I am responding to
for the sake of brevity. This may remove some of the context of the
discussion. Readers who wish to see what Mr. Long wrote so as to gain
the proper context should note that his post has been archived by
Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=im4rnv8urchjqo9viivblj31ck70eovgkd%404ax.com
DENIS:
> > God certainly does come off as unsympathetic towards a number of
> > people in the depictions presented in the Hebrew Bible...
> > but "evil"? How exactly do you determine evil? I sense a hint of
> > an appeal to emotion in all this...
JASON LONG:
> Evil is definitely subjective.
DENIS:
Yes, we agree on that. However, I asked how exactly you determine
something to be "evil" since you declared many of the actions the
Bible attributes to God as being "evil". You listed numerous actions
that you consider "evil," and alluded to the possibility that I don't
consider such behaviors "evil," but you never answered the question
regarding how you determine what is "evil" and what is not.
DENIS:
> > Scientific errors in the Bible boil down to a matter of
> > interpretation. If one can come up with an interpretation that is
> > harmonious with science, then there ceases to be a contradiction. As
> > for the shape and age of the earth, the Bible seems to be vague on
> > both fronts (though a number of people have interpreted the Bible in
> > ways that resulted in them coming up with shapes/ages for the earth
> > that contradict the current scientific concensus).
JASON:
> A contradiction does not cease because one finds a far-fetched
> explanation to rectify the problem.
DENIS:
Actually, a statement from a religious text only contradicts a
scientific statement if it is impossible for both statements to be
true (that is the real definition of "contradiction" - I may not know
much, but I have a B.A. in Philosophy, and am pursuing a Masters in
mathematics, so I at least can speak on issues pertaining to logic).
If one can offer another interpretation of a proposition taken from a
religious text (be it the Bible, the Qur'an, or some other text), and
the interpretation is not in conflict with a given scientific
statement, then there is no contradiction. It does not matter if the
new alternative interpretation is "far-fetched" - it nonetheless
demonstrates that it is not necessarily the case that it is impossible
for both statements to be true.
JASON:
> The Bible is not vague on the
> age of man, animals, plants, stars, Sun, and Moon. 6000 years.
> Genesis 1, 5, and Matthew 1 provide the date back to Adam.
DENIS:
I read Genesis 1, Genesis 5, and Matthew 1, and none of it states that
the age of all that you mentioned above (essentially our entire solar
system) is 6,000 years. What you're doing is siding with a popular
INTERPRETATION of those passages (one held to this day by many
fundamentalist Christians), but this does not change the fact that no
where do those passages explicitly state that our solar system (or
universe) and everything in it is 6,000 years old.
Also, ironically, I think that if you're going to cite only three
chapters, you should replace Matthew 1 with Luke 3. If I were to go
*ONLY* by the three chapters you have listed, we have a huge gap
between Noah and Abraham, without knowing how many generations (much
less years!) there are claimed to be between these two - thus the
three chapters you mentioned above do not establish the age of our
solar system (or universe) and everything within it.
JASON:
> Furthermore, the Earth does not have a solid dome above it.
DENIS:
Indeed it does not. Does the Bible say that it does? I know certain
interpretations of the Bible have held that it might, but I'm asking
if the Bible explicitly states such.
JASON:
> The Earth is not flat and observable from a single point.
DENIS:
Here I certainly do not recall any verse that states the earth is
flat. As for it being "observable from a single point," if you were on
the moon, you could observe the earth - maybe not all of it, but you
could observe the earth itself nonetheless, thus yes, the earth is in
fact "observable from a single point."
JASON:
> The Earth cannot be turned upside down.
DENIS:
This is what you've positively asserted. Could you elaborate?
JASON:
> The Earth does not have pillars holding it up.
DENIS:
I agree 100%, but doesn't the Bible also say that the earth hangs over
nothing?
JASON:
> The Earth shakes from the movement of plates, not
> God's anger.
DENIS:
Again, you have made a positive assertion, and I would wonder what
your evidence for it is. Keep in mind that it is a conjunctive
proposition, and while there is tons of evidence for the first
conjunct, I know of none specifically for the second. Are you simply
assuming the second conjunct (i.e. that the earth does NOT shake due
to God's anger)?
JASON:
> The stars are not tiny balls of light that fall to
> Earth.
DENIS:
I agree. Thus far I have been able to roughly determine the passages I
believe you might be alluding to, but here I am drawing a blank. I am
sincerely interrested - could you elaborate?
JASON:
> Insects do not have four legs.
DENIS:
Insects certainly do not have four legs by our definition of "insect"!
JASON:
> Seizures, blindness, deafness, etc. are not
> caused by demons.
DENIS:
Another positive assertion. Do you have evidence for this, or are you
merely assuming such? Keep in mind that I have no evidence to the
contrary, but then I wasn't the one coming out my house and shouting
the odds.
JASON:
> > > Noah's ark is ridiculous and predated by other flood myths.
DENIS:
> > "Ridiculous" is a loaded term, and being predated by other flood
> > legends does not help us determine the story's veracity (or lack
> > thereof).
JASON:
> Being predated by other flood myths certainly helps us determine the
> veracity of Noah's flood. The stories are far too similar to be
> independent. Noah is a copy of Gilgamesh or an earlier tale.
DENIS:
So, since you claim that one flood story being predated by other flood
myths helps us determine the veracity of the more recent one, would
you care to explain how? I have always understood it to be a fact that
if statement A is preceded by statement B, and statements A and B are
similar, this does not determine the veracity of statement A. You seem
to think otherwise, but you have not explained why.
As for the claim of the story of Noah's flood and the Epic of
Gilgamesh being too similar for the former to be independent of the
latter, I would like you to give examples.
JASON:
> No wooden boat over 300 feet is seaworthy.
DENIS:
This I was not aware of. Could you give me some information on this? I
did a quick search of the net and found a site...
http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/shipwrecks/superior/pretoria/history.html
...that claims the existence of a wooden schooner-barge that was 338
feet long. Ironically, the barge did suffer a ship-wreck (information
at the site), but it also sailed without incident for its first five
years (according to the site anyway). Maybe the site is lying (I have
no evidence to corroborate their claims), but I wonder on what grounds
you have positively asserted the above.
As for the flood legend in the Bible itself, I see no real defeater
against interpreting it as a local flood. Note that the Hebrew word
for "world" ('olam) never appears in chapters six, seven and eight of
Genesis, rather only adamah (which can also mean soil) and arets
(which can also mean land) are employed. The only verses that make it
rough to interpret it as local are Genesis 7:19 and Genesis 8:4. With
the first verse, I would take the opening part ("v'ha-mayim gavru
me'od me'od al-ha-arets") to indicate that it still means on that
specific land, thus the later part of the verse only refers to all the
mountains on that land which are under all the heavens over that land.
So 7:19 is not that big of a problem for those who wish to interpret
it as local. As for 8:4, that is a real thorn in the side of those who
wish to interpret it as local, because if this means the Ararat in
Armenia that almost everyone thinks it means, then this would have to
be one heck of a major flood (no local flood could have waters going
over the tops of Ararat in Armenia). So, my final conclusion is only
that either "ararat" in Genesis does not refer to the Ararat in
Armenia, or Genesis 8:4 is a gross error.
JASON LONG:
> > > There are hundreds of contradictions and absurdities.
DENIS:
> > Hundreds of contradictions? I can think of a few possible
> > contradictions, but not hundreds. I bet you're abusing the word
> > "contradiction". For example, what happened to the money given to
> > Judas can be considered a possible contradiction, but what happened
> > to Judas (hanged vs falling head-long and bursting open) cannot be
> > considered a contradiction. Do you know why this is?
JASON LONG:
> Being hanged versus falling head-long and bursting open is a
> contradiction. I'm interested to hear your "how-it-could-have-been"
> scenario.
DENIS:
I speculated/assumed that you were not familiar with the real meaning
of the word "contradiction," and sure enough the above demonstrates
that you are not (no offense). Let me state that for any statements X
and Y, X and Y contradict each other if, and only if, it is IMPOSSIBLE
for both X and Y to be true. With that (which is the real definition
of "contradiction"), we can instantiate the propositions "Judas hanged
himself" and "Judas fell head-long and burst open" for X and Y,
respectively, and construct the following syllogism:
(1) The propositions "Judas hanged himself" and "Judas fell head-long
and burst open" contradict each other if, and only if, it is
IMPOSSIBLE for both the propositions "Judas hanged himself" and "Judas
fell head-long and burst open" to be true.
(2) It is NOT impossible for both the propositions "Judas hanged
himself" and "Judas fell head-long and burst open" to be true.
(3) Therefore, the propositions "Judas hanged himself" and "Judas fell
head-long and burst open" do NOT contradict each other.
This is a simple argument that is valid. We have a biconditional
proposition, negate one side of the connective, and then conclude by
negating the other side, of the following model:
(1) X = Y
(2) ~Y
(3) ~X
[take the equal sign ("=") to represent a biconditional connective,
often represented by a triple-bar]
Now all I have to do is demonstrate the truth of the second premise.
The reason it is NOT impossible for both the propositions "Judas
hanged himself" and "Judas fell head-long and burst open" to be true
is found in the fact that there are other possible (though maybe
unlikely) scenarios. For example, consider the often-cited example of
Judas hanging himself, the rope withering at a later time, the rope
snapping, and his bloated corpse falling and bursting open. There are
other scenarios as well. I am not positively asserting that any of
these scenarios represent an actual fact of the matter (I don't even
know if there was a historical Judas who killed himself), but I am
noting that however unlikely these scenarios may be, they are not
impossible, thus these two propositions do not contradict one another
(to argue otherwise is to abuse logic, or at least exhibit an
ignorance of logic).
JASON LONG:
> > > There's no evidence for the existence of Moses and certain
> > > passages reinforce his nonexistence.
DENIS:
> > Well, I'll certainly agree with the first conjunct of this
> > proposition. Regarding the second part, I'm sincerely curious as to
> > what you have.
JASON LONG:
> The Pentateuch was written 800-500 BCE for a number of reasons.
> There are obviously four authors and an editor.
DENIS:
{SIGH} Actually it is not obvious that there are four authors and an
editor. What the actual fact of the matter is, is that the literary
structure of the Pentateuch offers a large number of instances that
can be taken as evidence corroborating an ADDUCED conclusion about the
text's origins (namely that it is a work of multiple hands). That
being noted, it is a hypothesis arrived at via a process of abduction.
I agree with the conclusion, but an adduced conclusion is always
arrived at via a deductively invalid method. Thus it is not obvious
that the conclusion represents the actual fact of the matter, nor has
the conclusion been proven true. This is why it is called a
"hypothesis". You're parroting the documentary hypothesis, and I hope
that when you do such in your forthcoming book you do such with
language that is not as loaded as that above.
Now, Jason cited a long passage from his forthcoming book, which
contained a long string of positive assertions that, if true, commit
some violence against the historicity of a literal reading (or popular
interpretation) of the books of Genesis and Exodus in toto. However, I
hope Mr. Long cites evidence backing up these assertions, as some of
them seem at least suspect, such as the following:
JASON:
> Camels are used by many of the Genesis
> characters, such as Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph; but, recent
> archaeological evidence indicates camels weren't domesticated any
> earlier than 1200 BCE.
DENIS:
When Mr. Long puts out his book, I hope he has some foot-notes or
end-notes that point the reader in the direction of authoritative
sources on this subject. I state this because I have seen other
sources that put the domestication of the camel a bit further back
than what is being asserted above. For example, Frederich Eberhard
Zeuner's "A History of Domesticated Animals" puts the domestication of
the camel in the fourth millenium before the common era, and others
have placed it in the third. Of course Mr. Long referred to "recent
archaeological evidence" as supporting his claim, while the sources I
am referring to date to the 60s and 70s. As I understand it, the
precise date of many domesticated animals (including the camel) is a
matter of some controversy. Food for thought...
JASON LONG:
> > > Jesus may or may not have been based on a real person.
DENIS:
> > I agree 100%, but then this is a tautology, so how could I not
> > agree? I may or may not be a brilliant NASA trained chimp
> > masquerading as a human...
JASON LONG:
> I think it was obvious I was referring to the non-existence of a
> supernatural Jesus.
DENIS:
It was not obvious to me, and regardless of who it was referring to
(you could have put any name in place of Jesus, whether it be Santa
Claus or Muhammad), the statement is still true.
JASON LONG:
> > > Paul, the first Christian, did not speak of
> > > Jesus as an earthly figure.
DENIS:
> > Assuming Paul is an historical figure, and assuming Paul is the
> > author of the epistles to the Corinthians, the above is plainly
> > false. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, for example, recognized by many
> > scholars as being part of one of the earliest strata of the New
> > Testament, is clearly
> > referring to an earthly figure. Why would Paul (again, working under
> > the above-mentioned assumptions) repeat this ancient tradition if he
> > did not believe Jesus to be an earthly figure?
JASON LONG:
> Dan Barker is more qualified to answer this.
>
> DAN
> Here's the hymn [I Corinthians 15:3-8]:
>
> [...text snipped for brevity...]
>
> Paul is saying, "Hey, you can trust me. Jesus has appeared to me,
> too, not just to the early ones."
DENIS:
Fine. The issue here is that Paul is making reference to an earthly
figure (this is noted by the fact that Paul positively asserts that he
was burried).
DAN BARKER [via JASON]:
> Now, notice this. This is very simple. Very stark. We don't have any
> earthquakes, we don't have any eclipses or astronomical events, we
> don't have any angels, we don't have any women telling stories, we
> don't have any of these fantastic embellishments. We just have a
> simple recognition of what the early Christians believed. Paul is
> passing this on, from what other people believed.
DENIS:
Right, and apparently Paul believed this too (irrespective of whether
it was true or not), and it is certainly referring to an earthly
figure, thus Jason's assertion that "Paul, the first Christian, did
not speak of Jesus as an earthly figure" is false. This is
demonstrated by the fact that even Dan Barker (whom Jason was quoting)
stated that "Paul is not talking about a tomb here. He is simply
talking about a man who died." Cool, that would be an earthly figure.
But we get the same (incorrect) positive assertion again:
JASON LONG:
> Further evidences against Jesus: no Earthly mentions of Jesus in
> Paul's writing,
DENIS:
As was noted above, this is false.
JASON:
> no mention from Philo (15 BCE - 50 CE) even though he
> was a Jewish historian,
DENIS:
I bet there were hundreds of thousands of Jews not mentioned by Philo
(or Justus or Pliny). This does not in anyway negate their being
historical characters. True story: I know of a man named Lawrence who
lives in a park near my house - he claims to be a prophet and claims
to be persecuted by the cops (because they force him to leave the park
when they catch him sleeping in it after it has been closed) as well
as the government at large. I have seen only one example of text about
him (in a book about the homeless on Manhattan's Lower East Side), and
he may very well die without any of the thousands of major historians
in New York covering his life. This does not bring his existence into
question. It is odd that you would appeal to this sort of ex silentio
illogic.
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org
Denis Giron
Pax Vobis Jason Long... sorry for the delay in response...
A number of things will be snipped from the post I am responding to
for the sake of brevity. This may remove some of the context of the
discussion. Readers who wish to see what Mr. Long wrote so as to gain
the proper context should note that his post has been archived by
Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=im4rnv8urchjqo9viivblj31ck70eovgkd%404ax.com
DENIS:
> > God certainly does come off as unsympathetic towards a number of
> > people in the depictions presented in the Hebrew Bible...
> > but "evil"? How exactly do you determine evil? I sense a hint of
> > an appeal to emotion in all this...
JASON LONG:
> Evil is definitely subjective.
DENIS:
Yes, we agree on that. However, I asked how exactly you determine
something to be "evil" since you declared many of the actions the
Bible attributes to God as being "evil". You listed numerous actions
that you consider "evil," and alluded to the possibility that I don't
consider such behaviors "evil," but you never answered the question
regarding how you determine what is "evil" and what is not.
DENIS:
> > Scientific errors in the Bible boil down to a matter of
> > interpretation. If one can come up with an interpretation that is
> > harmonious with science, then there ceases to be a contradiction. As
> > for the shape and age of the earth, the Bible seems to be vague on
> > both fronts (though a number of people have interpreted the Bible in
> > ways that resulted in them coming up with shapes/ages for the earth
> > that contradict the current scientific concensus).
JASON:
> A contradiction does not cease because one finds a far-fetched
> explanation to rectify the problem.
DENIS:
Actually, a statement from a religious text only contradicts a
scientific statement if it is impossible for both statements to be
true (that is the real definition of "contradiction" - I may not know
much, but I have a B.A. in Philosophy, and am pursuing a Masters in
mathematics, so I at least can speak on issues pertaining to logic).
If one can offer another interpretation of a proposition taken from a
religious text (be it the Bible, the Qur'an, or some other text), and
the interpretation is not in conflict with a given scientific
statement, then there is no contradiction. It does not matter if the
new alternative interpretation is "far-fetched" - it nonetheless
demonstrates that it is not necessarily the case that it is impossible
for both statements to be true.
JASON:
> The Bible is not vague on the
> age of man, animals, plants, stars, Sun, and Moon. 6000 years.
> Genesis 1, 5, and Matthew 1 provide the date back to Adam.
DENIS:
I read Genesis 1, Genesis 5, and Matthew 1, and none of it states that
the age of all that you mentioned above (essentially our entire solar
system) is 6,000 years. What you're doing is siding with a popular
INTERPRETATION of those passages (one held to this day by many
fundamentalist Christians), but this does not change the fact that no
where do those passages explicitly state that our solar system (or
universe) and everything in it is 6,000 years old.
Also, ironically, I think that if you're going to cite only three
chapters, you should replace Matthew 1 with Luke 3. If I were to go
*ONLY* by the three chapters you have listed, we have a huge gap
between Noah and Abraham, without knowing how many generations (much
less years!) there are claimed to be between these two - thus the
three chapters you mentioned above do not establish the age of our
solar system (or universe) and everything within it.
JASON:
> Furthermore, the Earth does not have a solid dome above it.
DENIS:
Indeed it does not. Does the Bible say that it does? I know certain
interpretations of the Bible have held that it might, but I'm asking
if the Bible explicitly states such.
JASON:
> The Earth is not flat and observable from a single point.
DENIS:
Here I certainly do not recall any verse that states the earth is
flat. As for it being "observable from a single point," if you were on
the moon, you could observe the earth - maybe not all of it, but you
could observe the earth itself nonetheless, thus yes, the earth is in
fact "observable from a single point."
JASON:
> The Earth cannot be turned upside down.
DENIS:
This is what you've positively asserted. Could you elaborate?
JASON:
> The Earth does not have pillars holding it up.
DENIS:
I agree 100%, but doesn't the Bible also say that the earth hangs over
nothing?
JASON:
> The Earth shakes from the movement of plates, not
> God's anger.
DENIS:
Again, you have made a positive assertion, and I would wonder what
your evidence for it is. Keep in mind that it is a conjunctive
proposition, and while there is tons of evidence for the first
conjunct, I know of none specifically for the second. Are you simply
assuming the second conjunct (i.e. that the earth does NOT shake due
to God's anger)?
JASON:
> The stars are not tiny balls of light that fall to
> Earth.
DENIS:
I agree. Thus far I have been able to roughly determine the passages I
believe you might be alluding to, but here I am drawing a blank. I am
sincerely interrested - could you elaborate?
JASON:
> Insects do not have four legs.
DENIS:
Insects certainly do not have four legs by our definition of "insect"!
JASON:
> Seizures, blindness, deafness, etc. are not
> caused by demons.
DENIS:
Another positive assertion. Do you have evidence for this, or are you
merely assuming such? Keep in mind that I have no evidence to the
contrary, but then I wasn't the one coming out my house and shouting
the odds.
JASON:
> > > Noah's ark is ridiculous and predated by other flood myths.
DENIS:
> > "Ridiculous" is a loaded term, and being predated by other flood
> > legends does not help us determine the story's veracity (or lack
> > thereof).
JASON:
> Being predated by other flood myths certainly helps us determine the
> veracity of Noah's flood. The stories are far too similar to be
> independent. Noah is a copy of Gilgamesh or an earlier tale.
DENIS:
So, since you claim that one flood story being predated by other flood
myths helps us determine the veracity of the more recent one, would
you care to explain how? I have always understood it to be a fact that
if statement A is preceded by statement B, and statements A and B are
similar, this does not determine the veracity of statement A. You seem
to think otherwise, but you have not explained why.
As for the claim of the story of Noah's flood and the Epic of
Gilgamesh being too similar for the former to be independent of the
latter, I would like you to give examples.
JASON:
> No wooden boat over 300 feet is seaworthy.
DENIS:
http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/shipwrecks/superior/pretoria/history.html
JASON LONG:
> > > There are hundreds of contradictions and absurdities.
DENIS:
> > Hundreds of contradictions? I can think of a few possible
> > contradictions, but not hundreds. I bet you're abusing the word
> > "contradiction". For example, what happened to the money given to
> > Judas can be considered a possible contradiction, but what happened
> > to Judas (hanged vs falling head-long and bursting open) cannot be
> > considered a contradiction. Do you know why this is?
JASON LONG:
> Being hanged versus falling head-long and bursting open is a
> contradiction. I'm interested to hear your "how-it-could-have-been"
> scenario.
DENIS:
JASON LONG:
> > > There's no evidence for the existence of Moses and certain
> > > passages reinforce his nonexistence.
DENIS:
> > Well, I'll certainly agree with the first conjunct of this
> > proposition. Regarding the second part, I'm sincerely curious as to
> > what you have.
JASON LONG:
> The Pentateuch was written 800-500 BCE for a number of reasons.
> There are obviously four authors and an editor.
DENIS:
{SIGH} Actually it is not obvious that there are four authors and an
editor. What the actual fact of the matter is, is that the literary
structure of the Pentateuch offers a large number of instances that
can be taken as evidence corroborating an ADDUCED conclusion about the
text's origins (namely that it is a work of multiple hands). That
being noted, it is a hypothesis arrived at via a process of abduction.
I agree with the conclusion, but an adduced conclusion is always
arrived at via a deductively invalid method. Thus it is not obvious
that the conclusion represents the actual fact of the matter, nor has
the conclusion been proven true. This is why it is called a
"hypothesis". You're parroting the documentary hypothesis, and I hope
that when you do such in your forthcoming book you do such with
language that is not as loaded as that above.
Now, Jason cited a long passage from his forthcoming book, which
contained a long string of positive assertions that, if true, commit
some violence against the historicity of a literal reading (or popular
interpretation) of the books of Genesis and Exodus in toto. However, I
hope Mr. Long cites evidence backing up these assertions, as some of
them seem at least suspect, such as the following:
JASON:
> Camels are used by many of the Genesis
> characters, such as Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph; but, recent
> archaeological evidence indicates camels weren't domesticated any
> earlier than 1200 BCE.
DENIS:
When Mr. Long puts out his book, I hope he has some foot-notes or
end-notes that point the reader in the direction of authoritative
sources on this subject. I state this because I have seen other
sources that put the domestication of the camel a bit further back
than what is being asserted above. For example, Frederich Eberhard
Zeuner's "A History of Domesticated Animals" puts the domestication of
the camel in the fourth millenium before the common era, and others
have placed it in the third. Of course Mr. Long referred to "recent
archaeological evidence" as supporting his claim, while the sources I
am referring to date to the 60s and 70s. As I understand it, the
precise date of many domesticated animals (including the camel) is a
matter of some controversy. Food for thought...
JASON LONG:
> > > Jesus may or may not have been based on a real person.
DENIS:
> > I agree 100%, but then this is a tautology, so how could I not
> > agree? I may or may not be a brilliant NASA trained chimp
> > masquerading as a human...
JASON LONG:
> I think it was obvious I was referring to the non-existence of a
> supernatural Jesus.
DENIS:
It was not obvious to me, and regardless of who it was referring to
(you could have put any name in place of Jesus, whether it be Santa
Claus or Muhammad), the statement is still true.
JASON LONG:
> > > Paul, the first Christian, did not speak of
> > > Jesus as an earthly figure.
DENIS:
> > Assuming Paul is an historical figure, and assuming Paul is the
> > author of the epistles to the Corinthians, the above is plainly
> > false. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, for example, recognized by many
> > scholars as being part of one of the earliest strata of the New
> > Testament, is clearly
> > referring to an earthly figure. Why would Paul (again, working under
> > the above-mentioned assumptions) repeat this ancient tradition if he
> > did not believe Jesus to be an earthly figure?
JASON LONG:
> Dan Barker is more qualified to answer this.
>
> DAN
> Here's the hymn [I Corinthians 15:3-8]:
>
> [...text snipped for brevity...]
>
> Paul is saying, "Hey, you can trust me. Jesus has appeared to me,
> too, not just to the early ones."
DENIS:
Fine. The issue here is that Paul is making reference to an earthly
figure (this is noted by the fact that Paul positively asserts that he
was burried).
DAN BARKER [via JASON]:
> Now, notice this. This is very simple. Very stark. We don't have any
> earthquakes, we don't have any eclipses or astronomical events, we
> don't have any angels, we don't have any women telling stories, we
> don't have any of these fantastic embellishments. We just have a
> simple recognition of what the early Christians believed. Paul is
> passing this on, from what other people believed.
DENIS:
Right, and apparently Paul believed this too (irrespective of whether
it was true or not), and it is certainly referring to an earthly
figure, thus Jason's assertion that "Paul, the first Christian, did
not speak of Jesus as an earthly figure" is false. This is
demonstrated by the fact that even Dan Barker (whom Jason was quoting)
stated that "Paul is not talking about a tomb here. He is simply
talking about a man who died." Cool, that would be an earthly figure.
But we get the same (incorrect) positive assertion again:
JASON LONG:
> Further evidences against Jesus: no Earthly mentions of Jesus in
> Paul's writing,
DENIS:
As was noted above, this is false.
JASON:
> no mention from Philo (15 BCE - 50 CE) even though he
> was a Jewish historian,
DENIS:
neonwerk
> DENIS:
> > > God certainly does come off as unsympathetic towards a number of
> > > people in the depictions presented in the Hebrew Bible...
> > > but "evil"? How exactly do you determine evil? I sense a hint of
> > > an appeal to emotion in all this...
>
> JASON LONG:
> > Evil is definitely subjective.
>
> DENIS:
> Yes, we agree on that. However, I asked how exactly you determine
> something to be "evil" since you declared many of the actions the
> Bible attributes to God as being "evil". You listed numerous actions
> that you consider "evil," and alluded to the possibility that I
don't
> consider such behaviors "evil," but you never answered the question
> regarding how you determine what is "evil" and what is not.
JASON LONG:
You snipped the part where you questioned God being evil. Why don't
you come out and specifically state whether or not you think God is
evil? Evil is subjective. To me, those things I mentioned are
evil. To everyone else, those things I mentioned are evil. I
personally determine this by the amount of unnecessary harm God
dishes out.
JASON LONG
What you're essentially saying is so long as a hypothetical scenario,
no matter how far-fetched, can be thought up, the contradiction is
removed. If I say a book is pure blue and someone else says it's
pure red, that's a contradiction. God could have created a filter in
a person's eyes to make him see red. That's a possible explanation.
Do you believe those two statements are not contradictory?
>
> JASON:
> > The Bible is not vague on the
> > age of man, animals, plants, stars, Sun, and Moon. 6000 years.
> > Genesis 1, 5, and Matthew 1 provide the date back to Adam.
>
> DENIS:
> I read Genesis 1, Genesis 5, and Matthew 1, and none of it states
that
> the age of all that you mentioned above (essentially our entire
solar
> system) is 6,000 years. What you're doing is siding with a popular
> INTERPRETATION of those passages (one held to this day by many
> fundamentalist Christians), but this does not change the fact that
no
> where do those passages explicitly state that our solar system (or
> universe) and everything in it is 6,000 years old.
JASON LONG
The Bible does not explicitly state such, no. However, the Bible
gives us all the information we need to arrive at that date. If I
say my first child was a boy, my last child was a girl, and I had no
children in between, it can reasonally be concluded I have two
children although I never explicitly state such. This is what the
Bible does for the age of the Earth.
>
> Also, ironically, I think that if you're going to cite only three
> chapters, you should replace Matthew 1 with Luke 3. If I were to go
> *ONLY* by the three chapters you have listed, we have a huge gap
> between Noah and Abraham, without knowing how many generations (much
> less years!) there are claimed to be between these two - thus the
> three chapters you mentioned above do not establish the age of our
> solar system (or universe) and everything within it.
JASON LONG
I never claimed an exact date. I also erred by omitting Genesis 11
which contains the account of Shem to Abraham. Now you have the
information you need. My apologies.
>
> JASON:
> > Furthermore, the Earth does not have a solid dome above it.
>
> DENIS:
> Indeed it does not. Does the Bible say that it does? I know certain
> interpretations of the Bible have held that it might, but I'm asking
> if the Bible explicitly states such.
JASON LONG
The expansion in the first chapter of Genesis, Hebrew word r'akia I
believe, is a solid firmament. Other than that, I don't know of any
explicit statements off the top of my head.
>
> JASON:
> > The Earth is not flat and observable from a single point.
>
> DENIS:
> Here I certainly do not recall any verse that states the earth is
> flat. As for it being "observable from a single point," if you were
on
> the moon, you could observe the earth - maybe not all of it, but you
> could observe the earth itself nonetheless, thus yes, the earth is
in
> fact "observable from a single point."
JASON LONG
Since you want to nit pick, let me clarify. The entire Earth is not
observable from a single point. The tall tree, the kingdoms of the
Earth, etc cannot be observed from a single point regardless of
location. You're really just nit picking instead of dealing with the
issue. Add on, the four corners of the Earth, circle of the Earth
statements etc. The belief is heavily implied and obvious.
>
> JASON:
> > The Earth cannot be turned upside down.
>
> DENIS:
> This is what you've positively asserted. Could you elaborate?
JASON LONG
I was giving the original author an extremely brief synopsis, not
debating every single point to the Bible. There is no upside down to
the Earth.
>
> JASON:
> > The Earth does not have pillars holding it up.
>
> DENIS:
> I agree 100%, but doesn't the Bible also say that the earth hangs
over
> nothing?
JASON LONG
But doesn't it say pillars are holding the Earth up?
>
> JASON:
> > The Earth shakes from the movement of plates, not
> > God's anger.
>
> DENIS:
> Again, you have made a positive assertion, and I would wonder what
> your evidence for it is. Keep in mind that it is a conjunctive
> proposition, and while there is tons of evidence for the first
> conjunct, I know of none specifically for the second. Are you simply
> assuming the second conjunct (i.e. that the earth does NOT shake due
> to God's anger)?
JASON LONG
God's anger was the ancient superstitous justification for
earthquakes. There's another positive assertion for you. The
original positive assertion was made in the Bible. I was making a
dispute with that statement. I'm not debating everything point by
point, so I'm sorry to disappoint you.
>
> JASON:
> > The stars are not tiny balls of light that fall to
> > Earth.
>
> DENIS:
> I agree. Thus far I have been able to roughly determine the
passages I
> believe you might be alluding to, but here I am drawing a blank. I
am
> sincerely interrested - could you elaborate?
JASON LONG
from the work in progress:
The ancient belief stars were small specks of light is proclaimed
throughout the Bible. After the creation and God telling Abraham
several times his people would be as numerous as the stars (which is
impossible, yet it's claimed to have been fulfilled in Hebrews
11:12), the next clear reference to size and position of stars is the
book of Job. "Behold the height of the stars, how high they are!"
(22:12). Stars are not "high". They are distant. The author also
believed stars were at the top of the sky. Psalms says God tells the
number of stars and calls them all by their name (147:4). That's
quite an impressive accomplishment considering scientists estimate
there could be as many as 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the known
universe.
Daniel speaks of a vision he had concerning a giant goat's
horn knocking the stars down to the ground where the goat "stamped
upon them" (Daniel 8:8-9). Passing comment on the vision, we know
Daniel thought the stars were tiny lights above the Earth. How could
someone divinely inspired write something preposterous like that?
Nahum speaks of a number of merchants being above that stars of
heaven (whether referring to location or number, either would be
wrong) (Nahum 3:16). In the New Testament, Matthew and Mark both
record Jesus talking about a time where the stars shall "fall from
heaven" (Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:25). Jesus wasn't immune to
scientific ignorance either.
Revelation was the vision of another man, John, who was
supposedly inspired by God; but he, too, thought stars with tiny
lights above the earth. In his hallucination, he sees Jesus holding
seven stars in his right hand (1:16). John may have seen what looked
like seven stars, but this is not what the text clearly states.
Thus, he was in error. In addition, John mentions three other
instances where the stars fall to the Earth. He claims "the stars of
heaven fell unto the earth" in his dream and compares it to a fig
tree shaking off its leaves (6:13). That's a very precise and clear
analogy. He also describes a great star falling into "the third part
of the rivers, and upon the fountains of the waters" (8:10). Even if
a star was to "fall" to the earth, it would be a hundred times larger
than our planet. Finally, he sees the devil, or a dragon, swing its
tail around and knock a third of the stars in the sky down to the
ground (12:4). There's no need to discuss how enormous that tail
would have to be. After all, it was only a dream.
>
> JASON:
> > Insects do not have four legs.
>
> DENIS:
> Insects certainly do not have four legs by our definition
of "insect"!
>
> JASON:
> > Seizures, blindness, deafness, etc. are not
> > caused by demons.
>
> DENIS:
> Another positive assertion. Do you have evidence for this, or are
you
> merely assuming such? Keep in mind that I have no evidence to the
> contrary, but then I wasn't the one coming out my house and shouting
> the odds.
JASON LONG:
Since you want to nit pick, there is no reliable reason we have that
seizures are caused by demons. However, we do have an understanding
people thousands of years ago do not. Seizures are caused by a
neurochemical imbalance or trauma to the brain. Do you like that
better? If I was to adquately defend all the positive assertions I
made in that original post, I would have to post the entire book.
>
> JASON:
> > > > Noah's ark is ridiculous and predated by other flood myths.
>
> DENIS:
> > > "Ridiculous" is a loaded term, and being predated by other flood
> > > legends does not help us determine the story's veracity (or lack
> > > thereof).
>
> JASON:
> > Being predated by other flood myths certainly helps us determine
the
> > veracity of Noah's flood. The stories are far too similar to be
> > independent. Noah is a copy of Gilgamesh or an earlier tale.
>
> DENIS:
> So, since you claim that one flood story being predated by other
flood
> myths helps us determine the veracity of the more recent one, would
> you care to explain how? I have always understood it to be a fact
that
> if statement A is preceded by statement B, and statements A and B
are
> similar, this does not determine the veracity of statement A. You
seem
> to think otherwise, but you have not explained why.
JASON LONG
That alone does not. When we have overwhelming evidence to the
contrary for such an event, we can further look at an older myth to
determine its origin.
DENIS:
> As for the claim of the story of Noah's flood and the Epic of
> Gilgamesh being too similar for the former to be independent of the
> latter, I would like you to give examples.
JASON LONG
work in progress:
The flood in Genesis is predated by the extremely similar Epic of
Gilgamesh (and possibly a couple of others) in the Sumerian legend by
at least a few hundred years. The similarities between the two tales
are remarkable and cannot be written off in good conscience as
coincidence. In the epic (from tablet 11), Utnapishtim receives
instructions including exact dimensions on how to build a ship to
avoid an imminent flood (as does Noah =96 Genesis 6:14-16), takes
animals and his family aboard to preserve their lives (as does Noah
=96
Genesis 6:19-7:1), lands the ship on a mountain after the flood (as
does Noah =96 Genesis 8:4), releases a dove and raven in order to find
dry land (as does Noah =96 Genesis 8:6-11), and burns a sacrifice for
the gods who find its odor pleasing (as does Noah =96 Genesis 8:20-
21). There are also a few more minor parallels between the stories,
so I would encourage you to read the short epic in its entirety to
fully appreciate the similarities between the two stories. Since the
Gilgamesh epic is the earlier version, we can only conclude the
authors of Genesis copied Gilgamesh or an even earlier flood legend.
>
> JASON:
> > No wooden boat over 300 feet is seaworthy.
>
> DENIS:
> This I was not aware of. Could you give me some information on
this? I
> did a quick search of the net and found a site...
>
>
>
http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/shipwrecks/superior/pretoria/history.html
>
> ...that claims the existence of a wooden schooner-barge that was
338
> feet long. Ironically, the barge did suffer a ship-wreck
(information
> at the site), but it also sailed without incident for its first five
> years (according to the site anyway). Maybe the site is lying (I
have
> no evidence to corroborate their claims), but I wonder on what
grounds
> you have positively asserted the above.
JASON LONG
Boats over 300 feet aren't seaworthy without iron bracings. I don't
have time to do homework for you. Keep looking at non-religious
sites and you will find this fact.
DENIS:
JASON LONG
Ararat was a country, so it doesn't refer to the singular mountain.
However, the boat could not have made it that far without water
seeking its own level and going to the ocean. It was a global
flood. How else would the entire population be killed? How else
could mountains be covered? You know the answer to this.
JASON LONG
An omnipotent God could render any situation possible, therefore
there are no contradictions in the Bible.
>
> (2) It is NOT impossible for both the propositions "Judas hanged
> himself" and "Judas fell head-long and burst open" to be true.
>
> (3) Therefore, the propositions "Judas hanged himself" and "Judas
fell
> head-long and burst open" do NOT contradict each other.
>
> This is a simple argument that is valid. We have a biconditional
> proposition, negate one side of the connective, and then conclude by
> negating the other side, of the following model:
>
> (1) X =3D Y
> (2) ~Y
> (3) ~X
>
> [take the equal sign ("=3D") to represent a biconditional connective,
> often represented by a triple-bar]
>
> Now all I have to do is demonstrate the truth of the second premise.
> The reason it is NOT impossible for both the propositions "Judas
> hanged himself" and "Judas fell head-long and burst open" to be true
> is found in the fact that there are other possible (though maybe
> unlikely) scenarios. For example, consider the often-cited example
of
> Judas hanging himself, the rope withering at a later time, the rope
> snapping, and his bloated corpse falling and bursting open. There
are
> other scenarios as well. I am not positively asserting that any of
> these scenarios represent an actual fact of the matter (I don't even
> know if there was a historical Judas who killed himself), but I am
> noting that however unlikely these scenarios may be, they are not
> impossible, thus these two propositions do not contradict one
another
> (to argue otherwise is to abuse logic, or at least exhibit an
> ignorance of logic).
JASON LONG
I'm already familar with this "how-it-could-have-been" scenario.
When one story says he dies one way, and another states another, it's
a contradiction in my book unless there's a reasonable way the two
accounts can be harmonized. Judas' death cannot be.
DENIS:
JASON LONG
Good to see you picked one of many. It's the most reasonable
hypothesis and I've explained why in the book. I'm sorry I don't
take the time for you to explain it in detail.
>
> JASON LONG:
> > > > Jesus may or may not have been based on a real person.
>
> DENIS:
> > > I agree 100%, but then this is a tautology, so how could I not
> > > agree? I may or may not be a brilliant NASA trained chimp
> > > masquerading as a human...
>
> JASON LONG:
> > I think it was obvious I was referring to the non-existence of a
> > supernatural Jesus.
>
> DENIS:
> It was not obvious to me, and regardless of who it was referring to
> (you could have put any name in place of Jesus, whether it be Santa
> Claus or Muhammad), the statement is still true.
JASON LONG
I've already explained what I meant by the statement.
JASON LONG
If I state a mythological creature Zubub was killed and buried, then
someone invents an Earthly story of Zubub who was killed and buried,
my statement does not mean Zubub was an Earthly figure.
>
> DAN BARKER [via JASON]:
> > Now, notice this. This is very simple. Very stark. We don't have
any
> > earthquakes, we don't have any eclipses or astronomical events,
we
> > don't have any angels, we don't have any women telling stories,
we
> > don't have any of these fantastic embellishments. We just have a
> > simple recognition of what the early Christians believed. Paul is
> > passing this on, from what other people believed.
>
> DENIS:
> Right, and apparently Paul believed this too (irrespective of
whether
> it was true or not), and it is certainly referring to an earthly
> figure, thus Jason's assertion that "Paul, the first Christian, did
> not speak of Jesus as an earthly figure" is false. This is
> demonstrated by the fact that even Dan Barker (whom Jason was
quoting)
> stated that "Paul is not talking about a tomb here. He is simply
> talking about a man who died." Cool, that would be an earthly
figure.
JASON LONG
No we do not. Paul believed Jesus died a mythological long ago.
Thus, his burial was not an Earthly event.
> But we get the same (incorrect) positive assertion again:
>
> JASON LONG:
> > Further evidences against Jesus: no Earthly mentions of Jesus in
> > Paul's writing,
>
> DENIS:
> As was noted above, this is false.
JASON LONG
Try again.
>
> JASON:
> > no mention from Philo (15 BCE - 50 CE) even though he
> > was a Jewish historian,
>
> DENIS:
> I bet there were hundreds of thousands of Jews not mentioned by
Philo
> (or Justus or Pliny). This does not in anyway negate their being
> historical characters.
JASON LONG
Hundreds of thousands of people were not worthy of being recorded.
There are dozens of characters recorded that dwarve in comparison to
the supernatural son of God. If you're implying Jesus was alive and
not important enough to be recorded, you're only fooling yourself.
DENIS
True story: I know of a man named Lawrence who
> lives in a park near my house - he claims to be a prophet and claims
> to be persecuted by the cops (because they force him to leave the
park
> when they catch him sleeping in it after it has been closed) as well
> as the government at large. I have seen only one example of text
about
> him (in a book about the homeless on Manhattan's Lower East Side),
and
> he may very well die without any of the thousands of major
historians
> in New York covering his life. This does not bring his existence
into
> question. It is odd that you would appeal to this sort of ex
silentio
> illogic.
>
> -Denis Giron
> http://freethoughtmecca.org
JASON LONG
Did Lawrence raise from the dead, restore eyesight, cure seizures by
touching, etc. etc.? Many people allegedly witnessed these events
and no historians recorded them. No historians even recorded an
Earthly belief in Jesus until the second century. This is a
legitimate argument from silence.
RainLover
Giron) wrote:
> DENIS:
>This I was not aware of. Could you give me some information on this? I
>did a quick search of the net and found a site...
>
>
>http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/shipwrecks/superior/pretoria/history.html
>
> ...that claims the existence of a wooden schooner-barge that was 338
>feet long. Ironically, the barge did suffer a ship-wreck (information
>at the site), but it also sailed without incident for its first five
>years (according to the site anyway). Maybe the site is lying (I have
>no evidence to corroborate their claims), but I wonder on what grounds
>you have positively asserted the above.
JAMES:
>From your linked site:
******************************
The Pretoria will carry 5,000 tons of iron ore, 175,000 bushels of
wheat, or 300,000 bushels of oats. ... [S]he is very strong and
substantially constructed in every way, has steel keelson plates,
steel chords, steel arches, and is also diagonally strapped with
steel. The vessel is supplied with three masts, each having a topmast,
and these are all equipped with sails.
******************************
Steel arches, cords, and keelson along with diagonal steel straps.
Not exactly a boat a lowly old man in the Middle-east would make...
(by the way, do you have ANY idea how many Middle-eastern-sized trees
it would take to make this craft of Noah's?????????
James, Seattle
Denis Giron
> ...
Greetings. This is a response to Jason Long's post from October 11th,
which has been archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=v7gfovoj8cgheoasbiejtmtrlq6lempv39%404ax.com
DENIS:
> > I asked how exactly you determine
> > something to be "evil" since you declared many of the actions the
> > Bible attributes to God as being "evil". You listed numerous actions
> > that you consider "evil," and alluded to the possibility that I
> > don't consider such behaviors "evil," but you never answered the
> > question regarding how you determine what is "evil" and what is not.
JASON LONG:
> You snipped the part where you questioned God being evil. Why don't
> you come out and specifically state whether or not you think God is
> evil? Evil is subjective. To me, those things I mentioned are
> evil. To everyone else, those things I mentioned are evil. I
> personally determine this by the amount of unnecessary harm God
> dishes out.
DENIS:
First, I was only questioning your use of the word. I was wondering
how you determine a deed/action/behavior to be "evil," hence my
question. Now, you want to know if I think "God is evil"? Well, I'll
tell you this much, I don't find the word "evil" to be very
meaningful.
However, if I were to temporarily define a being as "evil" if
he/she/it engages in behaviors or actions that I am emotionally
opposed to, then the term has some meaning. So, in light of my
temporary definition of "evil," I think the statement "God is evil"
has the same truth value as the statement "the present king of France
is bald." What is the truth value, then, of the latter statement?
Well, I'm not really sure. We could take it as a positive assertion
that "there is a person who is both the present king of France and
bald," and in that case the statement would be false. Or, we could
treat it as asserting that "if there exists a person who is the
present king of France, then that person is bald," in which case the
statement is (currently) true. I only require that we treat the
statement "God is evil" the same way we treat the statement "the
present king of France is bald." If the latter sentence is true, then
so too the former, and if the latter sentence is false, then again, so
too the former. I see "God" as denoting the same way "the present king
of France" does, if you catch my drift.
Now, we can get back to the question of *YOUR* definition of "evil".
If I am not mistaken, you define "evil" as being equivalent to your
definition of unnecessary harm, correct?
JASON:
> > > A contradiction does not cease because one finds a far-fetched
> > > explanation to rectify the problem.
DENIS:
> > Actually, a statement from a religious text only contradicts a
> > scientific statement if it is impossible for both statements to be
> > true (that is the real definition of "contradiction" - I may not
> > know much, but I have a B.A. in Philosophy, and am pursuing a Masters
> > in mathematics, so I at least can speak on issues pertaining to logic).
> > If one can offer another interpretation of a proposition taken from
> > a religious text (be it the Bible, the Qur'an, or some other text),
> > and the interpretation is not in conflict with a given scientific
> > statement, then there is no contradiction. It does not matter if the
> > new alternative interpretation is "far-fetched" - it nonetheless
> > demonstrates that it is not necessarily the case that it is
> > impossible for both statements to be true.
JASON LONG
> What you're essentially saying is so long as a hypothetical scenario,
> no matter how far-fetched, can be thought up, the contradiction is
> removed. If I say a book is pure blue and someone else says it's
> pure red, that's a contradiction. God could have created a filter in
> a person's eyes to make him see red. That's a possible explanation.
> Do you believe those two statements are not contradictory?
DENIS:
The two statements you offered are certainly contradictory if we
understand them to be roughly, "the book is all blue" and "the book is
all red" - where being all of one color negates the possibility of
being all another color. If "the book is all blue" represents some
actual fact of the matter, the one who saw it as being red saw
something that was contrary to the actual fact of the matter, thus the
contradiction does not vanish.
What I was saying was different. I did not say any explanation will
suffice, not matter how far-fetched. I was saying that even an
explanation that is far-fetched can salvage the text (though some
explanations are TOO far-fetched). For example, a literal reading of
just about any English translation of Genesis has the entire universe
being created in six days, which would be an error. However, this
aspect of the creation story does not necessarily contradict science
if we interpret "day" (Hebrew: yom) as not being a literal 24 hour
period.
JASON:
> > > The Bible is not vague on the
> > > age of man, animals, plants, stars, Sun, and Moon. 6000 years.
> > > Genesis 1, 5, and Matthew 1 provide the date back to Adam.
DENIS:
> > I read Genesis 1, Genesis 5, and Matthew 1, and none of it states
> > that the age of all that you mentioned above (essentially our entire
> > solar system) is 6,000 years. What you're doing is siding with a popular
> > INTERPRETATION of those passages (one held to this day by many
> > fundamentalist Christians), but this does not change the fact that
> > no where do those passages explicitly state that our solar system (or
> > universe) and everything in it is 6,000 years old.
JASON LONG
> The Bible does not explicitly state such, no. However, the Bible
> gives us all the information we need to arrive at that date.
DENIS:
It allows you to draw that interpretation, and indeed many
fundamentalist Christians (as well as a few wacky ultra-orthodox Jews)
have done just that. However, that is merely an interpretation. The
period between the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the
first humans, is a matter of interpretation. It could have been a
matter of days, or a much longer period. Thus the reality is not that
the Bible necessarily states that the age of the universe is 6,000
years - rather that is *YOUR* interpretation of the Bible.
JASON:
> > > Furthermore, the Earth does not have a solid dome above it.
DENIS:
> > Indeed it does not. Does the Bible say that it does? I know certain
> > interpretations of the Bible have held that it might, but I'm asking
> > if the Bible explicitly states such.
JASON LONG
> The expansion in the first chapter of Genesis, Hebrew word r'akia I
> believe, is a solid firmament.
DENIS:
Okay, let's work with that. The word employed in B'reshit (Genesis)
1:6 is raqee'a (reysh-qof-yod-ayin). It can mean "firmament" or
something ductile, but it can also mean simply an expanse. To
understand this, we need to consider the root from which it is derived
(reysh-qof-ayin). The root can mean to beat out or stamp out (like a
piece of brass), but it can also mean simply to spread or stretch. So
God spread out an expanse that separated the waters - this seems to me
to be consistent/harmonious with the formation of the earth's
hydrosphere - it is not necessarily a reference to some solid dome.
JASON:
> > > The Earth is not flat and observable from a single point.
DENIS:
> > Here I certainly do not recall any verse that states the earth is
> > flat. As for it being "observable from a single point," if you were on
> > the moon, you could observe the earth - maybe not all of it, but you
> > could observe the earth itself nonetheless, thus yes, the earth is in
> > fact "observable from a single point."
JASON LONG
> Since you want to nit pick, let me clarify. The entire Earth is not
> observable from a single point. The tall tree, the kingdoms of the
> Earth, etc cannot be observed from a single point regardless of
> location. You're really just nit picking instead of dealing with the
> issue. Add on, the four corners of the Earth, circle of the Earth
> statements etc. The belief is heavily implied and obvious.
DENIS:
With regard to observation, we're thinking in terms of how humans see
(i.e. while it is the case that if a human is facing east he cannot
see west, but this is not the case with all organisms or beings). The
only verse that seems to have everything observed by a human is in the
New Testament, where Satan takes Jesus to a high mountain and "shows
him all the kingdoms of the earth." I don't see why we can't take this
as metaphorical - i.e. he'll give him everything he can see (with
everything he can see being a reference to everything). Another way of
looking at it would be Satan making such visible for Jesus. Other
verses (like God looking down on the inhabitants of earth and seeing
them as grasshoppers) also seem to be metaphorical, and employ a being
that is not human (exempli gratia: GOD!), and thus is not subject to
our limited modes of observation.
As for four-corners, ho-hum. To this day, plenty of people who believe
in a round earth speak metaphorically of "the four corners of the
earth". In our everyday speech we take that to be metaphorical.
Finally, the circle of the earth - I assume you mean "chug ha-arets,"
which appears in Isaiah 40:22. This term is a reference to the
horizon. However, if you really want to get into it, I can take
scientific-hermeneutic approach to this verse by noting that "chug"
can also mean sphere. Thus if you're going to make the assertion that
"chug ha-arets" is not a reference to the horizon, but rather is
stating that the earth (arets) is in the shape of a "chug," I'll just
note that "chug" can mean sphere as well as circle. To back this claim
up, let me cite four Hebrew dictionaries that note this:
Shimon Zilberman, "Milon Adkani M'rookaz Ivri-Angli," (Zilberman,
2001), p. 92.
Dov Ben-Abba, "The Meridian Hebrew/English Dictionary," (Meridian,
1994), p. 105.
Reuven AlQalay, "Milon Ivri-Angli Shalem," (Massadah, 1964), p. 721.
[This source, being one of the most authoritative Hebrew dictionaries,
even gives "orb" as one of the meanings of "chug"]
Yisrael Efros, Y'hudah Ibn-Shmuel Kaufman, and Binyamin Silk, "Milon
Angli-Ivri," (Dvir, 1952), p. 623.
JASON:
> > > The Earth cannot be turned upside down.
DENIS:
> > This is what you've positively asserted. Could you elaborate?
JASON LONG
> I was giving the original author an extremely brief synopsis, not
> debating every single point to the Bible. There is no upside down to
> the Earth.
DENIS:
You essentially state that you're not going to elaborate, yet then
repeat your assertion. What exactly do you mean by this?
JASON:
> > > The Earth does not have pillars holding it up.
DENIS:
> > I agree 100%, but doesn't the Bible also say that the earth hangs over
> > nothing?
JASON LONG
> But doesn't it say pillars are holding the Earth up?
DENIS:
Could you point me in the direction of the precise verses you are
making reference to?
JASON:
> > > The Earth shakes from the movement of plates, not
> > > God's anger.
DENIS:
> > Again, you have made a positive assertion, and I would wonder what
> > your evidence for it is. Keep in mind that it is a conjunctive
> > proposition, and while there is tons of evidence for the first
> > conjunct, I know of none specifically for the second. Are you simply
> > assuming the second conjunct (i.e. that the earth does NOT shake due
> > to God's anger)?
JASON LONG
> God's anger was the ancient superstitous justification for
> earthquakes. There's another positive assertion for you. The
> original positive assertion was made in the Bible. I was making a
> dispute with that statement.
DENIS:
What you did was positively assert the reverse of the statement. If
you would be more careful in your language, you could have stated that
there is zero evidence that the earth shakes due to God's anger, and I
would have agreed with you. However, you positively asserted
something, and now you don't want the burden of evidence to be on your
shoulders. Sorry Jason, he who asserts must prove. You can either
withdraw your assertion, or present evidence.
Now, moving on to the stars, you insinuated that the Bible teaches
that the stars are tiny balls of light. Your first piece of evidence
was Abraham being told that his offspring would be as numerous as the
stars. It seems to be clearly metaphorical to me (a similar line
appears in the movie "Dances With Wolves," where Dunbar predicts that
the number of Europeans to invade Native American lands will be "like
the stars").
Another piece of evidence you offered was a verse that reads "Behold
the height of the stars, how high they are!" You claim stars are not
high, rather they are distant. "High" is relative to our position.
Like a child asking how "high" you can jump.
As for Psalms 147:4 stating that God can number the stars and tell us
their names, what's the problem with that? The very next verse states
that his knowledge is infinite, without limits, beyond measure. That's
the whole point. There are more stars than any human could count - but
God can number them, and even tell you their names.
As for stars falling or being held in the hand, all of that seems to
obviously be metaphorical (and to cite what appears in a dream/vision
is down right silly!).
JASON:
> > > Seizures, blindness, deafness, etc. are not
> > > caused by demons.
DENIS:
> > Another positive assertion. Do you have evidence for this, or are you
> > merely assuming such? Keep in mind that I have no evidence to the
> > contrary, but then I wasn't the one coming out my house and shouting
> > the odds.
JASON LONG:
> Since you want to nit pick, there is no reliable reason we have that
> seizures are caused by demons.
DENIS:
I agree 100%! However, you positively asserted something different.
Are you now retracting that statement in favor of the more reasonable
position that there is no evidence in favor of the Biblical assertion?
Now moving to the Gilgamesh flood, I read it, and indeed there are
some similarities. However, how again do these similarities prove the
story is not true? The Gilgamesh epic does not even seem to present it
as a global flood, as the speaker looks in one direction and actually
sees land (in the vicinity of Mt Nirush). The Bible and Gilgamesh
speak of major floods. Are we to assume, therefore, that the stories
are false? Why not just the same cite Gilgamesh as evidence of a
memory of a major flood?
JASON:
> > > No wooden boat over 300 feet is seaworthy.
DENIS:
> > This I was not aware of. Could you give me some information on this? I
> > did a quick search of the net and found a site...
> >
> >
> > http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/shipwrecks/superior/pretoria/history.html
> >
> > ...that claims the existence of a wooden schooner-barge that was 338
> > feet long. Ironically, the barge did suffer a ship-wreck (information
> > at the site), but it also sailed without incident for its first five
> > years (according to the site anyway). Maybe the site is lying (I have
> > no evidence to corroborate their claims), but I wonder on what grounds
> > you have positively asserted the above.
JASON LONG
> Boats over 300 feet aren't seaworthy without iron bracings. I don't
> have time to do homework for you. Keep looking at non-religious
> sites and you will find this fact.
DENIS:
You're not going to do my homework for me? I'm not asking you to do
such. You made a positive assertion, and I was simply asking you to
present evidence. That's not doing my homework for me.
DENIS:
First of all, I believe it was Josephus who was the first to connect
"Ararat" with an area in Armenia - and Josephus is pretty far removed
from when the text was first written. Second, you spoke of the boat
making it "that far" - how far are we talking? I don't recall the text
specifying any specific launch point. Third, mountains being covered
and people being killed - as I noted, this could be the local
mountains and local people - a local flood. Furthermore, with regard
to the mountains, as I noted, Genesis 7:19 is problematic because it
can be read as mountains were covered. I'd like to examine the text,
however.
The relevant portion of Genesis 7:19 reads "vaykusoo kal he-harim
ha-g'vohim". the key word here is "vaykusoo," which can be translated
"and they covered" ("they" being the waters). This comes from the verb
liksot, which can mean "cover/conceal," but can also mean
"distinguish" or "mark". Also of interest is the word "g'vohim" -
gavah (GBH) can mean high, but also exalted, haughty or even arrogant.
So I would translate the verse "and [the waters] distinguished the all
the exalted mountains" - i.e. the most exalted/lofty mountains were
distinguished as they were all that was visible in this major flood.
This indeed is similar to the Gilgamesh epic, where the man on the
boat sees land mountain. So again, the flood is not necessarily
global, but rather local - but it was a major flood if it was local,
as all that could be seen apparently were the exalted mountains under
the heavens.
JASON LONG:
> > > Being hanged versus falling head-long and bursting open is a
> > > contradiction. I'm interested to hear your "how-it-could-have- been"
> > > scenario.
DENIS:
> > I speculated/assumed that you were not familiar with the real meaning
> > of the word "contradiction," and sure enough the above demonstrates
> > that you are not (no offense). Let me state that for any statements X
> > and Y, X and Y contradict each other if, and only if, it is IMPOSSIBLE
> > for both X and Y to be true. With that (which is the real definition
> > of "contradiction"), we can instantiate the propositions "Judas hanged
> > himself" and "Judas fell head-long and burst open" for X and Y,
> > respectively, and construct the following syllogism:
> >
> > (1) The propositions "Judas hanged himself" and "Judas fell head- long
> > and burst open" contradict each other if, and only if, it is
> > IMPOSSIBLE for both the propositions "Judas hanged himself" and "Judas
> > fell head-long and burst open" to be true.
JASON LONG
> An omnipotent God could render any situation possible, therefore
> there are no contradictions in the Bible.
DENIS:
Hey! That's one way of looking at it! :)
But seriously for a second folks, that was not my argument (if you
recall, I conceded that what happened to the money can be chalked up
as a contradiction).
JASON LONG
> I'm already familar with this "how-it-could-have-been" scenario.
> When one story says he dies one way, and another states another, it's
> a contradiction in my book unless there's a reasonable way the two
> accounts can be harmonized. Judas' death cannot be.
DENIS:
Funny, Acts does not state that Judas died from the fall. Admittedly,
it does not state that he did not die from the fall. Nonetheless,
you've inserted that into the two passages. What the two passages
state are "Judas hanged himself" and "Judas fell headlong and burst
open". These are not contradictory propositions, but I see now that
when logic is no longer in your favor, you suddenly no longer want to
employ it.
DENIS:
If you are positively asserting that Zubub was buried, then you are in
fact asserting that Zubub was an earthly figure. If you believe Zubub
was buried (Paul certainly believed Jesus was buried) then you believe
Zubub was an earthly figure. Paul states quite matter of factly that
if Christ didn't rise from the dead, then his faith is useless, and
Paul certainly didn't consider his faith useless, thus he believed
Jesus rose from the dead. That's an earthly figure with an earthly
burial. Paul believed Jesus died on a cross, was buried, and was
raised from the dead after three days. How does a non-earthly figure
die on a cross, get buried, and then get raised from the dead?
JASON:
> > > no mention from Philo (15 BCE - 50 CE) even though he
> > > was a Jewish historian,
DENIS:
> > I bet there were hundreds of thousands of Jews not mentioned by Philo
> > (or Justus or Pliny). This does not in anyway negate their being
> > historical characters.
JASON LONG
> Hundreds of thousands of people were not worthy of being recorded.
> There are dozens of characters recorded that dwarve in comparison to
> the supernatural son of God. If you're implying Jesus was alive and
> not important enough to be recorded, you're only fooling yourself.
DENIS:
I'm fooling myself? Why is that?
DENIS
> > True story: I know of a man named Lawrence who
> > lives in a park near my house - he claims to be a prophet and claims
> > to be persecuted by the cops (because they force him to leave the park
> > when they catch him sleeping in it after it has been closed) as well
> > as the government at large. I have seen only one example of text about
> > him (in a book about the homeless on Manhattan's Lower East Side), and
> > he may very well die without any of the thousands of major historians
> > in New York covering his life. This does not bring his existence into
> > question. It is odd that you would appeal to this sort of ex silentio
> > illogic.
JASON LONG
> Did Lawrence raise from the dead, restore eyesight, cure seizures by
> touching, etc. etc.?
DENIS:
I have no evidence that either Lawrence or Jesus did any of those
things. Lawrence, however, claims to be a prophet, and I have seen him
do a couple interesting things (not miraculous, but under the right
interpretation, in keeping with him being a prophet). If right now I
claim has done such things, and no one else makes the same claim, does
this mean Lawrence did not exist?
JASON LONG:
> Many people allegedly witnessed these events
> and no historians recorded them.
DENIS:
Note that according to certain Islamic traditions, many people
witnessed Muhammad break the moon. Of course, no non-Islamic historian
from the time demonstrates any awareness of the event. In fact, the
event is (in my opinion at least) a gross fiction. Nonetheless, this
does not mean Muhammad did not exist.
JASON:
> No historians even recorded an
> Earthly belief in Jesus until the second century.
DENIS:
Actually, we have the New Testament, which is a rock solid piece of
evidence that people in the first century believed in an earthly
Jesus, a Jesus who was born of a human mother, who visited Jerusalem,
who was crucified by the Romans some time around Pesach, and who was
buried after that crucifixion. No serious NT scholar would deny that
the gospels contain numerous elements that represent the beliefs of
people living in the first century.
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org
neonwerk
JASON LONG
Why do I get the feeling if I asked you whether or not Adolf Hitler
was evil, you would not affirmatively answer? I suppose you're
entitled to your opinion.
DENIS
> Now, we can get back to the question of *YOUR* definition of "evil".
> If I am not mistaken, you define "evil" as being equivalent to your
> definition of unnecessary harm, correct?
JASON LONG
That's a rough definition because there's no line separating evil
from not evil. For purposes of this discussion, I'm deeming any
normal action 99.9999% of society would consider evil since that many
of us were inborn with the capacity to see murder, rape, slavery, etc
were wrong.
> DENIS:
> The two statements you offered are certainly contradictory if we
> understand them to be roughly, "the book is all blue" and "the book
is
> all red" - where being all of one color negates the possibility of
> being all another color. If "the book is all blue" represents some
> actual fact of the matter, the one who saw it as being red saw
> something that was contrary to the actual fact of the matter, thus
the
> contradiction does not vanish.
>
> What I was saying was different. I did not say any explanation will
> suffice, not matter how far-fetched. I was saying that even an
> explanation that is far-fetched can salvage the text (though some
> explanations are TOO far-fetched). For example, a literal reading of
> just about any English translation of Genesis has the entire
universe
> being created in six days, which would be an error. However, this
> aspect of the creation story does not necessarily contradict science
> if we interpret "day" (Hebrew: yom) as not being a literal 24 hour
> period.
JASON LONG
This is exactly what you said: "Actually, a statement from a
religious text only contradicts a
scientific statement if it is impossible for both statements to be
true (that is the real definition of "contradiction" - I may not know
much, but I have a B.A. in Philosophy, and am pursuing a Masters in
mathematics, so I at least can speak on issues pertaining to logic).
If one can offer another interpretation of a proposition taken from a
religious text (be it the Bible, the Qur'an, or some other text), and
the interpretation is not in conflict with a given scientific
statement, then there is no contradiction. It does not matter if the
new alternative interpretation is "far-fetched" - it nonetheless
demonstrates that it is not necessarily the case that it is impossible
for both statements to be true."
Now you're saying it can be far-fetched, but not TOO far-fetched?
Essentially, you can deem a contradiction true or not true based on
this arbitrary guideline you've set.
I showed you an example where an omnipotent God altered the color
perception of one person. If we assume this same God would spend
time explaining how to build curtains, hanging a plumb line, smelling
burnt flesh, etc., you cannot say this god would not alter color
perception. According to your original statement, "a statement from
a religious text only contradicts a
scientific statement if it is impossible for both statements to be
true," there can be no possible contradiction in the book because God
is allegedly omnipotent. Yet, you concede Judas throwing the money
was a contradiction even though God could have made a Judas
doppleganger, just as he made a donkey talk. This is possible. Your
two statements are in contradiction.
Statements are in contradiction when they plainly state two events
are in contrast. Example:
Contradictions
Today is Monday. Today is Wednesday. These statements contradict
even though God could alter time and space, because he did not do so,
just like he didn't make donkeys talk.
Judas hanged himself. Judas burst in the field. The intent of each
passage is clear. Judas died from hanging, and Judas died from
bursting open. No reasonable means can be used to harmonize these
two accounts. Any far-fetched explanation you offer is just as far-
fetched as God creating a double, which by your definition is too far
fetched.
> DENIS:
> It allows you to draw that interpretation, and indeed many
> fundamentalist Christians (as well as a few wacky ultra-orthodox
Jews)
> have done just that. However, that is merely an interpretation. The
> period between the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the
> first humans, is a matter of interpretation. It could have been a
> matter of days, or a much longer period. Thus the reality is not
that
> the Bible necessarily states that the age of the universe is 6,000
> years - rather that is *YOUR* interpretation of the Bible.
JASON LONG
I'm very disappointed to see you snipped my addition of Genesis 11
which when added to Genesis 5 and Matthew 1 clearly demonstrate the
age of man to be 6000 years old. There is no interpretation to be
made here. Forget the rest of the universe which is separated into
yoms (consistantly meaning short periods of time) for a moment.
Genesis 5: Adam to Noah
Genesis 11: Shem (Noah's son) to Abraham
Matthew 1: Abraham to Jesus
Luke 3: Adam to Jesus
Exodus 11: Pharez to David
1 Kings - 2 Chronicles: king reigns
There are all sorts of timelines indicating Adam, the first human
being, was created about 6000 years ago. I'll allow you 10,000
years. This is still in error. Man was not made 10,000 years ago.
Now, how do you support this is not in error?
> DENIS:
> Okay, let's work with that. The word employed in B'reshit (Genesis)
> 1:6 is raqee'a (reysh-qof-yod-ayin). It can mean "firmament" or
> something ductile, but it can also mean simply an expanse. To
> understand this, we need to consider the root from which it is
derived
> (reysh-qof-ayin). The root can mean to beat out or stamp out (like a
> piece of brass), but it can also mean simply to spread or stretch.
So
> God spread out an expanse that separated the waters - this seems to
me
> to be consistent/harmonious with the formation of the earth's
> hydrosphere - it is not necessarily a reference to some solid dome.
JASON LONG
I tire over this long debunked explanation. The text clearly states
a firmament was set to separate the waters in the sky from the waters
in the oceans. A solid body is required for this. Windows open to
let it rain. Forget what you obviously know is not there and take
the mindset of a prescientific ancient Hebrew. You observe the sky
is the color of water and sometimes water falls from the sky. With
no further evidence to consider, the logical conclusion would be
there's a mass of water in the sky and a solid body holds it up.
Perhaps windows open up to let it rain (Genesis 8:2) This thought
was recorded. One must look for the obvious meaning of the text when
it was written, not what it correlates well with today. The
erroneous thoughts correlate well with other absurdities such as the
age of the earth.
> DENIS:
> With regard to observation, we're thinking in terms of how humans
see
> (i.e. while it is the case that if a human is facing east he cannot
> see west, but this is not the case with all organisms or beings).
The
> only verse that seems to have everything observed by a human is in
the
> New Testament, where Satan takes Jesus to a high mountain and "shows
> him all the kingdoms of the earth." I don't see why we can't take
this
> as metaphorical - i.e. he'll give him everything he can see (with
> everything he can see being a reference to everything). Another way
of
> looking at it would be Satan making such visible for Jesus. Other
> verses (like God looking down on the inhabitants of earth and seeing
> them as grasshoppers) also seem to be metaphorical, and employ a
being
> that is not human (exempli gratia: GOD!), and thus is not subject to
> our limited modes of observation.
JASON LONG
Then I believe the existence of God is metaphorical. I don't see why
we can't take this as metaphorical. Satan showed him *ALL* the
kingdoms, not everything he can see. Furthermore, you snipped all
the other verses, such as the tree, which clearly states it could be
seen from all the earth. This is IMPOSSIBLE.
DENIS
> As for four-corners, ho-hum. To this day, plenty of people who
believe
> in a round earth speak metaphorically of "the four corners of the
> earth". In our everyday speech we take that to be metaphorical.
JASON LONG
The four corners is consistent with the flat earth belief. I don't
care what people speak of today. I care about the biblical text and
its meaning. The earth was clearly thought to be flat and planar or
disc-shaped.
>
> Finally, the circle of the earth - I assume you mean "chug ha-
arets,"
> which appears in Isaiah 40:22. This term is a reference to the
> horizon. However, if you really want to get into it, I can take
> scientific-hermeneutic approach to this verse by noting that "chug"
> can also mean sphere. Thus if you're going to make the assertion
that
> "chug ha-arets" is not a reference to the horizon, but rather is
> stating that the earth (arets) is in the shape of a "chug," I'll
just
> note that "chug" can mean sphere as well as circle. To back this
claim
> up, let me cite four Hebrew dictionaries that note this:
>
> Shimon Zilberman, "Milon Adkani M'rookaz Ivri-Angli," (Zilberman,
> 2001), p. 92.
>
> Dov Ben-Abba, "The Meridian Hebrew/English Dictionary," (Meridian,
> 1994), p. 105.
>
> Reuven AlQalay, "Milon Ivri-Angli Shalem," (Massadah, 1964), p. 721.
> [This source, being one of the most authoritative Hebrew
dictionaries,
> even gives "orb" as one of the meanings of "chug"]
>
> Yisrael Efros, Y'hudah Ibn-Shmuel Kaufman, and Binyamin Silk, "Milon
> Angli-Ivri," (Dvir, 1952), p. 623.
JASON LONG (from work in progress)
There's a singular instance Christians flaunt to promote a harmony
between the Bible and the shape of the earth, all the while ignoring
scriptures to the contrary. Isaiah 40:22 says "it is he that sitteth
upon the circle of the earth". The word in question is "circle". A
circle is a two dimensional object. A sphere, the approximate shape
of the earth, is similar to a ball. The original Hebrew word this
verse uses is chug, meaning circle. The same word is used twice in
the book of Job to describe heaven and the sea. These were two areas
clearly not thought to be spherical. The Hebrew word for sphere,
kadur, is not used. In addition, a disc shaped earth was a popular
theory not only in the Middle East, but also in Greece before the
time of Aristotle. We even have maps of Babylon and Egypt drawn with
a circular sea surrounding circular land. When you combine these
points with the other statements the Bible makes regarding the shape
of the earth, the likelihood of Isaiah 40:22 referring to a sphere is
extremely remote.
Make an assertion it's not the horizon?!? You asserted it was. Back
it up.
> DENIS:
> You essentially state that you're not going to elaborate, yet then
> repeat your assertion. What exactly do you mean by this?
JASON LONG
Here is my elaboration: The Earth cannot be turned upside-down to
shake off the inhabitants. It would accomplish nothing. This is
clearly a flat-earth statement. That's all the elaboration
necessary. The author clearly believed the earth was flat.
> JASON LONG
> > But doesn't it say pillars are holding the Earth up?
>
> DENIS:
> Could you point me in the direction of the precise verses you are
> making reference to?
JASON LONG
1 samuel 2:8, job 9:6, job 26:11, psalms 75:3.
> DENIS:
> What you did was positively assert the reverse of the statement. If
> you would be more careful in your language, you could have stated
that
> there is zero evidence that the earth shakes due to God's anger,
and I
> would have agreed with you. However, you positively asserted
> something, and now you don't want the burden of evidence to be on
your
> shoulders. Sorry Jason, he who asserts must prove. You can either
> withdraw your assertion, or present evidence.
JASON LONG
I wasn't debating with you Denis. I was explaning what the Bible
said to a concerned member of this group. You know very well the
intent of my statement.
DENIS
> Now, moving on to the stars, you insinuated that the Bible teaches
> that the stars are tiny balls of light. Your first piece of evidence
> was Abraham being told that his offspring would be as numerous as
the
> stars. It seems to be clearly metaphorical to me (a similar line
> appears in the movie "Dances With Wolves," where Dunbar predicts
that
> the number of Europeans to invade Native American lands will
be "like
> the stars").
JASON LONG
Here we go with the metaphors again. How do you determine what is
literal and what is a metaphor? Obviously anything that can *NOW* be
determined incorrect is a metaphor and everything else is literal. I
really do tire from reading this method.
DENIS
> Another piece of evidence you offered was a verse that reads "Behold
> the height of the stars, how high they are!" You claim stars are not
> high, rather they are distant. "High" is relative to our position.
> Like a child asking how "high" you can jump.
>
> As for Psalms 147:4 stating that God can number the stars and tell
us
> their names, what's the problem with that? The very next verse
states
> that his knowledge is infinite, without limits, beyond measure.
That's
> the whole point. There are more stars than any human could count -
but
> God can number them, and even tell you their names.
>
> As for stars falling or being held in the hand, all of that seems to
> obviously be metaphorical (and to cite what appears in a
dream/vision
> is down right silly!).
JASON LONG
John, Daniel, and Jesus clearly thought stars were tiny balls of
light. End of story. I have demonstrated this already. Go back and
debunk this if you think otherwise.
>
> DENIS:
> I agree 100%! However, you positively asserted something different.
> Are you now retracting that statement in favor of the more
reasonable
> position that there is no evidence in favor of the Biblical
assertion?
JASON LONG
I was not debating with you when I said that. Understand? I was
telling a member of this group what is already obvious.
DENIS
> Now moving to the Gilgamesh flood, I read it, and indeed there are
> some similarities. However, how again do these similarities prove
the
> story is not true?
JASON LONG
Quit misrepresenting my position if you want to continue this
discussion. That in itself does not disprove it, but gives
credibility to the claim.
DENIS
The Gilgamesh epic does not even seem to present it
> as a global flood, as the speaker looks in one direction and
actually
> sees land (in the vicinity of Mt Nirush). The Bible and Gilgamesh
> speak of major floods. Are we to assume, therefore, that the stories
> are false? Why not just the same cite Gilgamesh as evidence of a
> memory of a major flood?
JASON LONG
Denis, the Noah story is predated by Gilgamesh. All of this took
place before Noah ever lived. Now, why is it this earlier myth would
so accurately predict a future event? The answer is that it didn't.
Noah's flood was based on an earlier myth.
>
> DENIS:
> You're not going to do my homework for me? I'm not asking you to do
> such. You made a positive assertion, and I was simply asking you to
> present evidence. That's not doing my homework for me.
Denis, it's a known fact wooden boats without metal bracings can't
survive if longer than 300 feet. Since you're so willing to find
references to the contrary, but unwilling to find these references,
you're obviously looking for selective evidence.
Provide me with one example of an all wooden boat longer than 300
feet that did not take on too much water and did not snake. None of
your examples do that.
JASON LONG
Your twisting of the clear meaning of the text doesn't answer
anything I said. Everyone knows where the mountains of Ararat are.
How could the ark make it to Ararat without the water seeking its own
level? It can't. It was a global flood. The genesis account is
clear in its intent. A local flood could not kill all the earth's
inhabitants.
> JASON LONG
> > An omnipotent God could render any situation possible, therefore
> > there are no contradictions in the Bible.
>
> DENIS:
> Hey! That's one way of looking at it! :)
>
> But seriously for a second folks, that was not my argument (if you
> recall, I conceded that what happened to the money can be chalked up
> as a contradiction).
JASON LONG
Again: an arbitrary personal guideline for a contradiction. You said
as long as it was possible, the contradiction ceases.
>
> DENIS:
> Funny, Acts does not state that Judas died from the fall.
Admittedly,
> it does not state that he did not die from the fall. Nonetheless,
> you've inserted that into the two passages. What the two passages
> state are "Judas hanged himself" and "Judas fell headlong and burst
> open". These are not contradictory propositions, but I see now that
> when logic is no longer in your favor, you suddenly no longer want
to
> employ it.
JASON LONG
Denis, Matthew 27:5 does not say he died from hanging. It says he
hung himself. We can be reasonably certain he died from the
hanging. Acts says he burst open. It does not say he died from
bursting open, but we can be reasonably certain he died from bursting
open. The accounts are contradictory.
>
> JASON LONG
> > If I state a mythological creature Zubub was killed and buried,
then
> > someone invents an Earthly story of Zubub who was killed and
buried,
> > my statement does not mean Zubub was an Earthly figure.
>
> DENIS:
> If you are positively asserting that Zubub was buried, then you are
in
> fact asserting that Zubub was an earthly figure. If you believe
Zubub
> was buried (Paul certainly believed Jesus was buried) then you
believe
> Zubub was an earthly figure.
JASON LONG
No, Denis. Zubub was a mythological figure who was buried. A later
story made an earthly Zubub who was buried. This does not make my
mythological story an earthly one.
DENIS
Paul states quite matter of factly that
> if Christ didn't rise from the dead, then his faith is useless, and
> Paul certainly didn't consider his faith useless, thus he believed
> Jesus rose from the dead. That's an earthly figure with an earthly
> burial. Paul believed Jesus died on a cross, was buried, and was
> raised from the dead after three days. How does a non-earthly figure
> die on a cross, get buried, and then get raised from the dead?
JASON LONG
A non-earthly figure dies on a cross, gets buried, and then gets
raised from the dead when the story told Paul has every indiction
Jesus was a non-earthly figure. See my previous statement.
> JASON LONG
> > Hundreds of thousands of people were not worthy of being
recorded.
> > There are dozens of characters recorded that dwarve in comparison
to
> > the supernatural son of God. If you're implying Jesus was alive
and
> > not important enough to be recorded, you're only fooling yourself.
>
> DENIS:
> I'm fooling myself? Why is that?
JASON LONG
I don't know. You're a Muslim who doesn't believe Jesus was the Son
of God is my best guess.
> DENIS:
> I have no evidence that either Lawrence or Jesus did any of those
> things. Lawrence, however, claims to be a prophet, and I have seen
him
> do a couple interesting things (not miraculous, but under the right
> interpretation, in keeping with him being a prophet). If right now I
> claim has done such things, and no one else makes the same claim,
does
> this mean Lawrence did not exist?
JASON LONG
I can say nothing about the existence of Lawrence or Jesus. I *can*
say it's exceedingly unlikely these miracles took place on the sole
basis no one bothered to record them.
> DENIS:
> Note that according to certain Islamic traditions, many people
> witnessed Muhammad break the moon. Of course, no non-Islamic
historian
> from the time demonstrates any awareness of the event. In fact, the
> event is (in my opinion at least) a gross fiction. Nonetheless, this
> does not mean Muhammad did not exist.
JASON LONG
Then we are in agreement.
>
> JASON:
> > No historians even recorded an
> > Earthly belief in Jesus until the second century.
>
> DENIS:
> Actually, we have the New Testament, which is a rock solid piece of
> evidence that people in the first century believed in an earthly
> Jesus, a Jesus who was born of a human mother, who visited
Jerusalem,
> who was crucified by the Romans some time around Pesach, and who was
> buried after that crucifixion. No serious NT scholar would deny that
> the gospels contain numerous elements that represent the beliefs of
> people living in the first century.
JASON LONG
First century people - second century recording. Reread my original
statement.
Denis Giron
> ...
Greetings. This is a reply to Jason Long's post from October 19th,
which has been archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3445pv0ambhcnu6ferlv78or3rq8noi2uu%404ax.com
DENIS GIRON:
> > However, if I were to temporarily define a being as "evil" if
> > he/she/it engages in behaviors or actions that I am emotionally
> > opposed to, then the term has some meaning. So, in light of my
> > temporary definition of "evil," I think the statement "God is evil"
> > has the same truth value as the statement "the present king of
> > France is bald." What is the truth value, then, of the latter
> > statement? Well, I'm not really sure. We could take it as a positive
> > assertion that "there is a person who is both the present king of
> > France and bald," and in that case the statement would be false.
> > Or, we could treat it as asserting that "if there exists a person
> > who is the present king of France, then that person is bald," in
> > which case the statement is (currently) true. I only require that
> > we treat the statement "God is evil" the same way we treat the
> > statement "the present king of France is bald." If the latter
> > sentence is true, then so too the former, and if the latter sentence
> > is false, then again, so too the former. I see "God" as denoting the
> > same way "the present king of France" does, if you catch my drift.
JASON LONG:
> Why do I get the feeling if I asked you whether or not Adolf Hitler
> was evil, you would not affirmatively answer?
DENIS:
Obviously you missed what I was saying above (hence the reason you
later assume I'm a Muslim). Furthermore, the reference to Adolf Hitler
again hints at your now regular tendency to make appeals to emotion.
Sigh...
JASON LONG:
> For purposes of this discussion, I'm deeming any
> normal action 99.9999% of society would consider evil since that many
> of us were inborn with the capacity to see murder, rape, slavery, etc
> were wrong.
DENIS:
I would agree that the majority (though not 99.9999%) of the people
alive today would agree that murder, rape, and slavery are "wrong,"
though I don't see from where you get this bizarre idea that we were
"inborn with the capicity" to see it as "wrong". Anyway, so, after
almost three weeks, you finally anwered my question with regard to how
you define evil: you define "evil" as that which the majority
considers to be "evil." Kewl.
JASON LONG:
> This is exactly what you said: "Actually, a statement from a
> religious text only contradicts a
> scientific statement if it is impossible for both statements to be
> true (that is the real definition of "contradiction" - I may not know
> much, but I have a B.A. in Philosophy, and am pursuing a Masters in
> mathematics, so I at least can speak on issues pertaining to logic).
> If one can offer another interpretation of a proposition taken from a
> religious text (be it the Bible, the Qur'an, or some other text), and
> the interpretation is not in conflict with a given scientific
> statement, then there is no contradiction. It does not matter if the
> new alternative interpretation is "far-fetched" - it nonetheless
> demonstrates that it is not necessarily the case that it is impossible
> for both statements to be true."
>
> Now you're saying it can be far-fetched, but not TOO far-fetched?
> Essentially, you can deem a contradiction true or not true based on
> this arbitrary guideline you've set.
DENIS:
Too far fetched might be your example in the Judas discussion below,
where you invoke a deity. I guess with each instance we should
discusses relevant levels of plausibility for that said example.
JASON LONG:
> I showed you an example where an omnipotent God altered the color
> perception of one person. If we assume this same God would spend
> time explaining how to build curtains, hanging a plumb line, smelling
> burnt flesh, etc., you cannot say this god would not alter color
> perception. According to your original statement, "a statement from
> a religious text only contradicts a
> scientific statement if it is impossible for both statements to be
> true," there can be no possible contradiction in the book because God
> is allegedly omnipotent.
DENIS:
I've already explained why your color scheme argument does not escape
being a contradiction - it is related to how we define our terms -
what axioms we bring to the table. As I noted, *IF* being all of one
color negates the possibility of
being all another color, and the book being all blue correlates with
the actual fact of the matter, the one who sees differently is wrong.
JASON LONG:
> Yet, you concede Judas throwing the money
> was a contradiction even though God could have made a Judas
> doppleganger, just as he made a donkey talk.
DENIS:
There's nothing contradictory about a deity making a donkey talk. It
is fantastic, but not a contradiction. However, if "Judas" represents
Judas, and NOT Judas' doppleganger, then the issue of the coins is
still a potential contradiction.
JASON LONG:
> Judas hanged himself. Judas burst in the field. The intent of each
> passage is clear. Judas died from hanging, and Judas died from
> bursting open.
DENIS:
And again we see the problem here. You can talk about "intent" all you
want, but the text never explicitly states that Judas was killed by
the fall and bursting open (i.e. the text never explicitly states that
he was alive the second before impact and the bursting forth of
inards), rather you've inserted that into the text! Now, let us assume
for a second that there is no God. Even without an all powerful deity
who can transcend bivalent logic, the statements "Judas hanged
himself" and "Judas fell headlong and burst open" are NOT
contradictory. For you to positively assert that these two
propositions contradict one another, you are asserting that "Judas
fell headlong and burst open" is logically equivalent to "Judas did
not hang himself." Of course that is not the case. It is possible for
a person to hang himself AND fall head long and burst open, thus this
is not a contradiction. I'm shocked at how anxious you are to throw
logic out the window (either that, or you have had absolutely no
training in logic whatsoever).
JASON LONG:
> I'm very disappointed to see you snipped my addition of Genesis 11
> which when added to Genesis 5 and Matthew 1 clearly demonstrate the
> age of man to be 6000 years old. There is no interpretation to be
> made here. Forget the rest of the universe which is separated into
> yoms (consistantly meaning short periods of time) for a moment.
>
> Genesis 5: Adam to Noah
> Genesis 11: Shem (Noah's son) to Abraham
> Matthew 1: Abraham to Jesus
> Luke 3: Adam to Jesus
> Exodus 11: Pharez to David
> 1 Kings - 2 Chronicles: king reigns
>
> There are all sorts of timelines indicating Adam, the first human
> being, was created about 6000 years ago. I'll allow you 10,000
> years. This is still in error. Man was not made 10,000 years ago.
> Now, how do you support this is not in error?
DENIS:
'Man' lived through out the sixth 'yom', so we would have to wonder
how long that 'yom' is, and add that on to his years on earth (post
garden). If you really wanted to play this game, you would note that
according to popular interpretation of the text, all humans sprang
from a single pair of humans, which is absurd (groups evolve, not
individuals). I would note that the last line of Genesis 1:27 reads
"bara atem," "he created them." This could be a hint that 'Adam' is
not exactly a single ancestor to all, but rather a metaphor for the
male and females who were created after the animals.
DENIS:
> > Okay, let's work with that. The word employed in B'reshit (Genesis)
> > 1:6 is raqee'a (reysh-qof-yod-ayin). It can mean "firmament" or
> > something ductile, but it can also mean simply an expanse. To
> > understand this, we need to consider the root from which it is
> > derived (reysh-qof-ayin). The root can mean to beat out or stamp
> > out (like a piece of brass), but it can also mean simply to spread
> > or stretch. So God spread out an expanse that separated the waters
> > this seems to me to be consistent/harmonious with the formation of
> > the earth's hydrosphere - it is not necessarily a reference to some
> > solid dome.
JASON LONG:
> I tire over this long debunked explanation. The text clearly states
> a firmament was set to separate the waters in the sky from the waters
> in the oceans. A solid body is required for this.
DENIS:
Uh, actually, Jason, no, a 'solid body' of the sort you're thinking is
not required. Note that our atmosphere, though not solid, is able to
hold water aloft.
JASON LONG:
> Forget what you obviously know is not there and take
> the mindset of a prescientific ancient Hebrew.
DENIS:
Right, is this the way you disprove the Bible to Christians? You ask
them to presuppose the author of the Bible was an ignorant ancient
man, and then you prove, based on that presupposition, that the author
of the Bible was in fact an ignorant ancient man?
JASON LONG:
> Then I believe the existence of God is metaphorical.
DENIS:
Cool. Some Christians would agree with you. Did you see the debate
between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan? Craig asked
Crossan if God existed during the jurasic period, and Crossan
considered the statement meaningless.
JASON LONG:
> Satan showed him *ALL* the kingdoms, not everything he can see.
DENIS:
This was dealt with already. Let me try and explain again. Note that
in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein said that
life is infinite (or endless) the same way our field of vision is
infinite (or endless). Obviously, neither life nor one's field of
vision is endless. However, you cannot experience the end of your
field of vision - if unobstructed, light hits you from farther and
farther distances. In a similar vein, Jesus was shown all the kindoms
of the earth that were visible from that mountain. A metaphor - "all
this will be yours," which meant everything, even though Jesus did not
see everything. The word used, kosmos, can mean everything, including
the heavens, the universe, or just in the sense of 'everything under
the sun'. Interestingly, Hebrew translations have "arets" which can
mean land/earth (appropriately capturing what I am getting at).
Considering the incoherence of Matthew 1:21 in any language but
Hebrew, and the traditions that hold that Mattew was originally
written in Hebrew, it is reasonable to understand Hebrew translations
as attempts at reconstructing what the gospel originally said. And,
surprise, "arets" is perfect for what I am getting at - all the
kingdoms of the world - ha-arets - the land. It can be in a localized
sense.
JASON LONG:
> Furthermore, you snipped all
> the other verses, such as the tree,
DENIS:
From Daniel right? Sigh... these are visions/dreams. I dreamt I was
once blown apart by explosives inside my body, yet here I am, still
alive. Do you think there is a contradiction there? Or do you agree
that dreams do not necessarily represent what a person believes is the
actual fact of the matter? The fact that you would cite
Nebuchadnezzar's *DREAM* as representing what the Biblical authors
actually believed tells us more about you than it does the text.
JASON LONG
> The four corners is consistent with the flat earth belief. I don't
> care what people speak of today.
DENIS:
I was noting that many people (A) believe in a round earth, and (B)
speak of the "four corners of the earth." That is a logical proof
beyond dispute that speaking of the "four corners of the earth" is not
synonymous with not believing in a round earth.
DENIS:
> > Finally, the circle of the earth - I assume you mean "chug ha-
> > arets," which appears in Isaiah 40:22. This term is a reference
> > to the horizon. However, if you really want to get into it, I can take
> > scientific-hermeneutic approach to this verse by noting that "chug"
> > can also mean sphere. Thus if you're going to make the assertion
> > that "chug ha-arets" is not a reference to the horizon, but rather is
> > stating that the earth (arets) is in the shape of a "chug," I'll
> > just note that "chug" can mean sphere as well as circle. To back
> > this claim up, let me cite four Hebrew dictionaries that note this:
> >
> > Shimon Zilberman, "Milon Adkani M'rookaz Ivri-Angli," (Zilberman,
> > 2001), p. 92.
> >
> > Dov Ben-Abba, "The Meridian Hebrew/English Dictionary," (Meridian,
> > 1994), p. 105.
> >
> > Reuven AlQalay, "Milon Ivri-Angli Shalem," (Massadah, 1964), p. 721.
> > [This source, being one of the most authoritative Hebrew
> > dictionaries, even gives "orb" as one of the meanings of "chug"]
> >
> > Yisrael Efros, Y'hudah Ibn-Shmuel Kaufman, and Binyamin Silk, "Milon
> > Angli-Ivri," (Dvir, 1952), p. 623.
JASON LONG:
> There's a singular instance Christians flaunt to promote a harmony
> between the Bible and the shape of the earth, all the while ignoring
> scriptures to the contrary. Isaiah 40:22 says "it is he that sitteth
> upon the circle of the earth". The word in question is "circle". A
> circle is a two dimensional object. A sphere, the approximate shape
> of the earth, is similar to a ball.
DENIS:
So, obviously above you are POSITIVELY ASSERTING that "chug ha-arets"
means the earth (arets) is shaped like a "chug". Fine. I listed (count
them) four Hebrew dictionaries that note that "chug" can mean sphere,
and Gesenius also agrees that it is a possible meaning. So then, if
"chug ha-arets" means the earth (arets) is shaped like a "chug," and
"chug" can mean sphere/orb, then it is reasonable to understand this
verse as stating the earth is in the shape of a sphere. You walked
yourself into this.
JASON:
> Make an assertion it's not the horizon?!? You asserted it was. Back
> it up.
DENIS:
See Milon Ivri-Angli Shalem cited above - it lists the meaning of
"chuch ha-arets" as horizon, and that is the meaning it has even today
in modern Israeli Hebrew. Of course, you want it to mean that the
earth is shaped like a "chug" - well, I have listed now five (the four
above plus Gesenius) Hebrew dictionaries that allow "sphere" as one of
the possible meanings for "chug".
JASON LONG:
> Here is my elaboration: The Earth cannot be turned upside-down to
> shake off the inhabitants.
DENIS:
After dealing with you in this thread over the last few weeks, I
realize that despite being a non-Christian, you too are a literalist
when it comes to English translations of the text. Maybe you should
learn Hebrew. I assume you are referring to Isaiah 24:1. The verse
lists things being done to the earth, and at one point it reads
"v'ivvah paneiha". The verb la'avot means to distort, twist, make
crooked, corrupt, pervert, et cetera. "'Ivvah et panayv" means
literally to distort one's face, and the relevant portion from Isaiah
means "pervert her face" (id est, the face of the earth). Think of the
face of the earth being turned over, and the inhabitants fleeing. This
is essentially stating that earth quakes are within God's power or can
be the will of God. Nothing there implies a flat earth.
JASON LONG:
> > > But doesn't it say pillars are holding the Earth up?
DENIS:
> > Could you point me in the direction of the precise verses you are
> > making reference to?
JASON LONG:
> 1 samuel 2:8, job 9:6, job 26:11, psalms 75:3.
DENIS:
Yep, I was right, you take an ultra-literal interpretation to an
English translation. The context of 1 Samuel 2:8 has to do with the
poor being made rich, and the rich being made poor, et cetera. The
word for pillar is matsuq, and this verse is obviously talking about
m'tsuqeem - pillars of the earth, or as Milon Ivri-Angli Shalem
defines it, pillars of society, the righteous.
As for Job 9:6, the word there is 'amood, which can mean foundations.
In case you didn't know, earth quakes are caused by the foundations of
the land suffering shock, or trembling. Read up on plate techtonics.
Job 26:11 simply states that the very foundation of the heavens can be
shook by God's rebuke. This is a metaphorical testament to how
powerful God is (according to the Bible).
JASON LONG:
> John, Daniel, and Jesus clearly thought stars were tiny balls of
> light. End of story.
DENIS:
No, not end of story. Most of the examples were in dreams, visions or
parables, and none of them explicitly state that "stars [a]re tiny
balls of light". That's your own interpretation. Once again we see,
when you state that the Bible contradicts science, you really mean
*YOUR INTERPRETATION* of the Bible contradicts science.
JASON LONG
> I was not debating with you when I said that. Understand? I was
> telling a member of this group what is already obvious.
DENIS
> > Now moving to the Gilgamesh flood, I read it, and indeed there are
> > some similarities. However, how again do these similarities prove
> > the story is not true?
JASON LONG
> Quit misrepresenting my position if you want to continue this
> discussion. That in itself does not disprove it, but gives
> credibility to the claim.
DENIS:
Gives credibiltiy to what claim? The similarities give credit to
various claims, such as...
CLAIM 1: the claim that the stories are attempts at recording the same
rough event.
CLAIM 2: the claim that the stories come from a common source.
Neither conclusion is fool proof, and I'm glad that you at least admit
that this offers nothing in the way of disproving the story in
Genesis.
DENIS:
> > The Gilgamesh epic does not even seem to present it
> > as a global flood, as the speaker looks in one direction and
> > actually sees land (in the vicinity of Mt Nirush). The Bible and
> > Gilgamesh speak of major floods. Are we to assume, therefore, that
> > the stories are false? Why not just the same cite Gilgamesh as
> > evidence of a memory of a major flood?
JASON LONG
> Denis, the Noah story is predated by Gilgamesh. All of this took
> place before Noah ever lived.
DENIS:
If you mean the Gilgamesh epic claims it took place before time X, so
what? Why should we assume that date is correct? If you, on the other
hand, mean the Gilgamesh epic itself predates the time Noah lived (or
the time you think Noah lived, if he lived at all), what evidence do
you have to back up this claim?
It seems to me you have two texts that both exhibit memory of a major
flood.
DENIS:
> > You're not going to do my homework for me? I'm not asking you to do
> > such. You made a positive assertion, and I was simply asking you to
> > present evidence. That's not doing my homework for me.
JASON:
> Denis, it's a known fact wooden boats without metal bracings can't
> survive if longer than 300 feet. Since you're so willing to find
> references to the contrary, but unwilling to find these references,
> you're obviously looking for selective evidence.
DENIS:
You're the one who made the assertion. Are you stating that my lack of
presented evidence in favor of your claim is proof that I am looking
selectively? This is a strange accusation considering you also have
presented zero evidence for your claim. Are you also trying to
selectively avoid evidence in your own favor?
JASON:
> Provide me with one example of an all wooden boat longer than 300
> feet that did not take on too much water and did not snake.
DENIS:
I have no proof of any such vessel. Nonetheless, he who asserts must
prove, and you were the one who asserted this. Why are you trying to
shift the burden of proof? You stated that this is a "known fact," and
I'm not disputing that, but I find it ironic that you have yet to show
evidence. Hmmmm....
JASON LONG
> Your twisting of the clear meaning of the text doesn't answer
> anything I said. Everyone knows where the mountains of Ararat are.
DENIS:
Oh really? That's funny. As I understand it, the location understood
as the mountains of Ararat is based on tradition, one that can be
traced back no further than Josephus. Since everyone knows it, as you
claim, maybe you could present some positive evidence that the word in
the Hebrew text is actually a reference to the mountain range in
Armenia (or Turkey).
JASON:
> How could the ark make it to Ararat without the water seeking its own
> level? It can't. It was a global flood.
DENIS:
Where is "Ararat"? And from where did Noah start? The text seems vague
on this point. Your statement seems to imply you know the starting
point and finishing point of Noah's journey - care to elaborate?
Anyway, I stand by what I wrote in my previous post: Gilgamesh does
not have the water covering all the mountains, you claim the Noah
story is a plagiarism of the Gilgamesh epic, and the Biblical version
can be understood as also not having the water cover all the
mountains. In short, the Biblical flood is not necessarily global.
DENIS:
> > Funny, Acts does not state that Judas died from the fall.
> > Admittedly,
> > it does not state that he did not die from the fall. Nonetheless,
> > you've inserted that into the two passages. What the two passages
> > state are "Judas hanged himself" and "Judas fell headlong and burst
> > open". These are not contradictory propositions, but I see now that
> > when logic is no longer in your favor, you suddenly no longer want
> > to employ it.
JASON LONG
> Denis, Matthew 27:5 does not say he died from hanging. It says he
> hung himself.
DENIS:
I agree 100%.
JASON:
> We can be reasonably certain he died from the
> hanging. Acts says he burst open. It does not say he died from
> bursting open, but we can be reasonably certain he died from bursting
> open. The accounts are contradictory.
DENIS:
Uh, it is possible to interpret Judas as dying from either event, but
the text never explicitly states such. Thus we see that it is not the
two propositions in question that contradict, but rather *YOUR
INTERPRETATION* of the two propositions.
JASON LONG:
> No, Denis. Zubub was a mythological figure who was buried. A later
> story made an earthly Zubub who was buried. This does not make my
> mythological story an earthly one.
DENIS:
If the figure did not exist, he was not really buried. If he was
buried, then he was an earthly figure. Paul believed Jesus died and
was buried, and then was risen from the dead - that's an earthly
figure.
DENIS:
> > Paul states quite matter of factly that
> > if Christ didn't rise from the dead, then his faith is useless, and
> > Paul certainly didn't consider his faith useless, thus he believed
> > Jesus rose from the dead. That's an earthly figure with an earthly
> > burial. Paul believed Jesus died on a cross, was buried, and was
> > raised from the dead after three days. How does a non-earthly figure
> > die on a cross, get buried, and then get raised from the dead?
JASON LONG:
> A non-earthly figure dies on a cross, gets buried, and then gets
> raised from the dead when the story told Paul has every indiction
> Jesus was a non-earthly figure.
DENIS:
How does a "non-earthly figure" die and get buried? This is a
reference to an earthly figure. An extraordinary earthly figure, but
an earthly figure nonetheless.
DENIS:
> > I'm fooling myself? Why is that?
JASON LONG
> I don't know. You're a Muslim who doesn't believe Jesus was the Son
> of God is my best guess.
DENIS:
Actually no. You've guess wrong regarding what I am, what I believe.
DENIS:
> > I have no evidence that either Lawrence or Jesus did any of those
> > things. Lawrence, however, claims to be a prophet, and I have seen
> > him do a couple interesting things (not miraculous, but under the right
> > interpretation, in keeping with him being a prophet). If right now I
> > claim has done such things, and no one else makes the same claim,
> > does this mean Lawrence did not exist?
JASON LONG
> I can say nothing about the existence of Lawrence or Jesus. I *can*
> say it's exceedingly unlikely these miracles took place on the sole
> basis no one bothered to record them.
DENIS:
Ahhhh, this is a wholly different issue. I would agree that there is
no real evidence that Jesus performed any actual miracles. See, what I
was disputing was your insinuation that Jesus did not exist (id est,
maybe he was not an historical character, but no sort of ex silentio
logic demonstrates such).
JASON:
> > > No historians even recorded an
> > > Earthly belief in Jesus until the second century.
DENIS:
> > Actually, we have the New Testament, which is a rock solid piece of
> > evidence that people in the first century believed in an earthly
> > Jesus, a Jesus who was born of a human mother, who visited
> > Jerusalem,
> > who was crucified by the Romans some time around Pesach, and who was
> > buried after that crucifixion. No serious NT scholar would deny that
> > the gospels contain numerous elements that represent the beliefs of
> > people living in the first century.
JASON LONG
> First century people - second century recording. Reread my original
> statement.
DENIS:
Funny. Who are you falling back on to understand the gospels or
letters attributed to Paul as second century recordings? As I
understand it, the true concensus among the cream of NT scholarship is
that the synoptics and the letters attributed to Paul are first
century documents. They may have undergone some evolution after that
(right on up until the sixth century), but they were first century
documents nonetheless. And hey(!), let's not forget about the
Q-source!
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org/