Still Crazy After All These Years: Creationists Keep Trying

Discussion in 'Spirituality & Religion' started by Dyvel, Dec 21, 2010.

  1. roby

    roby Member+

    SIRLOIN SALOON FC, PITTSFIELD MA
    Feb 27, 2005
    So Cal
    I think it might be a good idea to fill out the form and mail it in. They might not ask for too many $$ for you to reserve a spot in Paradise. :unsure:
     
  2. song219

    song219 BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 5, 2004
    La Norte
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Vanuatu
    How do we know they didn't overbook it like an airliner?
     
  3. roby

    roby Member+

    SIRLOIN SALOON FC, PITTSFIELD MA
    Feb 27, 2005
    So Cal
    You gotta have Faith. If she's not available.....try Hope! :cool:
     
    dapip repped this.
  4. song219

    song219 BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 5, 2004
    La Norte
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Vanuatu
    Sounds like something you'd hear in a brothel. :)
     
  5. roby

    roby Member+

    SIRLOIN SALOON FC, PITTSFIELD MA
    Feb 27, 2005
    So Cal
    I'll have to take your word as I've never been. ;)
     
  6. YankHibee

    YankHibee Member+

    Mar 28, 2005
    indianapolis
    Hope is prone to drunkenness and lewdness, but also to saving her photos in insecure places. Caveat emptor.
     
    roby repped this.
  7. roby

    roby Member+

    SIRLOIN SALOON FC, PITTSFIELD MA
    Feb 27, 2005
    So Cal
    I'm trying to see a downside to this. A few tipples of Dago Red and we're partying! :whistling:
     
  8. YankHibee

    YankHibee Member+

    Mar 28, 2005
    indianapolis
    Oh, the downside is there for all to see. You can even see the inside on several.
     
  9. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    The anthropologist Mary Douglas highlighted a problem with the notion of some animals being "unclean" or "polluted", given that God supposedly created them and explicitly declared them to be good. Later we find that even touching the skin of something declared good renders a person polluted. Interesting to see how something good is actually bad! Regardless, we see once again how different narrative accounts using different names for god incorporate different assumptions (the purity laws are decreed long after Noah supposedly lived, not before, so theoretically in Noah's time there was no distinction between clean and unclean - this once again provides an indication that those portions of the Flood narrative were written about the time of the Babylonian captivity).

    I'm curious, do you actually read Genesis?

    Before the flood Adam lived to be 930 (Genesis 5:5), his son Seth 912 (Genesis 5:8), Seth's son Enosh 905 (Genesis 5:11), Enosh's son Kenan 910 (Genesis 5:14), Kenan's son Mahelel 895 (Genesis 5:17), Mahalel's son Jared 962 (Genesis 5:20), Jared's son Enoch 365 (Genesis 5:23), Enoch's son Methuselah 969 (Genesis 5:27; whose time on earth ended in the same year as the flood, I might add), Methuselah's son Lamech 777 (Genesis 5:31), and Lamech's son was Noah, who supposedly died at 950 years old (Genesis 9:29). Not a single person in that list had a lifespan limited to 120 years. Not even close!

    After the flood people didn't live as long (but still well over the 120 year limit): Shem died at 600 (Gen 11:11), Shem's son Arpachshad died at 438 (Gen 11:13), Arpachshad's son Shelah at 433 (Gen 11:15), Shelah's son Eber at 464 (Gen 11:17), Eber's son Peleg at 239 (Gen 11:19), Peleg's son Reu at 239 (Gen 11:21), Reu's son Serug at 230 (Gen 11:23), Serug's son Nahor at 148 (Gen 11:25), and Nahor's son Terah at 205 (Gen 11:32).

    So people after the flood do not live as long as people before the flood. But both categories live longer than 120 until we get to Moses, who dies at 120 years old. Once again, the flood version where God limits the lifespan of people to 120 years is a different narrative account (uses a different name for God) than the accounts that provides ages. In my opinion that makes the most sense for the contradiction, or should I say error, in the text.


    You're kind of missing the point. If you cannot discern between good and evil, how would you know following a command from God is good and therefore something you should do?


    I am familiar with this view given it is consistent with what Pope John Paul II mentioned. But the problem you should have with it is it explicitly accepts human evolution - that God did not create modern humans as is but instead modern humans evolved from previous hominins. If humans can evolve from Neanderthals (something which is rejected by the vast majority of paleoanthropologists, then why not Neanderthals from Homo heidelbergensis, H. heidelbergensis from H. erectus, H. erectus from H. ergaster, H. ergaster from H. habilis, H. habilis from Australopithecus, Australopithecus from something similar to Ardipithecus, and that from something similar to Sahelanthropus, and that from an ape-like ancestor, and that from a monkey-like ancestor, so on?

    For the record, partly from the fossil record and partly as a result of genetic studies demonstrating all people of non-African descent have 1-4% of their genetic code coming from Neanderthals, while sub-Saharan Africans have 0% of their genetic code coming from Neanderthals, it is clear modern humans did not evolve directly from Neanderthals.


    Not if you take the Bible literally. If you take the Bible literally they couldn't have preceded Adam and Eve. And if you don't take the Bible literally, then there is absolutely no reason other than blind obstinate faith why you should assume any of the details in Genesis to be accurate true, given how the overwhelming abundance of archaeological, geological, biological and astronomical evidence oppose the Genesis accounts.
     
    Pønch, HerthaBerwyn and crazypete13 repped this.
  10. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    he said that they were "good" before The Fall.
    your understanding of the Bible may lack a little clarity...
    nope. not evolution.

    when God "breaths life into" a being he created from "natural elements", that's special creation.

    God's playing field, God's rules, chief...
     
  11. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    You, not me, were the one who said that one view is that God breathed his spirit into the Neanderthal's successor, which certainly implies evolution.

    You, not me, were the one who said the Bronze Age and Iron Age may have preceded Adam and Eve, which the Bible says are the first two people.

    It's so much clearer when you just realize the biblical texts were written in the context of a Near Eastern society with a worldview similar to other Near Eastern cultures. Such an approach doesn't require jumping through any theological hoops or playing Theological Twister to make the texts clear and sensible. I can pick up Genesis and other books of the Torah and see perfectly how they fit into a Near Eastern cultural context and how their views changed over time to develop into something now recognizable as Judaism. I can see how the internal contradictions and errors make sense in that framework. But you get twisted in a knot trying to explain things.

    For example, first you say God limited the ages of people before the Flood to 120 years. When I provide proof the biblical contexts contradict your view, which means the Bible contradicts itself very clearly, you simply ignore the matter. God said he limited people to a 120 year lifespan. Both before and after the Flood people lived considerably longer than that for quite a few generations. Now I suppose you will say God didn't mean it right away!
     
    dapip and crazypete13 repped this.
  12. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Yeah, but then he apparently changed his mind.

    From Genesis chapter 6: The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
     
    Sounders78 repped this.
  13. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    here is where the problem lies: Adam and Eve are the first man and woman created in God's image. any hominid that predates them is not Man in the biblical sense.

    this is Genesis 1:24-27(NASB)
    24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. 25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

    as you can see, "beasts of the earth" were created before man. that would include hominids.
     
  14. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    On the bright side I'm glad some creationists are finally acknowledging the hominins are real and not simply dismissing them as "just apes" or "just humans". Progress! And here I thought you would opt for Neanderthals being the Nephilim, given we could interbreed with them and have fertile offspring.

    Regardless, the creation of Neanderthals and humans supposedly happened on the same day. Yes, yes, I realize some creationists don't want to take that part literally. That's the beauty of biblical literalism, it is incredibly selective.

    Regarding the passage you quoted, I find the change of pronouns and from plural to singular interesting. Let's remember that Elohim is used in the Old Testament as both a proper name of a deity and a plural noun referencing spirits (Samuel was referenced as an elohim when Saul had the lady call him up from the dead).

    Verse 26 reads: “Let us make man [humankind] in our image”. Here Elohim speaks in the first person plural, not the first person singular. When Elohim speaks for the group, Elohim says they will make humans in their image, so that they can rule over the fish of the sea, etc.

    Meanwhile, verse 27 begins: “And Elohim created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim he created him”. No longer is the pronoun plural (our), it's now singular (his). And notice it says “him”, not “them” as it does at the end of verse 26. He creates man in his own image.
    Verse 27 continues: “male and female he created them”. We've gone from singular (him) to plural (them). When speaking of the female, there is no comment that Elohim made her in Elohim’s own image, for Elohim is a male. Males were created in Elohim’s own image, not females.

    As a result, it can be interpreted females were made in the image of a different deity, such as Elohim’s wife (there is archaeological evidence from the period of 1000-600 BCE that the Hebrews considered Jehovah to have a wife). Thus, the deities made humans in their image, with males made specifically in Elohim’s image.

    So, let's put it all together based on the implications of the pronouns: "Then Elohim said to the other gods, 'Let Us make humans in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' So Elohim created man in Elohim's own image, in the image of Elohim, Elohim created the man; male and female Elohim created them in the image of the gods."

    Naturally you will object but the text does actually allow for a polytheistic interpretation for this passage consistent with other Near Eastern religions and findings from the archaeological record. After all, the Mesopotamian gods created humans in their image to do the labor the gods didn't want to do - they made humans to tend their gardens (just like Genesis 2) and raise their crops.
     
  15. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    At least you have some interesting ideas, albeit they are askew...

    Whether Hebrews thought Jehovah had a wife is immaterial. They thought worshiping a calf was a good idea. So, no...

    Of the three persons in the Trinity, Jehovah is preeminent. Jesus makes that clear when, in John 17, he says that he would that his disciples know "Thee, the only true God..." Thus, when Elohim says (Gen 1:26) "Let us make Man in our image", the Hebrew does not contain the possessive "our". That is a translation tool to make the English read more conventionally. In Gen 1:27, the same holds true. There is no word translated "his" in the Hebrew.

    It would make little sense in English to say: "God (singular) made man in their (plural) image." Verse 26 makes sense because it says "Let us make Man in our image" where both the subject pronoun and the possessive are both first person plural.
     
  16. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    And yet it indicates they were polytheists - the culture that gave rise to the texts were polytheists. You're not helping your case in refuting the polytheistic underpinning of the passage.


    When discussing texts that were written between 1000 and 600 BCE, it doesn't mean much when you start quoting someone from the first century AD, hundreds of years after Judaism became monotheistic. You're assuming the religious beliefs never changed - they did.


    But if monotheism was the belief of the time, it would make a lot more sense to say "Let Me make Man in My image". So once again, you're not making the case you think you're making. You have to assume Christian beliefs a priori in order to make the Hebrew texts say what you want them to say. The passage is very consistent with a polytheistic interpretation, which is not surprising given the ancient Hebrews were polytheistic.

    And that's not even touching on the question of what it means to be made in God's image if God is not an anthropomorphic being.
     
  17. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    you're (typically) attempting to create the idea that a triune god is more than one god. not so. whether the Jews/Hebrews had the correct perception of who Jehovah consisted in is irrelevant.

    Moses knew.
     
  18. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    No, I'm not. The ancient Hebrews believed that YHWH had a wife. That's not triune, that's polytheism. You're making the assumption that Moses wrote the Torah; an assumption biblical scholars do not accept. Your assumptions are not consistent either with biblical scholarship, cultural context nor archaeological evidence. Let's simply state that the entire Moses myth is just that, a myth. All the important stories from Adam to Solomon are simply not supported by the evidence. Other than pure blind faith there is absolutely no reason to assume any of those stories are historical and plenty of evidence suggesting they are not.
     
  19. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    you're operating under the assumption that Baur et al. have the correct view, that "higher criticism" is more on point than the views of men like FF Bruce, Sanday and Hedlam, and others. i respectfully choose to differ.

    one of the speculative views is that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict one another because they present a different narrative, but the problem with that perspective is that it ignores the fact that the two versions have entirely different purposes. you cannot impute from differences in style that there are different authors. that might be true but it isn't definitive evidence.

    and we all know that the ancient Hebrews were very much off the page as far as their relationship with YHWH was concerned. they wanted to go back to Egypt, just to give an earthy example.
     
  20. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    Given the two different flood stories embedded within Genesis 6-9, given the two different creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, given the two different accounts of Abraham saying Sarah was his sister not his wife, given the two different accounts of men trying to rape a visitor to a city (Genesis 19, Judges 19), and given that each of these paired examples uses a different name for God (Elohim v YHWH), in addition to the errors already stated (such as the limit of lifespans to 120 years), and that archaeological, geological and all other evidence indicates the Torah is flat-out wrong, the "higher criticism" makes a lot more consistent sense of the data than blindly assuming, contrary to all evidence, that the Torah is literally true.
     
  21. Dyvel

    Dyvel Member+

    Jul 24, 1999
    The dog end of a day gone by
    Club:
    Leeds United AFC
    Nat'l Team:
    Ireland Republic
  22. Dyvel

    Dyvel Member+

    Jul 24, 1999
    The dog end of a day gone by
    Club:
    Leeds United AFC
    Nat'l Team:
    Ireland Republic
  23. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    #1398 RichardL, Jul 10, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2016
    I'm sure the people who wrote genesis circa 1000 BC were well versed in 17th century English grammatical rules.


    edit: my, that was an old post I quoted
     
  24. HerthaBerwyn

    HerthaBerwyn Member+

    May 24, 2003
    Chicago
    The only thing that reproduces in its own image is DNA. There is your God.
     
    crazypete13 repped this.
  25. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    what do you need to have DNA molecules? where do they come from? does DNA exist apart from an organism of some sort? if not, where did the organism come from?
     
    HerthaBerwyn repped this.

Share This Page