quote:

---

Genesis 1

20 And God said, Let the waters• bring• forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl• that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great• whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply•, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his akind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 ¶ And God said, Let us• make man in our image•, after our likeness•: and let them have dominion• over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

---

quote:

---

Genesis 2
...
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the agarden of bEden to• dress it and to keep• it.

16 And the LORD God acommanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest bfreely eat:

17 But of the tree• of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day• that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die•.

18 ¶ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone•; I will make him an• help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam• to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the bname thereof.

---

Is this what you are thinking of?

[ August 03, 2004, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I never really thought about it before. Let's see...

From my reading of Genesis 1:

God made some of the animals on day 5, and some on day 6. Man was also made on day six. It is mentioned after the creation of the animals, but I don't see anything that says it was after the animals.

So all it seems to say is that some animals were made before man was.

From my reading of Genesis 2:
I don't see anything here that says one was created before the other.

From my reading of the Book of Abraham:
The Book of Abraham is a book of LDS scripture that has a different version of the creation. It is very similar, but some things are different. The order is not the same for everything in Abraham as in Genesis. But as far as the animals/man question, it seems to say the same thing as Genesis; some animals appear to have been created before man, the rest is unclear.

Now, just let me warn you that if you come up with some verse somewhere that seems to contradict this and say "What about this?", my response will be "I don't know". I don't debate things like this, but I am willing to discuss it with friends. But from the tone of your post, you seem to be more interested in springing a trap on me than genuinely understanding what I believe. In fact, I almost didn't reply to you at all, but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[ August 03, 2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
It's not a matter of springing a trap. I thought I clearly marked that I thought that this was a question that you wouldn't be able to answer.

I don't think that a belief in literal Biblical creationism can be supported by what the Bible actually says. I think that the Bible has too often been twisted to make it a literal document of history and science and that this distorts its actual meaning and leads to things like Galileo as well as a Pharisee-like concern of the letter of the law over that of the content. I think that the twisting of what the Bible says about creation in order to fit the preconceived notion that it is literally true is a geat example of this. But I could be wrong, so I leave the possibility open.

On the 5th day, God creates the fish of the sea and the fowl of the air. On the sixth day, he creates the beasts of the earth. After this, it says he creates man. Not definitive proof that the beasts of the field were created before man, but sugestive at the very least.

However, unless you think that 5 comes after 6, it's clear that in the one story, the fish of the sea and the fowl of the air are created before man. however, in the Garden of Eden, we're told that man is created first. More specifically, we are told that all the fowl of the air are created after man.

The two stories of creation in the Bible are logically mutually exclusive. I think you don't see it because you don't want to see it. Your belief in literal intpretation overrides your respect for the Bible. edit: This is the flaw (the imposition of ideology to alter, de-emphasize, and/or ignore whatever doesn't agree with them) that made me lose my respect for Christianity. That's not so much a trap as it is an accusation, one that, in my opinion, you failed to answer.

[ August 03, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
How could he have answered that question if you just asked it right now? The question he was answering was when did he think the animals were created in realtionship to the creation of man.

Hobbes

[ August 03, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 

quote:

---

The two stories of creation in the Bible are logically mutually exclusive. I think you don't see it because you don't want to see it. Your belief in literal intpretation overrides your respect for the Bible. That's not so much a trap as it is an accusation, one that, in my opinion, you failed to answer.

---

That was harsh. Talk about assumptions.

A really literal take on the Creation story in the Bible leaves you missing many important answers like the answers to how, why, where, and when the Creation took place. I don't think this account of Creation was meant to be taken strictly literally.

I believe in the Creation, and I believe that it is important that the steps of Creation were divided up in this manner. What the Creation story tells us is that God created all these things and set them in order. It was all according to His plan. However, I am open to further information that sheds more light on the Bible's account.

[ August 03, 2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Mr. Squicky, why do you care? Is this a "At Least I'm Smarter than the Dumb Bible-Believers" day?
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
afr,
My point is that not only weren't they meant to be taken literally, they are incapable of being taken literally if you respect the Bible. This used to be a big issue for as an offense against my religion. I was a christian who had problems with other christians because of how little integrity they had towards the actual religion. I think that this is one of the more cut and dried examples of it.

kat,
Like I said, it used to be an issue for me because of my religious beliefs. Now, it's an issue because I believe that there is an underlying striving for truth. Like I've said before, Christians who don't respect their religion make up a majority of the religion in the US and that these people are more prejudiced and various other problems than the non-religious population. However, the people who are actually Christians with integrity, who are dedicated not to what they want to be there, but to discovering and understanding what is actually there, are some of the best people in our society. I think, if more people became these second type of Christians, our world would be a much better place. This is an important issue for me.

I try to foster respect for truth where I can. I think that undermining the idea that you can claim the Bible says whatever you want it to will be a big step for this in our country.

[ August 03, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I'm curious - why do you care about this? And you didn't answer my question from above.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

however, in the Garden of Eden, we're told that man is created first. More specifically, we are told that all the fowl of the air are created after man.

---

quote:

---

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam

---

quote:

---

I think that the twisting of what the Bible says about creation in order to fit the preconceived notion that it is literally true is a geat example of this.
...
...
Not definitive proof that the beasts of the field were created before man, but sugestive at the very least.

---

Here it appears that [b]you[\b] are twisting the Bible to fit a certain idea (that the Bible says man was created after all the animals, but elsewhere says something else).
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Squick, I for one agree that the Bible is not always meant to be taken literally. I see no point in arguing about the details of the Creation account like that. Others might, but I don't.

But like kat said, this just feels like you're picking a fight. Your "accusation" is a little unfounded.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
MrSquicky -- it appears that your problem is when people believe that every little thing in the Bible is the literal truth. I can undrstand sympathize with it.

But there's a big difference between that and believing in a literal creation. I don't believe everything in the Bible should be taken literally, but I do belive in a literal creation.

For example, I don't believe the earth was made in 6*24 hours.

Like I said before, us LDS believe in two different accounts of the creation in which the order of when things are created is different. That obviously means that one of them is not literally correct.

Are you using creation because of the creationism vs. evolution thing? If so, you are barking up the wrong tree in picking a fight with me about it. Evolution is real, and has been happening for a long time. Is evolution the origin of the species? It could be. Perhaps God used evolution as the means of creating all the animals in the first place. That's what I think probably happened. I don't believe it, but I don't believe it's false either.

But that's not the important (to me) message from Genesis 1 and 2. The important message is that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything on it. There were two first parents, Adam and Even (I believe that literally), and God was with them and taught them in the beginning.

edit: To clarify about my evolution views; while I don't believe in it, I think that's probably what happened. It just makes sense.

[ August 03, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
porter,
Who says I believe that I think that believing in the Bible is stupid? I certainly never have. I'm arguing that not actually believing in the Bible, but instead filtering to have it say what you want it to is lacking in integrity.

I get upset about what I see as people's low standards for believing in the Bible and Christianity are. I mean, if it's the most important thing in your life, I think people should know more about it that they do. They should certainly know more aobut it than I do, who stopped studying it as a religious thing when I was 14. And yet, people don't know Hebrew and Greek, and yet claim to revere the Bible. They don't even know what the mishna, the midrash, or the talmud are, and yet claim that they are the spiritual descendents of the Jews. They don't know about how Chiristianity took shape over the years, but they think that they are devoted to christianity. I'd say that the average American Christian knows more about football than they do about Christianity.

This is a huge problem. Much like most other sections of the American population, these Christians are living a life steeped in self-deception. Their immature way of holding beliefs allows tem to see Christianity as an answer to their immature desires, rather than as a constant call to be more mature. The literalist tradition lets them pretend that they know about all the important issues, so they don't feel an obligation to study or learn or think about these things.

These criticisms are nothing new. In America, they formed one of the main issues of the First Revival of (among others) Jonathan Edwards'. This revival was a call towards study and contemplation and a type of intellectual humility. OF course, it was followed by the Second Revival, which emphasized personal experience over learning and study and injected an anti-intellectual emphasis into American Protestantism.
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
If one takes into account the imperfect state of the Hebrew verbs in Genesis 1 & 2, the two accounts don't have to be "mutually exclusive".

Benjamin Wills Newton's translation, taking the imperfect (incomplete) verb forms into account, renders things this way. (J.W. Watt's is similar.)

quote:

---

And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]. (brackets his)- 1:3

---

quote:

---

Then God continued, saying, ‘Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, also let there be a separation between the waters.’ Accordingly, God proceeded to divide the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and gradually it came to be so.-1:6,7 (italics mine)

---

quote:

---

Yahweh God continued to form from the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the heavens and to bring them to the man to see what he would call them. (italics mine)

---

The idea here, to me at least, is that activity begun on one "day" did not necessarily have to be completed by the next "day". The differing animal groups could have started to be created (by whatever processes) on their respective "days" and that continued into later days.

For myself, who does believe that the Genesis account is an accurate, if poetic and simple, explanation of creation to pastoral peoples of 3500 years ago in terms and a perspective they could have then understood- including using the term "day" to convey the idea of an epoch- this reasoning serves to make the two accounts complementary.

But I'm jes an ign'ant Bible worshipping moron.

Ian

[ August 03, 2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: IanO ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Mr. Squicky, why are you ignoring everything I am saying in this thread? I have asked you two different questions very politely. Answer me.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
kat,
I think I answered you in an edit that went on longer than I planned it to. Could you read over the thread and see if that is the case. If not, if you restate exactly what the questions are, I'll answer them.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Although the LDS are immune to your blanket denunciation of Christians. We have our own beliefs about how Christianity evolved and where it stems from. So nyah.

I admit I don't have much knowledge of Jewish scripture or customs. However, you obviously don't have much knowledge of mph's LDS background and beliefs. You're firing on the wrong foxhole.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Again, my point isn't that people who believe in the Bible are ignorant morons, but rather that most people in America who say that they believe in it do so in an ignorant, moronic way, or rather an immature way lacking in dedication or integrity.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Squick, what do you know about what the LDS believe about the Bible?
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

For myself, who does believe that the Genesis account is an accurate, if poetic and simple, explanation of creation to pastoral peoples of 3500 years ago in terms and a perspective they could have then understood- including using the term "day" to convey the idea of an epoch- this reasoning serves to make the two accounts complementary.

---

Where do you get the 35000 number from, since most creationists don't go past 10000 years?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
(He didn't - you added a 0.)
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
d'oh!

Then I'm not even going to bother asking about archaeological finds older than that, biological finds dated older than that, or geological finds earlier than that. It would be a dead-end question with no real answer.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
That's good. I didn't want to have to bring up the inaccuracy of carbon dating.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
kat,
My impression is that LDS consider the Bible a holy document inspired by God that is incomplete, both in terms of story and of interpretation. Other than that, I'm not really sure what else to say.
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
Just another name,

3500 years ago, as in around 1500 BC. About the time, I believe, that Genesis was written to the Israelites freed from Egypt.

Not when creation of Adam occurred, which is what I think you were all ready to jump on.

And Squicky, I was just playing about the Bible worshipping moron comment. I understand that was not your intention. In fact, I agree with you general assessment regarding people's belief in something they, in reality, know very little about.

Ian

[ August 03, 2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: IanO ]
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
While I'm not invested in arguing over the point, I always figured that it meant God populated the earth with the animals, then afterward created one of each (or two, if one of each sex) for Adam to name -- I had never assumed Adam named each and every individual creature. But since I don't know the language in which the account was written, I don't know if my interpretation may already be textually inaccurate. Should anyone choose to enlighten me, I wouldn't be upset or disillusioned.

--Pop
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I'm under the impression that scads of time would had to have passed between Adam and Abraham, considering the fact that there were entire civilizations and languages by then.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Why are you so concerned about other people not living up to your definition of what people should be?

[ August 03, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
"Ok, Rabbit 1 will now be know as 'hoppy'. And Rabbit 2, you'll be 'floppy'. And #3, you'll be 'moppy'..."

Naming each individual animal. I don't imagine he'd ever finish with the rabbits, let alone move on to another animal.



Ian
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Not to mention every fly.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Or bacteria. When one splits which one gets to keep the old name?

On which day did God create the prokaryotes?
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Well, I think it's obvious that Adam didn't name the bacteria. That's why they have those weird long names in latin or whatever.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

That's good. I didn't want to have to bring up the inaccuracy of carbon dating.

---

quote:

---

3500 years ago, as in around 1500 BC. About the time, I believe, that Genesis was written to the Israelites freed from Egypt.

Not when creation of Adam occurred, which is what I think you were all ready to jump on.

---

Actually, I could go either way. What is your explanation for the complete lack of record by the Egyptians of the Exodus? There exist other records, both religious and commercial, but nothing about a huge group of slaves leaving the land and being chased by the entire army. While we're at it, why is there no Egyptian record of a great disaster destroying a huge part og its army, including chariots? Even further more, what is your response to the historical claims that the Exodus, were it to have happened at all, would have been far later than 1500 BCE?

I'm not jumping all over it, I'm asking how you have the answers to all of these questions, while scholars still seem stumped with regard to giving a definitive answer.
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
One could argue that the creation of bacteria, etc, would have been done on the 3rd day, when plant life began to be created.

Ian
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
I know that it's standard to think of the Exodus as being around 1200 BC. Ramses and Seti and all that. But Egyptian dating, especially of dynasties, with regard to specific dates, has never been more than guesswork within a particular framework, tenous at best.

Certainly, the Egyptians, especially their Pharoahs and priests (like most times), were not above manipulating the historical record to hide defeats and other, less than savory, historical events. One only has to think of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III or Amenhotep (Akenaten) and his successor, Horemheb. Akenaten destroyed numerous inscriptions in a desire to promote the worship of the Aten. Horemheb and others in the ruling class then worked to try to erase Akenaten from history. In the case of Hatshepsut, it was only fortunate chance that led to the discovery of writings detailing her reign.

Given that, I don't have a problem accepting Biblical chronology over Egyptian.

Ian

[ August 03, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: IanO ]
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
I don't know, Jutsa. If I were a pharoah and my kingdom had suffered numerous plagues and my army was destroyed by an old man with a stutter leading a bunch of slaves, I don't think I would commit it to writing either.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Carbon dating isn't particularly inaccurate in the scales we're talking, its just inapplicable to many situations. Most attempts to "disprove" carbon dating involve using it to date objects of types scientists have specifically asserted its not capable of dating -- thus having wacky results, big surprise.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

Certainly, the Egyptians, especially their Pharoahs and priests (like most times), were not above manipulating the historical record to hide defeats and other, less than savory, historical events. One only has to think of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III or Amenhotep (Akenaten) and his successor, Horemheb. Akenaten destroyed numerous inscriptions in a desire to promote the worship of the Aten. Horemheb and others in the ruling class then worked to try to erase Akenaten from history. In the case of Hatshepsut, it was only fortunate chance that led to the discovery of writings detailing her reign.

Given that, I don't have a problem accepting Biblical chronology over Egyptian.

---

quote:

---

Christians who don't respect their religion make up a majority of the religion in the US and that these people are more prejudiced and various other problems than the non-religious population. However, the people who are actually Christians with integrity, who are dedicated not to what they want to be there, but to discovering and understanding what is actually there, are some of the best people in our society.

---

Here at Hatrack, I'd say I've met far more of the second type than the first. I would say Porter is definitely of the second type.

I always enjoyed the biblical account of creation and how it loosely follows the traditional idea of evolution - life begins in the oceans, followed by the creeping things, beasts of the field, and birds. As one who believes not that the Bible should be taken totally literally, but also that it is an inspired document meant for our instruction, I see no conflict between its (often allegorical) teachings and the findings of science.
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
Your point is taken and I'll readily admit a certain bias based on other, non-archeological criteria, for my willingness to take Biblical chronology over Egyptian.

But a few points.

1) Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Many people, including evolutionists and naturalists (insisting on non-deity explanations for everything) have some particular thing they believe occurred, for which the evidence has not yet been found, yet no doubt exists that it does. Case in point was my cousin. She works as a microbiologist for UC Berkeley. Her beliefs concerning evolution (sans any creator) and the existence of only lefthanded proteins in living organisms follows that principle. Her belief was that, elsewhere, perhaps even other planets, organisms using righthanded proteins exist. Thus, the statistical anomally that is earth's "left-handedness" is only perceived. Just because examples of right-handed proteins have not been found does not mean they do not exist.

And I seem to remember people making the same assertions about Sennacharib, Balshazzar, Pontius Pilate, or Nineveh. No record had been found. They appear to be made up people or places. The place couldn't have been that big, etc. But the absence of evidence did not mean they had not existed. Eventually, evidence was found, supporting the record.

2) What kind of "commercial" items (like receipts and so forth) would mention the exodus? How would they mention them? A receipt on a wagonfull of barley would hardly need to make such a mention. Moreover, if one were to attempt to do some sort of analysis to see if, for example, the year of the exodus saw a major drop in crop yields (due, for instance, to the locust invasion and the hail storms) in order to determine if the crop yields matched that predicted by those events, one would still be hard pressed to identify which year it occurred and which year the receipts were from. At best, the receipt might say '4th year of Thutmose' or something, leaving a lot of guesswork to show that that was supposedly the year of the exodus and yet yields were fine.

3) What other "erasures" from history might we not know of simply because the erasers did a good job? As mentioned, we only know of Hatshepsut because she, perhaps forseeing her own demise, buried the monuments with the inscriptions on them. It took an act of will and determination to make sure the record could be found. Obviously, not everyone was either willing or capable of doing so.

So tell me, who in Egypt, in Moses' time would have been willing to record something about the exodus (with it's embarrasment against the state religion and the house of Pharoah) and make sure it would survive, against the obvious political and propaganda pressure from the priests and the Pharoah's house?

If a person did record something about it, it was most likely in some sort of journal, written on papyrus. The only documents to survive ARE political propaganda, that and receipts.

Given the tendency for Biblical writers to record what they believed to be the truth, including their own failings (or those of national heroes)- like Moses, Aaron, Noah, Lot, David, Jonah, just to name a few- I'd lend more credence to them in this case. If they're willing to tell the truth even about themselves or their heroes (to their embarrassment, even) then I lean heavily on their side when it comes to what they say happened, rather than those who have repeatedly shown a willingness to up and erase the existence of this or that Pharoah.

Ian
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Wait a second -- we should believe people who believe they tell the truth? So David Koresh was right!?

C'mon, that's a really, really bad argument.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
This is making me laugh, when I think about it.

Like the Big Bang. Who can prove it happened?

Well, we know that the matter in the universe is expanding outward, away from the center.

But wait, that's correlation, not causation!


 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Hmmm. Interesting points, Ian.

quote:

---

1) Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

---

quote:

---

2) What kind of "commercial" items (like receipts and so forth) would mention the exodus? How would they mention them?

---

quote:

---

3) What other "erasures" from history might we not know of simply because the erasers did a good job?

---

In that case, why herald anything as conclusive? The point is, we have to start from somewhere, and the problem here is that we have two conflicting accounts. One also happens to be relevantly religious today, which makes it even less likely to alter its account. For instance, when the Qumran were found recently, this had very little noticable impact on accounts of the lives of Jesus and his apostles, even though this new discovery dealt directly with just that in some places. So, the problem we run into is that while you can point out the possibility that scholarly study may very well find something to change historical account, I can just as easily point out that the religious account will continue to refuse alteration, leaving us with exactly the same situation we already have. Surely you can't demand archaeology be ready to change at a moment's notice (which it does) and not expect the religious account to hold to the same standards? Sounds a bit unfair, if you ask me.

In the end, Ian, it all comes down to faith. You have faith in one account over the other, I have my doubts about each account, and refuse to accept either as the correct one. The only problem I have with what you are saying is that you are saying it is absolutely so. Meanwhile, I am pointing out how there is plenty to show that we are not able to claim such. The only block that claims it as absolute is the religious one. That's fine for the religious, as well as remaining edifying and faith-strengthening. For the rest of us, it sounds questionable, at best.
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
PSI,

I think more accurately, that the universe is expanding is an observation. There are theories put forward to explain that observation--but they are just theories. In my mind, though, the beauty of the scientific method is that we are always willing to refine the theories so that they match more and better observations.

[ August 03, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: rubble ]
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

Given the tendency for Biblical writers to record what they believed to be the truth, including their own failings (or those of national heroes)- like Moses, Aaron, Noah, Lot, David, Jonah, just to name a few- I'd lend more credence to them in this case. If they're willing to tell the truth even about themselves or their heroes (to their embarrassment, even) then I lean heavily on their side when it comes to what they say happened, rather than those who have repeatedly shown a willingness to up and erase the existence of this or that Pharoah.

---

So, the Greek and Roman dramas & myths are real? Chinese mythological stories are real? The different religious figures in Hinduism and Buddhism are real? They all do the same thing.

Surely you can't be saying that because they sound more convincing that they must be true. There are too many conflicting accounts for that.
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
fugu13,

I didn't say we should believe people that believe they are telling the truth. I said that their willingness to expose their own flaws (either individually or as a nation) lends credence- at least to me - to what they have to say. Given the choice between believing the biblical account or the (lack of) Egyptian account- given their penchant for truth telling even when it is shaming or embarrassing- I go with the Biblical.

(PS, fugu13, have you checked your email?)

Justa notha name,

You are correct that it all comes down to faith. But I find that, when pressed, the Egyptian record does not really deny the possibility of the exodus, nor of the Israelites as slave. There are certainly mentions of slaves in Egypt from Canaan, which would include the Israelites. There were also the Habiru, which some- not all- have taken to mean the Hebrews.

As you said, Absense of evidence does not imply presence, either.

At best, Egyptian history simply makes little or no mention of them. But, given the tendency to rewrite history to hide events, the scarcity of writing materials, the perishability of those "cheaper" writing materials they did have(and lack of copyists to keep them 'alive') that might contain such mention, the fact that writing was primarily the province of, you guessed it, those of the upper class- priests and clerics, all with a vested interest in preserving the national image, and the tenuous framework of Egyptian dynastic chronology and it's intersection of with actual historical dates, I don't find a compelling argument demanding that the exodus and the slavery of the Egyptians be negated.

Now, as you said, you are not being conclusive, and really, neither am I, at least in any sort of scientific sense. And I do appreciate the respect in your tone toward my beliefs. I do not DEPEND on archeology to prove the Bible. But, as I explained, I do not find anything in Egyptian history requiring me to say the exodus did not happened. Archeology is admittedly a human study of the remnants of old civilizations. Like going through someone's garbage. Yes, you can learn a lot. But you can also make a lot of mistakes, and then, basing other ideas on those mistakes, build an entire house of cards whose foundation is rather shakey.

Rightly, Archeologists don't (or at least shouldn't) make sweeping claims about what did or did not occur, who did or did not exist. At best, they can say no evidence has been found, so far. That would have been the course of wisdom regarding claims of Sennacharib or Belshazzar.

Most religions, on the other hand, unlike science, in fact CLAIM to tell the THE TRUTH (cue the trumpets.) And writings that are the basis of those religions, especially regarding events that have such seminal importance to those belief structures (such as the Exodus in Judaism and Christianity), cannot be expected to change and still be believed as THE TRUTH. At least not believed in any really meaninful, change-your-life kind of way.

It may not be fair, but there it is, all the same. Two very different (but not necessarily mutually exclusive) ways of looking at the universe.

Ian
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
There are lots of people willing to admit their own faults out there: the Dalai Lama, for instance. Yet I don't see you jumping on his other statements about experiences with spirits as true . Or the Buddha himself (the historical person), who was certainly hugely into admitting his own faults.

Sorry, I meant to look into that q you had, I don't have time right now but I'll try to later.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 

quote:

---

2) What kind of "commercial" items (like receipts and so forth) would mention the exodus? How would they mention them?

---

quote:

---

You are correct that it all comes down to faith. But I find that, when pressed, the Egyptian record does not really deny the possibility of the exodus, nor of the Israelites as slave. There are certainly mentions of slaves in Egypt from Canaan, which would include the Israelites. There were also the Habiru, which some- not all- have taken to mean the Hebrews.

---

quote:

---

Now, as you said, you are not being conclusive, and really, neither am I, at least in any sort of scientific sense. And I do appreciate the respect in your tone toward my beliefs. I do not DEPEND on archeology to prove the Bible. But, as I explained, I do not find anything in Egyptian history requiring me to say the exodus did not happened. Archeology is admittedly a human study of the remnants of old civilizations. Like going through someone's garbage. Yes, you can learn a lot. But you can also make a lot of mistakes, and then, basing other ideas on those mistakes, build an entire house of cards whose foundation is rather shakey.

Rightly, Archeologists don't (or at least shouldn't) make sweeping claims about what did or did not occur, who did or did not exist. At best, they can say no evidence has been found, so far. That would have been the course of wisdom regarding claims of Sennacharib or Belshazzar.

---

quote:

---

Most religions, on the other hand, unlike science, in fact CLAIM to tell the THE TRUTH (cue the trumpets.) And writings that are the basis of those religions, especially regarding events that have such seminal importance to those belief structures (such as the Exodus in Judaism and Christianity), cannot be expected to change and still be believed as THE TRUTH. At least not believed in any really meaninful, change-your-life kind of way.

---

quote:

---

The Hebrew Scriptures are uniquely historically based documents. While a person may doubt miraculous events, they cannot doubt that, unlike the myths of the Greeks, for example, they are meant to be viewed within a specific historical framework and time (The Illiad and the Oddessy would be major exceptions to the general Greek legends- and that exception allows the modern historian to place those events in specific historical settings.)

---

You mean like the Trojan War?

quote:

---

Unlike most myths and legends of the different world cultures, Biblical stories, more or less, intersect actual history at specific times and places and peoples. Thus, the completing of the temple by Solomon is claimed to have occurred in the 473rd year from the exodus, or another event occurs during the 15th year of Jehoshaphat, in this specific city. Or the detailed chronogies, firmly tye the present with the past, etc. Luke 3:1 is perfect example naming at least 3 or 4 magistrates in order to place the ministry of John firmly in history. All of this allows the attempts to verify or falsify those stories, unlike most mythologies.

---

quote:

---

The fact that many times, such statements have turned out to be accurate, at least in the verifiable details (like Sennacharib's foray into Judah after his conquering of Israel), together with a host of other factors (that I thought not relevent to this discussion), as well as the aforementioned willingness to record their own shortcomings, make me trust the Biblical record more than I would any other ancient peoples.

---

quote:

---

I DON'T doubt the Dalai Lama had the experiences he did. After studying the life of Joseph Smith, I also came to the conclusion that he also believed he had those experiences. So I do "defend" that they had those experiences.

People do not usually let themselves suffer and even die for something they know they made up.

---

quote:

---

The two stories of creation in the Bible are logically mutually exclusive. I think you don't see it because you don't want to see it. Your belief in literal intpretation overrides your respect for the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Have you ever read Buddha's writings

---

quote:

---

A bit off the subject, of course, but it always irritates me when I see people saying things like this. Justa, Buddha didn't write any of his teachings down*. In fact, they weren't written down until several hundred years after his death.

---

quote:

---

Does it irritate you seeing quotes and sayings attributed to Jesus, when he did not dictate anything nor had someone inscribing what his words were? That the deeds and words of Abraham were put to writing long after he was gone?

---

It wouldn't irritate me to see quotes attributed to Buddha, any more than it does when I see quotes attributed to Jesus, or Socrates (I do take such attributions with an enormous grain of salt, of course).

I would, however, be irritated if I read someone referring to Jesus' or Socrates' writings. Seeing someone refer to the writings of any of these people, I imagine them waving a huge red flag bearing the inscription "I really don't know what I'm talking about here". Now, admittedly, the reference to the Buddha's writings were fairly incidental to your larger point. It isn't as though I'm going to dismiss everything you ever say here as tripe because of what may have been a simple misspeaking.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Hmmm, I see what you mean now. Yes, I should have worded that somewhat better. You make a good point.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Thanks! Now back to your previously scheduled argument.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Someone schedulals these things? I think they fell alseep on the "gay marriage debate" button.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
No, Hobbes. We had another this one start up this morning. Just be patient, and we'll always have another gay marriage thread. There's been no slacking in that department.
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
Justa,

You're right. This is becoming a debate over faith, which I'm sure was not the point, nor is it necessarily something I want to do.

But I'll address a few of your points.

quote:

---

You mean like the Trojan War?

---

quote:

---

Have you ever read Buddha's writings? Hindu mythology? Akkadian legend? The bible was neither the first nor the only religious document to do as you describe.

---

quote:

---

The religions can still absolutely be held to hold the truth and still allow for the documents to be subject to historical revision. Just look at the numerous retranslations of the Christian bible over the centuries as a testament to that. It's a process that is always subject to scrutinization after new information is either discovered or released. If it weren't, there would have been no reform movement, no protestant revolution, and none of the offshoots since then.

---

quote:

---

David Koresh was telling the truth?

---

quote:

---

You'll notice I specifically mentioned the Illiad and the Oddessy as exceptions to most greek mythologies. While some have tried to fix the stories of Perseus or Hercules or any of the other doings of the greek gods into some specific time period (usually bronze age Greece, at it's most specific, if I remember correctly) in the end the effort is fruitless. The stories neither lend themselves, nor are intended to be fixed points and events in history. They are mythic tales, true for any time and place.

---

quote:

---

As a matter of fact I have. And I have yet to see, in the Ennuma Elish, for example, or the Epic of Gilgamesh, many, if any, verifiable facts.

---

quote:

---

And the more extravagant myths, dealing with the Annunaki and Enku, etc, provide little, as well.

---

quote:

---

Egyptian mythology, the death and rebirth of Osiris, is similarly vaguely, if at all, placed in history. The same is true of most mythologies. They are almost always vaguely set in time and place.

---

Yes, if you are judging from a modern, Western point of view, literal translations are archaic and vague. Oddly enough, so are the oldest Hebrew texts we have translated. The Hebrew texts are less so because they can only be dated back to around 800 AD, I believe. I understand that they are accounting things which go back much further, but since there are few, if any, verifiable texts and writings from 1500 BCE from the Hebrews, then it is difficult to say what has been added in the interim and what was there from the beginning.

This isn't to say that the oldest versions we know of are forgeries or are inconsistent, but it is to say that you are comparing 2000-4000 year-old texts to 1200-year-old texts. Would you like to compare a modern novel and an Old English novel, and see which one is going to have more relevant events listed that are not directly related to the plot or story? Orson Scott Card's novels include far more historical and social inclusions than even his own eariler books, let alone earlier Hugo winners. Maybe not all, but most.

With the verifiable things in the bible, even you yourself have argued that the historical timelines outside of the bible are not to be trusted (the 3500 year thing), so what exactly are we verifying against?

In the end, this is where it becomes an issue of faith. For example, the more we learn with history and archeaology, the more we see the reason for accounts of the Great Deluge. The more I hear on findings, the more believable it is. The difference between it and biblical accounts is simply scope, cause, and point of view. That's where the faith comes in. There is really no adequate argument for faith, in my opinion, so there's nothing I can say to contradict that. It simply is.

Regardless, Ian, I want to thank you for the wonderful exploration and the mentions of things I haven't looked at in a while. I appreciate it.

p.s. - Koresh also claimed divinity and decided biblical meanings were different from the mainstream, among other things. He made some wild claims, if I recall correctly.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, Occasional, I don't necessarily agree, at least about people here.

I mean, having spent a number of years reading posts by Tom Davidson or David Bowles or fugu13, I don't get the impression that there is a desire not to believe.

---

quote:

---

Shame that a loving God believes that it's ever too late for some people to come to Him. Sounds like a bit of a bastard, really.

---

It will be too late to develop faith in Him, that is true. But that doesn't mean God won't take things as a case-by-case basis, taking into account each person's advantages and disadvantages.

I just read a very fascinating passage in The Book of Mormon. In The Book of Mormon, Christ appears to the people after his ressurrection and ascension into heaven. Before this happens, we are told that the people in that land at that time had been given every cause to believe, that every person in there had had strong enough witnesses that there was no cause for disbelief. They had to very deliberately choose not to believe. For example: A prophet foretold that on the night before Christ would be born, the sun would set as usual, but the sky would remain as light as midday until the rising of the sun the next day, and also about a new star appearing. The people all heard the message, and they all saw it happen. That is a pretty major sign.

I thought to myself, perhaps that is how it will be before Christ returns this last time. In order for it to not be an unjust thing, He will give the people on the earth at that time every cause to believe.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"That is a pretty major sign."

But what is it a sign OF?
I mean, I can predict eclipses. Does that make me a prophet?

Why do we assume that a generalized prediction of an unusual event means someone speaks for God?

Consider, for example, that lots of people can do magic tricks. If somebody does a magic trick that you can't figure out, then tells you that God made it possible, do YOU believe that they're a prophet?

In the old days, actually, people DID believe this more readily than they do today. But I think the quality of miracles as "proof" needs to be considerably higher than "I called this sunrise accurately" before you can be expected to be CERTAIN that someone is in fact the mouthpiece of God.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Tom, that is a good question. I think that a sign like that wouldn't work nearly so well today because we have the abilities to predict such occurrances better. But what if the person doing the predicting predicts something never seen before and has no means to know of it scientifically before hand?

We certainly need to beware of "displays of power" as proof of the divine.

In each of these cases in The Book of Mormon, there were multiple witnesses. It was never just one person saying something. What the prophet Samuel said about the heavenly signs had been fortold by other prophets. What he did specifically was tell them *when* it would happen. So that they would know and be prepared to accept it.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
So the problem is, there was still no way to be certain that Samuel was telling the truth, at least not in the event as described.

Because, let's face it, each person has his own criteria for "truth," and someone might well be skeptical of a sunrise when someone else might not.

Now, if you told me that God had personally met each and every person's burden of proof, and yet they deliberately chose to turn against Him after they KNEW He existed, that would be different -- but not believing in Him despite the "evidence" of a sunrise simply means they didn't buy into the evidence, not that they rejected God.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Well, the prophet who compiled the writings states more than once that everyone had sufficient cause to believe, I assume that there must have been some "micromanaging" by God going on there in order for that to happen. That is, if I believe what was said there (which I do.)

The night that was bright as day was just an example. The text says that many different kinds of signs were given. But The Book of Mormon is a compilation and can't include every detail.

[ August 04, 2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Tom, beverly, that would depend on a lot of things. That's kind of what I was discussing with Ian. It's going to boil down to faith in every case, and trying to build it solely on empirical data is going to always be insufficient to someone.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yeah, so it would seem. I believe God knows us each individually and knows what it is we need and will judge us accordingly.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Here's the thing, though: if God knows what we need, why doesn't He give it to us?
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 

quote:

---

I can't accept that, Ian. You're being selective in what is and is not allowable. For example, are you willing to accept early biblical figures as living for centuries, yet not willing to accept stories of other mythical figures having great strength, longevity, or other exceptional powers (like Gilgamesh)?

---

quote:

---

Here's the thing, though: if God knows what we need, why doesn't He give it to us?

---