Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Besides, there are plenty of incidents in history of seismic activity around the mediterranean causing large floods that could inspire the biblical myths and/or atlantis.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Besides, there are plenty of incidents in history of seismic activity around the mediterranean causing large floods that could inspire the biblical myths and/or atlantis.

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=58886

They pretty much know there was a flood, and there is archeological evidence of people living on land where the black sea is now... And I am sure some people were like 'holy crap! where I used to live is flooded!' which generated stories.

Did one of them build a boat and float to turkey? Probably. Did he tell his story to everyone who would listen? Probably.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The oldest books of the Hebrew Bible date to around the 10th or 11th century BCE (Roughly 1200 BC)... People settled on Crete and their Neolithic civilization began with advanced agriculture at around 5000 BCE and reached their height of power and influence by 1700 BCE. Sorry, by the time your biblical flood happened (roughly 2300 BC) there were some 20 million humans spread out on this planet.

You're forgetting that you're talking to a young-earth creationist, which means that all of that nonsense about "neolithic civilization" is just lies invented by Satan. The entire universe was created 6000 years ago and no amount of historical evidence is going to change his mind.

their argument is that you weren't there when creation happened but ...




Automatically Appended Next Post:
sorry I had to.

 djones520 wrote:
I will not say this very often...

Amazing post Sebster. I tip my hat to you.

Can we start a slow clap?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Genesis was written much way before the Greeks even were Greek. There are many accounts that are similar to the Biblical acounts, which makes sense if all of humanity is derived from a small group such as Noahs offspring.

I.E. they would all have similar stories as they split off into distinct societies yet have slightly different versions.

GG

The oldest books of the Hebrew Bible date to around the 10th or 11th century BCE (Roughly 1200 BC)... People settled on Crete and their Neolithic civilization began with advanced agriculture at around 5000 BCE and reached their height of power and influence by 1700 BCE. Sorry, by the time your biblical flood happened (roughly 2300 BC) there were some 20 million humans spread out on this planet.

when the books were written and when the events happened are two different things. Sorry for short post, got to run.

GG

So if the books were written well after the events there is no way you should take them literally as they are hearsay at best. I've never heard a better argument for the bible being allegorical.

 generalgrog wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Genesis was written much way before the Greeks even were Greek. There are many accounts that are similar to the Biblical acounts, which makes sense if all of humanity is derived from a small group such as Noahs offspring.

I.E. they would all have similar stories as they split off into distinct societies yet have slightly different versions.

GG

The oldest books of the Hebrew Bible date to around the 10th or 11th century BCE (Roughly 1200 BC)... People settled on Crete and their Neolithic civilization began with advanced agriculture at around 5000 BCE and reached their height of power and influence by 1700 BCE. Sorry, by the time your biblical flood happened (roughly 2300 BC) there were some 20 million humans spread out on this planet.

when the books were written and when the events happened are two different things. Sorry for short post, got to run.

GG

Yeah, 10-4 on that. Again, when your biblical flood was taking place (2300 BC or so) the world was currently in the middle of the Bronze Age and there were around 20 million humans spread out on every land mass on Earth.

Bullockist wrote:
So if the books were written well after the events there is no way you should take them literally as they are hearsay at best. I've never heard a better argument for the bible being allegorical.

Basically. The source of the written txt for the Hebrew Bible was actually 3 versions of the Verbal Torah which were written by 3 different authors compiled into one version which became the source of the written Torah which everything else came from.

The main thing is the Torah was verbally passed so the written word of Moses doesn't exist, and anything Moses 'wrote' (or told) was the 'dictated Word of God as Moses remembered it later, depending if he understood God's infinite wisdom'. God could have told him how science and evolution and how the universe was created and he would have had no frame of reference and it would have been re-told as wacky stuff.

So we are talking about a written account of 3 different verbal chains of a verbal Torah from a recollected conversation with God, then compiled around 420BC and then after 5 translations became LITERAL WORD OF GOD 1540AD for NO REASON. It is not even like an angel appeared or some gak. Some dude got mad the Catholic church was selling 'get out of hell' passes so he said 'maybe the bible is not figurative, it is literal word of God, that sounds good right?'

Christians were taking things literally as the word of God long before 1540. It was one of the major founding conflicts of the early church (just how literally or liberally to take it). Not really sure how you can take that from the conflict around indulgences. Martin Luther got into a shouting match with papal authorities in 1517 demanding where in scripture the Pope derived the authority to pass judgement, which is a power expressly given to God in the new and old Testaments and a major principle of Christian theology. Indulgencies were a corruption of the period that completely flew in the face of a core Christian belief since Christianity's founding (that God's power is sovereign).

There were probably dozens of authors behind the writing of the Old Testament/Torah (though they can be divided into three distinct theological phases, Proto-Judaism , Deuteronomic, and Post-Zorastrian*). Boiling the accumulation of texts down to 'some dudes put some stuff they heard together' isn't very accurate. It was a process that was still ongoing when Christians took off with their own interpretations.

*I don't remember the proper names for these phases, but it's basically what they are more less. Deuteronomic refers to the reign of Josiah who instituted sweeping religious reforms during his tenure. Post-Zorastrian refers to Judaisms theological shift as a result from contact with Zorastrianism during and/or after the Babylonian Exile.

You guys are talking about the documentary hypothesis.

I also note that you talk about the documentary hypothesis as though it were proven fact. It is not proven fact that the texts of the Old testament were redacted.


The traditional view is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, during the 40 years of wanderings in the wilderness, after the Exodus.

GG

Did somebody watch him write it and documented that he wrote it with two witnesses and a notarized signature?

 d-usa wrote:
Did somebody watch him write it and documented that he wrote it with two witnesses and a notarized signature?

Funny!!

Other old testament authors, and the Apostles, and Jesus attributed those books to Moses.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
It is not proven fact that the texts of the Old testament were redacted.

I don't think anyone really was talking of redaction. If anything the Old Testament contains additions, not redactions.

The traditional view is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, during the 40 years of wanderings in the wilderness, after the Exodus.

Even if he did, it's unlikely to have been written down. The Genesis Story for example has two notable authors with two distinct perspectives, making it odd to consider both written by one person. It's probable the stories in their compilation were originally put together by Moses, but its unlikely he wrote them as we have to today.

 LordofHats wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
It is not proven fact that the texts of the Old testament were redacted.

I don't think anyone really was talking of redaction. If anything the Old Testament contains additions, not redactions.

Redaction means to combine texts.. I think you are confusing, reduction with redaction.



GG

Ah. In that case, it kind of is a proven fact. High criticism stopped debating the question decades ago because there was no longer any point. A half century of scholarship has proven that the the Old Testament was a compilation of several sources, not a singular text, Pentateuch included. The question now is who wrote what, when, where, and why, not did they write it.

It's completely fringe to modern scholarship to suggest otherwise.

 LordofHats wrote:
Ah. In that case, it kind of is a proven fact. High criticism stopped debating the question decades ago because there was no longer any point. A half century of scholarship has proven that the the Old Testament was a compilation of several sources, not a singular text, Pentateuch included. The question now is who wrote what, when, where, and why, not did they write it.

It's completely fringe to modern scholarship to suggest otherwise.

It's only a "proven fact" if you are a critic of the Bible.. I.E. if you really want to believe in it, than to you it's proven. It's no more proven than Ken Ham has proven a 6,000 year old earth(which we know he hasn't, and cannot be proven currently).

The documentary hypothesis cannot be "proven" And for you to suggest that it's "kind of proven fact" tell's me you haven't read much on the subject, or have only read and accepted the critical viewpoint.

GG

It's no more proven than Ken Ham has proven a 6,000 year old earth(which we know he hasn't, and cannot be proven currently).

The funny thing is that ignoring the fact is on par with a young earth creationist. There's so much evidence to support the fact that scholars have long since ceased debating the issue with the people who don't accept it (and that's pretty much a small number of evangelical Seminaries in the South who are more about politics than religion so, yeah). It's like trying to argue with someone who insists that 2 + 2 = 22. They're so far from being right that trying to explain it to them is pointless (which again, pretty much the same thing as a young earth creationist).

 LordofHats wrote:

It's no more proven than Ken Ham has proven a 6,000 year old earth(which we know he hasn't, and cannot be proven currently).

The funny thing is that ignoring the fact is on par with a young earth creationist. There's so much evidence to support the fact that scholars have long since ceased debating the issue with the people who don't accept it (and that's pretty much a small number of evangelical Seminaries in the South who are more about politics than religion so, yeah). It's like trying to argue with someone who insists that 2 + 2 = 22. They're so far from being right that trying to explain it to them is pointless (which again, pretty much the same thing as a young earth creationist).

But like one of the mods on this forum..you get your doctrine from Rome...so it's not like you are not biased either?

GG

Here's the Answers In Genesis write ups on the purported wood-in-basalt example Ham used in the debate for anyone interested:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n1/dating

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/tj_v14n2_crinum.pdf

 generalgrog wrote:
you get your doctrine from Rome

Old fashioned Know Nothing bigotry.

 generalgrog wrote:
so it's not like you are not biased either?

As opposed to those who assume the Bible is a literal account of the natural world?

 generalgrog wrote:
It's only a "proven fact" if you are a critic of the Bible.

You can analyze something critically without disagreeing with the content, theologians have been doing it for centuries.

if you really want to believe in it, than to you it's proven.

That sounds familiar, doesn't it?

It's no more proven than Ken Ham has proven a 6,000 year old earth(which we know he hasn't, and cannot be proven currently).

That's because it isn't true.

The documentary hypothesis cannot be "proven" And for you to suggest that it's "kind of proven fact" tell's me you haven't read much on the subject, or have only read and accepted the critical viewpoint.

According to your theory, nothing can be proven unless you directly observe it. Mountains of evidence mean nothing and only direct observation can prove anything, which is the most ludicrous idea ever.

 generalgrog wrote:


But like one of the mods on this forum..you get your doctrine from Rome...so it's not like you are not biased either?

GG

I'm not Roman Catholic (though I do love the fashion)\



Say what you want about Priests, but damn can they dress fine

It's how they get all the boys...

 Medium of Death wrote:
It's how they get all the boys...

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
It's only a "proven fact" if you are a critic of the Bible.

You can analyze something critically without disagreeing with the content, theologians have been doing it for centuries.

if you really want to believe in it, than to you it's proven.

That sounds familiar, doesn't it?

It's no more proven than Ken Ham has proven a 6,000 year old earth(which we know he hasn't, and cannot be proven currently).

That's because it isn't true.

The documentary hypothesis cannot be "proven" And for you to suggest that it's "kind of proven fact" tell's me you haven't read much on the subject, or have only read and accepted the critical viewpoint.

According to your theory, nothing can be proven unless you directly observe it. Mountains of evidence mean nothing and only direct observation can prove anything, which is the most ludicrous idea ever.

Which is especially intresting considering much of the bible was written far later than the supposed events happened.

But of course somehow that is seperate from the you have to directly observe it rule.

 LordofHats wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:


But like one of the mods on this forum..you get your doctrine from Rome...so it's not like you are not biased either?

GG

I'm not Roman Catholic....

Say what you want about Priests, but damn can they dress fine

My apologies..I thought I had seen you post before that you were. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
Not that there is anything wrong with that.

It would not appear so... Every time Manchu tried to explain that Catholic positions on the divine are more complicated than, "Uh, I read it in this book once," you dismissed it and insulted him.

 Manchu wrote:
Here's the Answers In Genesis write ups on the purported wood-in-basalt example Ham used in the debate for anyone interested:

Do we have the refutations for these? I am sure I remember someone earlier in the thread post that both were well known examples that had been shown to not be as claimed by creationists. On my phone on rural signal so it is a pain to search myself.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Not that there is anything wrong with that.

It would not appear so... Every time Manchu tried to explain that Catholic positions on the divine are more complicated than, "Uh, I read it in this book once," you dismissed it and insulted him.

You can choose to believe that if you would like, but me and that guy go back years on this forum. We have a long history of debating his elevated view of his Roman Catholic doctrines, as if no other Christian view point is valid.

Anyway, you obviously choose to gloss over the part where I stated I have friends and family that are in the Roman Catholic Church. It just so happens that I don't appreciate the way that guy insultingly refers to my beliefs, so yeah I call him out on it. It may seem that I have a thing against Roman Catholics, but no.... just ones that don't know how talk to people about their faith with decency.

GG

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Here's the Answers In Genesis write ups on the purported wood-in-basalt example Ham used in the debate for anyone interested:

Do we have the refutations for these? I am sure I remember someone earlier in the thread post that both were well known examples that had been shown to not be as claimed by creationists. On my phone on rural signal so it is a pain to search myself.

You'll have to wait for someone more informed to give an exact explanation, but the basic problem with Ham's argument is that radioactive dating methods only work within a certain range of ages (which varies depending on the element/isotope you're measuring). And of course you have to account for varying environmental conditions, etc. It's not just as simple as pressing a button and getting an exact age for a sample. Carbon 14 dating is great for relatively recent things (human artifacts, for example), but carbon 14 decays too fast for the method to give useful information beyond 50,000 years or so. And everyone in the field knows this, the AIG "test" was something no legitimate scientist would ever attempt to do. Carbon 14 dating on samples found in 30 million year old rock would make about as much sense as trying to measure the width of the ocean with your tape measure and concluding that it must be only 72" because you've pulled your tape measure out all the way and that's what it says.

And one other thing you'll notice here is the attempted use of a single sample to provide a magic "I win" example that disproves all of evolution at once. Even if carbon 14 dating could provide valid information for that one sample you're still left with the problem of all the vast amounts of evidence everywhere else, both from dating of other samples and all the other results and theories that converge on a single answer for the age of the earth (and it's not 6000 years old). A legitimate scientist would look at the dating results, notice the obvious conflict, and start doing a lot of work to figure out why the dates don't match. For example, contaminated samples, incorrect procedure in the lab, etc. But Ken Ham is not a legitimate scientist and therefore he has no interest in trying to confirm the results. For him the science of radioactive dating is only useful if it provides an argument to "prove" the bible.