Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Spenser · 10-14-2003, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Well, of course 'scholars recognize that the flood myth was a myth.' And, likewise, logicians generally agree that A = A. The trick in the above is deciding whether or not the Genesis Flood is a myth and if so, what sort of myth it is. It is certainly not of the (commonly observed in Pagan literature) type of ludicrous myth where, for example, a Chief god's daughter is birthed directly from his brain after the consumption of the child's mother.

No, its far more ludicrous than that:

Quote:

by Frank Zindler

...at that time Mt. Ararat was only about ten to twelve thousand feet high. Now if all the water came down in forty days and drowned all the mountains of the world, that would require the rain to come down at about eleven and a half feet per hour. John, that's not rain, that's hydraulic mining! Everything would have been swept off the surface of the continents. The continents would be absolutely denuded down to crystalline rocks. All the sedimentary rocks would have been deposited in the ocean basins. Now clearly, that's not the pattern that we see...

Doctor X · 10-14-2003, 12:20 PM

. . . of course a large wooden ship would have survived the deluge. . . .

--J.D.

Cross Examiner · 10-14-2003, 12:26 PM

Spenser, contracycle,
Is a global flood somehow 'far more ludicrous' than Zeus' impregnation and successive swallowing-whole of the expectant Metis, who consequently birthed an armor-clad Athena springing forth authoritatively through Zeus' skull (who managed to survive the ordeal)? I mean, I understand that you�ve quite a stake in all this but ... seriously now.

Soul Invictus,
This question of yours:

Quote:

"...why he [Matthew] wasn't able to correctly state the lineage as it was recorded?"

assumes Matthew's intent was to merely reproduce lineage info from 1 Chronicles. I was just wondering why and upon what basis you assume this? If I publish 8 of the 10 Commandments, in a particular context, would this necessarily mean that I am unaware of the other 2?

and then this question of yours:

Quote:

"If he [Matthew] didn't intend to reproduce what was widely known, than there is no reason for them to be stated at all..."

assumes that there can be 'no reason' for Matthew's particular genealogy. I wonder how you conclude that? Was Matthew's genealogical abridgement indeed unintentional (i.e. 'copying error') as maintained by NOGO? I particularly enjoy the Socratic method and would continue with the questioning but I'm out of time for today � jusqu'� demain, au revoir.

Regards,
BGic

beyelzu · 10-14-2003, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Spenser, contracycle,
Is a global flood somehow 'far more ludicrous' than Zeus' impregnation and successive swallowing-whole of the expectant Metis, who consequently birthed an armor-clad Athena springing forth authoritatively through Zeus' skull (who managed to survive the ordeal)? I mean, I understand that you�ve quite a stake in all this but ... seriously now.

Soul Invictus,
This question of yours:

assumes Matthew's intent was to merely reproduce lineage info from 1 Chronicles. I was just wondering why and upon what basis you assume this? If I publish 8 of the 10 Commandments, in a particular context, would this necessarily mean that I am unaware of the other 2?

and then this question of yours:

assumes that there can be 'no reason' for Matthew's particular genealogy. I wonder how you conclude that? Was Matthew's genealogical abridgement indeed unintentional (i.e. 'copying error') as maintained by NOGO? I particularly enjoy the Socratic method and would continue with the questioning but I'm out of time for today � jusqu'� demain, au revoir.

Regards,
BGic

[Deleted] Please make concrete statements and quit dancing around issues.

As for poor matt. why list them at all. Particularly an erronious list.

NOGO · 10-14-2003, 04:19 PM

Quote:

BGiC
Do you think Matthew's intent was to merely reproduce (scribe for a day) that which was widely available and already well-known to his audience? (Hint: yes, Matthew had an an original intent and original audience). That is, did Matthew have trouble copying, as you conclude?

Whoever wrote this certainly was not concerned with facts.
I don't read minds like you do but I will venture a guess based on the context.

Whoever wrote Matthew intended to show a pattern.
Based on that pattern the reader is to be convinced that (a) God has planned all of this and (b) Jesus is the messiah.

The pattern in question is the 14-14-14 years between significant events in the history of Israel.

To achieve his goal Matthew deleted some names. The concept behind this is as follows: if the facts do not match his ideas then change the facts.

I am eagerly waiting for your explanation. Of course yours wont be a guess since it comes directly from God himself.

Bernard Muller · 10-14-2003, 07:03 PM

NOGO wrote:
Whoever wrote Matthew intended to show a pattern.
Based on that pattern the reader is to be convinced that (a) God has planned all of this and (b) Jesus is the messiah.

The pattern in question is the 14-14-14 years between significant events in the history of Israel.

To achieve his goal Matthew deleted some names. The concept behind this is as follows: if the facts do not match his ideas then change the facts.

I just read that thread for the first time and I wondered why this 14 business did not come up. I was ready to remedy to that, but NOGO beats me to it.
Anyway, I am going to display part of one of my page where I deal with the issue:

>> Note: "Matthew" removed four Davidian kings from his list, Ahaziah, the son of king Jehoram, Joash, the son of Ahaziah, Amaziah, the son of Joash & father of Azariah/Uzziah (GMatthew has "Jehoram the father of Uzziah"1:8) and Jehoiakim, the son of king Josiah & father of Jehoiachin/Jeconiah, the last king of Judah (GMatthew has "Josiah the father of Jeconiah"1:11). Why?
Mt1:17 "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile of Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ"
Remarks:
a) Fourteen is 'two' multiplied by 'seven'; and 'seven' is God's most sacred number!
b) According to 'Genesis' and 'Ruth', there are fourteen identified 'father to son' men from Abraham to David. Here, "Matthew" followed exactly the data from these two O.T. books!
c) Thanks to the four "removed" kings, only fourteen 'father to son' kings from David (excluded) to Jeconiah (who went into exile) remain in Matthew's genealogy!
d) The references for the Davidian kings' succession, 'father to son' relationship & years of reign are '1-2Kings' and '1-2Chronicles', books which were quasi-canonical during Matthew's times! The aforementioned data for the four "removed" kings come from:
Ahaziah=>2Ki8:25-26, Joash=>2Ki11:2,12:1, Amaziah=>2Ki14:1-2,15:1 & Jehoiakim=>2Ki23:34,36,24:6
e) In total, the four "removed" kings ruled over Judah for eighty-one years.

I still wonder how "Matthew" could get away with that. Anyway, that fooled many into "seeing" a God's plan at work. Still does!

Best regards, Bernard

Kosh · 10-14-2003, 07:10 PM

The relative ludicrousnous (word?) of the Flood myth to other ancient myths has absolutely nothing to do with it's validity. In fact, several years ago I commented on this very board that I felt one of the key factors in the success Judaism/Chrisitianity/Islam is the way they present their myths. Rather than saying silly things about worlds bursting forth from the belly, they simply "God waved his hand and made it happen". Leaving the details to the imagination of the listener makes it much easier to accept for the gullible.

However, the more educated will realize that the claims are still ludicrous. And relative believability is not a truth criteria. But I'm sure that you're smart enough to realize that fallacy, so we can dispense with the charade now.

As has been noted, please stop dancing around the topic, and just give some direct answers.

Jeremy Pallant · 10-14-2003, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Is a global flood somehow 'far more ludicrous' than Zeus' impregnation and successive swallowing-whole of the expectant Metis, who consequently birthed an armor-clad Athena springing forth authoritatively through Zeus' skull (who managed to survive the ordeal)? I mean, I understand that you�ve quite a stake in all this but ... seriously now.

Actually she didn't exactly spring forth. Hephaestus, on Hermes direction, had to split Zeus' head open to relieve a killer headache. Then she sprang forth. Emulate an Alien stomach-burster she did not, though perhaps if Hermes hadn't figured things out things might have been different.

Frankly, both myths are equally ludicrous. Your point?

Doctor X · 10-15-2003, 02:04 PM

Zeus' trephination?

It could happen. . . .

--J.D.

Mageth · 10-15-2003, 02:13 PM

Rather than saying silly things about worlds bursting forth from the belly, they simply "God waved his hand and made it happen".

Well, there is that bit about forming Adam out of dust, and Eve out of Adam's rib...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-14-2003, 12:20 PM	#82
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	. . . of course a large wooden ship would have survived the deluge. . . . --J.D.

10-14-2003, 07:03 PM	#86
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	NOGO wrote: Whoever wrote Matthew intended to show a pattern. Based on that pattern the reader is to be convinced that (a) God has planned all of this and (b) Jesus is the messiah. The pattern in question is the 14-14-14 years between significant events in the history of Israel. To achieve his goal Matthew deleted some names. The concept behind this is as follows: if the facts do not match his ideas then change the facts. I just read that thread for the first time and I wondered why this 14 business did not come up. I was ready to remedy to that, but NOGO beats me to it. Anyway, I am going to display part of one of my page where I deal with the issue: >> Note: "Matthew" removed four Davidian kings from his list, Ahaziah, the son of king Jehoram, Joash, the son of Ahaziah, Amaziah, the son of Joash & father of Azariah/Uzziah (GMatthew has "Jehoram the father of Uzziah"1:8) and Jehoiakim, the son of king Josiah & father of Jehoiachin/Jeconiah, the last king of Judah (GMatthew has "Josiah the father of Jeconiah"1:11). Why? Mt1:17 "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile of Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ" Remarks: a) Fourteen is 'two' multiplied by 'seven'; and 'seven' is God's most sacred number! b) According to 'Genesis' and 'Ruth', there are fourteen identified 'father to son' men from Abraham to David. Here, "Matthew" followed exactly the data from these two O.T. books! c) Thanks to the four "removed" kings, only fourteen 'father to son' kings from David (excluded) to Jeconiah (who went into exile) remain in Matthew's genealogy! d) The references for the Davidian kings' succession, 'father to son' relationship & years of reign are '1-2Kings' and '1-2Chronicles', books which were quasi-canonical during Matthew's times! The aforementioned data for the four "removed" kings come from: Ahaziah=>2Ki8:25-26, Joash=>2Ki11:2,12:1, Amaziah=>2Ki14:1-2,15:1 & Jehoiakim=>2Ki23:34,36,24:6 e) In total, the four "removed" kings ruled over Judah for eighty-one years. I still wonder how "Matthew" could get away with that. Anyway, that fooled many into "seeing" a God's plan at work. Still does! Best regards, Bernard

10-14-2003, 07:10 PM	#87
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	The relative ludicrousnous (word?) of the Flood myth to other ancient myths has absolutely nothing to do with it's validity. In fact, several years ago I commented on this very board that I felt one of the key factors in the success Judaism/Chrisitianity/Islam is the way they present their myths. Rather than saying silly things about worlds bursting forth from the belly, they simply "God waved his hand and made it happen". Leaving the details to the imagination of the listener makes it much easier to accept for the gullible. However, the more educated will realize that the claims are still ludicrous. And relative believability is not a truth criteria. But I'm sure that you're smart enough to realize that fallacy, so we can dispense with the charade now. As has been noted, please stop dancing around the topic, and just give some direct answers.

10-15-2003, 02:04 PM	#89
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Zeus' trephination? It could happen. . . . --J.D.

10-15-2003, 02:13 PM	#90
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Rather than saying silly things about worlds bursting forth from the belly, they simply "God waved his hand and made it happen". Well, there is that bit about forming Adam out of dust, and Eve out of Adam's rib...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.