Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Denis Lamoureux · 07-13-2003, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist
Well let's say that God wanted to tell the story that a 5 year old could understand...
Genesis could begin something like this: "A long, long, long, long time ago, the whole universe was so tiny it could fit on the point of a needle. It was also very, very, very, hot. But then it started getting bigger and bigger. After a while, some stars started appearing. Eventually, our sun appeared and the earth come out of the sun. And the moon came out of the earth (something like that). Many, many, many, years later, some very tiny living things appeared on the earth. They had babies and over the years these changed into different kinds of living things like fish and dinosaurs. There were dinosaurs, then birds and mice started to appear, then later, monkeys and apes started to appear. Then many, many years later, the apes' great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-children gradually changed into ape-men and then into people."

If a 5 year old can understand that, then a nomadic person should be able to too. That story I just told would be much closer to science than Genesis - which has fruit trees being created before the sun and birds being created before land animals, etc.

So do things like Buddhism, and maybe also other religions. That doesn't prove that they're true.

Wow!
You truly are a fundamentalist! Fundamentalist hermeneutics overlaid with fundamentalist epistemology (are you an engineer?).

Goodness gracious. Here we are in 2003 and you are giving me the Gen 1 creative order argument? Take a course in Biblical exegesis & hermeneutics. The literary structure features a pair of parallel panels. It's not history!!! Only a crude 4th grade Sunday school reading of Gen 1 generates your eisegesis.

(I suppose the next thing you're going to critique is that the Bible states people lived 900 yrs (Gen 5) . . . make my day . . .)

Furthermore, your analogy shows that you not understand the Divine revelatory process. This is more of your fundamentalism. Do you think God came out of heaven, put a pen in a scribe's hand, and starting dictating away? Fundies believe stuff like that.

Your argument shows you have no concept of the intellectual-historical context. The Hebrews predate the Hebrew language. Thus, the creation account was oral, and vestiges of this appear in Gen 1-11. There are significant epistemological implications with oral traditions (as 19th C cultural anthroplogy has shown). In particular, these accounts feature critical categories much different from ours which are hellenistic in nature. Reading an ancient Semitic text through 21st C epismtemological categories is not only disrepectful and facist, it's bad math (even engineers should be able to understand that).

I'm happy to entertain challenges to Christian faith anytime. But recycling foolish critiques like the creation order in Gen 1 is a waste of everyone's time.

Regards,
Denis

Doubting Didymus · 07-13-2003, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Denis Lamoureux
I'm happy to entertain challenges to Christian faith anytime. But recycling foolish critiques like the creation order in Gen 1 is a waste of everyone's time.

Denis, I'm sure you can make the bible jump through whatever hoops you want it to. Everyone does it. However, the interpretation that is most often advanced here is strict biblical literalism. I believe it's not an uncommon interpretation.

Given that literalism is the biblical flavour of choice for creationist christians, the creation order argument is entirely appropriate, as the literal version is patently false. You may, if it is your wont, interpret genesis as some sort of fancy metaphor for something spiritual, thus sidestepping the myriad objections that are aimed at literalist interpretations, but in the meantime creation science is being pushed into public schools, and is rife in private and home-schools. Not only is science being perverted by this, but your own faith is being cheapened and emancipated. You should be championing "foolish critiques" against literalism, as it is the enemy of all brands of rational thought.

excreationist · 07-13-2003, 06:12 PM

Denis Lamoureux:
Are you saying that the ancient Hebrews knew that it was just a poem, not to be taken literally? If so, why does the Jewish calender place the creation of the universe at about 3760 BC?

And what about these Exodus verses?
Exodus 20:11 - "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
Exodus 31:17 - "It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested."
Why doesn't it say "according to the creation poem..."?
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/EvCr3.jpg
This shows that the Noah's Flood story seems to have an even more sophisticated poem-like structure... does that "prove" that the authors of the Bible didn't intend it to be viewed as real history?
Maybe the reason why there are parallels in the creation week is because the ancient Hebrews thought that God could do anything he wanted, so he might as well create the universe in an ordered poetic way rather than in some non-ordered way. Other cultures might have similarly poetic stories - which they literally believed.

Quote:

It's not history!!!

It was, according to the ancient Hebrews. You are just using modern science to reinterpret scripture.

Quote:

Only a crude 4th grade Sunday school reading of Gen 1 generates your eisegesis.

Yes, a plain reading of Genesis 1.

Quote:

(I suppose the next thing you're going to critique is that the Bible states people lived 900 yrs (Gen 5) . . . make my day . . .)

Well Paul and Jesus refer to people like Adam and Noah as if they are literal people...
Also the genealogy in Luke 3 agree with that of Genesis suggesting that all of those people are literal. (see this genealogy page)

Genesis 5:3-32

Quote:

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. 7 And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.
9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.
12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 And after he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.
15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 And after he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died.
18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 And after he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died.
21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 And after he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died.
28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed." 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.
32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

So what is the poetic significance of all of those numbers? BTW, the ancient Hebrews and also most of the church fathers and Martin Luther, etc, used those ages in order to date creation. They were convinced that the genealogy involved literal dates. The ancient Hebrews would know more about the intentions of the authors since it was written by ancient Hebrews... not modern people who believe in an old earth who want to get the Bible to agree with that belief. (BTW I'm an atheist)
Genesis 9:28-29
28 After the flood Noah lived 350 years. 29 Altogether, Noah lived 950 years, and then he died.

BTW, if you look at the genealogies they even made sure that Noah's ancestors died before the flood. If it is non-literal, why did they bother to go to such trouble. (Methuselah died in the Flood year, his son Lamech, the father of Noah, died five years earlier)

Genesis 11:10-26

Quote:

10 This is the account of Shem.
Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of Arphaxad. 11 And after he became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters.
12 When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.
14 When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber. 15 And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.
16 When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg. 17 And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters.
18 When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu. 19 And after he became the father of Reu, Peleg lived 209 years and had other sons and daughters.
20 When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug. 21 And after he became the father of Serug, Reu lived 207 years and had other sons and daughters.
22 When Serug had lived 30 years, he became the father of Nahor. 23 And after he became the father of Nahor, Serug lived 200 years and had other sons and daughters.
24 When Nahor had lived 29 years, he became the father of Terah. 25 And after he became the father of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and had other sons and daughters.
26 After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.

What is the significance of all of those numbers? They don't appear to be very poetic to me.

Genesis 17:1,17,21, 25:7
Has Abraham fathering Isaac at the age of 100 and living to 175. Why 175? Why not 110? Why obviously lie like that? As I said, the ancient Hebrews and early Christians believed it was literal. In modern times it became popular to think that it wasn't literal due to outside influences like modern science.

Deuteronomy 34:7
Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone.

Is that literal? Or is that yet another example of the Bible exaggerating his age for some poetic reason? Since the ancient Hebrews, etc, believed the other ages were literal, they'd probably believe Moses's age was literal too. I thought Deuteronomy was supposed to be a historical account - not involving poetry.

Furthermore, your analogy shows that you not understand the Divine revelatory process. This is more of your fundamentalism. Do you think God came out of heaven, put a pen in a scribe's hand, and starting dictating away? Fundies believe stuff like that.

What about verses like this:
Exodus 24:4a
Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.

Deuteronomy 5:22
These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

Deuteronomy 10:4
The LORD wrote on these tablets what he had written before, the Ten Commandments he had proclaimed to you on the mountain, out of the fire, on the day of the assembly. And the LORD gave them to me.

Was Moses lying? Or was the author of those books lying about what happened? Or weren't those events literal, but obviously poetic? Did Moses actually just think up the commandments himself and pretend that God spoke to him?

Quote:

Your argument shows you have no concept of the intellectual-historical context. The Hebrews predate the Hebrew language. Thus, the creation account was oral, and vestiges of this appear in Gen 1-11.

Whether they are literal or not would have been passed down too... i.e. whether it is a Santa Clause type story or not as far as things like the genealogies were concerned. BTW, do you think that all of the people in the genealogies literally existed? Luke 3 seems to say that they do.

Quote:

....Reading an ancient Semitic text through 21st C epismtemological categories is not only disrepectful and facist, it's bad math (even engineers should be able to understand that)...

The ancient Hebrew scholars that calculated the Jews' traditional calender starting date for the creation of the universe weren't from the 21st century. They viewed the genealogies and also the 6 days as being literal. So did most of the early church fathers, and theologians like Martin Luther.

Quote:

I'm happy to entertain challenges to Christian faith anytime. But recycling foolish critiques like the creation order in Gen 1 is a waste of everyone's time.[/B]

The age of Moses and Abraham, etc, aren't from Genesis 1... and neither is the part about God telling Moses what to write.

Warcraft3 · 07-14-2003, 09:37 AM

Emotional: Hey, whats up?

Quote:

[i]
When the Christian scriptures call death the "Last Enemy", they refer generally to death, not just to human death. Death is an intruder that wasn't in this world originally in the beginning.

Actually I believe it WAS in the world originally, but was suspended for man via the tree of life. So it is the "last enemy", since Gods original plan was to keep man living forever physically. The tree of life is one of the last things that will be restored from the Edenic enviornment.

Quote:

The question, to remind you again, is: what is death? Is it the natural order of things, or an enemy that intruded into a perfect creation?

The creation was "very good", not perfect.

Quote:

The OEC and TE Christian positions have the answer be that death is the natural order of things. Thus the main thrust of Christianity, the thing that would make it an all-relevant religion, is annulled. The YEC position maintains the important tenet that death is an intruding enemy, so that the message of Christianity is as I understand it to be: a religion that concerns itself with overcoming the enemy called death.

I do not see death as the central issue within Christianity. I see the central issue as choice.

Quote:

Still, I'll be glad to hear from you OEC/TE Christians how this is not so.

Animal death before the fall does nothing to weaken the redemptive nature of the cross. It was man who sinned, and man who needed a Saviour. God told Adam and Eve..." in the day you eat of it you will surely die......." He said YOU, not "you and the plants and the animals.." Animals are simply not part of the equation here.

Quote:

How can Morton believe in both a literal Adam and biological evolution? For biological evolution means Adam never existed! Biological evolution says "ape-like ancestors were our fathers" and not "Adam our father". Also, the boundary between apes and men, in evolutionary thinking, isn't at all clear-cut, but it's a continuum. An ape-like ancestor didn't directly give birth to a man.

For a review of Mortons views go to: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
For his view on this issue specifically, read the article titled "A theory for Creationists"

Russ

Warcraft3 · 07-14-2003, 11:00 AM

Hey there excreationist:

Quote:

I think steadele has a good point about the tree of life - it apparently allowed those who ate of it to live forever... (i.e. there would be death amongst animals ?)

See these verses about the tree of life:
Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

Thanks man. I would like to think that at least some of my points are good.

Quote:

Revelation 2:7, 22:2, 22:14 and 22:19 talks about the saved people being allowed to eat from the tree of life. It doesn't seem to say directly that the act leads to eternal life though...

Frist off, many times in scripture something has both physical and spiritual properties connected with it. So a few of the verses in Revelation seem to me to be somewhat symbolic in nature. And a few of them do seem to imply the same literal tree that was present in Eden. I do not think it is the same tree though, since I believe Eden was destroyed during the flood (but that is a different ball of wax entirely). Because of the nature of Revelation I am somewhat reluctant to use it as a reference. That is a book I have not given enough time to really understand. So I find your points about these passages to be good ones and I really dont have a good answer at this time. I just havent studied Revleation enough yet.

Even if the verses are saying what you are implying, I still do not think they weaken the point about the relationship between the tree, the garden, and human death.

Quote:

On the other hand, sometimes in the Bible eternal life doesn't seem to be related to death - e.g. when torment is involved, such as in hell, and even on earth:
Revelation 9:6
During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

Yes, sometimes "death" is used in a manner not referring to physical death as we think of it. Context would determine the usage and meaning of the word in specific instances.

Quote:

See what I just wrote... though you seem to have a good point about the tree of life as far as Genesis and a lot of Revelation goes, what about things like Revelation 9:6? And BTW, do you think hell involves eternal torment? If so, it would be without the tree of life, since Revelation only talks about the saved being able to eat from the tree of life.

Ill get back to you on the Revelation thing. I just find any conclusions made based on that book to be a bit questionable due to the symbolic nature of the book.

Quote:

Maybe it was a symbiotic thing. According to Genesis 2:6, "there was no man to work the ground".... i.e. the garden needed a person to maintain. See also Gen 2:15 - "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." Gardens are apparently prettier than chaotic natural vegetation. And the garden can't initially span the entire globe since there was only one person. But there would be general vegetation in other parts of the globe. It wouldn't be very hard work though since there weren't any thorns yet, etc.

Actually, my point is that the garden was a special (it had at least two trees with spiritual properties), prepared (not chaotic, and requiring little work to maintain compared to wild enviorenments), and protected place. So my point is......if the entire world was "perfect" then a "garden" would not have been necessary. The entire world would have been a paradise.........But it wasnt. Which is why a "garden" was made for man.

Quote:

It seems to keep humans immortal. According to my definition of YEC for this thread, to be a YEC you don't need to believe that every animal and human was immortal before the curse and the tree of life was irrelevant.

I accept your answer, but with some reservation. I say this because I have never met or interacted with (or even heard of) a YEC who believed in animal death before the fall.

Quote:

So there was some pain. Just because AIG give bad answers about those things it doesn't prove that the interpretation about the Bible meaning 6 literal days is wrong. (Whether it is historical or not is not being debated here, just what the authors of the text intended to say)

Well, I am still waiting for ANY YEC to give me a good answer to that one.

Quote:

It shows that the sun isn't the original source of light and life, and it parallels with Revelation where there is light without the sun. It also would provide a literal way of having day (light) and night (dark) as well as morning (the beginning of light on earth) and evening (the ending of light on earth).

It does not parallel with Revelation. That verse is talking about a completely different dimensional reality (a spiritual one). Genesis is talking about the formation of physical reality. They are two different things. ** this is why I was reluctant to comment on the whole "tree of life in revelation" issue from before** There is no sun in the enviornment of Revelation, but that is because it is a completely different environment than the one we currently exist in. I think making a connection between Revelation and Genesis and concluding that "since the sun isnt necessary in Revelation, it also wasnt necessary for days 1-3 of creation" is a bit of a stretch.

Quote:

Just because AIG give bad answers about those things it doesn't prove that the interpretation about the Bible meaning 6 literal days is wrong.

Thats the second time you have mentioned AIG. They are not the only YECs I have looked at. The fact is NONE of them can explain this one and they give me some kind of pat-answer. If you think the animals diet was important enough to mention in Genesis 1, then it is inconsistant to think a fundamental change in that diet would have been omitted. It really just does not make sense, and I have heard 0 good YEC answers for it.

Quote:

AIG believes in plant death and maybe also insect death. And others who would also qualify as YEC's might believe in animal death.

Yeah, I guess thats true. That could be a good answer for that objection. So I think you got me on that one. Good point. I wont use that one anymore.

Quote:

AiG says this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1132.asp

Yeah, Ive read that one before. I think the verb change is signifigant and I do not think the words are used interchangably in Genesis 1. I find their examples and arguements to be good, but unconvincing. The other view has arguements which are just as good as AIGs.

Quote:

Maybe "heavens" means things like empty space (where the stars would later be put) and there could be a supernatural component (e.g. where angels live or something)

Maybe it means empty space with no stars? Maybe.....but I think you are really straining here. I find that one hard to swallow.

Quote:

Maybe the authors of Genesis had a static earth, where the light of the sky rotated around the (possibly flat) earth.

Ummmmmmmm maybe, but I think you are straining again. That explanation seems kind of speculative and a bit weak to me.

Quote:

And morning was when the sky had begun to light up, and evening was when it began to darken.

No way do I buy that one. Evening and morning were always connected with the setting and rising of the sun, not some mysterious light source (which would have to be localized of course to produce the effect).

Quote:

Also, in Genesis 1, days and nights are explicitly defined as there being light or an absence of light - rather than it being defined as there being a specific light source (the sun) or the absence of the light source.

Genesis 1:14 also says "let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years" - and you can even tell what hour it is using the sun. So they don't "do the same basic job".

They dont do the same basic job? Okay, lets take a look at what the text says............

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

I see a connection here. The sun IS the light source from day 1.

Quote:

As far as the reason why the sun didn't just appear in the first place:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp
"This would have been very significant to pagan world views which tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. God seems to be making it pointedly clear that the sun is secondary to His Creatorhood as the source of everything. He doesn�t �need� the sun in order to create life (in contrast to theistic evolutionary beliefs.)" [also see Rev 21:23 as an example which shows that God doesn't need the sun and moon - and for eternal life it would remind you of time a lot anyway]

I am familiar with that article as well. Alot of "maybes" and possibilities. Alot of speculation, but no real answers as to why the non-solar localized light source was needed to do the exact same thing the sun does, and was replaced after being declared "good".

Quote:

That would mean there would be fruit trees before the sun had ever become visible at all.

No, it does not mean that necessarily.

Quote:

I think the problems of the alternatives are greater...

I disagree

Quote:

Genesis 2:5 makes no mention of sunlight being required. And BTW, plants can survive with artificial light such as electrical lights (and supernatural light). They don't need the sun.

It doesnt have to mention it to establish the general principle that it implies about God sustaining the creation through ordinary means.

Quote:

Yes they do - they give an example of where God provides light to people without the presence of the sun or the moon. And assuming there was originally light before the sun in the Bible, it mirrors Genesis in the backwards way.

No they do not--they give an example of God providing light in a supernatural way in a SUPERNATURAL environment, not a natural one. I do not assume there was a supernatural light source, so I do not see a mirror at all.

Quote:

But you assume that the authors of Genesis weren't talking about 6 literal days since it conflicts with your beliefs about science.

It conflicts with my beliefs about scripture. The science issue is another matter entirely.

Quote:

From before - Genesis 1:14 says "let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years".

They still served the same basic purpose as the mystery light from day 1. Verse 17 confirms this.

Quote:

For the reason why they weren't created in the first place, see earlier in my post. (That God and not the sun is the original source of light and life, etc)

Yes I have seen the whole "sun worship" argument used before. It is an interesting, but unconvincing argument.

Quote:

Note that a belief in six literal days is just that - it doesn't necessarily involve believing everything that the AiG does, or that the earth is round, etc.

True......although I have never met a YEC who "just" believes in six 24 hour days.

I think that on its own merit alone, 24-hour days leaves too many holes to be filled in. I find other views explain more anomolies.

Russ

emotional · 07-14-2003, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by steadele
Actually I believe it WAS in the world originally, but was suspended for man via the tree of life. So it is the "last enemy", since Gods original plan was to keep man living forever physically. The tree of life is one of the last things that will be restored from the Edenic enviornment.

The creation was "very good", not perfect.

Granted, "very good" does not mean "perfect", but I can hardly see how the Darwinian world of predatory savagery can even be called "very good".

Quote:

I do not see death as the central issue within Christianity. I see the central issue as choice.

Christianity is about Christ, who was dead and rose from the dead, enabling all who believe in him to conquer death. That's the way I'm accustomed to think about it. Then again, I didn't have a Christian upbringing, so I could do with a little enlightenment on the subject.

Quote:

Animal death before the fall does nothing to weaken the redemptive nature of the cross. It was man who sinned, and man who needed a Saviour. God told Adam and Eve..." in the day you eat of it you will surely die......." He said YOU, not "you and the plants and the animals.." Animals are simply not part of the equation here.

But evolutionary theory would have it that: 1) human death is natural as animal death, for there is no real distinction between humans and animals, and 2) the scenario of one man, one woman and a talking snake acting out such a drama of Original Sin never took place, so that we cannot be sinners except by what we individually misdo (and so I believe - I believe I have committed sins myself, and not inherited them from a first ancestor).

Quote:

For a review of Mortons views go to: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
For his view on this issue specifically, read the article titled "A theory for Creationists"

Interesting but quite strained. The one thing that's attractive about YEC is the straightforwardness in which the Bible speaks. Morton's attempt (such as substituting "Homo habilis" for "Adam") seems like very desperate shoehorning.

Denis Lamoureux · 07-14-2003, 01:45 PM

Hi again,
Well, add another academic faux pas to your long list: anachrontisic historiography. Exegesis is done from the text & the historico-cultural context. Not from the Reformation 3000 years later (though interesting).

No suprizes with all the passion you express. This aligns well with Terror Management Theory (check the professional psychological literature). Atheists like you NEED a strawman hermeneutic. It's the only way you can survive.

Anyway, a few questions for you:

1) You copied out the Gen 5 genealogy. But did you actually read it? Surely, you noted a statistically significant pattern? Did you?

2) You referred to the Lk 3 genealogy in attempting to defend you fundamentalist hermeneutic. But did you actually read it? Surely, you noted a classic Semitic feature? Did you?

Reading your second post is more evidence supporting my earlier contention that you are in dire need of a 1st yr undergrad course in hermeneutics. It's time you get away from the Sunday School stuff.

Over to you.

Regards,
Denis

Denis Lamoureux · 07-14-2003, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Denis, I'm sure you can make the bible jump through whatever hoops you want it to. Everyone does it. However, the interpretation that is most often advanced here is strict biblical literalism. I believe it's not an uncommon interpretation.

Given that literalism is the biblical flavour of choice for creationist christians, the creation order argument is entirely appropriate, as the literal version is patently false. You may, if it is your wont, interpret genesis as some sort of fancy metaphor for something spiritual, thus sidestepping the myriad objections that are aimed at literalist interpretations, but in the meantime creation science is being pushed into public schools, and is rife in private and home-schools. Not only is science being perverted by this, but your own faith is being cheapened and emancipated. You should be championing "foolish critiques" against literalism, as it is the enemy of all brands of rational thought.

Hi,
So you want to talk about perversion? How about the perversion of Darwin's theory of biological evolution by atheists? Want to teach that in the schools under the illusion and culture myth of its metaphysical neutrality?

I'm shocked how deeply entrench the origins dichotomy is in your argument (undoubtedly, it operates in the tacit dimension, to use a Polanyism. Moreover, I'm more than irritated in you telling me how to argue, and what to argue. Is being a moderator in this form mean being a facist?

Regarding fundamentalists pushing YEC, PC & ID in the schools, my record speaks for itself--read my debate with Phil Johnson in _Darwinism Defeated?_. Contact Eugenie Scott at the National Centre for Science Education. Read my up coming review of Kurt Wise's book in the NCSE journal.

You want discussion, don't tell me what to say.

Denis

Warcraft3 · 07-14-2003, 02:40 PM

Hey Denis, good to see you posting here:

Quote:

Originally posted by Denis Lamoureux
[B]Wow!
You truly are a fundamentalist! Fundamentalist hermeneutics overlaid with fundamentalist epistemology (are you an engineer?).

Reading an ancient Semitic text through 21st C epismtemological categories is not only disrepectful and facist, it's bad math (even engineers should be able to understand that).

LOL Hey! Whats wrong with engineers? We are people too ya know.

Russ
(electrical engineer)

Denis Lamoureux · 07-14-2003, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by steadele
Hey Denis, good to see you posting here:

LOL Hey! Whats wrong with engineers? We are people too ya know.

Russ
(electrical engineer)

Hey Russ,
You bet! Engineering students are some of the brightess and hardess working PEOPLE I have met. They just need a little work on the artsie stuff!

A problem we all suffer within the academy is the fragmentation of knowledge. We specialize in one or two areas, but outside of that's about it.

It's no co-incidence that one of the most important YEC shaping the America origins debate was a hydraulic 'geer: Henry Morris.

Best,
Denis

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

07-14-2003, 01:45 PM	#37
Denis Lamoureux Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Edmonton, AB. Canada Posts: 46	Hi again, Well, add another academic faux pas to your long list: anachrontisic historiography. Exegesis is done from the text & the historico-cultural context. Not from the Reformation 3000 years later (though interesting). No suprizes with all the passion you express. This aligns well with Terror Management Theory (check the professional psychological literature). Atheists like you NEED a strawman hermeneutic. It's the only way you can survive. Anyway, a few questions for you: 1) You copied out the Gen 5 genealogy. But did you actually read it? Surely, you noted a statistically significant pattern? Did you? 2) You referred to the Lk 3 genealogy in attempting to defend you fundamentalist hermeneutic. But did you actually read it? Surely, you noted a classic Semitic feature? Did you? Reading your second post is more evidence supporting my earlier contention that you are in dire need of a 1st yr undergrad course in hermeneutics. It's time you get away from the Sunday School stuff. Over to you. Regards, Denis

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.