Ed

I doubt it, to me it is rather obvious the differences and I think it would be to the professor. What evidence is there that there are two versions and what contradictions?

Quote:

lp: And Ed has made no attempt to rebut my speculation that his denial of the existence of the Babylonian gods has colored his judgment.

No it has nothing to do with that in my opinion because the linguistic styles are so obviously different. With the biblical account being a much more realistic style and not so fantastical.

Quote:

lp: Evidence for that contention? However, "four corners of the Earth" is meant literally here, because we are told that there is an angel at each corner holding back a wind. The verses are Revelation 7:1-2. Ed: It is obvious from the context for someone with experience reading the bible that Revelation 7 is a VISION not something that is occurring in reality. ... lp: Tell that to those who insist that the Book of Revelation is camcorder-accurate future history.

No, even they believe it is a vision and not something that is actually occuring at the moment.

Quote:

lp: Cry me a river, Ed, about how persecuted your favorite people are. There is a good reason to avoid using the "Goddidit" hypothesis. This is because "Goddidit" can explain anything, and therefore really nothing. Unless one can demonstrate that there are some phenomena that "Goddidit" can not possibly explain. Ed: No, you have got it reversed. Since 99.9% of the time God uses natural laws to control the universe a good theistic scientist first looks for any possible natural explanation and only after he exhausts all possible natural explanations then would he say that a creator may have acted. But of course depending on what it is, he would still leave open the possibility that the cause was natural. lp: Very ingenious. Ed seems to accept the weakness of the "Goddidit" hypothesis.

What I stated above is actually what the scriptures themselves teach and what the great theistic scientists of the past believed, ie Newton, Galileo, Capernicus, Pasteur, etc.

Quote:

lp: I accept that my perceptions are perceptions of an external world because these perceptions have patterns that are independent of my thoughts. Ed: How do you know they are independent of your thoughts? lp: It may be difficult for me to prove that the rest of the Universe is not one giant hallucination. But essentially all of it acts independent of my thoughts, or at least, those that are apparent to my consciousness. So either there is an unconscious mind that generates some extremely fancy and detailed hallucinations, or there is an external world independent of my thoughts.

Exactly, and my point is that you have no rational basis for choosing one or the other.
See the thread "Ed:Flawed Naturalism".

Quote:

(defense of the capture of the Midianite Comfort Women) lp: Seems like the Bible is written in a very defective fashion -- it is supposedly the world's perfect textbook, but one has to go through all this trouble and contortion to interpret it. Also, this answer might best be called "moral relativism". That's right, moral relativism. Ed: What trouble and contortion? Its called scholarship. Scholarship is needed in the deeper parts of the scriptures. God wants us to use our brains else he wouldnt have given brains to us. How is it moral relativism? No morality changed just believer's goals. lp: But why write in an unclear fashion. That is extremely illogical. An instruction book has to be very clear and not require a whole lot of interpretation. And if some specialized knowledge is required, it ought to be explained as clearly as possible. And I believe that the Bible fails those tests.

The essential teachings regarding salvation are obvious as well as most of the moral teachings.


[b] Yes, but thanks for confirming my point.

lpetrich

<a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jp-flood.html" target="_blank">Noah's Flood Disassembled</a>

Basically, the first 5 books of the Bible are most likely a composite of 4 sets of traditions, Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomistic, and Priestly, as distinguished by a variety of stylistic features, like the name they use for God, what God is like (the Yahwist parts are grossly anthropomorphic), the geographical setting, what preoccupations (the Priestly parts have lots of rituals, lists, and genealogies), and so forth.

One example of this "Documentary Hypothesis" or "JEDP" decomposition is the two creation stories in Genesis. Genesis 1 (the six days) is the Priestly story and Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve) is the Yahwist story, gross anthropomorphism and all.

As to Noah's Flood, it is an interweaving of a Yahwist and a Priestly version. For example:

Yahwist: Seven pairs of each clean animal, one pair of each unclean animal
Priestly: One pair of all the animals
(no discussion of why they didn't leave pigs behind and solve that problem once and for all)

Yahwist: Rain for 40 days and nights
Priestly: The windows of heaven open and the fountains of the deep erupt; the flood takes 150 days to grow

Ed, why do you consider the Gilgamesh flood story to be fantastical? Please be specific; point to features of the text, and compare corresponding parts of the Noah's Flood story.

I've read it, and it closely parallels the two Noah's Flood stories.

I wonder if Galileo, Copernicus, and Pasteur make Ed want to convert to Catholicism or if Newton makes Ed want to convert to Anglicanism/Episcopalianism.

Also, where in the Bible is the claim made that 99.9% of the time, the Universe runs on natural laws?

<a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=192" target="_blank">Christian Salvation</a> is an effort to compare the teachings of different Christian sects on salvation, and there are lots and lots of differences. Even the Bible is not a unified front -- salvation by faith alone or salvation by faith and works?

As to moral teachings, there are some rather grotesque contradictions. The early parts of the Bible approvingly describe genocidal massacres, with the only criticism ever offered is that one of them did not go far enough. However, Jesus Christ teaches in the Sermon on the Mount that one ought to love one's enemies, turn the other cheek, etc.

Coragyps

I can think of one, named Morris.

Ed

How and why? Just stating something doesn't make it so. You need to be specific in your reasons for making such statements.

Oolon Colluphid

I see you've learned something in your time here, because this is PRECISELY the point we have repeatedly made to you. Can you think of a single reason why the term "goddamned hypocrite" should not be applied to you?

I bet the reason will be ad hoc too....

Oolon

Duck!

Okay, Ed.....

Somebody's gotta call you on this one. Specific? You been so bloody vague on this thread that amongst all your "maybe" arguments you've never made anything close to a specific date for the flood and you haven't even explained why you believe in the flood in the first place. You've admitted that there's little or no evidence for the flood in the first place. Apparently there's so little evidence that the date could range from 1 to 150 million years ago!

Nearly every single one of your posts seems to consist of waving away the evidence you're confronted with by saying "Well maybe the evidence is wrong", "Maybe the flood didn't happen 4000 years ago", "Maybe the flood happened a million years ago", "Maybe the flood happened 150 million years ago", "Maybe all sorts of weird things happened around the time of the flood in order to explain the fossil record and biogeography".

Maybe, maybe, maybe Ed.

Then again, maybe not.

THINK, ED. THINK GODDAMN YOU!


Duck!

Ed

Yes, and it demonstrates how if these two dog skulls had been found as fossils in different strata one might have been considered ancestral to the other when in fact they are the same species.


[b] If the population was small then there could have been early humans but not enough to leave any fossils.

Duck!

Do me a huge favour Ed and bite the bullet.

Explain why LordValentine needs to be more specific in his arguments but you don't need to be more specific in your pro-flood arguments, i.e. the flood could have happened any time between 1 and 150 million years ago.

Ed, I'm not a regular poster on this board but you've gone too far now. I'm getting bored to shit reading your "maybe the flood happened X million years ago" shit. Commit yourself or be damned.

You are a hypocrite. When evidence is posted that suggests that the current continents we're amalgamated over 100,000,000 years then you say " Well maybe the flood happened 100 million years ago". When evidence is posted explaining that biogeography only makes sense in light of evolution, then you say "Well maybe when the flood happened the plants were distributed differently and maybe the thousands of viral and bacterial infectious agents that bother humans surived the flood by survivied by floating on floating islands of vegetation. Or maybe that infected humans but didn't cause any negative symptoms!

Ed, I'm sure we'd all be a lot happer if you just stated you evidence for the flood so the regulars here at least knew what they were arguing against.


Duck!

Duck!

Also, you've argued that the flood may have happened up to 150,000,000 years ago. Have you got a single piece of evidence that even suggests humans existed more than ONE MILLION years ago?

Put up or shut up.


Duck!

Duck!

Also, here's a friendly piece of advice.

Learn to use UBB code. It will make your posts a lot easier to read. Your posts bounce between bold and normal text and UBB tags are appearing all over the place.

Read the UBB helpfile. There's probably a FAQ somewhere on this website. It will make your posts a lot more readable and a lot easier to follow your arguments.


Duck!

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Duck of Death ]</p>