lpetrich

It's the letter to Grand Duchess Christina.

Also, Denis, are you claiming that because you believe that your version is correct that it is therefore necessarily correct? Everything else I've ever seen on this Baronius-Galileo comment supports the "heaven" version. According to this page and some others, the original Latin version is:

Spiritui Sancto mentem fuisse nos docere quomodo ad coelum eatur, non quomodo coelum gradiatur.

My knowledge of Latin is rather limited, but it's enough to indicate that the "heaven" version is the original one.

Jack the Bodiless

Dennis:

I think you're still missing the point here. You're more accustomed to dealing with Christian fundies, maybe?

You're claiming that there's a numeric pattern in the genealogies which indicates that they were invented, that they weren't the random ages of actual people.

We already know this!

Why do you think this will surprise us? We consider the Bible to be a work of fiction. Somebody INVENTED all those numbers: and IF they chose to play games with numeric sequences, this would signify absolutely diddly-squat to US.

This does not change our belief that later generations interpreted the ages literally, because it is our belief that the entire Bible is fiction later interpreted as fact.

This whole thread is becoming increasingly bizarre.

ATHEIST: We are right, the fundies are wrong.

DENNIS: No, you ignorant fool, you are RIGHT, the fundies are WRONG.

Well, duh...

excreationist

Denis Lamoureux:

Here are the genealogies with the age when the next in line ("Son") was born, the age at death ("Lifespan") and the difference between the two ("LS-Son"). Above the dotted line is Genesis 5. Noah is kind of in Genesis 5. In verse 32 it says "After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth." It doesn't give an exact time when Shem was born or mention Noah's death, so I don't think it should be included with the rest in Genesis 5.

The standard deviation (Std Dev) measures how much the things vary.

Age at birth of Son category:
130
105
90
70
65
162
65
187
182
502

(not including Noah)
Average: 117.3333333
Median: 105
Std Dev: 49.75942122

(including Noah)
Average: 155.8
Median: 117.5
Std Dev: 130.3753555

Years until death after birth of Son category:
800
807
815
840
830
800
300
782
595
448

(not including Noah)
Average: 729.8888889
Median: 800
Std Dev: 177.0885686

(including Noah)
Average: 701.7
Median: 800
Std Dev: 189.2670365

Age at death category:
930
912
905
910
895
962
365* (went to heaven)
969
777
950

(not including Noah)
Average: 847.2222222
Median: 910
Std Dev: 189.1043216

(including Noah)
Average: 857.5
Median: 911
Std Dev: 181.2274507

(not including Enoch or Noah)
Average: 912.2222222
Median: 912
Std Dev: 57.10030161

I guess most of that is irrelevant. Perhaps it can be summed up better using normal language....

The number of years after their son was born is usually around 800... and three times it is a multiple of 100. About half (or more if you don't count Noah) have the years until their death after their son being born as a multiple of 10. That would be very unlikely, but still, there are a lot of random looking realistic-type numbers thrown in there for many people. I thought the numbers in Genesis 5 would have one author and if it was poetically symetrical or something that would show through more obviously.

Looking at it again... I saw some new patterns:
These generally decrease.

The numbers from the next two people decrease.

The numbers from the last two names also decrease.

So the pattern goes - 5 names with mostly decreasing numbers, 2 names with decreasing numbers, then 2 names with decreasing numbers.

NightFox

To be honest I think you are the one missing the point Denis is trying to make. What Denis has been trying to make clear here is that arguments which seek to discredit Christianity by using a fundementalist interpretation of Genesis are irrelavent because Genesis should NOT be interpreted literally. Thus saying that Christianity is invalid because the Genesis accounts of creation do not fit with historical, geological or evolutionary records that we have access to today is an act of abject stupidity.


It proves Denis' point nicely. Often times Atheists use Genesis' historical inaccuracies to try to disprove the Bible. Picking out numeric patterns show that there is alot of cultural baggage from 3500 years ago in the text. As a result of that different rules of interpretation become nessecary. I believe that is what Denis was trying to point out.

Later generations did interpret Genesis literally... so what. That doesn't mean they were right. It certainly does not invalidate the Christian faith since Christian faith is based on the life, teachings, death and Ressurection of Jesus Christ. A more modern interpretation of Genesis which takes into account what is known today only takes apart Christian faith if people are looking for an excuse to toss it in the trash.

I think what Denis is actually saying is "You guys are as fundie as any Christian fundie. You guys are wrong, the fundies are wrong. Wake up and learn how to respect the Biblical text for what it is."

TTFN
Jeff Brassard
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

:boohoo:

emotional

And why should Genesis not be interpreted literally? Is there any single clue in the text of Genesis itself that it should not be interpreted literally? Where does one get the idea that Genesis should not be interpreted literally, except by its disagreement with what modern science says?



I want Christianity, with its condemning the majority of humankind to eternal torture, to be untrue, and for this purpose I will use any device I can use. Including saying evolution blows Genesis, and by extension Christianity as a whole, out of the water.

RufusAtticus

It appears that you are starting with the assumption that Genesis is correct, and, therefore, judging how Genesis should be interpreted based on whether it agrees with the real world. To me Genesis is a creation myth like the myths of anyother culture and should be understood no differently then them.

True, yet it still invalidates many Christian faiths are built on the basis that Genesis is an accurate account of history.

A modern understanding of Genesis does trash Christian faiths that are based on an "older" understanding. That's why the majority of atheists come our of christian denominations that base their faith on the "older" understanding. What do you expect to happen in churches that insist that the world must be 6000 years old or Jesus didn't matter?

NightFox

Genesis is an ancient text. It comes out of an oral tradition. When faithful today attempt to understand it, they must look beyond the incidental elements of the text (ie ancient science). It was written for an ancient audience so that they could understand it, however, it also contains a spiritual message. Today we no longer need the ancient science to understand how our world functions the spiritual message contained in Genesis is still very much relevant. To get to this spiritual message however different interpretive tools need to be employed.

Nothing in the text says that it should be interpreted this way. Then again I have yet to see any literary work that comes with a guide which tells you how to interpret it. In interpretation of texts like the Bible common sense must be employed. Common sense as opposed to close mindedness.

NightFox

I certainly am not starting with the assumption that Genesis is a factually correct account of what occured at the beginning of time. I am a Roman Catholic who is firmly convinced of the factual validity of Evolution. Genesis is a creation myth, that can't be denied. It shares many characteristics with other creation myths partiucularly with the Babylonian Enuma Elish. The theological differences between Genesis and other myths is even more striking. In most myths, the sun, the moon and the stars are gods to be worshiped. In Genesis that is simply not the case, they are made to serve mankind. In most creation myths the world is created by a conflict between the gods. In Genesis only one god exist and he creates the universe without any conflict at all. In most myths man is made to serve the gods as a slave. In Genesis man is made to be in communion with God. The list goes on and on. These differences are so huge and unprecendented that they cannot be ignored. The theology of Genesis is totally different from anything which preceeded it. Genesis is not simply like any other myth because the theology is totally different. Once the incidental details are stripped away the theology in Genesis remains very pertinent to modern believers, even those who accept evolution. BUT it requires a more flexible understanding of the text than either fundementalism or Atheism wishes to accept.

TTFN
Jeff
The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. C.S Lewis –(Screwtape Letters)

Albion

Well, last time Denis showed up here sometime last year, I remember him giving a list of types of attitudes to evolution-creationism, ranging from "God did it as literally described in Genesis" to "Natural processes were involved and God wasn't" (or something - the search facility here has been such a pain recently that I'm not about to go back and check this for word-for-word accuracy). I objected because the option "Natural processes were involved; intervention of deity unknown" wasn't included (which would be the closest to my opinion), and Denis told me that that option was worthless; you had to have a "yes" or "no" about God in order to have an opinon on evolution that was even worth mentioning. Now he's complaining that people are acting like fundamentalist atheists. Well, if agnostic opinions are unwelcome and atheism that adressses biblical literalism is unwelcome, there's not going to be much left at this rate.

Jobar

Nightfox and Denis, most of the people who come in here and question evolution interpret Genesis literally. So, many of the arguments you see here are specifically tailored to debunk this literal interpretation- which you both seem to agree, is incorrect.

Fine. We agree that Genesis should not be interpreted literally.

But when the next fundamentalist Christian comes in here frothing about how the world was created in six 24-hour days and nights, we're going to use the arguments you object to.

Most of the regular posters here are nontheists. So, there will be plenty of disagreements between you and us. However, this forum is not the proper venue for addressing those disagreements. As far as E/C is concerned, once you are OK with Darwin and evolution, it's time for you to move on to one of the other forums- since you are no longer a menace to scientific education, in our eyes.

I think that the problems you two are addressing here should be dealt with in either BC&H or GRD.