15 Jun 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobis this a different way of stating what our beloved guru and high priest Mr. Hawkings had to say on the matter, and i quote “In the classical theory of general relativity . . . the beginning of the universe has to be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature. Under such conditions, all the known laws of physics would break down." therefore if you are saying what i think you are saying, then its very a very convenient argument, to say the least!
Something can't be broken if it doesn't yet exist.
15 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't know what you think, that you think i know. You're going to have to tell me.
is this a different way of stating what our beloved guru and high priest Mr. Hawkings had to say on the matter, and i quote “In the classical theory of general relativity . . . the beginning of the universe has to be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature. Under such conditions, all the known laws of physics would break down." th ...[text shortened]... saying what i think you are saying, then its very a very convenient argument, to say the least!
16 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knob===============================
Nope, i don't mean that. It is theorised that at the inception of the universe the laws of physics began, not broken. There is a difference.
Nope, i don't mean that. It is theorised that at the inception of the universe the laws of physics began, not broken. There is a difference.
==================================
Where did the whole concept of "laws" themselves come from ?
Why are there any "laws" to begin with ?
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by jaywillI'm going to have to agree with you mr.jaywill.
Come on man. Say a little bit more. Stick your head out a little.
We all know that no position is the easiest to defend. So take a position.
There is too much evidence for previous floods in the earths history to be ignored. Whether it was localised or on a global level is not clear.
We have been given fine evidence at the top of this post that a global flood would not have been possible...However i wonder if there is yet more to this story...
16 Jun 09
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI never said it was a valid attack on any interpretation of the Bible. It is, however, a valid attack on literal interpretations of the Genesis. It's simply contradictory of basic physics.
[b]=======================
Yes, but the explanation cannot be a contradiction of basic physics.
============================
You mean we have to accept Ironman's critique as the only possible explanation of what Genesis discribes?
==================================
I'm also very interested as to why the myth is pervasive. There are se ...[text shortened]... e.
If He hadn't told us, we would never have known what happened and why it happened.[/b]
I think that what is best known by reading the revelation of the Bible.
Flood myths are pervasive, but the details vary significantly. Chinese or Indian flood myths have little to do with what is in the Bible, which basically comes from early Sumerian myths.
But to ascertain what all these myths are based in in human history might well be impossible without the aid of God's revelation, the Bible.
No, we'd have the Eridu Genesis, Gilgamesh's Epic the accounts of the Ogygyan flood and all the other Eastern Asian, American, etc.
You simply can't have it both ways, in the sense that it's pervasive in cultures worldwide but also unique to the Bible.
16 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynka=======================================
I never said it was a valid attack on any interpretation of the Bible. It is, however, a valid attack on literal interpretations of the Genesis. It's simply contradictory of basic physics.
[b]I think that what is best known by reading the revelation of the Bible.
Flood myths are pervasive, but the details vary significantly. Chinese or Indian ways, in the sense that it's pervasive in cultures worldwide but also unique to the Bible.[/b]
I never said it was a valid attack on any interpretation of the Bible. It is, however, a valid attack on literal interpretations of the Genesis. It's simply contradictory of basic physics.
============================================
I think that that is somewhat rhetorical. One man's "litural" interpretation is another reader's "inferior" exegesis.
I already discribed to you some expressions which call for some kind of poetic leeway - "the ends of the earth", "the whole inhabited earth".
What some charge as a "litural" interpretation someone else see are a liturary interpretation, and meant to be so.
I'm not expressing my thought as best as I could. Maybe you can see my point.
===============================
I think that what is best known by reading the revelation of the Bible.
Flood myths are pervasive, but the details vary significantly.
=======================================
I already indicated that that was the case.
====================================
Chinese or Indian flood myths have little to do with what is in the Bible, which basically comes from early Sumerian myths.
=======================================
I do not know about Indian. However, a native Chinese reader and writer once showed me that some Chinese words contained pictures which were quite reminiscient of scenes in the Bible. The picture language embodied some symbols quite similar to what Genesis said.
Regardless, I already said that I believed that whatever happened was probably embellished to meet the needs of local lore and culture. So I would not expect that Indian and Chinese legends of a world wide flood would be identical with each other or with Genesis in every detail.
===============================
But to ascertain what all these myths are based in in human history might well be impossible without the aid of God's revelation, the Bible.
No, we'd have the Eridu Genesis, Gilgamesh's Epic the accounts of the Ogygyan flood and all the other Eastern Asian, American, etc.
You simply can't have it both ways, in the sense that it's pervasive in cultures worldwide but also unique to the Bible.
===============================
I don't think I agree with you if I understand you here.
The collective memory of many cultures may have different versions of something which actually happened. One source only could discribe what happened, the Bible. Many variations from ancient cultures may have thier spin of the event.
The difference being that the Bible is God's revelation and He knows all the facts. The sacred legends of many cultures are man's invention, but they could have a basis in something that did happen.
If there is a descrepancy between the two I side with God's revelation because God knows all the facts.
Admitedly a faith view. But that is how I see it. If you want to know what really happened consult God's revelation, the Bible.
I respect the other sources as interesting. But God gave us one Bible, not 100.
16 Jun 09
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill==================
[b]=======================================
I never said it was a valid attack on any interpretation of the Bible. It is, however, a valid attack on literal interpretations of the Genesis. It's simply contradictory of basic physics.
============================================
I think that that is somewhat rhetorical. One man's "litural" interpreta ct the other sources as interesting. But God gave us one Bible, not 100.[/b]
But God gave us one Bible, not 100.
===============================
Do I mean by that that the Holy Quran or the Bhagatavita or the Code of Hammurabi or the Tibetan Book of the Dead, etc. are not the word of God?
Yes, that is what I mean.
There are many "bibles" or sacred books. There is one genuine communication from God to man in a book. That is the 66 books of the Bible.
By the way that is an "Eastern" book not a "Western" one.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by jaywillI think that that is somewhat rhetorical. One man's "litural" [sic] interpretation is another reader's "inferior" exegesis.
[b]=======================================
I never said it was a valid attack on any interpretation of the Bible. It is, however, a valid attack on literal interpretations of the Genesis. It's simply contradictory of basic physics.
============================================
I think that that is somewhat rhetorical. One man's "litural" interpreta ...[text shortened]... ct the other sources as interesting. But God gave us one Bible, not 100.[/b]
Rhetoric is not admitting that there are some people who read every passage of the bible literally, and it is these to whom I addressed my criticism. You say you're not one them, that's great. But we digress.
I already discribed [sic] to you some expressions which call for some kind of poetic leeway.
and why would those call for a poetic leeway? Is it not because of their contradictions with basic physics? Do you extend this to Noah's story? If not, why not?
Admitedly a faith view. But that is how I see it.
Isn't this a cop-out? Surely your faith does not mean your view of every passage in the Bible is static and set in stone. Ok, you think it's the word of God and I don't. I'm fine with that. But within the Bible you can view Noah's tale as a description of a real worldwide catastrophe or as a parable. It's not uncommon among Christians to view the ark as representing the salvation offered by Christianity. Didn't Peter also make that comparison?
Again, if the physics of such a flood seem impossible, does that not favour the parable interpretation?
16 Jun 09
6 edits
Originally posted by Palynka=========================
[b] I think that that is somewhat rhetorical. One man's "litural" [sic] interpretation is another reader's "inferior" exegesis.
Rhetoric is not admitting that there are some people who read every passage of the bible literally, and it is these to whom I addressed my criticism. You say you're not one them, that's great. But we digress.
I already f such a flood seem impossible, does that not favour the parable interpretation?
Rhetoric is not admitting that there are some people who read every passage of the bible literally, and it is these to whom I addressed my criticism. You say you're not one them, that's great. But we digress.
============================== [/b]
You mean that you know of Bible readers who regard that a ten horned seven headed monster will come up out of the sea per Revelation 13,17?
They take "every passage of the Bible literally"? I don't think I have ever met these people.
==============================
I already discribed [sic] to you some expressions which call for some kind of poetic leeway.
and why would those call for a poetic leeway? Is it not because of their contradictions with basic physics? Do you extend this to Noah's story? If not, why not?
===================================
When you say you saw the "sunrise" that statement could be considered not accurate according to modern standards. The sun did not rise really. The earth rotated.
But the expression communicates, as "sundown".
I think some of the language of the Bible is scientifically imprecise according to modern standards. That is not the same thing as saying that it is unscientific.
So I will go back and look at the phrasing. So far concerning the mountains I notice "all the high mountains under the entire heaven wre covered." (Gen. 7:19)
Secondly, the "accomadation" issue: As our knowledge progresses scientifically I do not see anything wrong with going back to the Bible ans asking "What did it really SAY there?"
Two thousand years ago maybe it was not important to look at the exact wording Moses used concerning a certain thing. Latter it may be important to go back and examine WHAT was said and WHAT was not said.
Ie. "Did it SAY God created (bara) the heaven and earth in six days? Well, not really. It SAID God created the heaven and the earth "in the beginning" and in six days God made (asah) heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them ..... ".
Now that word we translate English "made" is also used for preparation of a meal, clipping of fingernails, dressing a calf, forming or shapping something out of existing material, appointing something.
So I don't think it is accomodation for Christians over the centries to go back and look again at exactly how something was said in the original language of the Bible.
========================
Admitedly a faith view. But that is how I see it.
Isn't this a cop-out? Surely your faith does not mean your view of every passage in the Bible is static and set in stone. Ok, you think it's the word of God and I don't. I'm fine with that. But within the Bible you can view Noah's tale as a description of a real worldwide catastrophe or as a parable. It's not uncommon among Christians to view the ark as representing the salvation offered by Christianity. Didn't Peter also make that comparison?
================================
I never took it as the salvation offered by Christianity. I took is as the salvation offered by Christ a Person.
And Peter did use it in that regard. I am not being flippant. But the term "Christianity" could mean a lot to different people.
To some people fellas with white hoods, burning crosses, and slanderous accusations against Jews and Blacks represent adherents of "Christianity".
So I prefer to say that the ark was a type of Christ.
===========================
Again, if the physics of such a flood seem impossible, does that not favour the parable interpretation?
================================
Well, it is an astounding story. But Jesus took it seriously. And I think the integrity of Jesus is beyond my questioning.
Also, the first sentence in the Bible is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen.1:1)
To me that is a heads up that God is of unlimited power and ability. So when I get to the flood story I believe that whatever happened God in His infinite power was able to accomplish what He wanted done.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is also against the laws of physics. It is the foundation of everything I believe. And my trust is not in the wisdom of men but the power of God.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by Proper Knobi dunno what i was thinking you were thinking, that was yesterday and like a smoke ring the thought has dissipated into nothingness, i can vaguely remember trying to use a quotation from ol, Steve Hawkins (hes actually related to Jim Hawkins , the boy in treasure island don't you know), which states that in unusual circumstances, the natural laws of physics behave in unusual ways, therefore, the whole argument that it is 'beyond, outwith, betrays, contradicts etc etc', the natural laws of physics is invalid on this basis, for as you are aware, all that you can state with any certainty, is that it is improbable.
I don't know what you think, that you think i know. You're going to have to tell me.