• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did the writers of Genesis have outside help?

Did the writers of Genesis have outside help?


  • Total voters
    7

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
After mankind makes a planet I will be ready to learn. Until then I will believe God did it according to the scriptures. Not that planet making is anything I need to know, If i did I do not have so much faith in man to tell me how to make a planet.


Which are the "reasonable" commandments?

Once again that is not the way that science is done. You do realize that a forensic scientist does not have to kill another person to prove that someone else murdered someone, don't you? You only make yourself look foolish by setting up a false standard. It is as bad as an atheist demanding that you make a god. But then most atheists are fairly bright people so they will not make such a foolish mistake.

The "reasonable commandments" were the ones that existed before they were written by the Jews. The commandments against bearing false witness, killing and stealing. Too bad that you do not even understand the Ten Commandments.

ETA: By the way, you dishonestly claimed that I have a closed mind, and yet you just demonstrated that you have a closed mind about the sciences. It looks like you are projecting your sins upon others. Don't worry, that is a common sin among creationists.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Once again that is not the way that science is done. You do realize that a forensic scientist does not have to kill another person to prove that someone else murdered someone, don't you? You only make yourself look foolish by setting up a false standard. It is as bad as an atheist demanding that you make a god. But then most atheists are fairly bright people so they will not make such a foolish mistake.

The "reasonable commandments" were the ones that existed before they were written by the Jews. The commandments against bearing false witness, killing and stealing. Too bad that you do not even understand the Ten Commandments.

ETA: By the way, you dishonestly claimed that I have a closed mind, and yet you just demonstrated that you have a closed mind about the sciences. It looks like you are projecting your sins upon others. Don't worry, that is a common sin among creationists.

Forensic scientist don't try to make the dead man living. That is beyond their ability. Something they have no data on having never actually seen it for themselves. Watching people die mankind has plenty of data for, making planets they do not. It's you who are the close minded person, hiding under a blanket called science. My statement about you is true.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Forensic scientist don't try to make the dead man living. That is beyond their ability. Something they have no data on having never actually seen it for themselves. Watching people die mankind has plenty of data for, making planets they do not. It's you who are the close minded person, hiding under a blanket called science. My statement about you is true.

You can't even follow your own failed analogy. Please try to be honest. As a Christian you are supposed to do that. The event being tested is the murder of a person. I don't need to make another Earth to test how the Earth was made. The forensic scientists do not have to kill someone to test how someone else killed someone.

You failed. Try again.

ETA: Repeating a lie about another person does not make it true. So far I have demonstrated that I have an open mind and am willing to discuss the facts. You have demonstrated the opposite.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You can't even follow your own failed analogy. Please try to be honest. As a Christian you are supposed to do that. The event being tested is the murder of a person. I don't need to make another Earth to test how the Earth was made. The forensic scientists do not have to kill someone to test how someone else killed someone.

You failed. Try again.

ETA: Repeating a lie about another person does not make it true. So far I have demonstrated that I have an open mind and am willing to discuss the facts. You have demonstrated the opposite.

You're the one trying to compare forensic science with planet making science fiction. So I put the analogy of forensic science and raising the dead together to help you see the difference, but it was no use. You wrap yourself in the blanket of science and anything you can label as science keeps you warm .Have your Woobie, I'm done.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You're the one trying to compare forensic science with planet making science fiction. So I put the analogy of forensic science and raising the dead together to help you see the difference, but it was no use. You wrap yourself in the blanket of science and anything you can label as science keeps you warm .Have your Woobie, I'm done.

So you can't be honest. I explained your error to you. Once again, in science we know how the Earth was formed. A testable hypothesis is formed and tested again and again. We do not need to build a planet. When someone is killed forensic scientists form a testable hypothesis on how the person was killed. They do not need to kill other people to test out their ideas. You do not know what science is, I offered to help you. You lied about me and said that I was close minded and when I repeatedly demonstrated that if anything you are the close minded one you once again run away.

But then I have noticed that quite a few creationists are cowards too. They make claims, but when shown to be wrong they run away. Meanwhile it seems that you have nothing to support your claims about the Bible.

When you have to run away to keep your faith you have only shown that you are the close minded one.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Isaiah 40:22 says the Earth is round. The Hebrew word there is "chug", which can mean ball, or sphere.
No, you are mistaken. That verse says that the Earth is flat, a circle so to speak. In fact an inscribed circle:

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

The word for "ball" in Hebrew is Dur:

Strong's Hebrew: 1754. דּוּר (dur) -- a circle, ball

Dur is used elsewhere in Isaiah for a ball so the author knew and understood both words.

I don't know what that first link will not post correctly. It was supposed to be a link to Strong's and showed that Chugh is "circle. Oh well here is a quote from that page:

chuwg
Pronunciation
khüg חוּג (H2328)
Dictionary Aids
TWOT Reference: circle (1x), circuit (1x), compass (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage H2328; a circle:—circle, circuit, compass.

And yet The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon [Ninth Printing; page 295] notes:

[חוּג] vb. draw round, make a circle

חוּג n.[m.] vault

So, for example, note the NRSV rendering of Job 22:13-14

Therefore you say, ‘What does God know?
Can he judge through the deep darkness?
Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see,
and he walks on the dome of heaven.’
===========================================================

The Tanakh is composed of three sections: the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. There is no Astrophysics section.

Isaiah was employing poetic imagery and biblical reference in an anti-idolatry polemic. Joseph Blenkinsopp notes:

The language and the metaphors of the Isaiah text draw overwhelmingly on the didactic-sapiential tradition and have little in common with the Priestly version of creation in Gen. 1:1-2:4a. The imagery is predominantly architectural: Yahweh is a surveyor (moded) who takes measurements and sets up the sky on columns (cf. Ps 75:4). The passage is reminiscent of Job 38:4-7, which represents creation as the building of a temple and which also makes the point. ... The parallelism with Prov 8:22-31 is particularly instructive: ... [The Anchor Yale Bible: Isaiah 40-55]​

Whether the author knew (or cared) that the earth was a globe is wholly irrelevant.

(Meanwhile, there really should be a fancy Latin term for "Strong's Concordance Fallacy.")
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Forensic scientist don't try to make the dead man living. That is beyond their ability. Something they have no data on having never actually seen it for themselves. Watching people die mankind has plenty of data for, making planets they do not. It's you who are the close minded person, hiding under a blanket called science. My statement about you is true.
BELIEF is not a destination.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Then why is there not one whit of evidence of the Exodus?
I disagree. See
  • Israel's Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance -- Avraham Faust
  • Pre-Exilic Israel, the Hebrew Bible, and Archaeology: Integrating Text and Artefact -- Anthony J. Frendo
  • The Exodus: How It Happened and Why It Matters -- Richard Elliott Friedman
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Correct, Belief is not a destination but a mode of transportation. Time for a song. Jesus is My Air-o-plane. Sing along if you know it.

BELIEF, non belief, agnosticism is hotel California.
Correct, Belief is not a destination but a mode of transportation. Time for a song. Jesus is My Air-o-plane. Sing along if you know it.

BELIEF, non belief, agnosticism is hotel California.

 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
at least some portion was scribed under dictation....

God was looking over the shoulder of Moses when the commandments were carved in stone
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
at least some portion was scribed under dictation....

God was looking over the shoulder of Moses when the commandments were carved in stone
For me, the most disturbing thing about your posts is the current (I do BELIEVE as I post!) signature.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
And yet The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon [Ninth Printing; page 295] notes:

[חוּג] vb. draw round, make a circle

חוּג n.[m.] vault

So, for example, note the NRSV rendering of Job 22:13-14

Therefore you say, ‘What does God know?
Can he judge through the deep darkness?
Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see,
and he walks on the dome of heaven.’
===========================================================

The Tanakh is composed of three sections: the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. There is no Astrophysics section.

Isaiah was employing poetic imagery and biblical reference in an anti-idolatry polemic. Joseph Blenkinsopp notes:

The language and the metaphors of the Isaiah text draw overwhelmingly on the didactic-sapiential tradition and have little in common with the Priestly version of creation in Gen. 1:1-2:4a. The imagery is predominantly architectural: Yahweh is a surveyor (moded) who takes measurements and sets up the sky on columns (cf. Ps 75:4). The passage is reminiscent of Job 38:4-7, which represents creation as the building of a temple and which also makes the point. ... The parallelism with Prov 8:22-31 is particularly instructive: ... [The Anchor Yale Bible: Isaiah 40-55]​

Whether the author knew (or cared) that the earth was a globe is wholly irrelevant.

(Meanwhile, there really should be a fancy Latin term for "Strong's Concordance Fallacy.")

The problem is that literalists take the Old Tesament literally. I was merely using that assumption of theirs against them.

Now the odds are that the author did think that the Earth was flat. Though the Bible does not claim that the Earth is round or flat it does only describe the Earth as being flat in both word and deed. The lack of knowledge of the shape of the Earth does not refute the concept of God, it merely refutes that which we already know is ridiculous, the "God" one gets from a literal reading of the Bible.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I disagree. See
  • Israel's Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance -- Avraham Faust
  • Pre-Exilic Israel, the Hebrew Bible, and Archaeology: Integrating Text and Artefact -- Anthony J. Frendo
  • The Exodus: How It Happened and Why It Matters -- Richard Elliott Friedman
Sorry, a random list of books is not evidence. What specific evidence do they have for the Exodus? The mere fact that the Jews may have settled in the region is not evidence for the Exodus.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
The problem is that literalists take the Old Tesament literally. I was merely using that assumption of theirs against them.
I have no idea whether @Hockeycowboy is a literalist or not. (Note his signature.) My problem is with cheap attempts at bible-bashing that rely on taking potshots at the most primitive and vulnerable interpretation of the text. I apologize if that was not your intent.

FWIW: I seriously doubt that the author of Deutero-Isaiah knew the first thing about the solar system or cared. As for myself, you would be hard pressed to find a literalist among the ranks of Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Judaism and Torahs such as the Plaut Commentary (Reform) and Etz Hayim (Conservative) are quite open about and comfortable with the traces of Near Eastern mythology found in the texts.
 
Top