On 2/01/2013 4:59 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
First, you came up with the opinion of a man and proceeded to demolish
it. If this is not a clear example of a Strawman argument, I don't
know what is. I won't even bother to rebute this argument as it is
clearly fallacious. I said provide a statement FROM THE BIBLE, not
some person.
This is not the opinion of one man, but was the strongly held opinion of
the whole of Christendom from the least to the greatest, and a matter
for which great scientists were threatened with torture and burnt at the
stake. Within that discussion are many statements *from the Bible* that
support a geocentric worldview. But like I said, this is one that we
can likely agree on because the scientific evidence has now persuaded
modern biblical scholars (yourself included) that they need to interpret
those passages differently. I brought up this point to illustrate that
Bible interpretation is an evolutionary process which we are in the
middle of (and some of us are considerably more evolved than others!)
Second, you question the integrity of the Bible by saying that it
claimed that the Earth is ~6000 years old. Please point to me where
it says in the Bible that the Earth is 6000 years old. This age is a
conjecture by scholars when they attempt to trace back the genealogy
of people mentioned in the Bible. This figure is by no means an
agreed figure.
This figure is "by no means an agreed figure" for the simple reason that
it is no longer tenable (except by the most determined literalists), so
of course scholars have to come up with a different interpretation than
the obvious straightforward meaning of the text. The geocentrism
argument has been considered lost by almost everyone except the
gentleman I pointed to. The group you belong to has accepted that the
6000 year old earth is untenable but doesn't yet know what figure to
retreat to. Whether Noah's flood was local or global seems to be an
argument that your group has not yet considered very seriously.
I know a Christian denomination that holds the entire Bible in the
highest regard, and yet happily teaches that all of Genesis before
Abraham is not to be taken literally but rather has deeper spiritual
meanings (much as Jesus' parables are not historical events but have
spiritual meanings).
So you see that there is almost *no* point at which believers will be
unable to change their interpretation in order to keep their Bible as
without error. For myself I can't see why the book needs to have no
errors. We don't demand it of any other book so why this one.
...
You also mentioned Noah's flood and you provided Ice core "evidence",
sea shell "evidnece" etc. Show me the data for these?
I thought I did (see link preserved at end) - was the plotted data not
data for some reason?
All you have provided are conclusions of people. This is by no means
settled science. These are just conjectures and conclusions.
Regarding your statement the all the ice is assumed to have melted in
Noah's flood. Why would you assume that? What evidence do you have
that that indeed happened. Other researchers say the opposite of what
you are assuming. A global deluge would cool the Earth and form ice,
not melt it.
Regardless of what happened (cooling or melting), one would expect a
glitch or discontinuity in the climate data don't you think?
If all the ice didn't melt then since it floats, there should have been
plenty of "dry land" for arctic animals and Eskimos to survive on?
Come on, this is your best scientific evidence? You can do better and
it does not help that you cop out immediately by saying that I will
not look at your evidence.
But I did point to the plotted data from the Vostok ice cores and the
bethnic foram and either you didn't even look at it, or you wrote off a
vast amount of very carefully and expensively obtained data as
"conjectures and conclusions". I think a global flood advocate should
be able to explain how such long unbroken and agreeing data sets are
compatible with a global catastrophe. Where is the glitch or
discontinuity in the data record which marks Noah's flood? Or what is
the massive error made by the two independent groups of scientists that
have allowed them to get their x-axis wrong by two orders of magnitude?
I did not say that you would not look at the evidence, I said that it
was pointless - as almost any scenario can be accepted by biblical
inerrantists by simply changing interpretation - with the exception of
internal contradictions.
Regarding you claims of contradictions, please elaborate. What
contradictions?
The first is probably too difficult to draw out fully here as it
requires looking at the Hebrew characters to work out how the
differences occurred.
The second is more straightforward (who wrote on Moses' second set of
tablets):
Exod 34:1 And Yahweh said to Moses: "You yourself chisel out two stone
tablets like the first that *I* might write upon the tablets the words
that were upon the first tablets that you shattered."
Exod 34:27-28 'And Yahweh said to Moses: "*You yourself* write these
words for upon the command of these words I have made a covenant with
you and with Israel." And he was there with Yahweh for forty days and
forty nights, he neither ate bread nor drank water but wrote upon the
tablets the covenant words'
Deut 10:4 And he {Yahweh} wrote upon the tablets like the first writing
(the ten words that Yahweh spoke to you on the mountain from the midst
of the fire on the day of the assembly) and Yahweh gave them to me.
The third (where did Aaron die):
Aaron died atop the Mountain of Hor according to Num 33:38 (which is the
35th stop in the Numbers itinerary).
Aaron died at a place called Moserah (the singular form of Moseroth)
according to Deut 10:6 (which is the 28th stop in the Numbers itinerary
- see Num 33:30-31).
But I have no intention of continuing this discussion on this forum.
*From:* jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au <mailto:jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:02 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:[OT] The Bible and the Copernican Revolution
...
Checkout the agreement between the entire ice core data and the
benthic foramanifera core data (which come from tiny shellfish
living and accumulating on the sea bed) at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles. This data is
from such different sources that this agreement can only be
produced by a common driving mechanism (ie climate). Yet one would
expect the arctic snow fall to be far more affected by a global
flood than the steady accumulation of foramanifera on the sea bed
(which would be scarcely altered by a flood). So one can't
suggest that many of the ice core layers were produced by multiple
snow storm events in a single year, and still have the two
independent data sources agreeing so well.
...
