A Reddit member asks about theistic evolution

[EarlyActs]

The Brittanica noted that Uranus is just barely visible unaided. Why then would the ancients use it at all for a designation of all of heaven/s? The lack of comment about the relation to Orion while being totally similar in the usual 3 -letter creation of Semitic words is a huge puzzle to me.

 

[EarlyActs]

The testing range of the technique is the limits between which the results are shown to have acceptable accuracy and repeatability. The accelerator mass spectrometer will have a limit to the concentration at which is can accurately quantitate the amount of carbon-14 (currently between femtomole and attomole levels of carbon-14). This currently equates to around the 50K year range but can be improved on in specially designed laboratories which are capable of reducing the background carbon-14, for example. It is likely in future that more sensitive instruments will be designed that can extend the range further.



The problem is you are trying to fit the text into your beliefs. You need to let the text speak for itself. Look at the literature - the repetition, rhythm, the number symbolism, the chiastic structure, rhyming words, etc. Look at the structure of the text - the two triads - one where the domains are created and the other where they are filled. Stop trying to force the text into a linear chronological structure which is a very modern, western way of thinking. See the cosmology as it fit into the ancient world. This is what the ancient Hebrews actually believed and the three-tiered structure is seen right through the Scriptures. Stop trying to separate the 'natural' from the 'supernatural'. Again this is a very modern western way of thinking.

Whether you think the material came from Adam or not, you have to admit that Adam did not write it down. Therefore you have to allow the author of Genesis to have written it in their own way to convey their own message under the inspiration of God.

Put the text in its proper context.



The RATE project has many, many problems.

Re custody. From Adam to Shem there are just 2 people in custody of the verbal. You have to admit the verbal integrity of transmission.

 

[EarlyActs]

re natural vs supernatural
There is the synopsis of his book MIRACLES, but as I recall that book is not where he went at length about this. The synopsis: Miracles (book) - Wikipedia

He started to in the opening of "Religion and Science" in GOD IN THE DOCK. (I had mentioned it earlier with the coin--drawer analogy about mathematical naturalism).

The opening:

"Miracles" said my friend. "Oh, come. Science has knocked the bottom out of all that. We know that Nature is governed by fixed laws."

"Ddidn't people always know that!" said I.

"Good Lord, no," said he. "For instance, take a story like the Virgin Birth. We know now that such a thing couldn't happen. We know there must be a male spermatozoon..."

The friend then realizes that Joseph knew both natural and supernatural law or workings. The tie-in to the book is that the Creator can intervene any way or form he wants and the natural can continue regardless.

So in this sense, I don't know where I am pitting natural vs supernatural when reading Genesis. I simply believe that if a rational explanation can be made for 'the spreading' and for the light on Day 1, there is no need to bother with a supernatural one at that point. But I might not be splitting the distinction clear enough: the event which spread matter (called a BB), including the source of the matter used to do it, was supernatural; the manifestation of it to the ancient person as distant and not part of our local system with its signs and markers, is a natural knowledge. The 'kavov' are not signs and markers. Their meaning comes later.

The usual Bible reader is far too inclined to make it abruptly supernatural (no precondition phase, and a supernatural explanation for Day 1 light). I do not accept that.

 

[EarlyActs]

The testing range of the technique is the limits between which the results are shown to have acceptable accuracy and repeatability. The accelerator mass spectrometer will have a limit to the concentration at which is can accurately quantitate the amount of carbon-14 (currently between femtomole and attomole levels of carbon-14). This currently equates to around the 50K year range but can be improved on in specially designed laboratories which are capable of reducing the background carbon-14, for example. It is likely in future that more sensitive instruments will be designed that can extend the range further.



The problem is you are trying to fit the text into your beliefs. You need to let the text speak for itself. Look at the literature - the repetition, rhythm, the number symbolism, the chiastic structure, rhyming words, etc. Look at the structure of the text - the two triads - one where the domains are created and the other where they are filled. Stop trying to force the text into a linear chronological structure which is a very modern, western way of thinking. See the cosmology as it fit into the ancient world. This is what the ancient Hebrews actually believed and the three-tiered structure is seen right through the Scriptures. Stop trying to separate the 'natural' from the 'supernatural'. Again this is a very modern western way of thinking.

Whether you think the material came from Adam or not, you have to admit that Adam did not write it down. Therefore you have to allow the author of Genesis to have written it in their own way to convey their own message under the inspiration of God.

Put the text in its proper context.



The RATE project has many, many problems.

I do not know of any problem I have presented with the 3 tiers (firmament, kavov, God's presence).

 

[Sereni-tea]

This is why I stopped pursuing this conversation with you. You either haven't listened, or haven't understood what I have said.

 

[EarlyActs]

The testing range of the technique is the limits between which the results are shown to have acceptable accuracy and repeatability. The accelerator mass spectrometer will have a limit to the concentration at which is can accurately quantitate the amount of carbon-14 (currently between femtomole and attomole levels of carbon-14). This currently equates to around the 50K year range but can be improved on in specially designed laboratories which are capable of reducing the background carbon-14, for example. It is likely in future that more sensitive instruments will be designed that can extend the range further.



The problem is you are trying to fit the text into your beliefs. You need to let the text speak for itself. Look at the literature - the repetition, rhythm, the number symbolism, the chiastic structure, rhyming words, etc. Look at the structure of the text - the two triads - one where the domains are created and the other where they are filled. Stop trying to force the text into a linear chronological structure which is a very modern, western way of thinking. See the cosmology as it fit into the ancient world. This is what the ancient Hebrews actually believed and the three-tiered structure is seen right through the Scriptures. Stop trying to separate the 'natural' from the 'supernatural'. Again this is a very modern western way of thinking.

Whether you think the material came from Adam or not, you have to admit that Adam did not write it down. Therefore you have to allow the author of Genesis to have written it in their own way to convey their own message under the inspiration of God.

Put the text in its proper context.



The RATE project has many, many problems.

Moses, being concerned as he was about preserving history, (You saw..., you heard...) would have wanted to do so out of respect to his ancestors. Joseph was the same before him, having collecting the verbal account from Jacob, just as he was exposed to the arrival of the NW semitic burst of similar languages.

This is why I stopped pursuing this conversation with you. You either haven't listened, or haven't understood what I have said.

But people also stop when they can't 'win' because they have encountered a challenge they can't answer. More fun to do that than admit a mistake. (It just happened to me from a prophecy student).

Which of the three 'heavens' have I mistaken? IOW, what is "this"?

 

[EarlyActs]

I am finding your posts very confusing. You seem to be mixing up a lot of unrelated ideas.

The word "Ouranos" is a greek word which is translated in our Bibles as heavens. It is not a Hebrew word and does not follow the same Hebrew grammatical formations. It refers to the solid dome above the earth on which many in the ancient world believed that the stars moved on. The Greeks believed this was the sky god. It is not in any way referring to the planet Uranus but it is the Greek god that the planet was named after. It has nothing to do with Orion.

The Greeks, like the rest of the ancient world had no ideas the stars were light years away from the earth.

There is no evidence that Adam thought it was actually solid. Possibly water, but the reference borders on metaphor. They knew that the locals were separate from the distant kavov, but not how far.

There is nothing keeping the world from Adam to Noah thinking that brightest Sirius was the marker on Day 1. And Orion was not far behind.

 

[EarlyActs]

No, again He calls the Light 'Day', not starlight, and not a marker for a 24 hour period, but 'Day'. You have to address that. There is no way that God could call any light from a star (except the sun) 'Day' and use it to separate out 'Day' from 'Night'. You are trying to twist Scripture to meet your own understanding.


No, Day 1 calls the light 'Day'. So there is most definitely daytime.



You can add as many stars as you like, and as much of a time period as you like, but it still won't fit what the text says.

It is clearly just a star marked period, because the sun and moon were not placed yet.

I know you don't believe in a sequence, which is irrational, but you can't say there is a non-linear reason why there had to be sunlight on Day 1. The passage is not talking about the spreading of the kavov, only the placing of the shama.

I find that in your departure from linear thinking that there is no reason to create a firmament before birds are flying in it; yet it was and they are after, not before.

 

[EarlyActs]

Is there any chance you could look at the 8th min of this presentation and tell me what 'denting the trampoline means'?

Genesis Apologetics "Distant Starlight vs the Biblical Timeline" 2017 on YouTube. In 1984, R. Humphries made 5 correct predictions about the magnetic fields of 5 of our planets several years before spacecraft visits. That's at the 6th min, if you want to review. NASA was off quite a ways.

Humphries believes all such objects were made on the 4th day (so he would not accept my Day 1 starlight view for that reason).

The 'trampoline' appears to be a master concept to illustrate the effect of grav pull on time etc.

Thanks,

 

[Sereni-tea]

Is there any chance you could look at the 8th min of this presentation and tell me what 'denting the trampoline means'?

Genesis Apologetics "Distant Starlight vs the Biblical Timeline" 2017 on YouTube. In 1984, R. Humphries made 5 correct predictions about the magnetic fields of 5 of our planets several years before spacecraft visits. That's at the 6th min, if you want to review. NASA was off quite a ways.

Humphries believes all such objects were made on the 4th day (so he would not accept my Day 1 starlight view for that reason).

The 'trampoline' appears to be a master concept to illustrate the effect of grav pull on time etc.

Thanks,

It is an illustration he uses to try to explain what neither science or the Bible states. But by taking words from Scripture, and putting his own interpretation on them he has come up with a bizarre explanation to explain away the billions of years of history in the universe.

 

[EarlyActs]

It is an illustration he uses to try to explain what neither science or the Bible states. But by taking words from Scripture, and putting his own interpretation on them he has come up with a bizarre explanation to explain away the billions of years of history in the universe.

I didn't think you'd agree, but that was not the question: the question is what is 'denting the trampoline' relative to Einstein's conclusions?

 

[Sereni-tea]

I didn't think you'd agree, but that was not the question: the question is what is 'denting the trampoline' relative to Einstein's conclusions?

I can't really be sure. He seems talking about some sort of gravity well. He doesn't explain where it comes from. He has this ring which he calls "waters above" but doesn't explain what that is and yet it is a pivot point in his diagram. And somehow the stars spread out between the earth and the "waters above", however that works. He seems to try to use gravitational time dilation ('Einstein's conclusions') to basically cancel out time and thus billions of years. I am not a physicist and the video leaves out a lot of detail and background needed to understand what he is going on about.

 

[EarlyActs]

It is an illustration he uses to try to explain what neither science or the Bible states. But by taking words from Scripture, and putting his own interpretation on them he has come up with a bizarre explanation to explain away the billions of years of history in the universe.

But CBR maybe caused by water.

I would need to know why the logic and sequence of the 6 days is invalid in your view. Humphries finds that the 'tip' from Gen 1:2 and 2P3 about water-birth, that 'out of--and through--water' is a clue as to water in some form in all our planets. I see a consistent parallel to this in the creation of man from earth/dust and the woman from that.

As I mentioned before, citing the 2 curators at the British museum in P. James-Griffiths lecture, the Biblical record spoke to Egyptian and Median theology, but was not sourced in it. I don't know what is missing in my attempt to explain that there was verbal recitation before "Moses" which I think includes Joseph's collection. How else was it carried along?

 

[Sereni-tea]

But CBR maybe caused by water.

No.

I would need to know why the logic and sequence of the 6 days is invalid in your view. Humphries finds that the 'tip' from Gen 1:2 and 2P3 about water-birth, that 'out of--and through--water' is a clue as to water in some form in all our planets. I see a consistent parallel to this in the creation of man from earth/dust and the woman from that.

What is important is not what I want the text to say, or what I think may or may not be logical. What is important is letting the text speak for itself in the language and culture of the author's day. In doing so the whole chapter makes perfect sense. But you are trying to force science into it and it simply isn't going to work.

As I mentioned before, citing the 2 curators at the British museum in P. James-Griffiths lecture, the Biblical record spoke to Egyptian and Median theology, but was not sourced in it. I don't know what is missing in my attempt to explain that there was verbal recitation before "Moses" which I think includes Joseph's collection. How else was it carried along?

Yes, it spoke against the gods of Israels neighbours. It didn't need to be sourced in it - that was the culture of the day.
It didn't need to be 'carried along'. There is no biblical suggestion of a verbal recitation. The reality is that the text was written to the ancient Israelites, in their time, language and culture. That is the cultural context. You can't escape that, no matter where you think the material was sourced from. Adam did not write it down. Nor did Joeseph.

 

[EarlyActs]

No.



What is important is not what I want the text to say, or what I think may or may not be logical. What is important is letting the text speak for itself in the language and culture of the author's day. In doing so the whole chapter makes perfect sense. But you are trying to force science into it and it simply isn't going to work.



Yes, it spoke against the gods of Israels neighbours. It didn't need to be sourced in it - that was the culture of the day.
It didn't need to be 'carried along'. There is no biblical suggestion of a verbal recitation. The reality is that the text was written to the ancient Israelites, in their time, language and culture. That is the cultural context. You can't escape that, no matter where you think the material was sourced from. Adam did not write it down. Nor did Joeseph.

re time and culture
There is evidence Joseph did, but I never said Adam did. However, the ancient pre-diluvians were more advanced than we think, which evidence is found all over the planet. Boorstin records an ancient Greek scribe who could recite Homer backwards, in his encyclopedia of science discoverers.

re speaking for itself
The time and culture are when the events in the text happened, not what you think happened in the late 2nd mill. BC. None of the three experts from Israel, Oxford or NYC could answer Maloney's questions on that in the documentary interviews that they gave.

I am in no way "supplying" a linear treatment! They are 6 consecutive days with no mythology or mysticism about what they mean. It really is quite a strain to depart from it speaking for itself.

 

[Sereni-tea]

The time and culture are when the events in the text happened

The cultural context is the context of the author and original audience, not when the events happened.

 

[EarlyActs]

The cultural context is the context of the author and original audience, not when the events happened.

So the whole early book is a myth, not mostly first-hand record as self-expressed. Could Adam, who walked around in Eden with God, have asked how this or that came to be in normal propositional language that can be remembered?

 

[Sereni-tea]

So the whole early book is a myth, not mostly first-hand record as self-expressed. Could Adam, who walked around in Eden with God, have asked how this or that came to be in normal propositional language that can be remembered?

We do not interpret the Bible based on what could have happened. There is nothing in the Bible that would support a claim that the early chapters of Genesis was a first-hand record and much that shows otherwise. If there is, please present it.