A Reddit member asks about theistic evolution

[EarlyActs]

A good resource; I appear to be close in thinking:

Amazon.com

www.amazon.com

I hope the book is showing in the link:

https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Account-theological-historical-scientific/product-reviews/1921643919/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews

 

[Sereni-tea]

Common sense reading and considering custody. Adam talked with God in Eden. What did they talk about? Humans are curious. Why were there stars at dusk? Why did he want to lay with Eve so often? How could baby giraffes possibly survive?

They want answers and have huge memories.

Please show against that.

It doesn't work like that. You have made the assertion and have to produce evidence to support it. So far all you have is speculation.

 

[Sereni-tea]

“0ne chance of a more developed polypeptide occurring out of the number of electrons in the universe!” Evolution is such blather.

Creation ministries.com: industrial chemist shocked by evidence for a young earth and creation. 26th min. YouTube.

I have said multiple times that I am not an advocate for evolution. So don't bother bringing it up.

 

[EarlyActs]

It doesn't work like that. You have made the assertion and have to produce evidence to support it. So far all you have is speculation.

It doesn't work like that. Two people had custody before the cataclysm. One went through the cataclysm which eliminated anyone and any other records. It was then a very short time before the recitation was a part of a tribal identity. What is speculative about that?

If you saw Maloney's MOSES DILEMMA, you would see three "world renowned" text professors, from Tel Aviv, Oxford and U Toronto, unable to answer Maloney's questions on Joseph's 'capture' of said tribes heritage. All they had was speculation about a late-dated unknown temple priest scribe. Their fav German archeologist buried the evidence of semitic people living in Goshen; I mean refused to excavate it under Goshen when discovered. It is now public record that all these text experts have been working from that suppressed body of information. What is speculative about that?

 

[EarlyActs]

It doesn't work like that. You have made the assertion and have to produce evidence to support it. So far all you have is speculation.

So your claim to know "how it works" is your evidence that the first human was not curious about stars at dusk, the delight of a man laying with a woman and the feasibility of a baby giraffe surviving birth? Got it. That is not how it works.

In which case, why are you involved in this topic at all? There is then nothing to work with either way! Or are you just reporting that there is no work to be done?

Obviously the reason appears to be to help modern text scientists feel important and exclusively authoritative about their speculations. But they do things like suppress Cassuto for a couple decades and then laugh about the fact that they did so in their 'labs.' This is public record by a former member of U Toronto's semitics staff. And the above German archeological suppression which took decades of misunderstanding to undo. And suppress dissent like Pellegrini and Bretz about geology when it breaks the conventional geologic narrative, which is public record.

We don't have evidence of names of animals chosen by the Adamic tribe, but we have the record that they did such naming. Likewise on everything else cultural which the tribe did--art, mining, music, city formation, geographical organization, etc etc.

 

[EarlyActs]

Back to your C14 statements, Dr. Ross clarified that microbes would not be 'life' as Gen 1 refers. "It doesn't think in terms of microscopes." Does the presence of microbes supply the C14 that is detected by newer instrumentation that you mentioned, spanning 2-3x the usual 23K?

 

[Sereni-tea]

So your claim to know "how it works" is your evidence that the first human was not curious about stars at dusk, the delight of a man laying with a woman and the feasibility of a baby giraffe surviving birth? Got it. That is not how it works.

Thanks for twisting my words. You know that had nothing to do with my response you are referring to.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Back to your C14 statements, Dr. Ross clarified that microbes would not be 'life' as Gen 1 refers. "It doesn't think in terms of microscopes." Does the presence of microbes supply the C14 that is detected by newer instrumentation that you mentioned, spanning 2-3x the usual 23K?

I have no idea why you are referring to microbes.

Do you know how carbon-14 is formed? It is formed in the upper atmosphere by radiation hitting nitrogen and combining with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide. It is then aborbed into plants during photosynthesis which in turn is eaten by animals. When the plant/animal dies, it not longer absorbs radioactive carbon dioxide and the carbon-14 levels begin to drop as it decays.

I don't know where you got the 23K range from but I am informing you of what the current accepted range is - 50K, but some very specialised labs can get closer to 80K.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Two people had custody before the cataclysm. One went through the cataclysm which eliminated anyone and any other records. It was then a very short time before the recitation was a part of a tribal identity. What is speculative about that?

What is speculative is ... well everything. The Bible says nothing about a chain of custody. So instead of speculating, why not start with what we do actually know:

We know that neither Adam, Noah, Abraham nor Joseph wrote Genesis.
We know that a lot of the material in Genesis aligns well with the ancient near eastern culture, ancient views of the cosmos, covenants, slavery, etc.
We know that the material in Genesis 1-11 bears a many similarities to other ancient near eastern texts (e.g. Egyptian and Babylonian creation accounts, Gilgamesh epic, etc) but there are also many key differences which sets it apart and presents the text as a polemic against the beliefs of Israel's neighbours.
The genre of Genesis 1 is not a straight-forward historical account, but contains a lot of literary devices - as I have quoted elsewhere "Genesis 1 … is not written in the style we normally associate with historical report. The original Hebrew of this passage is marked by intricate structure, rhythm, parallelism, chiasmus, repetition and the lavish use of number symbolism. These features are not observed together in those parts of the Bible we recognize as historical prose."

These things matter; they are part of the context of the text. When you ignore them and try to put them in a different context (e.g. modern day scientific context) you will end up with confused ideas that simply don't work.

 

[EarlyActs]

Thanks for twisting my words. You know that had nothing to do with my response you are referring to.

I'm showing you something you can't see: that a set of literary criticism doctrines you hold are mistaken. If you don't view the Maloney doc--prob the only one out there specifically about destructive German literary criticism--what can I do?

 

[EarlyActs]

What is speculative is ... well everything. The Bible says nothing about a chain of custody. So instead of speculating, why not start with what we do actually know:

We know that neither Adam, Noah, Abraham nor Joseph wrote Genesis.
We know that a lot of the material in Genesis aligns well with the ancient near eastern culture, ancient views of the cosmos, covenants, slavery, etc.
We know that the material in Genesis 1-11 bears a many similarities to other ancient near eastern texts (e.g. Egyptian and Babylonian creation accounts, Gilgamest epic, etc) but there are also many key differences which sets it apart and presents the text as a polemic against the beliefs of Israel's neighbours.
The genre of Genesis 1 is not a straight-forward historical account, but contains a lot of literary devices - as I have quoted elsewhere "Genesis 1 … is not written in the style we normally associate with historical report. The original Hebrew of this passage is marked by intricate structure, rhythm, parallelism, chiasmus, repetition and the lavish use of number symbolism. These features are not observed together in those parts of the Bible we recognize as historical prose."

These things matter; they are part of the context of the text. When you ignore them and try to put them in a different context (e.g. modern day scientific context) you will end up with confused ideas that simply don't work.

S-T: we don't know anything about the writing, but we know it got here as recitation transmission.

Genesis does not align well with a personal and kingly God objective to nature. How could you miss that?

Slavery in the torah "is so complicated, I can't imagine anyone wanting to have them, but there were people entirely out of options who had to indenture." --Rabbi D Prager, Los Angeles, and national talk host.

I find that you are unwittingly putting Genesis in the modern literary criticism context, many parts of which are debunked.

Why do you not answer the U Toronto incident of burying Cassuto for 16 years so that Ph.D's who graduated during the suppression have had to come back and redo/qualify years of work?

I don't know of any idea so far that "does not work." Are you aware that you speak as though that is your jurisdiction? I cannot see an unworkable problem with a recitation handled by just 2 people over several hundred years and then the Shemite--Abrahamic tribe. Here's something that really doesn't work: to have people 2000 years later 'imagine' the beginning out of a narratival void?

Who is "we" in the quote? Does it include the LXX rabbis who intended to make the text as sensible to the 2nd cent BC Greek world as possible? Time-proximity is very important in forensics, right? Before them, there is Ps 104, Job and Moses in Deuteronomy. I fail to see their comment depart into literary complications.

 

[EarlyActs]

Here's a significant remark by Lewis to the Socratic Club about literary criticism:

...the Biblical criticism which began in the nineteenth century has already shot its bolt and most of its conclusions have been successfully disputed, though it will, like nineteeth-century materialism, long continue to dominate popular thought. ... It has already begun to die out in the studies I know best. The period of arbitrary scepticism about Christian documents will survive only in (rare journals and theological colleges.).

--"Religion Without Dogma?" in GOD IN THE DOCK.

I'd say the Oxford, U Toronto and Hebrew U experts in the Malone doc had not heard there was a funeral!

 

[EarlyActs]

S-T, would you say you are pretty close to Dr Lamourieux in the Klaus—Meyer—Lamorieux exchange about cosmology on YouTube?

 

[Sereni-tea]

I'm showing you something you can't see: that a set of literary criticism doctrines you hold are mistaken. If you don't view the Maloney doc--prob the only one out there specifically about destructive German literary criticism--what can I do?

What literary criticism doctrines do you think I hold?

 

[Sereni-tea]

S-T: we don't know anything about the writing, but we know it got here as recitation transmission.

You have that around the wrong way.

Genesis does not align well with a personal and kingly God objective to nature. How could you miss that?

Huh?

Slavery in the torah "is so complicated, I can't imagine anyone wanting to have them, but there were people entirely out of options who had to indenture." --Rabbi D Prager, Los Angeles, and national talk host.

Not really sure what this has to do with anything.

I find that you are unwittingly putting Genesis in the modern literary criticism context, many parts of which are debunked.

Aagin, what modern literary criticism ideas do you think I hold?

Why do you not answer the U Toronto incident of burying Cassuto for 16 years so that Ph.D's who graduated during the suppression have had to come back and redo/qualify years of work?

Why am I supposed to answer this? I know nothing about the incident that you are talking about and don't really understand what it has to do with anything.

I don't know of any idea so far that "does not work." Are you aware that you speak as though that is your jurisdiction? I cannot see an unworkable problem with a recitation handled by just 2 people over several hundred years and then the Shemite--Abrahamic tribe. Here's something that really doesn't work: to have people 2000 years later 'imagine' the beginning out of a narratival void?

The narrative wasn't in a void - that is the point I am making. It was out of a shared culture with Israel's neighbour but the Holy Spirit inspired the author of Genesis to re-cast the stories to teach the Israelites about the One true Creator of all things.

Who is "we" in the quote? Does it include the LXX rabbis who intended to make the text as sensible to the 2nd cent BC Greek world as possible? Time-proximity is very important in forensics, right? Before them, there is Ps 104, Job and Moses in Deuteronomy. I fail to see their comment depart into literary complications.

I would think the 'we' in the quote is ordinary people who understand that different genre of writing have different characteristics.
What you are failing to see what lies below the surface narrative.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Here's a significant remark by Lewis to the Socratic Club about literary criticism:

...the Biblical criticism which began in the nineteenth century has already shot its bolt and most of its conclusions have been successfully disputed, though it will, like nineteeth-century materialism, long continue to dominate popular thought. ... It has already begun to die out in the studies I know best. The period of arbitrary scepticism about Christian documents will survive only in (rare journals and theological colleges.).

--"Religion Without Dogma?" in GOD IN THE DOCK.

I'd say the Oxford, U Toronto and Hebrew U experts in the Malone doc had not heard there was a funeral!

Again, what literary criticism ideas do you think I hold?

 

[Sereni-tea]

S-T, would you say you are pretty close to Dr Lamourieux in the Klaus—Meyer—Lamorieux exchange about cosmology on YouTube?

I have no idea.

If you want to understand my views - watch the Bible Project classroom on Creation - available on their website - or pretty much any other Bible Project video available on their website or YouTube. Or search for John Walton on YouTube - plenty of his lectures to watch, or Michael Heiser - also lots of videos on YouTube. The one thing all these scholars have in common is a good understanding of the orignial Hebrew context.

 

[EarlyActs]

You have that around the wrong way.



Huh?


Not really sure what this has to do with anything.



Aagin, what modern literary criticism ideas do you think I hold?



Why am I supposed to answer this? I know nothing about the incident that you are talking about and don't really understand what it has to do with anything.



The narrative wasn't in a void - that is the point I am making. It was out of a shared culture with Israel's neighbour but the Holy Spirit inspired the author of Genesis to re-cast the stories to teach the Israelites about the One true Creator of all things.



I would think the 'we' in the quote is ordinary people who understand that different genre of writing have different characteristics.
What you are failing to see what lies below the surface narrative.

You are assuming all the writing was original material for the Israelites in Moses time ir later. It was actually tribal recitation handed down verbally by default—if you can’t write, you mime or TELL the narrative to your children or students.

What other options are there? Why do we let the crocks of modern experts have us overlook the most common sense explanation?

Thanks for the references to your sources.

The 3 way exchange is the state of cosmology thinking today, and thus a good reference point.

 

[EarlyActs]

You have that around the wrong way.



Huh?


Not really sure what this has to do with anything.



Aagin, what modern literary criticism ideas do you think I hold?



Why am I supposed to answer this? I know nothing about the incident that you are talking about and don't really understand what it has to do with anything.



The narrative wasn't in a void - that is the point I am making. It was out of a shared culture with Israel's neighbour but the Holy Spirit inspired the author of Genesis to re-cast the stories to teach the Israelites about the One true Creator of all things.



I would think the 'we' in the quote is ordinary people who understand that different genre of writing have different characteristics.
What you are failing to see what lies below the surface narrative.

What literary criticism doctrines do you think I hold?

That which sources everything in the Moses or later period, so that the whole Genesis document is 'inspired' but not actually a record which had very few custody agents. That fact of few agents, which is self-evident, is what makes me respond to the later source theories with nausea .

 

[EarlyActs]

The narrative wasn't in a void -

I'm referring to another void. Yes, around 1400 BC there was interchange of Mesopotamian myth. But we are talking about a passed-down narrative from much earlier, handled by just 2 people and then the Semite tribe. This is self-evident. It was 'void' of circa 1400 BC myth because it was actually the knowledge of the tribe for over 2000 years prior. This is self-evident. Scholarship that sources it all in terms of 1400 BC Egypt treats the prior as a void, and turns the document into a flimsy 'inspired' thing from much later.

The interesting thing is that the NT is often treated the same way, with a rash of datings of letters in the 6th decade or later, when the self-evident source of most material that mattered is immediately after the resurrection. Jesus taught for 40 days, and the best evidence of what was taught, so stated in the text, is a list of about 20 OT quotes from early Acts.

We might take a tip here from 2 P 3. There is every reason to talk of comparative myths of the time, but there is none of it. Instead it is a pretty grounded portrayal of the universe and then the earth through water and out of it, without bothering whether it speaks to 1400 BC Egypt or not. In the 2nd of 2 times Peter references the cataclysm (the material from early Genesis) I don't see where he cares much about what it meant to 1400 BC Egypt. Where is his concern about language or literary allusions that might take it far adrift from the practical observations that show a disruptive creation week--which would have displeased the 'stoicheian' crowd?

If you understood Lewis, you might see the tendency of cultures to degenerate from Genesis, to mistakenly try to imitate it. The 19th cent. German scholarship he references in the quote posted above is that which has fallen apart, partly because of fraud. It casts a reactive Judaism trying to preserve its identity after Egypt. The recitation-custody model is proactive. It explained things in their normal sense. The fact that this represented in the LXX in the 2nd cent. BC as the way which Judaism wanted the Greek to be introduced to Judaism is far more reliable picture than those views of the 19th century.