 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/16/2003 9:50 AM (GMT -6) |   | Science and the Bible
Ptolemy counted 1,056 stars ; Tycho Brahe catalogued 777; Johannes Kepler counted 1,005. And, if taking into account all the sight lines on earth, the naked eye can see about 4,000 stars. Yet the Bible has said that “the host of heaven cannot be numbered” (Jerimiah 33:22). One example of the scientific astronomy in the Bible.
Isaiah 40:22 clearly pronounces in the Hebrew that the earth is round. The word for circle is khug, which is translated more exactly as “sphericity” or “roundness.” chalk up another one to geophysics.
“For he draweth up the drops of water, which distill in the rain from his vapor, which the skies pour down and drop upon man abundantly…” (Job 36:27-29). Hydrology is covered with this example out of the many I can use.
The importance of and the realization of the circulatory system was discovered by William Harvey in 1616, who said: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” This was already accounted for in Leviticus 17:11 and other scriptures. Biology is accounted for, and found sound.
A Short List
Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Gravitational field (Job 26:7)
Other items found in the Bible are being found to be correct. For instance, if we look in the evolutionary textbook that was the center of attention at the scopes trial in 1925, we read this:“The Races Of Man – At the present time there exists upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent in structure. These are the Ethiopian or Negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the Islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America” (George William Hunter, A Civic Biology Presented in Problems, [The American Book Company: N. Y.; 1914 p. 196). However, the Bible clearly states that there is only one race. If we believe the Bible, all of the Bible, then it is clear that all people were created by God: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Acts 17:26 says: “And [God] hath made of one blood [i.e. from one original ancestor, Adam and his wife, Eve] all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth …”.
Darwin’s famous book is even entitled, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwinian evolution was (and still is) inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or “races” of people evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their ape-like ancestors than others. The American ABC News science page stated, “More and more scientists find that the differences that set us apart are cultural, not racial. Some even say that the word race should be abandoned because it's meaningless” (“We're all the same,” American Broadcasting Corporation News, September 10, 1998, www.abcnews.com/sections/science/DyeHard/dye72.html ). The article went on to say that “we accept the idea of race because it's a convenient way of putting people into broad categories, frequently to suppress them — The most hideous example was provided by Hitler's Germany. And racial prejudice remains common throughout the world” (ibid.). So again, the Bible had it right all along!
“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they have increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory” (Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, [Harvard Press; 1977] p.p. 127-128).
In Genesis 17:12, God commanded Abraham to circumcise baby boys on the eighth day of their lives. Why day eight? Is there any good, scientific rationale behind such a command?
In 1935, professor H. Dam proposed the name “vitamin K” for the factor in foods that helped prevent hemorrhaging in baby chicks. We now know vitamin K is responsible for the production (by the liver) of the element known as prothrombin. If vitamin K is deficient, there will be a prothrombin deficiency and hemorrhaging may occur. Oddly, it is only on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn male’s life that vitamin K (produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract) is present in adequate quantities. Vitamin K, coupled with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, which is important in any surgical procedure. Holt and McIntosh, in their classic work, Holt Pediatrics, observed that a newborn infant has “peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life.... Hemorrhages at this time, though often inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination” (1953, pp. 125-126). Obviously, then, if vitamin K is not produced in sufficient quantities until days five through seven, it would be wise to postpone any surgery until some time after that. But why did God specify day eight?
On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normal — and is the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak. Again, Biblical biology is found sound.
Another great example is that of language, or linguistics. This will be a long post, but I ask that the entire post be read thoughtfully.
TOWER OF BABEL; true history, ancient fairytale?
The Greek historian, Herodotus, about 500 B.C., described the structure, which then consisted of a series of eight ascending towers, each one recessed in turn, with a spiral roadway running around it as a means of climbing to the top. Babylonian legend (of which we’ll get to) asserted that it had originally been built by Nimrod, which coincides with the Biblical record. In fact, the region, about ten miles southwest of Babylon’s center is still called Birs Nimroud. The structure as Herodotus described it was more than seven hundred feet tall, of which three hundred feet remain to this day.
The descendants of Noah built this tower. The list of primeval nations in Genesis 10, “the Table of Nations,” is by far the most complete and accurate listing of the tribes and nations of antiquity. One of the world’s greatest archaeologists, William F. Albright, called it “an astonishingly accurate document.” It lists the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth (the three sons of Noah) and indicates what regions they settled. Many historical documents from many cultures trace back their ancestry to these three “sons of Noah.” The ziggurats, and pyramids, and bow & arrow, as well as boomerangs being used and built by every culture on every continent is a hint to mankind all living together at one time; and having common technology.
KING NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S INSCRIPTION
ABOUT THE TOWER OF BABEL
Language:
Many scientists who study the origin of languages, known as philologists, have concluded that it is probable that the thousands of dialects and languages can be traced back to an original language in man’s ancient past. Professor Alfredo Trombetti (Italian linguist) claims that he can prove the common origin of all languages. Max Mueller, one of the greatest oriental language scholars, declared that all human languages can be traced back to one single oriental language. Chinese is the most ancient, fully recorded, still used, language around, going back to over before Moses.
Ancient History 101:
The French government sent Professor Oppert to report on the cuneiform inscriptions discovered in the ruins of Babylon. Oppert translated a long inscription by King Nebuchadnezzar in which the king referred to the tower in the Chaldean language as Barzipp, which means “Tongue-Power.” The Greeks used the word Borsippa, with the same meaning of Tongue-power, to describe the ruins of the Tower of Babel. This inscription of Nebuchadnezzar clearly identified the original tower of Borsippa with the Tower of Babel described by Moses in Genesis. King Nebuchadnezzar decided to rebuild the base of the ancient Tower of Babel, built over sixteen centuries earlier by Nimrod, the first King of Babylon.
Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt the city of Babylon in great magnificence with gold, silver, cedar, and fir, at great cost on top of a hard surface of baked clay bricks. These bricks were engraved with the seal of Nebuchadnezzar. At the base of the Tower of Babel is this inscription by King Nebuchadnezzar that, in his own words from thousands of years ago, confirm one of the most amazing events of the ancient past.
THE INSCRIPTION:“The tower, the eternal house, which I founded and built. I have completed its magnificence with silver, gold, other metals, stone, enameled bricks, fir and pine. The first which is the house of the earth’s base, the most ancient monument of Babylon; I built and finished it. I have highly exalted its head with bricks covered with copper. We say for the other, that is, this edifice, the house of the seven lights of the earth the most ancient monument of Borsippa. A former king built it, (they reckon 42 ages) but he did not complete its head. Since a remote time, people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words. Since that time the earthquake and the thunder had dispersed the sun-dried clay. The bricks of the casing had been split, and the earth of the interior had been scattered in heaps. Merodach, the great god, excited my mind to repair this building. I did not change the site nor did I take away the foundation. In a fortunate month, in an auspicious day, I undertook to build porticoes around the crude brick masses, and the casing of burnt bricks. I adapted the ciruits, I put the inscription of my name in the Kitir of the portico. I set my hand to finish it. And to exalt its head. As it had been done in ancient days, so I exalted its summit.” This inscription was translated by Professor Oppert. In addition, Mr. William Loftus translated this fascinating inscription in his book, Travels and Researches in Chaldea and Sinai; this incredible inscription confirms the Biblical accuracy of one of the most fascinating stories in the Book of Genesis.
The pagan king Nebuchadnezzar confirms in his own words the incredible details that a “former king built it, but he did not complete its head,” confirming the truthfulness of the Genesis account that God stopped the original builders from completing the top of the Tower of Babel. Most significantly, King Nebuchadnezzar’s inscription declares that the reason the original king could not complete the tower was because, “Since a remote time, people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words.” In other words, they lost the ability to control their language and communication!
Compare the statement of Nebuchadnezzar, “A former king built it, but he did not complete its head. Since a remote time, people had abandoned it,” with the words of Moses in Genesis 11:7: “So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.” Even more startling is the phrase of the pagan king where he declared that the reason they could not complete the top of the “Tongue-tower” was that the “people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words.” Yes, I believe in the literal story of the Genesis account of the Tower of Babel. Population and language studies, independent from the Bible, confirm this amazing story.
Archaeology is not wanting either, Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”
Hope you all enjoyed this informative post.
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne
Edited by - SeanG on 03/16/2003 2:55:52 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/16/2003 5:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Joshua 10:13 - And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.
Do you consider this to be scientifically sound? Shouldn't it have said, "And the earth stopped rotating, until ..."?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/16/2003 6:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Joshua’s command to the sun to stand still does not support geocentrism, i.e. the idea that the sun moves around the Earth. The Bible uses the language of appearance and observation.
Today people do exactly the same thing. For example, scientists who prepare weather reports for TV announce the times of “sunrise and sunset.” In fact, the mention of the moon also standing still seems to confirm both the divine authorship of the account and the fact that it is the Earth which moves. Since all Joshua needed was extra sunlight, and most ancients believed the sun moves, not the Earth, a human author of a fictitious account would only have needed to refer to the sun stopping.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/243.asp
see also, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c016.html
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/16/2003 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | | SeanG
The Bible uses the language of appearance and observation.
Iconoclast
So then, would you agree that for the Bible to say "a day" before there was even an earth rotating around its axis probably doesn't mean a literal 24 hour rotational period of the earth?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/16/2003 11:17 PM (GMT -6) | | I appreciate your (typically thorough) research Sean, especially on showing the link between racism and Darwinism. And I think its good to demonstrate the veracity of the Bible whenever possible. But I'm not sure about your attempt to do so by showing how it is scientifically accurate on details. It seems to me that the Bible pretty much reflects the cosmology of its culture Consider Psa 104.
Psa. 104:2 You stretch out the heavens like a tent,
Psa. 104:3 you set the beams of your chambers on the waters,
you make the clouds your chariot,
you ride on the wings of the wind,
Psa. 104:4 you make the winds your messengers,
fire and flame your ministers.
Psa. 104:5 You set the earth on its foundations,
so that it shall never be shaken.
Psa. 104:6 You cover it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
Psa. 104:7 At your rebuke they flee;
at the sound of your thunder they take to flight.
Psa. 104:8 They rose up to the mountains, ran down to the valleys
to the place that you appointed for them.
Psa. 104:9 You set a boundary that they may not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.
Psa. 104:13 From your lofty abode you water the mountains;
the earth is satisfied with the fruit of your work.
Psa. 104:15 [You give us] wine to gladden the human heart (JUST THOUGHT I'D LET THAT VERSE STAND FOR THE FUN OF IT )
Psa. 104:19 You have made the moon to mark the seasons;
the sun knows its time for setting.
What we know is that all ancient Near Eastern people viewed the world pretty much in this way. The earth was set on pillars, as was the DOME of the sky, and God (or gods) sat above it. The sky was hard "as molten lava" (Job 38 I believe), and stars, the moon and sun were placed IN the dome (as in Genesis, where their placed "IN" the "firmanment" (refering to a solid thing). Water rested above the hard dome, but it had "windows" that could be openned, which explains how we can get rain (e.g. Gen 7:11; 8:2). The earth, whether conceived as a square or "a circle", sat on water, which submerge the pillars. The waters were personfied as hostile agents (sometimes with sea monsters) which threatened the earth, which is why God had to rebuke them.
Or consider Psa. 74.
Psa. 74:12 ¶ Yet God my King is from of old,
working salvation in the earth.
Psa. 74:13 You divided the sea by your might;
you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters.
Psa. 74:14 You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.
Psa. 74:15 You cut openings for springs and torrents;
you dried up ever-flowing streams.
Psa. 74:16 Yours is the day, yours also the night;
you established the luminaries and the sun.
Psa. 74:17 You have fixed all the bounds of the earth;
you made summer and winter.
Are we really to believe there really existed a many headed dragon named Leviathan? In the ancient near east, they really believed in such a cosmic creature (as well as "Rahab" or "Behemoth" or "Yamm" or other such entitites) who resisted God's purposes and threatened the earth. The Pslamist celebrates that it was Yaweh, not Marduck or some other pagan God, who defeated (and still defeats) these furocious beasts.
Now, the point of passages such as this is not to teach us science, but to celebrate God's wisdom and power over powers that resist him. So I don't conclude that the Bible TEACHES erroneous things. But, it seems to me, it ASSUMES things IN its teaching that can't be judged as accurate by modern scientific standards.
My only concern is that if we leverage the credibility of the Bible on its scientific accuracy, we might actually UNDERMINE the credibility of the Bible. In fact, i the Church's resistance to science, especially with the Galileo fiasco, significantly contributed to its loss of credibility in western culture.
I think we should learn from this mistake.
Blessings
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 3/17/2003 2:23 AM (GMT -6) | | If the Bible is scientifically sound, I'm a little worried about who's in charge of patching holes in this dome we live in...After all, the dome only separates the waters from the waters. One small leak and we'll all be swimming like Noah again. - Gen 1:6-8
†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/17/2003 5:00 AM (GMT -6) | | A modernist mind-set (or at least "dipping into" [taking from] prevailing modernist notions)wants to gauge the accuracy of the Bible (and all of reality for that matter) according to set measurments, linear scientific method, that is, data, experiment, hypothesis, repeat, building on the information from THAT experimentation. The Church is finally starting to make some movement AWAY FROM this foundationalist approach to theology and scripture. We should not play by the rationalist's rules.
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com
Edited by - BBBCanada on 03/17/2003 10:03:13 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/17/2003 7:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast
The Bible speaks for itself in regards to the six solar days:The term “solar day” needs some explaining. Strictly speaking, it refers to the time for one rotation of the earth on its axis, today approximately 24 hours, resulting in a day/night sequence. But according to Genesis 1, whereas light and the day/night cycle was created on day one, the sun wasn’t created until day four, so there was no sun during the first three days. In scripture, however, there is no differentiation between the length of the first three days and the last three, and the entire week is referred to as being “6 days” long, followed by a day of rest. Mind you, the Hebrew word yom (for day) can have a number of meanings. It occurs over 2000 times in the Old Testament, and it almost always means a solar day, and always could mean a solar day. But, when uncertainty arises, the Bible must be used to interpret itself, most specifically the context of the word, other usages of the word, and other passages on the same subject.
When the Hebrew word yom is modified by a number, such as “six days,” or the “third day” (as it is some 359 times in the Old Testament outside of Genesis 1), it always means a literal day. Furthermore, the words “evening and morning,” which always mean a true daily evening and morning, define yom some thirty-eight times throughout the Old Testament outside of Genesis 1. There are several words in Hebrew which mean “time,” or an indefinite period, which the writer could have used, but yom was chosen, the only Hebrew word which can mean a solar day.
Exodus 20:8-11 supports the contention that a day in genesis was a literal day. I didn’t say that, the big Guy did. In this passage, God instructs us to work six days and rest one day because He worked six days and rested one day. The word “remember” in Hebrew (v. 8), always refers back to a real historical event. (Verse 11 does the same.) Furthermore, whent eh plural form of yom is used, yamim, as it is over 700 times in the Old Testament, including Exodus 20:11, it always means a literal day. How could the God of scripture say it any plainer????
A well-known old-earth creationist, Dr. Davis Young, professor of Geology at Calvin College (still there?), admitted:“It cannot be denied, in spite of frequent interpretations of Genesis 1 that departed from the rigidly literal, that the almost universal view of the Christian world until the eighteenth century was that the earth was only a few thousand years old. Not until the development of modern scientific investigation of the earth itself would this view be called into question within the church.” And although church history may be important to me, in this forum, I see a lot of people changing that history in other ways.
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/17/2003 8:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Sean,
As usual, I regret that I just don't have the time to go through all your exhaustive claims in detail, but I have to say that I've seen them before and they don't hold up to scrutiny.
Just picking on Isaiah 40:22, the Hebrew word "khug", always translated "circle", as in "circle of the earth", is defined in one lexicon of ancient Hebrew after another to mean a 2-dimensional circle (the noun form), eg as one marks out with a compass (the verb form). For example, see the definition at http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02329. You will not find a lexicon which defines "khug" to ever mean "sphere", or "ball", or anything of that nature, contrary to your assertion. I am aware of how often creationist and other conservative apologist resources say otherwise, but it isn't so (unless it is them producing the dictionary :-), which is why you never see them give a cite.
Sometimes it is said that the Hebrews lacked a word for "sphere", so "khug" was the best the author could do to approximate the concept of sphericity. This is false. The Hebrew word "dur" is multivalent and may (in its noun form) mean "circle" (2-dimensional) or "ball" (3-dimensional, ie sphere) - eg, see the definition at http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01754. Thus had the author known of the true shape of the world he would readily have been able to use "dur" (as in Isaiah 22:18) in place of "khug" in Isaiah 40:22.
Furthermore, the phrase "circle of the earth" was a common idiom in the ancient Near East, including among the superpowers of the time (eg Egypt, Babylon). We know quite a great deal about these dominant cultures from archaeology, including that they too used the phrase "circle of the earth", and that they undoubtedly believed in a flat earth (more precisely, a flat landmass surrounded and supported by ocean). Thus it is likely that the Hebrews followed them in this understanding, as they did in so much of their material and secular culture.
So what does "circle of the earth" refer to, then? Based on my reading, it may refer to the single flat landmass that was thought throughout the ancient Near East to constitute all of the dry land in the world (neglecting near-shore islands), and which was pictured as a roughly-circular continent. Or it may refer to the circle of the horizon, which the ancients extrapolated out beyond the shoreline, envisioning where the sky (a dome over the world) met the sea. Thus the whole world (ie the dry land continent surrounded by ocean) was bounded circularly by the horizon where, on all sides, the sky curved down to meet the furthest seas. There is a Psalm - or perhaps it is Job, or another Isaiah passage (I can't remember the reference right now) - where in fact this cosmology is further recapitulated, in a reference to God marking out, as with a compass, the bounds of the sea (this uses the verb form of "khug") - thus establishing a circular boundary on the ocean and the dry land continent it surrounds.
And that just further illustrates how all of Scripture's cosmological passages make complete and simple sense - when understood in light of the ancient cosmology. In contrast to eisegetically interpreting Isaiah 40:22 and the rest of these passages in special-pleading fashion, the most simple and straightforward and literal reading in every case conforms to the ancient cosmology. This is not by accident and is powerful "convergence of evidence" in favor of what the proper historical-grammatical interpretation ought to be.
See scholar Paul Seely's work for an exhaustive study into this. I have his email address if you'd like to write for copies of his papers.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/17/2003 8:11 AM (GMT -6) | | FYI Sean,
quote:
A well-known old-earth creationist, Dr. Davis Young, professor of Geology at Calvin College (still there?), admitted:“It cannot be denied, in spite of frequent interpretations of Genesis 1 that departed from the rigidly literal, that the almost universal view of the Christian world until the eighteenth century was that the earth was only a few thousand years old. Not until the development of modern scientific investigation of the earth itself would this view be called into question within the church.”
Davis Young would probably be more properly called a theistic evolutionist these days, as he has dropped all attempts at establishing concordance between modern science and the Bible, and offers no critique of mainstream science's conclusions regarding prehistory. Young's position (and mine, for that matter) agrees with yours on the historical-grammatical meaning of "day" in Genesis 1, but in no way does he (or I) follow-through to your young-earth conclusions and concomitant rejection of most of the mainstream historical sciences. You are forced to that by your commitment to concordance and, more broadly, total factual inerrancy w/r/t science and history in the Bible; but Young (and I) do not have that commitment nor feel that it is essential. See his more recent writing for support for this characterization of him; I hope it has been fair and sets the record straight.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/17/2003 8:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Dr. Boyd,
Psalm 104:2-5 speaks of the shining of God’s light during the original creative process, and mentions the angels just before reference to “laying the foundations of the earth.” Thus they (the angels) appear after the creation of all things and before the earth is made a solid body (possibly referring to either the energizing work of the Holy Spirit on day one of creation, and/or the separation of the waters from the land on day three). These passages you mention from Job and Psalms are certainly poetic, and are presumably not meant to be interpreted in the same precise, chronological sense required by Genesis 1 and 2. poetic though its literary form is, it must mean something, and bear reference to a true state of affairs. Specifically, Psalm 104:4 is one of the verses used to show the superiority of Christ to the angels.
I am seeing, Dr. Boyd, as I study open-theism, that you and others who support this view seem to get hung up on the distinctions between proper hermeneutical interpretation. Mind you, as of now, I am reading only negative books on this matter. In two months I plan on reading your newer books on the subject. (the books I have read or am reading are: The Battle for God: Responding to the Challenge of Neotheism; No Other God: A Response to Open Theism; God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminishing God of Open Theism; Bound Only Once: The Failure of Open Theism; Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace.)
When the Bible says God split the Red Sea with a blast of wind from his nostrils, I know that this is figurative speech, because the Bible elsewhere says God is spirit. He neither is a chicken, as covering us with feathers is poetic and figurative language to present us with the idea of covering and blessing. Just as Psalm 104:7-9 speaks of the division of the sea and land in a poetic fashion. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/psalm104.html
I refuse the statement that a majority of eastern peoples believed the earth to sit on pillars? Turtles or elephants were also pictured as holding the earth. The earth at one point was completely covered in a tropical environment at one point, fossil impressions of plants that are tropical ranging from Vancouver Island, Canada, to redwood forests found buried under massive ice deposits at the south polar region. This gets the young-earthers positing a vapor canopy that could have destabilized, causing the massive rains for Noah’s flood. This aside though (I recommend the book Creation and Change: Genesis 1.1 – 2.4 In the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms, by Douglas F. Kelly; and the video The Young Age of the Earth, for an explanation of the fountains of the deep).
Psalm 104 is accurate even in its poetics. For the universe right now is spreading out, and is best viewed as a bubble or balloon expanding. The galaxies and universe are laid out like a “sheet,” or surface of the bubble or balloon; like a skin on an apple. This is what the big-bang theory tells us.
Yes! The Leviathan and behemoth were real creatures, and the word dragon used throughout the Bible could better be interpreted (at times) as dinosaur. Whent eh word dragon was used, the word dinosaur hadn’t been invented yet. I believe man and dinosaur existed together Dr. Boyd, all the land animals were created on the sixth day, the T-rex was a land animal.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2001/r&r0101a.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n2_behemoth.asp
http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~jl/Bible/leviathan.html
Now, I know you are thinking to yourself, “Flood!? Noah!? Bible!? Dinosaurs and man co-existing is outrages by evolutionary terms, I mean, dinosaurs died out at least 64 million years ago! And man didn’t show up on the evolutionary scene till about 1 to 4 million years ago (depending on what evolutionary tree you accept).” Yes, I know this sounds incredible, but some amazing items from history and archaeology are mounting the evidence against this belief that man and dino are separated by mass amounts of time and geological layers. Unfortunately, this particular paper does not deal with this topic of history and archaeology for proving the co-existence of dino and man
(For anyone interested, I have some videos and books, or can recommend some videos and books on this subject. For instance: Alexander the Great in his conquests wrote of a hundred foot long reptile [dinosaur]; The ancient Chinese bred them; Un-mineralized bones of Parasaurolophus [duckbill dinosaur] have been found in Alaska; T-rex blood cells have been found in malleable innards of this awesome dinosaur [blood cells have a known decay rate, i.e., half-life] that couldn’t of lasted 64 million years; Inca burial stones which depict everyday life in the Inca’s day, also depict T-rex’s and the Triceratops; etc., etc.)
This writing only deals with the Bible’s take on dino and man. So lets get to it. In the 40th chapter of Job’s account, we see the record of the Creator Himself speaking to job. He is drawing Job’s attention to one of the wonders of the creation. Let’s read it.
“Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you…” (verse 15)
Behemoth in the Hebrew simply means large beast. Most bibles have a marginal note by this verse explaining that this creature was most likely an elephant or hippopotamus (half of the above drawings explained!). God is saying to Job, “take a good look at this creature. I am going to demonstrate something to you.”
“He eats Grass like an ox.” (Verse 15)
The animal must be a vegetarian, but it’s likely larger than an ox.
“See now, the strength is in his hips [or loins].” (Verse 16)
This critter must have powerful legs. So it could be an elephant.
“His power is in his stomach muscles.” (Verse 16)
He apparently has a massive mid-section. If that was all we had to go on we could rightly assume Job may very well be looking at a hippo. But lets read on.
“He moves his tail like a cedar.” (Verse 17)
Now we have a problem (and the answer to the drawings above). Have you noticed something distinctive about cedar trees? They are big aren’t they? Now have you seen a tail of an elephant or a hippo? It doesn’t seem that a cedar tree is a very appropriate analogy does it. Let’s re-read – and finish – the verses of study.
15 Behold now behemoth [large beast], which I made with thee [all animals and Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day]; he eateth grass as an ox [vegetarian]. 16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins [large, powerful legs], and his force [is] in the navel of his belly [large mid-section.] 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar [huge tail]: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass [big bones]; his bones [are] like bars of iron [again, big bones]. 19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God [largest or mightiest creation]: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him [only God can kill him]. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens [we have all seen drawings of these beasts halfway in the water with their head up eating the vegetation on the sides of the banks]. 22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about [again, in a swamp, or the like]. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth [the NASB says in v. 23: “if a river rages, he is not alarmed. He is confidant, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth”]. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares [you cannot catch him]. - KJV
Paraphrase
Although the monstrous creature was obviously vegetarian, its size was overwhelming. Its hips were built to withstand the enormous force of each pounding step and its midsection was a mass of muscle. Its gigantic tail extended far behind, not unlike a giant cedar tree swaying behind its body. Its bones were built like steel girders with ribs like iron bars to support his enormous weight. Surely, this was the greatest among the creatures ever to roam the swamps and rivers of the earth.
Supersaurus
Sauroposeidon
More Coming...
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne
Edited by - SeanG on 03/17/2003 1:19:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/17/2003 8:18 AM (GMT -6) | | In my posting above, I quoted two URLs:
quote:
For example, see the definition at
http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02329.
...
see the definition at http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01754.
I forgot that this forum's parsing engine is not smart enough to recognize the period "." as the end of a sentence rather than the end of the URL. Therefore those hyperlinks will not work. Use these instead:
For the definition of "khug": http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02329
For the definition of "dur":
http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01754
Sorry,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/17/2003 8:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg,
I liked your post, but just wanted to point out a technicality regarding this:
quote:
What we know is that all ancient Near Eastern people viewed the world pretty much in this way. The earth was set on pillars, as was the DOME of the sky, and God (or gods) sat above it.
What the dry land continent (ie what you call the earth) rests upon varied from culture to culture. Instead of pillars, it was not uncommon for the earth to be thought of as undergirded and "supported" by the ocean itself. This seems to have been the view among the Hebrews, which is how, when Job (or is it Isaiah, or the Psalmist) praises God for having "suspended the earth on nothing", he is marveling at God's miraculous upholding of the earth above the waters. (Concordists often like to interpret this passage as referring to the earth as a planetary globe in space, but that's more special eisegesis IMO for reasons I won't go into now.)
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/17/2003 8:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Dr. Boyd!
I am amazed that you, being well read, could apply this example?! To quote you:“In fact… the Church's resistance to science, especially with the Galileo fiasco, significantly contributed to its loss of credibility in western culture…. I think we should learn from this mistake.” The Church leaders had accepted as dogma the belief system of the pagan (i.e. non-Christian) philosophers, Aristotle and Ptolemy, which had become the worldview of the then scientific establishment. Galileo teaches the exact opposite of what the nay sayers usually use him for.
I suggest a thorough going through of the articles at this site ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/geocentrism.asp ) before saying we should learn from the Galileo incident, because what Galileo shows is that we shouldn’t accept the science “of the day” where it refutes scripture.
Two I highly recommend are:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4200cen_s1997.asp
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html
Tisk, Tisk Dr. Boyd.
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne
Edited by - SeanG on 03/17/2003 1:35:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/17/2003 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Sean,
You just wrote:
quote:
Dr. Boyd!
I am amazed that you, being well read, could apply this example?!
...
The Church leaders had accepted as dogma the belief system of the pagan (i.e. non-Christian) philosophers, Aristotle and Ptolemy, which had become the worldview of the then scientific establishment. Galileo teaches the exact opposite of what the nay sayers usually use him for.
No, that's only part of the story. Aristotle and Ptolemy's system was itself an outgrowth of the ancient Mediterranean and Near-Eastern cosomologies that Greg (and I) have been talking about. (Note I say "outgrowth" - I realize they were not the same. Aristotle/Ptolemy incorporated a spherical world-body covered both with dry land and seas and not contacted by sky. But Aristotle/Ptolemy was an outgrowth of the ancient cosmology, retaining a single landmass, geocentrism, and solid sky or concentric such "skies".)
Those cosmologies are plainly represented in the Bible, when faithfully interpreted according to the historical-grammatical method. This is why the Church endorsed Aristotle and Ptolemy - because there was such an easy and natural concordance between the Bible and the science of that day. So the Galileo example is germane (as a warning of the dangers of trying to draw concordance), and Ken Ham and crew at AIG aren't looking broadly enough across history to the roots of Aristotle/Ptolemy and how they were taken up by the Church.
Whew. That's enough posting for today :-)
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/17/2003 9:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Sean, whatever else was involved in the debate, the Church argued against Galileo on the basis of Scripture's description of the sun standing still.
Regard Psl 104, the problematic point is that the earth rests on foundations, as it is said to do in a number of texts. It is surrounded by water's that have to be held at bay by God. The sky is a HARD dome that holds up water. For ancient near eastern people, this wasn't poetic. It's how they viewed the world.
Now, if Leviathan was a dinosaur, are you prepared to argue that a dinosaur had SEVERAL HEADS as Psl 74 states? Consider Job 41. God asks,
Job 41:7 Can you fill its skin with harpoons,
or its head with fishing spears?
If it was a dinosaur, the answer would be "yes." But the point of the passage is, "of course not."
Job 41:9 Any hope of capturing it will be disappointed;
were not even the gods overwhelmed at the sight of it?
Were the gods "overwhelmed" at the sight of any dinosaur? And could humans conceivably capture one -- if they existed when humans were around?
Job 41:18 Its sneezes flash forth light,
and its eyes are like the eyelids of the dawn.
Ancients sometimes thought lightening came from Leviathan and that could swallow the sun and moon (this is how they sometimes interpreted an eclipse, as Job does in Job 3). This is a cosmic creature. Are you willing to argue that some dinosaur sneezed forth lightening?
Job 41:19 From its mouth go flaming torches;
sparks of fire leap out.
Job 41:20 Out of its nostrils comes smoke,
as from a boiling pot and burning rushes.
Job 41:21 Its breath kindles coals,
and a flame comes out of its mouth.
Doesn't sound like any dinosaur I've ever heard of. Do you want to rest the credibility of the Bible on the claim that a dinosaur once existed, merely several thousand years ago, that was "fire breathing"? Isn't the very concept physiologically impossible?
Job 41:24 Its heart is as hard as stone,
as hard as the lower millstone.
Job 41:25 When it raises itself up the gods are afraid;
at the crashing they are beside themselves.
We're talking one bad dinosaur if even the gods are afraid of it!
Job 41:27 It counts iron as straw,
and bronze as rotten wood.
An iron eating dinosaur?
Job 41:31 It makes the deep boil like a pot;
it makes the sea like a pot of ointment.
This is one HOT beast!
I find the "coincidental" way THIS beast parrallels other cosmic beasts written about in the Ancient Near East convincing evidence that we're dealing with a mythological animal here. God is speaking Job's language to communicate to him that there ARE cosmic forces that God must contend with and which humans cannot contend with. It's one of the ways God is using to humble Job and show him that his arrogant proclamations against God throughout the narrative of Job were misguided.
But the present point is simply this: even if you or someone else believes Leviathan was a literal creature, I can't see ANY advantage in saddling the credibility of the Bible with the burden of convincing others of this. Its frankly a HUGE STRETCH.
Blessings
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/17/2003 2:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg, you said, “Sean, whatever else was involved in the debate, the Church argued against Galileo on the basis of Scripture's description of the sun standing still.” Did you read the articles… just wondering. The church tried to fit into their cosmology what the majority had accepted to be true. Galileo used the Bible as well, but rather than starting with outside knowledge and then working towards the Bible – which the Catholic Church, especially in those days, was very handy at – He [Galileo] started from the Bible and worked his way out.
Psalms 74 looks to me like it is referring to multiple sea creatures, not one with many heads? Psa. 74:13 You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters.
Psa. 74:14 You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness. Just as a Jehovah Witness says that there was only one nail used for his hands, the word is plural, hinting at two nails.Job 41:7 Can you fill its skin with harpoons, or its head with fishing spears? It was big! Job couldn’t kill it, God was imparting that Job was a puny man before His creation. Did you read the articles I linked? Are you ready to defend two headed cats? I am!
You said, “Were the gods ‘overwhelmed’ at the sight of any dinosaur? And could humans conceivably capture one -- if they existed when humans were around?” Alexander the Great in his conquests wrote of a hundred foot long reptile [dinosaur], keep in mind that this was one of the biggest scientific (as well as military) conquests recorded in the world, NASA was the only organized science project since; The ancient Chinese bred them; Un-mineralized bones of Parasaurolophus [duckbill dinosaur] have been found in Alaska; T-rex blood cells have been found in malleable innards of this awesome dinosaur [blood cells decay rapidly] that couldn’t of lasted 64 million years; Inca burial stones which depict everyday life in the Inca’s day, also depict T-rex’s and the Triceratops; etc., etc
Are these man-made Dr.Boyd?
Are these human skeletons Dr. Boyd? (ten women, children and men have been found here)
What does this look like to you? (They have been found in Russia and other places as well)
You said, “Ancients sometimes thought lightening came from Leviathan and that could swallow the sun and moon (this is how they sometimes interpreted an eclipse, as Job does in Job 3). This is a cosmic creature. Are you willing to argue that some dinosaur sneezed forth lightening?” No, but I am willing to allow for some kind of defense mechanism that allowed for some sort of heat, or a glowing effect. Like light in lightning bugs, or the 212-degree spray that the Bombardier beetle has. What is interesting is that multiple ancient reports about some sea and land animals all tell the same story of flames. Ancient writings separated by sea and continents. Just because you say that it “Doesn't sound like any dinosaur I've ever heard of,” doesn’t mean it isn’t true. And the same could be said of the before mentioned beetle, it is physiologically impossible that this beetle should not explode… or that at some time in its evolutionary history, it didn’t have the proper mechanisms to separate the chemicals, and would thus go extinct. The dragon in Beowulf also vomits flames? I believe this to be a “trumped” up story about a real encounter with a dinosaur – see: http://www.rae.org/dragons.html
From cave paintings, to drawing, to descriptions, from the Chinese to the Greeks, and yes, even the Bible, all these stories about “dragons” is very interesting, and too coincidental, considering these drawings, descriptions, and writings of them appear on opposite sides of the oceans.Job 41:24 Its heart is as hard as stone, as hard as the lower millstone.
Job 41:25 When it raises itself up the gods are afraid; at the crashing they are beside themselves. Again, the Bible is saying this is one “bad-ass dude.” You must not sleep at night knowing that God is a chicken? Man. God, of course knows that there aren’t any “gods,” but He is merely using the surrounding pagan culture to say that even they wouldn’t (or there false gods can’t stand up to His creation – i.e., dinosaurs).
Cosmic forces? Sounds like I am talking to a Scientologist? Even the teradactyl is drawn and described by Native Americans and Aborigines in Australia. However, the presupposition that materialistic science says they didn’t co-exist with man is the only thing stopping you from further investigating this matter Dr. Boyd.
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne
Edited by - SeanG on 03/17/2003 7:09:22 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/17/2003 4:37 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm afraid I didn't understand you're explanation of the heads (plural) of Leviathan (singular). Were you granting that a dinosaur had many heads?
I find the supposition that there once existed a fire breath smoke snorting beast incredible. Anything's possible, I suppose, but my point is that I question any strategy that would leverage the veracity of the Bible on it. Also, still haven't heard, or may have missed, your explanations for the foundations of the earth and the waters that encircle it, along with the windows for rain. Finally, regarding Galileo, I didn't read your posted articles, but I know the argument and don't necessarily disagree with it. The Catholic Church was reading the Bible through certain philosophical lenses, as we all do. But IN THEIR MINDS it was, perhaps because of the influences you cite, clear that the Bible said "the sun stood still" -- and indeed that everything in creation revolves around humanity. Who could deny this? And Galileo was saying that this isn't SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE. They had a problem with that, and that problem backfired in terms of cultural trust in the Church. That's all I'm saying.
If there's a way of interpreting Scripture such that it DOESN'T require bucking majority scientific opinion , it should be offered as an option -- for the sake of the credibility of the Gospel.
Over and out
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/18/2003 2:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Dr. Boyd
by the way, I am not “bucking” the majority view of operational science, I am bucking the presuppositions of materialism and of origin science.
Speaking to the Leviathan issue - How many women were at the tomb of Jesus? Skeptics say these verses contradict each other, therefore, the Bible is a collection of myth, and not a historical account:1.) How many women went to the tomb? a) Matthew says Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matthew 28:1)
b) Mark says Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)
c) Luke says “the women” (Luke 24:1)
d) John says Mary Magdalene (John 20:1)a) Matthew says an angel came down, opened the tomb, then sat on the stone. His appearance was like lightning and he was dressed in white clothes (Matthew 28:2)
b) Mark says a young man dressed in a white robe was sitting on the right (Mark 16:5)
c) Luke says two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them (the women) (Luke 24:4)
d) John says two angels were seen at the head and foot of where Jesus had been laid. This was after the earlier trip and after Peter and John had visited (John 20:11,12)
You, of course, realize that these apparent contradictions are cleared up with careful study of the sequence of events, and taking into account variation in eyewitness accounts. See, for those interested:
http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AALOBC.html
So, again, I want to slowly go through this, and let scripture interpret scripture.Psa. 74:13 You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads [plural] of the dragons [plural] in the waters.
Psa. 74:14 You crushed the heads [plural] of Leviathan [assumes one read v. 13, saying that there were many dragons, and now names the dragons – i.e. Leviathan, context Dr. Boyd, LDS and JW's take out of context as well, the verse before explains the context]; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness. Waters is plural, is the dragon so large that its body stretches from one sea to another? You are splitting hairs Dr. Boyd. I asked you some specific questions however, I will repeat them:Are these man-made Dr.Boyd?
Are these human skeletons Dr. Boyd?
What does this look like to you? Your answers are important, as they either agree with the literal reading of Genesis, or disagree with it. I do have another question for you Dr. Boyd:
Would you agree with Scott that “Indeed, from the reading I've done, I've been persuaded that Genesis 2-11 fall into the category of legend - ie stories about origins and the deep past which entheme truths about the world. And I think Genesis 1 is polemic against ancient Near-Eastern cosmology and mythology. (Of course I believe these passages are not merely human creations, but inspired of God, but that need not eliminate those genres from his toolkit.)”
Curious for the answers. You realize that Scotts views are based – for the most part – on the now disproven Documentary Hypothesis. He would, I suppose, believe that there are two separate authors of Genesis 1 and 2. These are only assumptions on my part, so I am sure I will hear some confirmation of whether I am correct or not on this matter from Scott.
I also, Dr. Boyd, would love to hear who you thought wrote most of Genesis. I believe Moses compiled most of it, archaeloghical finds of ancient practices seem to confirm this:Moses is traditionally credited with the inspired authorship of Genesis. However, Moses lived hundreds of years following most of the events described in the first 36 chapters. How did Moses learn of the events? Donald J. Wiseman in Clues to Creation in Genesis, pages 34-45, suggests Moses had access to a series of tablets which originated from various characters mentioned in Genesis.
Clues to the existence of the tablets are the "these are the generations" phrases found in the first 37 chapters. According to ancient custom, these phrases are the concluding phrase found in written histories of families. The family genealogy is found at the beginning of each history. The person mentioned at the conclusion is the writer or owner of the history, not necessarily a member of the family.
Thus, Moses is discovered to be the inspired editor who brought the histories together to create the first 36 chapters of Genesis. Moses collected the histories not as oral traditions but in the form of clay tablets--the preferred permanent media of the day.
http://home.usmo.com/~kocu/Generations.html But for a thorough view of this, see:
http://www.nwcreation.net/genesisauthor.html
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself."[/list]Michel de Montaigne
Edited by - SeanG on 03/18/2003 7:46:04 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/18/2003 5:41 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sean: Speaking to the Leviathan issue - How many women were at the tomb of Jesus?
Greg: I'm afraid you're line of reasoning escaped me here. What was your point?
Sean: Psa. 74:14 You crushed the heads [plural] of Leviathan [assumes one read v. 13, saying that there were many dragons, and now names the dragons – i.e. Leviathan, context Dr. Boyd, LDS and JW's take out of context as well, the verse before explains the context]; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.Waters is plural, is the dragon so large that its body stretches from one sea to another? You are splitting hairs Dr. Boyd.
Greg: The singular Leviathan is the name of the dragons (plural)? Seems more natural -- as less LDS and JW -- to read the first verse as referring to dragons and vs. 14 as referring to onedragon, the principal dragon, Leviathan. And, as he is sometimes depicted in ancient art, he has many heads.
Sean: I asked you some specific questions however, I will repeat them:Are these man-made Dr.Boyd?
Are these human skeletons Dr. Boyd?
What does this look like to you?[/list]Your answers are important, as they either agree with the literal reading of Genesis, or disagree with it.
Greg: Yes, I saw some of these on a different thread, so I knew your answers your looking for. In any case, its not clear to me why you see these things as so significant.
Sean: Would you agree with Scott that “Indeed, from the reading I've done, I've been persuaded that Genesis 2-11 fall into the category of legend - ie stories about origins and the deep past which entheme truths about the world. And I think Genesis 1 is polemic against ancient Near-Eastern cosmology and mythology."
Doc: I'm not sure how persuaded I am, though elements in the narrative seem most naturally read as legend (they have been interpreted non-literally throughout church history you know). What I am persuaded of is that it is a disaster to leverage the credibility of the Gospel on one's decision about the genre of the Gensis passages -- or of the scientific accuracy of the Bible in general.
Sean: You realize that Scotts views are based – for the most part – on the now disproven Documentary Hypothesis.
Greg: Sean, Scott's views are not "based on" the documentary hypothesis. And, while few hold to the old Wellhausen version of the documentary hypothesis, its simply not accurate to say that (all versions of) the documentary hypothesis have been disproven. Indeed, the vast majority of Old Testament scholars embrace some version of the documentary hypothesis.
Sean: I also, Dr. Boyd, would love to hear who you thought wrote most of Genesis. I believe Moses compiled most of it, archaeloghical finds of ancient practices seem to confirm this:[
Greg: "most," "alot" "some" or perhaps was the inspiring figurehead behind it..... I'm pretty conservative on the question, but maybe because I haven't been interested enough to keep up the on literature over the last twenty years. What could possibly hang on this, I haven't a clue... unless one assumes that much hangs on it... and then, by fiat, it unfortunately becomes the case that the credibility of the Gospel is made to hang on this.
Sean: Clues to the existence of the tablets are the "these are the generations" phrases found in the first 37 chapters. According to ancient custom, these phrases are the concluding phrase found in written histories of families. The family genealogy is found at the beginning of each history. The person mentioned at the conclusion is the writer or owner of the history, not necessarily a member of the family.
Thus, Moses is discovered to be the inspired editor who brought the histories together to create the first 36 chapters of Genesis.
Greg: Dude, almost all scholars concede that the geneologies reflect ancient sources (as do a number of other literary hints in the Pentateuch). But this provides no evidence that Moses was the final redactor. Indeed, some of the Pentateuch clearly comes AFTER Moses (e.g. comments about Caananites in the land "in those days" in Gen. 12, or Moses post-mortem editorial in the last chapter of Numbers [as I recall]). But again, nothing need hang on any of this.
Gotta run,
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/18/2003 7:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg,“Sean: Speaking to the Leviathan issue - How many women were at the tomb of Jesus?
Greg: I'm afraid you're line of reasoning escaped me here. What was your point?” You [Greg] seem to be saying that the verse shows one dragon with many heads. The verses listed about the Resurrection showes (apparently) one woman at the tomb, or three, etc. The problem can be fixed by taking in the other verses that speak to the issue. The other verse that speaks to the Leviathan issue is directly above it. There were dragons, dragons have heads. These dragons are named leviathan. Psalm is a poetic text anyway, as I stated, however, you seem to want to make a poetic book a historical account. Genesis is not a poetic book Dr. Greg. This is well enough shown by this article (C. S. Lewis concurs):Should Genesis Be Taken Literally?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1231.asp I suggest you take the time to read the article, as I am going to post it elsewhere for more in-depth discussion.
BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN—MYTHOLOGICAL OR LITERAL? Since you want an in-depth answer to Leviathan, and you said you haven't read the posted links, here is a portion of one I posted. Enjoy, as you may never have read such a view as of late.
For centuries, students of the Bible have questioned the identity of behemoth and leviathan. In the Middle Ages, some theologians, like Albert Magnus, conceived of behemoth as a symbol of sensuality and sin. Others, like Thomas Aquinas, equated behemoth with the elephant, and leviathan with the whale—both being natural monsters in the literal sense, but representing diabolical power in a figurative sense. In 1663, Samuel Bochart published a two-volume work identifying the two animals under consideration as the hippopotamus and the crocodile. Then, as additional extrabiblical literature came to light in the middle-to-late nineteenth century (most notably from Mesopotamia), the mythological interpretation was revived and comparative mythology became very popular among biblical scholars.
By the closing of the nineteenth century, some scholars began to see mythology as the solution to the “identification problem” of the creatures described in Job 40-41. That problem was stated by T.K. Cheyne as early as 1887 when he observed that “...neither Behemoth nor Leviathan corresponds strictly to any known animal” (p. 56). In 1892, C.H. Toy argued that behemoth and leviathan were water animals associated with the “primeval seas Apsu and Tiamat as they appeared to be presented in the emerging Babylonian Epic of Creation” (as quoted in Wilson, 1975, 25:2). In his commentary on Job, Tur-Sinai dismissed behemoth altogether, and suggested instead that the passage of Scripture from Job 40:15 through the end of the chapter is concerned with only one powerful figure—the mythological leviathan (1967, p. 558). Marvin Pope probably is the most recent well-known supporter of the mythological view. Using the Ugaritic texts as support for his theory, Pope has proposed that behemoth and leviathan of Job 40-41 are the same mythological creatures found in the ancient Jewish writings of Enoch, IV Ezra, and the Apocalypse of Baruch.
Arguments for the Mythological View
Some scholars believe behemoth and leviathan are mythological monsters due largely to the fact that similar creatures are mentioned in pagan myths. Those holding to this view do admit that the plural form behemot occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament without any hint of mythological implications (cf. Psalms 8:8; 50:10; Joel 1:20; 2:22; Habakkuk 2:17). Generally speaking, for example, in Scripture behemoth often refers to ordinary cattle. But those same scholars quickly point out the instances in which behemoth is used in some of the ancient Jewish writings that echo ancient pagan mythology. By citing extrabiblical texts such as 1 Enoch 60:7-9, 4 Ezra 49-52, and 2 Baruch 29:4, Pope has suggested that behemoth had a prototype in pre-Israelite mythology that was connected in some ancient myth, or played similar roles in different myths (1965, p. 269).
Scholars also allude to the Ugaritic texts where, they point out, the violent goddess ‘Anat boasts of having conquered along with Leviathan a bovine creature called ‘glil’tk that may be rendered “the ferocious bullock of El” (Pope, p. 269). Pope believes that this bullock of El very well may correspond with the behemoth of Job 40. He further suggests that the monstrous bullock of the Ugaritic myths and behemoth both are connected with the Sumero-Akkadian “bull of heaven” that was slain by Gilgamesh and Enkidu (Gilgamesh’s foe-turned-friend) from the Gilgamesh Epic. The “bull of heaven” is said to have brushed Enkidu “with the thick of his tail” (as quoted in Pope, p. 272). Pope likens this description to that of the massive tail of the behemoth in 40:17 where God said that “he moveth his tail like a cedar.”
Perhaps the mythological theory rests mostly on the simple evidence of leviathan’s name and its use elsewhere in biblical and pagan literature. The name “leviathan” (liwyatan) appears six times in the Bible (Job 3:8, 41:1; Psalms 74:14; 104:26; Isaiah 27:1 [twice]; Lipinski, 1995, p. 504). Excluding Job 41, leviathan occurs once in the meaning of a natural sea-monster (Psalm 104:26), and three times in the meaning of a mythological creature (Job 3:8; Isaiah 27:1; Psalm 74:14). In commenting on the name leviathan and its use both within and without Scripture, James Williams stated:The mythological significance of Leviathan is well known. Appearing as the Lothan of seven heads that Baal destroys in the Ugaritic myths, he is likewise the sea-serpent of many heads that Elohim defeated in the beginning (Ps. 74.12-14). One mythical tradition of the eschaton represents a final battle of Yahweh with Leviathan (Isa. 27.1). This Leviathan is doubtless the mythical origin of the dragon of seven heads in Rev. 17. Leviathan, as well as Behemoth, appears with eschatological significance in Enoch 60.7-9, IV Ezra 6.49-52, and Apoc[ryphal] Baruch 24.4 (1992, p. 367). Unlike Williams (who understands these as mythological creatures in some texts but as real animals in Job 40-41), others have proposed that the leviathan in Job 41 might possibly be equated with the “leviathan with seven heads” found within Ugaritic mythology. Mythologizers frequently cite Ugaritic passages as “proof ” that the leviathan in Job 41 is, in fact, a mythological monster. In the following portion of the Ugaritic myth, a discussion is taking place between Baal and Mot (Death), wherein Mot gives Baal the credit for having slain Lotan.When you smote Lotan the fleeting serpent,
Annihilated the tortuous serpent,
The tyrant with seven heads.
(as quoted in Pope, p. 276) In another section of this Canaanite myth, the goddess ‘Anat (Baal’s sister and the most active goddess in Ugaritic mythology) claims to have destroyed the seven-headed dragon along with other assorted monsters.What enemy rises up against Baal,
What adversary against Him who Mounteth the Clouds?
Have I not slain Sea, beloved of El?
Have I not annihilated [the] River, the great god?
Have I not muzzled the Dragon, holding her in a muzzle?
I have slain the Crooked Serpent,
The Foul-fanged with Seven Heads,
I have slain the beloved of earth-deities.
(as quoted in Gray, 1961, p. 129) After quoting various Ugaritic passages like the ones above, those who support the mythological view seek to make a connection with Psalm 74:12-14 and its allusion to the tradition of a leviathan with many heads once smitten by the Almighty long ago. The psalmist wrote:Yet God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth. Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: Thou brakest the heads of the sea-monsters in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces; Thou gavest him to be food to the people inhabiting the wilderness (Psalm 74:12-14, emp. added). Marvin Pope takes the view that the supernatural character of leviathan can be seen quite clearly in this passage, as well as from the myths mentioned above (pp. 276-277). He thus concluded that the leviathan of Job 41 is identical to the one spoken of in the Ugaritic citations.
Mythologizers “see” numerous similarities between the leviathan of Job 41 and the creatures mentioned in pagan myths. Pope has compared God’s rhetorical question of whether Job could put a rope into leviathan’s nose or a hook in his jaw (41:2) to the following mythical passage from the Babylonian Creation Epic: “Ea (father of Marduk) liquidated or neutralized his foes, he laid hold on Mummu (counselor of Apsu), holding him by the nose-rope” (p. 279, emp. added). Then, in commenting on the teeth of leviathan (Job 41:14), Pope compared them to the “formidable dentition of the monsters engendered by Tiamat” (p. 284). And finally, Pope expressed how the beasts’ invincibility is one more reason to view these beings as mythological: “In the Ugaritic myth of the conflict between Baal and Prince Sea, the terrible messengers of the Sea-god intimidate the entire divine assembly, except Baal, by their fiery appearance” (p. 285, emp. added). Supporters of the mythological view make all these comparisons, and many more.
A final reason why many scholars hold to the mythological view is simply because they believe (correctly) that behemoth and leviathan cannot be the hippopotamus and the crocodile. It is obvious that the animals in Job 40-41 are represented as being beyond the power of men to capture. Yet it is known that ancient Egyptians hunted and captured both the crocodile and the hippopotamus (Driver and Gray, 1964, p. 353). Also, if the animals really are the hippopotamus and the crocodile, one wonders why there is a shift from the Palestinian animals of the previous chapters to Egyptian animals in chapters 40-41? Mythologizers suggest that the animals described in Job 40-41 are neither crocodiles, hippopotamuses, nor any other known creature. Thus, they conclude the animals described in these two chapters must be imaginary monsters.
Arguments for the Literal View
What evidence is there to suggest that the behemoth and leviathan of Job 40-41 are, in fact, real, literal, historical creatures? First, of course, it is evident that certain Old Testament passages speak clearly of leviathan and behemoth in various contexts without any hint whatsoever of mythological or symbolic implication. Even though leviathan seemingly refers to a mythological creature in three passages of Scripture (Job 3:8; Psalm 74:14; Isaiah 27:1), there is at least one passage (other than Job 41) that speaks of it as a real animal. In expressing his thoughts that the great sea monsters were created by Yahweh, the Psalmist wrote: “There go the ships; there is leviathan, whom thou hast formed to play therein” (Psalm 104:26). Furthermore, every time behemoth is mentioned outside of Job 40, it refers to real animals (Cansdale, 1996, p. 43). In differentiating between whether the passage is speaking of an imaginary or a literal creature, one must be guided by the thrust of the context, not by what similarities might be found between pagan mythology and the Bible (Smick, 1978, 40:214). In the context of Job 38-41, God is in the midst of asking Job a lengthy series of questions—the entire purpose of which was to show the patriarch that he did not know nearly as much as he thought he did when he charged God foolishly. If the creatures in Job 40-41 were, in fact, mythological, Job then could (and likely would!) have turned to God and asked, “Lord, what’s your point? These creatures are mythological!” God’s argument would have collapsed of its own weight. The context (which also refers to other real animals such as horses, hawks, and ostriches) becomes critical, especially considering the purpose and intent of God’s questions to Job. That the leviathan was referred to in ancient mythological literature is beyond question. But this does not prove that mythological creatures are under consideration in Job 40 and 41.
Second, behemoth is not described as horrifying and predatory, as is the “ferocious bullock of El” in the Ugaritic texts. On the contrary, he is portrayed as a herbivorous animal (40:20) that even allows other animals to graze nearby without harm (20), lies peacefully in the shadow of the rushes of the rivers (21-22), and leisurely laps up its waters (26) [see Gordis, 1978, p. 571]. As John Hartley noted in his excellent commentary on Job:In contrast to mythological thought, Yahweh did not have to defeat Behemoth to gain control over the forces of chaos. Rather Behemoth obeyed him from the first moment of origin.... Unafraid, Yahweh can approach Behemoth with his sword. Such an act symbolizes his complete mastery of this beast (1988, p. 525). Similarly, the leviathan of Job 41 poses no threat to God (contrary to what ancient myths depict), regardless of how unmanageable and terrifying he may appear to puny Job.
Third, neither description is close to being identical with that of such monsters as depicted in any ancient Near Eastern mythology (see Wharton, 1999, p. 175). No mythical creature called behemoth, nor anything like it, is seen in pagan mythology (despite Marvin Pope’s attempt to identify the behemoth with “the ferocious bullock of El”). In fact, one of leviathan’s most impressive characteristics—the ability to breathe fire—is not even mentioned in the Ugaritic texts. It also is interesting to note that in Job 41, God does not mention leviathan having multiple heads, as is stated in the mythopoetic language of Psalm 74:14: “Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces.” Mythology speaks of leviathan as having seven heads, but in the description of Job 41 we read that he has only one head (v. 7), one tongue (v. 1), one nose (v. 2), and one jaw (v. 2). There is absolutely no hint of Job’s leviathan having multiple heads. Surely, if the leviathan of Job 41 were a mythological creature, God would not have excluded such vital characteristics as these.
Fourth, instead of attempting to prove that these are mythological creatures, some mythologizers try to reason in a somewhat reverse fashion. They argue that since these creatures cannot be the hippopotamus and the crocodile, then they must be mythological (Driver and Gray, 1964, p. 351). This kind of logic is faulty, however, as it closes its parameters to another very real possibility—extinct creatures.
Fifth, although the poems in Job 40-41 are longer and are placed into the context of a separate speech, essentially they are the same as the earlier poems which deal with familiar birds and animals that the reader would have been expected to know (Anderson, 1974, p. 289). From the existence of these animals, God obviously intended Job to draw important conclusions regarding the nature of the world and man’s place in it. Robert Gordis commented: “The same consideration supports the idea that Behemoth and Leviathan are also natural creatures, the existence of which heightens the impact of God’s argument” (1978, p. 571). Descriptions of these creatures are critical in regard to the intent of God’s speeches to Job. “They are surely to be taken...as variations on the theme that God is God and Job is not” (Wharton, p. 174). Job is overwhelmed by the “sheer power and terror of these beings, but even more so by the fact that they exist as signs of God’s overarching power” (Wharton, p. 174). In contemplating taking up his case with God, Job has been concerned with being overcome by terror (cf. 9:32-35; 13:20-21). Now Yahweh is showing Job that his apprehensions were not misplaced. If he would have to retreat in terror before a literal animal like leviathan, he certainly was unfit to contend in court with Almighty God!
Sixth, poetic use of hyperbole, including the possible utilization of traits from mythology, is characteristic of poetry in general and of the book of Job in particular (Gordis, 1978, p. 571). Quite fanciful imagery and hyperbole already had been used in earlier poems to describe living animals. We no more are required to believe that behemoth’s bones were made of metal (40:18) than that God has water-bottles in the sky (38:37) or that a horse “swallows the ground” (39:24, RSV). Thus, embellishment is to be found in both of God’s speeches. To conclude that leviathan and behemoth are mythological creatures based upon the use of hyperbole (and possible mythopoetic language) is a very poor methodology of interpretation. As Wayne Jackson commented in regard to the poetry of Job 41:19-21: “It must not be assumed that this language implies a mythological creature. It may simply be poetic hyperbole...” (1983, p. 87). The other possibility, of course, is that there was a real animal at one time that breathed fire. This certainly is not impossible physiologically, as various scientists have pointed out (see, for example: DeYoung, 2000, pp. 117-118; Morris, 1984, p. 359).
Seventh, allowing for the use of highly poetic language at times, the book of Job remains realistic throughout (Anderson, 1974, p. 288). Job was a real person (cf. Ezekiel 14:14,20; James 5:11) who experienced real pain. He challenged a real God that was (and is) alive. Jehovah described real creatures in Job 38 and 39. And so there is no legitimate reason for rejecting behemoth and leviathan as real animals.
Eighth, unlike the mythology in the Babylonian and Ugaritic creation epics (where the writers described alleged cosmic events of the distant past), God was concerned in His discussion with Job with the appearance and habits of these creatures in the present. God “is not interested in imaginary creatures from the dim mythological past—he is concerned with the actual present, with the vast universe as it is governed by its Maker” (Gordis, 1965, p. 119).
Ninth, God’s purpose in glorifying His creation would not be served by describing mythological creatures derived from a polytheistic background. In his commentary on Job, Gordis elaborated on this point:A passing mythological reference, such as we encounter in Isa. and Ps., is conceivable, but not an extended description of primordial beasts the reality of which the exalted monotheism of the author of Job had rejected. The point need not be labored that an uncompromising monotheism is the indispensable religious background for the book of Job and for the discussion of the issue of evil which it raises. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that Job parts company with Sumerian, Akkadian, and Egyptian Wisdom precisely here—the book is not a lament on suffering, nor even a complaint to the gods, but a challenge to the one God, whose hallmark is justice and who is being charged with having violated His own standard (1978, p. 571). Finally, that these creatures are real would seem to be quite conclusive, for Job 40:15 states explicitly that behemoth and Job are equally God’s creatures (Anderson, 1974, pp. 288-289). Speaking to Job, God said, “Behold now, behemoth, which I made as well as thee” (40:15, emp. added).
Scholars who take the mythological approach when interpreting Job 40-41 simply are making comparisons to their liking. They have been so captivated by “apparent” parallels in ancient literature that they have lost sight of the basic exegetical test—the relevance and appropriateness of the interpretation within the context of the book of Job (Gordis, p. 569).
To follow the references and the whole article, go to: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2001/r&r0101a.htm
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/19/2003 8:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Sean,
I take it this invites my response:
quote:
You realize that Scotts views are based – for the most part – on the now disproven Documentary Hypothesis. He would, I suppose, believe that there are two separate authors of Genesis 1 and 2. These are only assumptions on my part, so I am sure I will hear some confirmation of whether I am correct or not on this matter from Scott.
No, my views are not based "for the most part" on the documentary hypothesis. The documentary hypothesis is orthogonal to views on Genesis' historicity - no matter how much one says Genesis has been redacted and edited, one can always claim that the final product is nonetheless inerrant in historic and scientific detail. My view instead is based on literal hermeneutics (historical-grammatical reading of Genesis 1-11), mainstream archaeology (revealing ancient Near Eastern cultures, writings and modes of thought), literary criticism (revealing eg common motifs and elements between Genesis 1-11 and non-Hebrew writings), all of the mainstream physical and biological sciences (revealing a completely different cosmology - spherical earth, etc - and prehistory - billions of years, strong evidence of common descent, etc - than literal hermeneutics extracts from Genesis 1-11) and finally theology (for an understanding of why and how God would have accommodated his revelation to the science and history of the times). This all has very little to do with the documentary hypothesis.
And no, the documentary hypothesis is not "now disproven". Scholars have backed-off from the excesses of the late 19th and early 20th century, when attempts were being made to confidently identify exact authorship for each and every verse and even phrases within verses. But the basic idea of the documentary hypothesis is well-established: that form and source criticism shows it to be very likely indeed that Genesis 1-11 (not to mention other parts of the Pentateuch, but the focus here is on Genesis 1-11) does not have a single author at a single time writing "from out of the blue", but rather numerous authors/editors or groups of authors/editors at different times writing from different sources within the surrounding culture. Since God's inspiration is just as well thought of as influencing these authors/editors, as of influencing a single author, there is nothing necessarily threatening about this.
And finally, yes, I suspect that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 have different origins, as revealed by form and source criticism suggesting different dates, different cultural contexts, different genres, and different concerns. But that is all orthogonal to my view on the historicity of it all, as I've already made clear.
Sean, it seems clear to me by now that you have read and bought the standard inerrantist apologetic hook, line and sinker. It is all one neat big package, that's for sure, involving breathtaking rejection of everything in mainstream science, the mainstream study of ancient history, and Biblical scholarship - ie everything about the scientific and critical methods which lie at the heart of all verifiable human knowledge - except when what they reveal happens to correspond with pre-conceived notions of traditionalism and inerrancy. I wonder why you don't believe in flying saucers, ancient astronauts, ghosts, the Bermuda Triangle, the CIA created AIDS, Israel was behind 9/11, you name it, as well - except that they don't have apparent literal Biblical support, I suppose. After all, it is nothing but the scientific and critical methods that cast doubt on those speculations too.
I don't know where I'm going with this, except to say that with such a huge gap between us, we could discuss for another 20 years and still never get anywhere.
Regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/19/2003 9:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg, I wasn’t dying on a hill about whether or not Moses was the redactor or not of genesis. I was making side talk out of curiosity. You mentioned a past tense addition that Moses probably added into the tablets and writings from the great patriarchs of civilization, I agree. But I also see the present tense as well, and this would go to show some who believe in the evolutionary process of molecule to man (not you) that Adam is a reality, and not myth.
Genesis 2:12 reads: “And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.” This not only shows an understanding of metallurgy and minerals, but the phrase “is good” is telling. The present tense in which this description is written indicates it to be an eye-witness account, and thus most likely a record originally from Adam himself. However, the past tense in Genesis 2:10 “went” may suggest that at the time when Adam actually wrote it, the Garden of Eden was no longer there.
Just some food for thought.
By-the-by, the photo’s I showed are many archaeological proofs that either man is billions of years old and lived with dinosaurs – even before them, or that, man and dinosaurs were both caught in a large flood. Remember, millions and billions of dead things are buried in sedimentary rock laid down by waters. This sedimentary rock comprises about 75% of the land masses in the world, and with the recent laboratory and deep sea drilling, slow processes have bee shown to not account for the layering effects we find. Catastrophic events in nature have been clearly shown to do this type of layering effects, like Mount St. Helens.
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne
Edited by - SeanG on 03/19/2003 2:42:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/19/2003 10:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott, I am responding to Genesis 1 and 2 in another forum...
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/19/2003 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | This site never ceases to amaze me, believing in Biblical inerrancy has now been compared to believing in little green men, anti-Semitism, and hate filled biological warfare. “Un-believable”, as Larry Elder would say.
However, sightings of unidentified types has been throughout history. From Columbus just hours before he found the Americas, to Alexander the Great (it buzzed his troops for a while, some ran, others stood their ground prepared to fight), to 50 government officials, one being Jimmy Carter. This being said, I do not believe that they are little green men, but have a more spiritual explanation. You see Scott, I believe that there are angelic beings and a spiritual realm. The Bible clearly teaches this, and at times in Biblical history this spiritual realm has contacted our realm.
I believe these sightings – when not fabricated or military sightings – fall into the occultic realm. Some resources you may wish to get in order to expand upon your knowledge of the other side of this interesting debate.
Two videos I recommend are:
Who Goes There? An Investigation Into the Practice of Channeling This video discusses the reality of demonic spirits… you know, the spirit beings that God – Jesus Christ – spoke of.
UFO’s: Are They Space Travelers or Demonic Travelers This is a well produced video that goes through a history of sightings. Much of the footage is your typical hubcaps being thrown in the air, but there is some amazing footage… including the shot fired at the unidentified object in space that instantly moved away from the shot.
Some good books:
Alien Encounters: The Secret Behind the UFO Phenomenon by Chuck Missler and Mark Eastman
Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at UFO’s and Extraterrestrials by Hugh Ross, Kenneth Samples, and Mark Clark
Alien Obsession: What Lies Behind Abductions, Sightings, and the Attraction to the Paranormal by Ron Rhodes
UFO cults and the New Millennium
UFO’s in the New Age: Extraterrestrial Messages & the Truth of Scripture by William M. Alnor
Encounters With UFO’s by John Weldon and Zola Levitt
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne
Edited by - SeanG on 03/19/2003 3:48:54 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 48 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:11 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|