Creation

[Guest shiloh357]

40 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

 

True, but many books are set in places that correspond to real places. That does not entail, logically, that any story depicted in them are true because of this fact only. That would be a little too easy, don’you think so?

 siegi

 

But I am not only talking about places, but historical events that took place that can be corroborated by contemporary accounts from that time period.   That's not the same as a fictional  book that takes place at Fort Sumter during the US Civil War.   

The Bible speaks of people and places and events that are not well known to the average person, but can be verified by other people living at the same time who were also participants or witnesses of those events.   That takes it out of the realm of historical fiction.

[Guest shiloh357]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Here is a screenshot from http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/3117.html that shows an entry from Strong's concordance for "yom":

Clearly, the word is more flexible than you have claimed.

Wrong.   It doesn't  mean all of those things in Genesis 1.   You can't simply pick any of those and plug them into Genesis 1.   In Genesis yom is only used to refer to literal days and it has sufficient modifiers to support that.   

If God wanted to communicate that the "days" of creation  were long, indefinite periods of time, he would have used "Olam" as that is what communicates the idea that  you are trying to assign to yom.   That screenshot only gives all of the possible meanings, but  that doesn't really help you.  I have already acknowledged it is used to refer to longer time periods, but that is when a 24 hour day was not in view.  

Quote

 

Next, let's look at your objections to evolution as something "God would never use"

What you have characterized is an atheistic viewpoint of evolution.

 

Evolution is not anything except atheistic.   

Quote

If God actually did use it, then this entire block is meaningless. God cannot use a God-less process, it is a complete logical contradiction.

But God didn't use it and the wording of Genesis precludes Evolution from being used.    Evolution is a godless process because the theory is wholly naturalistic, impersonal, and unguided.  

Quote

What you should attempt to consider is what would evolution look like IF God really did use it. Otherwise, you are only addressing a strawman.

No, I am not addressing a strawman.  And that suggestion is a non-starter because Evolution flies in the face of the redemptive nature of God, His holiness and his love.  

[masonlandry]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Here is a screenshot from http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/3117.html that shows an entry from Strong's concordance for "yom":

Clearly, the word is more flexible than you have claimed.

Next, let's look at your objections to evolution as something "God would never use"

What you have characterized is an atheistic viewpoint of evolution. If God actually did use it, then this entire block is meaningless. God cannot use a God-less process, it is a complete logical contradiction. What you should attempt to consider is what would evolution look like IF God really did use it. Otherwise, you are only addressing a strawman.

Just want to add, this isn't even an atheist can point of evolution. It's a strawman of that too. Nothing about evolution necessitates that morals can't exist just because humans evolved from other primates. It also displays a lack of understanding of what fitness means in the context of evolution. Fitness means "fitted to the environment" and the environment includes everyone else who lives in the environment. Actions viewed as immoral make one evolutionary unfit because it makes you unlikely to be cooperated with, unlikely to get a mat to reproduce with, and unlikely to be allowed to live within society at all depending on how badly you behave. Humans are part of nature, and therefore a huge part of natural selection, even moreso because we can consciously decide what to select for. 

[masonlandry]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

But I am not only talking about places, but historical events that took place that can be corroborated by contemporary accounts from that time period.   That's not the same as a fictional  book that takes place at Fort Sumter during the US Civil War.   

The Bible speaks of people and places and events that are not well known to the average person, but can be verified by other people living at the same time who were also participants or witnesses of those events.   That takes it out of the realm of historical fiction.

What about the cases where it is actually discredited, like the story of Moses freeing slaves from Egypt and leading them through the wilderness. Jewish archaeologists have scoured the land for evidence that this happened, in the hopes of providing proof that the account is hirlstorically accurate, but instead found so much evidence to the contrary that they concluded that they can say they are sure beyond reasonable doubt that the Hebrews were never enslaved by the Egyptians. 

[masonlandry]

8 minutes ago, Cobalt1959 said:

I see you are simply here in an effort to tear down people's faith.  Good luck with that.  You may not be an atheist, but so far, you are using the standard atheist talking points, and these have all been debunked many times.

Without a Supreme Creator, there is no basis for moral values at all, beyond a person concept of morals and values, which would be different for everyone.  In a structured and ordered society, basing morality on what each person themselves thought was either acceptable or wrong would not work, for obvious reasons.  In your "fitness" system, who dictates what the rules are?  And what are they based on?

I'm here to talk about what's being talked about. I don't care if people believe or not. But if someone brings up an argument I think is wrong, I don't see any reason why I shouldnt say so, especially in a forum dedicated to science and religion. 

Morals, from an evolutionary perspective, evolved over millions of years just like everything else. There are ways to behave that are conducive to a social species, and ways that are not. And lots of areas in between. There are things you can do that are better for yourself, for your family, your community, and onward, and we see these things as moral. The better they are for everyone over time, the more moral. And the reverse, if something is bad for society, we consider it immoral, the more impact it has on the more people, the worse we consider it. No single person. Dictates what the "right" rules are. What a particular community sees as moral depends on how people demand other members of the community action, or else they don't get to be a part of it or they won't pass on the genes that predicate them to behave that way. This is the case whether the community is local, national, global, etc. The bigger the community, the fewer things we'll have in common. The closer and smaller the community, the more things they will have in common. That's why you see some basic moral understanding that pretty much everyone is clear on across time and across cultures, and so many variences in morals and ethics across the same. 

[masonlandry]

1 minute ago, Yowm said:

Sooo, where did these 'Jewish' archaeologists say their forefathers came from?

Those living closer to the events say they did. Would you take the word of someone living 3000 years after the event over those living near the event?

Ge 13:1; Ge 43:2; Ge 45:25; Ge 47:30; Ex 3:10-12; Ex 12:39; Ex 13:8-9,16; Ex 14:11; Ex 17:3; Ex 18:1; Nu 11:20; Nu 20:5,16; Nu 21:5; Nu 22:11; Nu 23:22; Nu 24:8; Nu 32:11; De 4:20,37,45-46; De 6:21; De 9:12,26; De 16:1,6; De 23:4; De 24:9; De 25:17; De 26:8; Jos 2:10; Jos 5:4-6; Jos 24:6,32; Jg 2:1; Jg 11:13; 1Sa 8:8; 1Sa 10:18; 1Sa 12:8; 1Sa 15:6; 2Sa 7:6; 1Ki 8:16,51,53; 1Ki 10:28-29; 2Ki 21:15; 1Ch 17:21; 2Ch 1:16-17; 2Ch 5:10; 2Ch 9:28; 2Ch 10:2; 2Ch 12:3; Ne 9:18; Ps 68:31; Ps 80:8; Ps 114:1; Isa 19:23; Jer 26:23; Jer 37:5; Ho 11:1,11; Ho 12:13; Hag 2:5; Mt 2:15; Heb 3:16

The way I understand it, if the forefathers of the Hebrews believed the story of Moses to be true, they would go on telling t and eventually writing it down for generations, whether it started as a story they knew was legend or whether it actually happened, so it being repeated long enough for people to eventually believe it doesn't tell me much about what actually happened. I certainly believe the evidence is clear that Jews, for a very long time, have told the story of the Exodus. That doesn't tell me whether it actually happened, so for that I have to rely on external evidence. Jewish people would have been Jewish people whether they were enslaved mlby Egyptians or not, so it's not like "their people" would somehow dissipate if they didn't think the Exodus happened. 

[Scott Free]

36 minutes ago, masonlandry said:

Hebrews were never enslaved by the Egyptians

The Egyptian scribe and priest Manetho, wrote that after their expulsion, the "Hyksos" wandered in the desert before establishing Jerusalem. Manetho’s work was based on good native sources, both oral and written. According to the scribe Manetho, the founder of monotheism was Osarisph, who later adopted name Moses, and led his followers out of Egypt in Akhenaten's reign. Egyptian scribes of Ahmose I and Thutmoses III wrote boastfully of campaigns in the Levant, resulting in captured prisoners being enslaved in Egypt. 

The absence of evidence of a sojourn in the wilderness proves nothing. A Semitic group in flight wouldn't have left direct evidence: They would not have built cities, built monuments or done anything but leave footprints in the desert sand.

[masonlandry]

1 minute ago, Yowm said:

And they all die and then what? Meaninglessness in your universe.

Yeah, they all die. What difference does that make? Does something have to last forever to matter to you? I've never felt that way. I'll gladly eat ice cream even though I know it will be finished pretty quickly. Doesn't mean I thought it was pointless to eat it. My life may be meaningless to the universe as a whole, but it sure matters a lot to me now. 

[masonlandry]

1 minute ago, Scott Free said:

The Egyptian scribe and priest Manetho, wrote that after their expulsion, the "Hyksos" wandered in the desert before establishing Jerusalem. Manetho’s work was based on good native sources, both oral and written. According to the scribe Manetho, the founder of monotheism was Osarisph, who later adopted name Moses, and led his followers out of Egypt in Akhenaten's reign. Egyptian scribes of Ahmose I and Thutmoses III wrote boastfully of campaigns in the Levant, resulting in captured prisoners being enslaved in Egypt. 

The absence of evidence of a sojourn in the wilderness proves nothing. A Semitic group in flight wouldn't have left direct evidence: They would not have built cities, built monuments or done anything but leave footprints in the desert sand.

I've never heard that evidence before. If that's legit I think that's exactly the kind of evidence I'd be looking for. Do you have any sources I can look at? 

[Scott Free]

4 minutes ago, masonlandry said:

I've never heard that evidence before. If that's legit I think that's exactly the kind of evidence I'd be looking for. Do you have any sources I can look at?

Sure, here are some links offering professional archaeological data. 

Were Hebrews Ever Slaves in Ancient Egypt? Yes

Were Jews Ever Really Slaves in Egypt, or Is Passover a Myth?