Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [creat] Re: [create] GOD

Expand Messages
  • Dave Oldridge
    ... No, what I m seeing is that the majority of creationist apologists envy the prestige of scientific authority and desire that level of prestige to be
    Message 1 of 148 , Mar 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      On 29 Feb 2008 at 20:58, John Tillman wrote:

      >
      > --- Dave Oldridge <doldridg@...> wrote:
      >
      > > On 28 Feb 2008 at 11:55, John Tillman wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > > > --- gabor horvath <gabor.horvath@...>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > Bruce(partial)
      > > > > And yet, everyone began attacking... after
      > > agreeing
      > > > > to be
      > > > > civilized. Interesting.
      > > > > However, looking at a sphere from any point
      > > does
      > > > > present a
      > > > > circle. These are all empirically derived
      > > > > observations.
      > > > > Gabor's is a reasonably logical conclusion.
      > > > >
      > > > > Dave O:Actually, it is not. He is presumptively
      > > > > re-interpreting the
      > > > > scripture's original intended meaning to fit his
      > > own
      > > > > cultural
      > > > > knowledge base--all in order to sustain the
      > > clearly
      > > > > FALSE claim
      > > > > that scripture is LITERALLY inerrant.
      > > > >
      > > > > Gabor:
      > > > > Where did I state that the Scripure is
      > > "literally"
      > > > > inerrant
      > > > > Dave? Even Christ says something very intriguing
      > > > > about that.
      > > > > He said "in them YE THINK ye have eternal life"
      > > > > (emphasys mine)
      > > > >
      > > > > John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them
      > > ye
      > > > > think ye have eternal life: and they are they
      > > which
      > > > > testify of me.
      > > > >
      > > > > Dave O:
      > > > > My Hebrew teacher (who
      > > > > speaks bith Hebrew and Aramaic fluently) agrees
      > > with
      > > > > John. And
      > > > > so do I, for what it's worth. Isaiah was written
      > > in
      > > > > a Babylonian
      > > > > cultural milieu and the passage under discussion
      > > > > VERY CLEARLY
      > > > > reflects the cosmology that was "common
      > > knowledge"
      > > > > in that
      > > > > society. Later-written parts of the Bible do
      > > display
      > > > > some
      > > > > awareness of Alexandrian cosmology, which
      > > declared,
      > > > > on the basis
      > > > > of experimental evidence that the earth was a
      > > > > sphere. But there
      > > > > are no passages of the Torah that can be
      > > interpreted
      > > > > to, by any
      > > > > stretch, refer to that later cosmology.
      > > >
      > > > Dave, I'd like to see passages in the OT,
      > > Apocrypha
      > > > &/or NT which show some awareness of a spherical
      > > > earth. I may well have missed something, but it
      > > > appears to me that the NT is every bit as flat
      > > earth a
      > > > set of documents as the OT, a position maintained
      > > by
      > > > Early Church Fathers. Augustine did have to
      > > grapple
      > > > with the problem, however.
      > >
      > > Arguably, Job 26:7 displays some familiarity with
      > > the ideas. Of
      > > course, as part of a morality play depicting a very
      > > ancient
      > > character, it's a classic anachronism, but the
      > > story, as we have
      > > it was written in a style popular in Alexandria at a
      > > time when
      > > many Jews lived there and 100 years after
      > > Eratosthenes.
      >
      > You could be right in that the translators of the LXX
      > chose to render "Zaphon" as "north" rather than as
      > "Zaphon", the northern mountain home of Ba'al Zaphon
      > opposed to Zion, the seat of Yahweh, which I think is
      > the meaning of that passage in Job. Same with
      > "nothing" as opposed to alternative translations of
      > the passage.
      >
      > But the original ancient Hebrew in my opinion betrays
      > no hint of the earth going around the sun or even of a
      > spherical earth, whatever the Alexandrian Jewish
      > translation into Greek might suggest of the thought of
      > that community.
      >
      > Good point, anyway, provoking thought.
      > >
      > > > It is perhaps surprising that hundreds of years
      > > after
      > > > Pythagoras (born ~570 BC) first suggested the
      > > > sphericity of the earth, NT Greek authors seem (to
      > > me)
      > > > completely oblivious to the theory, well supported
      > > > observationally long before their time. Plato &
      > > > Aristotle knew the earth to be a sphere, for
      > > instance.
      > >
      > > I suspect it was just no big deal. There weren't a
      > > lot of flat
      > > earthers among the Greco-Roman intelligentsia and I
      > > doubt the
      > > Jewish scholars of Alexandria were ignorant of it.
      > >
      > > > > Gabor:
      > > > > Does a sphere look like a circle looking at it
      > > from
      > > > > all angles Dave?
      > > > > Yes it does. That is how God sits on the
      > > "circle""
      > > > > of the earth. Case
      > > > > closed, or you assume that the Creator of
      > > heavens
      > > > > does not know what shape the earth is. Sounds
      > > like
      > > > > an evolutionist's opinion.
      > > > >
      > > > > Dave O:
      > > > > By the time of Christ, though, the earth's
      > > > > sphericity was common
      > > > > knowledge among Greco-Roman intellectuals of the
      > > > > period. The
      > > > > complex, yet astonishingly accurate model of
      > > > > Claudius Ptolemy was
      > > > > still in use by Galileo's adversaries and the
      > > main
      > > > > SCIENTIFIC
      > > > > objection to Copernicus' model was that
      > > Ptolemy's
      > > > > was more
      > > > > accurate.
      > > > >
      > > > > Gabor:
      > > > > Dave , again, do you think/believe that Christ
      > > did
      > > > > not KNOW
      > > > > what shape of the earth was as a geomtrical
      > > body?
      > > > > Yes or no please.
      > > > > Thanks and greetings.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > What Jesus may have known isn't really at issue,
      > > is
      > > > it? The fact is that there is nothing in any
      > > sayings
      > > > attributed to Him in the NT that would lead one to
      > > > think that the earth is a sphere. What He may or
      > > may
      > > > not have known about this planet's shape doesn't
      > > > affect His valid moral & spiritual teaching, does
      > > it?
      > >
      > > Creationists are generally obsessed with their
      > > science-envy to
      > > the exclusion of all else.
      > >
      > Science envy being like penis envy? How about truth
      > envy? Or reality envy?

      No, what I'm seeing is that the majority of creationist
      apologists envy the prestige of scientific authority and desire
      that level of prestige to be attached to their own claims,
      whether scientifically-testable or not. This SIN of envy is the
      proximate cause of the additional sin of false witness which they
      fall into when they claim that their non-science is actually
      science. The blasphemy is largely accidental until it is bluntly
      pointed out to them, in which case a disttressingly large number
      of them persist consciously in that, too.



      --

      Dave Oldridge
      ICQ 1800667
      VA7CZ
    • John Tillman
      ... IMO, it s not the least bit logical to maintain that the Bible is literally true, then to try to read sphere into sitting on the circle, circuit or
      Message 148 of 148 , Mar 4, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- njcubewnie <njcubewnie@...> wrote:

        > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge
        > <doldridg@...>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > On 27 Feb 2008 at 15:06, njcubewnie wrote:
        > >
        > > > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Crum"
        > <carumba17@>
        > > > wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Gabor in an earlier post said that he would
        > love to
        > > > > discuss scientific issues, as long as the
        > discussion
        > > > > was polite. John Tillman very politely asked
        > Gabor
        > > > > some questions. Just as I predicted, Gabor
        > has ignored
        > > > > those questions.
        > > > >
        > > > > Because they were specific, the questions did
        > not lend
        > > > > themselves to simple statements of opinion.
        > > > >
        > > > > Since opinions are the only things that Gabor
        > can express
        > > > > (no facts or logical arguments allowed) it was
        > a
        > > > > certainty that he would not answer those
        > questions.
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > > And yet, everyone began attacking... after
        > agreeing to be
        > > > civilized.
        > > > Interesting.
        > > >
        > > > However, looking at a sphere from any point does
        > present a
        > > > circle.
        > > > The moon does not look like an upturned bowl
        > from where I see
        > > > it, not
        > > > even through my telescope. Height perspective
        > from above
        > > > presents a
        > > > problem even with depth perception. In an
        > airplane only 5 miles
        > > > above
        > > > the earth, one cannot tell how high a mountain
        > is. Forget being
        > > > tens
        > > > of thousands of miles above. Standing on the
        > Sears tower, one
        > > > cannot
        > > > tell how tall the other buildings really are.
        > They seem
        > > > relatively
        > > > short. From the ground, however, they are huge.
        > > >
        > > > These are all empirically derived observations.
        > > >
        > > > Gabor's is a reasonably logical conclusion.
        > >
        > > Actually, it is not. He is presumptively
        > re-interpreting the
        > > scripture's original intended meaning to fit his
        > own cultural
        > > knowledge base--all in order to sustain the
        > clearly FALSE claim
        > > that scripture is LITERALLY inerrant. My Hebrew
        > teacher (who
        > > speaks bith Hebrew and Aramaic fluently) agrees
        > with John. And
        > > so do I, for what it's worth. Isaiah was written
        > in a Babylonian
        > > cultural milieu and the passage under discussion
        > VERY CLEARLY
        > > reflects the cosmology that was "common knowledge"
        > in that
        > > society. Later-written parts of the Bible do
        > display some
        > > awareness of Alexandrian cosmology, which
        > declared, on the basis
        > > of experimental evidence that the earth was a
        > sphere. But there
        > > are no passages of the Torah that can be
        > interpreted to, by any
        > > stretch, refer to that later cosmology.
        > >
        > > By the time of Christ, though, the earth's
        > sphericity was common
        > > knowledge among Greco-Roman intellectuals of the
        > period. The
        > > complex, yet astonishingly accurate model of
        > Claudius Ptolemy was
        > > still in use by Galileo's adversaries and the main
        > SCIENTIFIC
        > > objection to Copernicus' model was that Ptolemy's
        > was more
        > > accurate.
        > >
        >
        > This is fascinating that no matter how logical a
        > conclusion it is,
        > regardless of how erroneous the application is, the
        > opposers insist
        > that it is not a logical conclusion.
        >
        > I did not say his applicaiton was incorrect. That is
        > not the point,
        > nor do I care. However the conclusion from his point
        > of view is a
        > logical one, and the basis, namely the appearance of
        > a sphere from
        > every angle, quite correct.
        >
        > Applying a modern twist on ancient sceintific
        > writings is erroneous.
        > They did not see the universe the way we now know it
        > to be, so they
        > wrote it accordingly. On this we can all agree. Or
        > should all agree.
        > Gabor's and other crationist's points of view is
        > that God knew what
        > the universe was like, and used language that while
        > being understood
        > one way to the ancients, would be understood by
        > moderns with true
        > knowledge as well. This is what their thinking is.
        > This is why I do
        > not agree that they purposely lie, but that they are
        > delusioned into
        > believing that there is a God and that he caused the
        > ancients to
        > write in riddles and metaphor, and that the science
        > references are
        > accurate.
        >
        > This is why they insist on what they believe. This
        > is why they make
        > up all sorts of ideas to defend what the believe.
        > They beleive God
        > can do *anything*, including poof everything into
        > existence the way
        > we see it today. This is not lying, but delusion. We
        > need to feel
        > sorry for these people, because they are not as much
        > in touch with
        > reality as they should be. It is a good thing I
        > guess that only death
        > will reveal the truth, because then it would not
        > matter. There will
        > be no pain in the realization of the facts, as it
        > was for those of us
        > who realized it early on.
        >
        > Your own Jesus came to *heal* the sick, not condemn
        > them.
        >
        > I see that my mistake is assuming that when one says
        > they desire to
        > have an intellgient discussion without being harsh,
        > it applies to
        > everyone.
        >
        > I admit I do not know all of the history among all
        > of you on this
        > board, but I can see now that there is hostility no
        > matter how one
        > tries to cover up their emotions with knowledge.
        >
        > Interesting.
        >
        > Bruce
        >
        IMO, it's not the least bit logical to maintain that
        the Bible is literally true, then to try to read
        "sphere" into sitting on the "circle, circuit or
        compass" of the earth, which literally means that God
        is seated at the edge of the flat earth, where it
        meets the horizon, ie where the solid dome comes down
        to the encircling salt water surrounding dry land,
        looking down at us as if we were grasshoppers.
        Geometric projection doesn't enter into it.

        People look to the biblical God as do insects to a
        person seated with his or her eyes three feet off the
        ground.

        It's a lot easier to read evolution into the Bible
        than it is spherical planets orbiting the sun at the
        center of the solar system. It's totally illogical to
        see "foundations" of the earth in one verse, then in
        the next verse to imagine evidence for modern
        cosmology in this ancient passage.

        Gabor's inference, even from his delusional view of
        the Bible, is inconsistent, illogical & a result of
        his having been lied to & being unwilling to think for
        himself.



        >



        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        Be a better friend, newshound, and
        know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.