The Order of Creation

[katiesevenfour]

Would anyone be able to shed light on why there are two differing orders of creation within the bible? To my mind it's because it was changed by men over the years and they didn't edit very well and remove their contradictions once the new material had been written. I'm sure there are other views than mine. The orders are as below. In the second account, women are made from a man, not equal to men as in the first account. I would guess because this is a reflection of the times it was written in when men were seeking to dominate women and make them second class citizens, an achievement that still exists to this day in many countries around the world. Not an achievement of God who considers all beings equal regardless of gender, colour, race, religion or sexuality in my humble opinion. It's humans who have a problem with the boiling pot of diversity alive on our planet today, not God.

The Differing Orders of Creation:

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

[TheJackelantern]

The thing is though....what you call "historical fact" is not exactly indisputable necessarily.

this is your default answer for anything you have no real argument against. To say it's not indisputable just because you can say that it's not for the sake of faith ec.. This is a common deflect and avoidance tactic you have been using throughout this entire debate.

This is most certainly a valid argument, and as a literalist believer, even if the second part of this were true, I'd agree that it's purpose was nonetheless to be what they considered truth, and not necessarily a known/agreed-upon-deception/falsehood being pushed on, the plethora of writings by contemporary commentators seems to give indication to this. I personally don't believe the evidence bears that it was a willfully deceptive attempt.

And yet you post source material that is from places like answersingenesis.com to which is nothing but deceptive preying on peoples ignorance, or people whom have no education what-so-ever on the subjects discussed. Hence, most of it is all pseudoscience, mine quoted out of context and restructured to conform to a religious ideology, all non-peer reviewed, opinionated, run on the basis "well that's disputable cause I can", and clearly chalk full of nonsense like the grand canyon forming in 5 days, or light speed has no speed ect.. It's where intentional ignorance is divine inspiration of faith to which is thus worshiped and propagated to impressionable minds.... All of which follows the concept of those whom are reality deniers. Such as Hallow Earthers, Flat Earthers, Scientologists, Creationists, Anti-climate changers ect. All of which hold a common belief that modern science is a massive conspiracy, and that everyone that doesn't agree is in on it! These are cults of intentional ignorance (though not generalizing to all theists).. And it goes something like this for fundamental Christianity:

[youtube][/youtube]

I certainly believe that there's a possibility that some of the exacts might have been lost or distorted, but the idea itself was considered to be what they thought was the general ballpark.

Now you are contradicting yourself.. Now it's not literal and just in the general ballpark? .. Heck, we can't even get you to stand within the literal definitions of the words and their context as written, or as within the structure of their sentences without you self-inventing your own interpretation of them.. Like your constant pointing to answersingenesis.com while ignoring that Genesis doesn't actually discuss any such topics... It's even worse when you use dogma as 90 percent of your argument against things like science ect.. And it's because you have to, otherwise you know have nothing to work with.

Just for the record, I think people often think the "bronze age goat herders" as they are commonly called knew a lot more and had a greater respect for historicity than people give them credit for, I don't really see what the modern world has to offer that makes the current generation so much more capable (or honest) about. If anything, I take modern history and "science" with much more salt.

Firstly, most of them were illiterate.. And they didn't live in the modern digital age where you have notepad at your finger tips. And Historicity is a rather large fallacy giving the fact that even in Modern society such as ours can't really produce a true account of anything giving that all accounts are unlikely to be accounted for. Especially in information warfare to where people have agendas to lie.. Kinda like Creationists waging information warfare on science with pseudoscience while knowing their audience, and often themselves largely know next to nothing about the subjects. And of course you take modern science with more salt, it defy every aspect of your religious beliefs. So it becomes Satan, evil, demonic, and a conspiracy.. It's out to get you! Yeah, the level of honesty you use here is terrible, and really tells me that you really aren't a literalist when it come to "Thou shall not lie".

We don't know this for a guaranteed fact, as I've shown, Finkelstein's word is far from authority as matter of fact. It is a common error (that I find to be a little commonly believed by Atheists) to blindly assume that Finkelstein and Armstrong and such's word is true, when there is in fact MUCH dissent against them, and hardly just from the Theist camps, so before you say what we do and don't know, it's important to look at the dissent on the issue.

Try actually supporting your arguments with real facts ect.. This is getting pathetic :/

I highly disagree, I think people give "modern knowledge" far too much credit and their wishful thinking is often backed by a glaring bias to simply bonk heads against Theists, as those who think "modern knowledge" somehow trumps the Biblical description are willing to put blind faith in that which isn't exactly provable either, or rests upon shaky data, or hidden data for that matter of which the raw results are not publicly available.

Yes, more conspiracy theory nonsense. Kinda like creationists using climate change as a means to attack science the the secular system.. Any means to get a religious theocracy installed. So everything against your religion is thus bias, evil, satanic ect. Including reality itself since you can't seem to face that either in any sort of rational manner. And yes, modern knowledge trumps biblical description simply because biblical description is like reading a dick and jane children's book to which lacks any real description. And you clearly prove this point repeatedly..

or rests upon shaky data, or hidden data for that matter of which the raw results are not publicly available.

More science is a conspiracy theory from a position of ignorance. Kind of like your statement of climategate whilst doing nothing on your part to do any real fact checking.. Intellectual laziness? And of course any data to you will be considered "shaky" as long as it doesn't adhere to your religious beliefs. .. And for results and data not being publically available? You're kidding me right? Let's take climate data, source code, and model information for example:


Note: I didn't put the links in because it would take forever to format it.. So I used a link copy plugin to abstract all the links.. You will find all the data and links at the bottom of this page:

http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/

CCSM3.0 Model Documentation, tutorials, FAQs
CCSM3.0 Model Source Code, patches, bug reports
CCSM3.0 Model Input Data
CCSM3.0 Model Output Data
Links to information about uncoupled CAM and CLM


Model Documentation
Running The Complete Coupled System

CCSM3.0 User's Guide [html] [pdf]
Frequently Asked Questions about CCSM3.0
Slide presentation from the July 2004 CCSM3.0 Scripts Tutorial (700K pdf).
An Introduction to Load Balancing CCSM3 Components presented at the June 2005 CCSM workshop [pdf]
Online Bulletin Board for CCSM bug reports & questions

Atmosphere Models

Community Atmosphere Model (cam3)
Climatological Data Model (datm6)
Observational Data Model (latm6)

Ice Models

Community Sea Ice Model (csim5)
Climatological Data Model (dice6)

Land Models

Community Land Model (clm3)
Climatological Data Model (dlnd6)

Ocean Models

CCSM POP (pop)
Climatological Data Model (docn6)

Coupler

The Coupler (cpl6)

And Model Source Code:

CCSM3.0 source code (23 June 2004) -- This is the original 3.0 software release.
This source code is disseminated via the Earth System Grid (ESG). A short registration is required.
All CCSM3 source code is subject to the following Copyright Notice and Disclaimer.
The code is a 7.2MB gzip'd tar file. Once un-zip'd and un-tar'd, the source code is about 34MB.
To unzip, "gunzip ccsm3_0.tar.gz". To untar, "tar -xvf ccsm3_0.tar".
CCSM3.0.1 beta14 source code (22 March 2006) -- This is an incremental upgrade to the original release.
What is ccsm3.0.1 beta14?
This source code is disseminated via the Earth System Grid (ESG). A short registration is required.
All CCSM3 source code is subject to the following Copyright Notice and Disclaimer.
The code is a 7.5MB gzip'd tar file. Once un-zip'd and un-tar'd, the source code is about 30MB.
To unzip, "gunzip ccsm3_0_1_beta14.tar.gz". To untar, "tar -xvf ccsm3_0_1_beta14.tar".
Reporting a Problem
If you have any problems, additional questions, bug reports, or any other feedback, please use the CCSM Help Bulletin Board .
CCSM3.0 Mailing List
To subscribe to the ccsm-users mailing list follow the link, or email your request to ccsm @ ucar.edu. This is a low-volume mailing list that allows the community to stay up to date with new releases, important bugs, and development procedures.


Model Input Data

The input data needed to run the model is disseminated via the Earth System Grid (ESG).

The data necessary to run these all-active configurations is currently available:

non-IPCC constant 1990 control runs
non-IPCC increasing CO2 scenarios
IPCC constant 1870 control runs

Additional input data is necessary for the following IPCC scenarios (registration with ESG is required):

IPCC constant 2000 control runs
IPCC 20th-century scenarios
IPCC future scenarios

Oh but it gets better:

Climate data (raw)
Climate data (processed)
Paleo-data
Auxiliary data
Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
Large-scale model (GCM) output
Model codes (GCMs)
Model codes (other)
Data Visualisation and Analysis

Master Repositories of climate and other Earth Science data

Climate data (raw)

GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 and v.2)
World Monthly Surface Station Climatology UCAR
Antarctic weather stations
European weather stations (ECA)
Italian Meterological Society IMS
Satellite feeds (AMSU, SORCE (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train, Ocean Color)
Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab)
World Glacier Monitoring Service
Argo float data
International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) (Oceanic in situ observations)
AERONET Aerosol information
Arctic data from the Cooperative Arctic Data and Information Service (CADIS)

Climate data (processed)

Surface temperature anomalies (GISTEMP (see also Clear Climate Code), HadCRU (alternate site), NOAA NCDC, JMA, Berkeley Earth)
Satellite temperatures (MSU) (UAH, RSS, Zou et al)
Sea surface temperatures (Reynolds et al, OI)
Stratospheric temperature
Sea ice (Cryosphere Today, NSIDC, JAXA, Bremen, Arctic-Roos, DMI)
Radiosondes (RAOBCORE, HadAT, U. Wyoming, RATPAC, IUK, Sterin (CDIAC), Angell (CDIAC) )
Cloud and radiation products (ISCCP, CERES-ERBE)
Sea level (U. Colorado, NOAA)
Aerosols (AEROCOM, GACP)
Greenhouse Gases (AGGI at NOAA, CO2 Mauna Loa, World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases, AIRS CO2 data (2003+))
AHVRR data as used in Steig et al (2009)
Snow Cover (Rutgers)
GLIMS glacier database
Ocean Heat Content (NODC)
Ocean CO2 (CDIAC)
GCOS Essential Climate Variables Index
NOAA Climate Indicators State of the Climate 2009

Paleo-data

NOAA Paleoclimate
Pangaea
GRIP/NGRIP Ice cores (Denmark)
GISP2 (note that the age model has been updated)
National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC)

Insolation (i.e. Milankovitch cycles): Lasker (2004), Berger and Loutre (1991), Huybers (2006)

Auxiliary data

Solar System Calculations (JPL Horizons)

Paleo Reconstructions (including code)

Reconstructions index and data (NOAA)
Mann et al (2008) (also here, Mann et al (2009))
Kaufmann et al (2009)
Wahl and Ammann (2006)
Mann et al (1998/1999)

Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output

These are weather models which have the real world observations assimilated into the solution to provide a ‘best guess’ of the evolution of weather over time (although pre-satellite era estimates (before 1979) are less accurate).

ERA40 (1957-2001, from ECMWF)
ERA-Interim (1989 – present, ECMWF’s latest project)
NCEP (1948-present, NOAA), NCEP-2
MERRA NASA GSFC
JRA-25 (1979-2004, Japanese Met. Agency)
North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR)
20th Century Reanalysis (1871-2008)

Large-scale model (GCM) output

These is output from the large scale global models used to assess climate change in the past, and make projections for the future. Some of this output is also available via the Data Visualisation tools linked below.

CMIP3 output (~20 models, as used by IPCC AR4) at PCMDI
GISS ModelE output (includes AR4 output as well as more specific experiments)
GFDL Model output

Model codes (GCMs)

Downloadable codes for some of the GCMs.

GISS ModelE (AR4 version, current snapshot)
NCAR CCSM(Version 3.0, CCM3 (older vintage))
EdGCM Windows based version of an older GISS model.
Uni. Hamburg (SAM, PUMA and PLASIM)
NEMO Ocean Model
GFDL Models
MIT GCM

Model codes (other)

This category include links to analysis tools, simpler models or models focussed on more specific issues.

Radiative Transfer models (AER RRTM)
Rahmstorf (2007) Sea Level Rise Code
Vermeer & Rahmstorf (2009) Sea Level Rise Code and Data
ModTran (atmospheric radiation calculations and visualisations)
Various climate-related online models (David Archer)
Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) (FUND, FAIR, DICE, RICE)
CliMT a Python-based software component toolkit
Pyclimate Python tools for climate analysis
CDAT Tools for analysing climate data in netcdf format (PCMDI)
RegEM (Tapio Schneider)
Time series analysis (MTM-SVD, SSA-MTM toolkit, Mann and Lees (1996))
MAGICC

Data Visualisation and Analysis

These sites include some of the above data (as well as other sources) in an easier to handle form.

ClimateExplorer (KNMI)
Dapper (PMEL, NOAA)
Ingrid (IRI/LDEO Climate data library)
Giovanni (GSFC)
Wood for Trees: Interactive graphics (temperatures)

IPCC Data Visualisations
Regional IPCC model output
Climate Wizard

Master Repositories of Climate Data

Much bigger indexes of data sources:

Global Change Master Directory (GSFC)
PAGES data portal
NCDC (National Climate Data Center)
IPCC Data
NCAR’s ClimateDataGuide
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Lab: Atmospheric trace gas concentrations, historical carbon emissions, and more
CRU Data holdings
Hadley Centre Observational holdings
UCAR Climate Data Guide

Download data from the WDC Paleo archive:
Data Description
Compressed archive files containing:
CPS Temperature Reconstructions
EIV Temperature Reconstructions
Original Proxy Data
Infilled Proxy Data
Proxy Data Matrix
Instrumental Data
Reconstruction and Data Processing Source Code

Free Software - World Data Center for Paleoclimatology

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/softlib/softlib.html

Oct 21, 2011 – Paleoclimatology analysis softwares. ... Data, and Information Service, National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce ... These programs run on Microsoft Windows, but the (Basic) source code is also available

You can also visit these pages:

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=667
http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/climate_modeling.html
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/support2/faq/
http://drdobbs.com/windows/226700457
http://data1.gfdl.noaa.gov/nomads/forms/deccen/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/
http://science.slashdot.org/story/05/01 ... l-software
http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Programmi ... e/Physics/
http://snowdog.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ro ... 200503.cgi

ALL data links here (in order):

http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/#docs
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/#src
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/#input
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/#output
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/#cam
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0 ... Guide.html
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0 ... sGuide.pdf
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0 ... 0_faq.html
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0 ... torial.pdf
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0 ... rkshop.pdf
http://bb.cgd.ucar.edu/
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/cam
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/datm6
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/latm6
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/csim
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/dice6
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/clm3
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/dlnd6
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/pop
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/docn6
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/cpl6
https://www.earthsystemgrid.org/
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/copyright.html
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0 ... eadme.html
https://www.earthsystemgrid.org/
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/copyright.html
http://bb.cgd.ucar.edu/
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/ccsm-users
https://www.earthsystemgrid.org/
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0 ... ition.html
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0 ... ition.html
http://www.earthsystemgrid.org/browse/v ... c0f03d5b7c
http://www.earthsystemgrid.org/browse/v ... c0f03d5b7c
http://www.earthsystemgrid.org/browse/v ... c0f03d5b7c
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/da ... e_data_raw
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/da ... _processed
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/da ... Paleo_data
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/da ... liary_data
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/da ... structions
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/da ... ean_output
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/da ... GCM_output
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/da ... /#GCM_code
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/da ... Model_code
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/da ... ualisation
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/da ... ualisation
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/da ... ualisation
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/da ... ces/#Links
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/
http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds570.0/
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER
http://eca.knmi.nl/
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/content/view/35/1
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/
http://mirador.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/mi ... ject=SORCE
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/atdd
http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/data.html
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/dataexp.html
http://www.argo.net/
http://icoads.noaa.gov/
http://aeronet.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://aoncadis.ucar.edu/home.htm
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
http://clearclimatecode.org/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/di ... index.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomal ... #anomalies
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/produc ... n_wld.html
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/em ... atmain.htm
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/OI-daily-v2/
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/strato ... mperature/
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/sat ... -in-arctic
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
http://www.univie.ac.at/theoret-met/research/raobcore/
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/
http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ratpac/
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/staff/profi ... index.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin/sterin.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/products/onlineData.html
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/cer ... ceres.html
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/index.php
http://dataipsl.ipsl.jussieu.fr/AEROCOM/
http://gacp.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/
http://www.usap-data.org/entry/NSF-ANT0 ... _11-10-10/
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/index.php
http://glims.colorado.edu/glacierdata/
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/
http://gosic.org/ios/MATRICES/ECV/ecv-matrix.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of- ... me-series/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html
http://www.pangaea.de/
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/%7Ewww-glac/ngrip/index_eng.htm
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/ngdcinfo/onlineaccess.html
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/ngdcinfo/onlineaccess.html
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/ngdcinfo/onlineaccess.html
http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/insola/earth/earth.html
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/insolation/readme_insolation.txt
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/orbital_variations/huybers2006insolation/huybers2006b.txt
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/man ... n2008.html
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/supple ... xyMeans07/
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/supple ... Spatial09/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/kau ... n2009.html
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/codes/
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/shared ... ANNETAL98/
http://www.ecmwf.int/research/era/do/get/era-40
http://www.ecmwf.int/research/era/do/get/era-interim
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/reana ... ysis.shtml
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/wesley/reanalysis2/
http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/merra/intro.php
http://jra.kishou.go.jp/
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/mmb/rreanl/
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/20thC_Rean/
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/
http://data1.gfdl.noaa.gov/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
ftp://ftp.giss.nasa.gov/pub/modelE/
http://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/snapshots/
http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/
http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/ccm3/source.shtml
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/
http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/Projekte.209.0.html?&L=3
http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/SAM.6074.0.html?&L=3
http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/PUMA.215.0.html?&L=3
http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/Planet-Sim ... .html?&L=3
http://www.nemo-ocean.eu/
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/fms
http://mitgcm.org/
http://rtweb.aer.com/rrtm_frame.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /1866d/DC1
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2009/ ... pplemental
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/do ... dtran.html
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/models.html
http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/FUND.5679.0.html
http://www.pbl.nl/en/themasites/fair/index.html
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/DICE2007.htm
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/RICEModel ... mber30.htm
http://mathsci.ucd.ie/%7Erca/climt/
http://www.pyclimate.org/
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/software-portal/cdat
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/%7Etapio/imputation
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/Mann/tools/MTM-SVD/
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/ssa/
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/Mann/tools/MTM-RED/
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/
http://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?someone@somewhere
http://dapper.pmel.noaa.gov/dchart/
http://ingrid.ldgo.columbia.edu/
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/giovanni/
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/
http://www.ipcc-data.org/maps/
http://www.pacificclimate.org/tools/select
http://www.climatewizard.org/
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/
http://www.clivar.org/data/global.php
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
http://www.ipcc-data.org/maps/
http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.hadobs.org/
http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/mann2008/readme-mann2008.txt
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/mann2008/recons-cps.zip
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/mann2008/recons-eiv.zip
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/mann2008/proxy-original.zip
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/mann2008/proxy-infilled.zip
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/mann2008/itrdb-matrix.zip
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/mann2008/instrument.zip
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/mann2008/code.zip
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/softlib/softlib.html
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=667
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=667
http://stommel.tamu.edu/%7Ebaum/climate_modeling.html
http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/climate_modeling.html
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/support2/faq/
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/support2/faq/
http://drdobbs.com/windows/226700457
http://drdobbs.com/windows/226700457
http://data1.gfdl.noaa.gov/nomads/forms/deccen/
http://data1.gfdl.noaa.gov/nomads/forms/deccen/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/
http://science.slashdot.org/story/05/01 ... l-software
http://science.slashdot.org/story/05/01 ... l-software
http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Programmi ... e/Physics/
http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Programmi ... e/Physics/
http://snowdog.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ro ... 200503.cgi
http://snowdog.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ro ... 200503.cgi

"They are all false and biased"

In a nut shell, such an argument is about as valuable as trying to tell us reconstruction models in basic particle physics is all wrong whilst you sit there on a computer likely powered by a nuclear power plant.. Scientists know where the biases are, and they account for it, or cut them out when they have no value in fact. They do the same thing in reconstruction models in dealing with particle physics:

* http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... sEcRGe-pwQ

* http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 1ytbWxRmlQ

* http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 8pxm2HnEhA

* http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... UhGe9t-f1Q

The only dishonest arguments come from people like you, or those whom need a magical conspiracy to support their beliefs because they can't actually and honestly support them.. Example:

See Jackyl's description of how we know where energy comes from for an example.

Anyone that actually reads my description will know I am actually correct. What I have stated is logically, philosophically, and scientifically correct. In fact, your argument against my position is so poor that you don't even realize that in order for you to even post and make an argument, you actually end up being forced to comply to the very premises of my arguments. Hence, you can't do anything other than prove the premises correct even if you want to sit there in intentional denial for the sake of your faith based beliefs.. You even admitted to it while going off on some incoherent attempt to suggest your GOD magically wouldn't require the need to also adhere to these premises. It's why you have to try and argue for the Non-entity, or the Nothing GOD while contradicting your own arguments in to pure self-refutation.. And you wonder why you are so easily dismissed here.., it's because you dismissed yourself... So the facts are these:

1. ) Existence rules the roost, and governs everything existent.

2. ) Information theory and science apply to everything.

3. ) Anything in and of existence will have to be made from whatever existence is made of. In this case it's energy. Energy can only be made of what existence is made of.. And energy is made of energy, and existence is made of energy.
4. ) Energy =/= information as bot substance and value

5. ) Energy = information = force = cause

6. ) Energy is the capacity of mass, volume, information, and substance (Expl.. your computer)

7.) Existence nor the energy it's made of can neither be created nor destroyed.

8.) Energy / information can neither be created nor destroyed and can only change states, function, meaning, or purpose. This to which gives the illusion of information being destroyed when you do something like cut a tree down and burn it for fire wood, or erase a equation on a chalk board. In either case there is only a change of state, function, or meaning.

9.) Existence exists without creation for 2 reasons:
a. One can not create that which one's self requires to exist
b. Non-existence can not be an existing person, place, object, substance, or thing.. This means physicality, the existence we live in and are a part of can be the only reality since immateriality is impossible to exist.

10. In accordance to number "5", Information is the material physical cause of causation.. Without the inertia of information (time) and it's ability to interfere with itself, giving that energy is the capacity of information, there could be no such things as universe, a conscious mind, you, me, galaxies, or anything other than a blank static state. So it's a good thing energy can interfere with itself, and has the properties of positive, negative, and neutral. These properties which are that of information and any existing rule set that governs any type of system, state, function, belief, moral, ethic, or governing body. This includes your own emotions and feelings. Hence, there is a reason why you physically feel emotion and convey it...

11. They are not arguable since even the thought of the attempt of arguing will only prove all the premises correct.

12. Everything comes from existence itself.. Existence is the omnipresent "where" as there is no place outside of existence. To be somewhere, you must be in and of existence

So you can have fun trying to debunk this. It will literally in every way be a futile effort. Your beliefs are irrelevant to reality simply because reality will not magically bend to what you want it to be. Reality is bias in this way, and doesn't care what you want or believe in as a whole. Logical fallacies, and imaginary non-entity beings will not magically become real beyond being fallacies and imaginary non-entities. Welcome to reality. And this cold hard truth doesn't make us any less amazing or special. It's in fact pretty damn amazing that we are here at all. Reality itself is so amazing that many people just can't believe it wasn't created by some magic being.. But that's the amazing thing about it, it's not and couldn't be. It's what makes each of us as unique as can be. And that makes us special.. We fit and belong here because we literally are a part of reality.

So I simply enjoy life and find that worshiping a god of sorts as nonsensical and a waste of time. But if that suits your way of life, fine... But at least be honest about it without need to try and dishonestly convert people via pseudoscience, dogma, or any other dishonest tactic to which includes threats of damnation and hell ect. Those threats are meaningless to someone like me, or someone who sees through the BS.

[Shermana]

Oh my. Two flagrant errors:
1. I never said that, I never said 100%, guaranteed, or fact. Rather, I offered an opinion shared by the respected mainstream professional scholarly perspective. The consensus itself, its existence, is the only indistputable fact. But the consensus evolves. Do NOT put words in my mouth. This undermines whatever credibility you aspire to.

Okay, so if we're talking about credibility being undermined, please kindly repeat what I originally asked you to back your claim, which led up to this. I don't care what you think about my credibility, but you are clearly attempting to change the concept of what this is originally about. You said that it was never intended to be taken literally. Did you not? If so, end of subject. Worry about your own credibility.

2. I have stated repeatedly that it wasn't about irrelevent and unknowable authorial intent, but rather about cultural and cultic intended use. Kindly go back and reread my posts and try to understand them and represent them honestly and accurately this time. Misquotes are hardly civil.

Kindly go back and read what you originally said of which I asked you to back up your assertion. For some reason, rather than backing up your claims, you told me to go to a library. Why? What claim did you make that you told me to go to a library about?

Kindly read that again.

No way around it? You possess 100% guaranteed fact? I'll alert the top universities on Monday. End debate. Thank you.

Wow. Let the reader note, this is his response to me saying that he said he knew what the original author's intent was. Does it compute? Is it a cogent reply? Let's see someone else say that it is here.

Except you're wrong.

Care to back that assertion?

Oh, also, I never referred to authorial intent.

500 tokens to anyone else who can back you on that.

Have I said that enough yet? I'm a postmodern: I don't know or care what authorial intent was.

Okay, glad you admit that you don't know what the authorial intent was. Unfortunately for your "Credibility", this is not what you said originally, no matter how much you try to say otherwise. When even Sailingcyclops calls you out on it, maybe you should consider dropping the act?

I care about how a culture used it, then and now. It was mythic in a time when the modern distinction between myth and history wasn't in place, when history wasn't a science and science didn't exist. Google higher criticism.

I have discussed higher criticism many times on this board. You are now going back to saying that you knew what the original author's intent was as we see below. If you're calling it "mythic" in the sense that they intended it to be a myth and not history because they had no "distinction between myth and history", are you not ultimately saying that it was intended to be read as a myth?

The people I reference as real vs. fictive reflect the scholarly consensus in the miastream.

Okay, modern scholarly concensus does not equate to matter of fact truth. You need to phrase it as such or be willing to back your assertions with the actual arguments that prove your assertions. Repeatedly telling someone to go to the library and that you "Don't do lame links" is not the way to build credibility or prove your case.

"No way around it." If that's blatant, you're right! I didn't make it up. Do you really want to take this thread in the direction of "was Noah real"?

I really don't remember saying you made it up or that thew scholarship on the matter doesn't exist. But it seems you absolutely do NOT want to discuss what this concensus says to prove the claim. At best, you can say that the scholarly concensus says so. But to phrase it as such that it's true because of such does not compute. There is no way of knowing that they did not intend the "magic parts" to not be taken literally as truth. Whether they are true or not. As others have discussed elsewhere, that I even agree with, this mentality that it was "never intended" in the first place seems to be a .....(drum roll) COP OUT that defies virtually ALL the early authorship. It's not like a major concensus on an issue has even been wrong before either. There is no evidence, none, that I am aware of at least, perhaps you could give some...oh wait, you don't do "dumb links", anyways, there's NO evidence and plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. It seems none of the early Midrashists indicated any objection to the idea that these "magic stories" were meant to be taken literally. Therefore, you must admit that you are simply stating what "modern concensus" thinks, but you cannot just say "here's what the concensus says" as if that is a substitute for discussing what they say for the sake of debate. Otherwise, why debate anything? This would be "Let's bash on literalists" board instead, with the rule for backing claims to be thrown out.

I leave the verse by verse adjudication of the text to the experts.

Define "experts" and why their opinions on the matter are truth. If you don't want to, I will suggest again, you find another board where you don't have this pesky rule to discuss the sources and claims behind your assertions.

My own understanding is in broad outline and reflects an education that ended 25 years ago this spring, and with it a fading memory.

Good for you. I suppose you think that's a substitute for backing your assertions. I had this same problem with this PH.D student on Religiousforums, didn't want to back his claims on a similar issue and got hostile when pressed for it, I reported him on it, he's been less willing to avoid discussing the "expert opinion" as if it's done and done since.

It's not rank opinion and guesswork as you imply;

Sure it is.

it's a scholarly consensus,

Ah, that makes it perfect and undisputed without any need to discuss why, if you bother going against the concensus, your opinion is invalid no matter what, game over, that's it. I guess this board should have a rule that says "If there is a scholarly conensus on a matter, there is no need to discuss it".

however imperfect and evolving within legitimate and credible scholarly communities (from which I exclude both of us).

If you exclude my opinion because I don't have a degree, that's your problem, not mine. And I would say that's not too good for your credibility, just saying.

To reduce this serious work to mere opinion is an attack upon the notion of civilization. Shall we equate glenn beck and jaroslav pelikan next?

What is this "civilization" concept you keep bringing up? So, next rule for the board, if you attack the scholarly concensus or dare QUESTION it, you are "attacking civilization". 100 tokens to anyone else who can back this assertion. Sounds pretty desperate. Personally I disagree with a great deal of scholars like Pelikan, as well as Metzger and modern ones like Wallace. Do I need a degree to do so? It's a very common "Christian" tactic among liberals and conservatives to try to squash the debate by acting as if they somehow cannot be argued against or that you need a 4 year Theology degree to do so. Such people might consider other hobbies than going on boards where the object is to actually discuss their assertions.

And anyway, you offer only fringe contrarian unsupported unpublished unreviewed opinion. Is that better some how?

If only I had a dollar for every time someone wanted to squash debate because someone holds a position that few else hold as if there's no need to actually discuss it. Appeal to authority at its worst.

No I'm not.
As stated above.

100 tokens to anyone who can prove this, because you're basically contradicting yourself with your appeals to authority as if they are the golden bar for truth.

However, I am saying that to claim that genesis 1 and 2 and other fantastical accounts are historic rather than mythic is so far outside of the mainstream serious religious consensus as to be profoundly suspect and to represent a veritable attack on civilization, the darkness at the fringe, fanaticism, not to be engaged seriously nor accorded respect, only to be marginalized, disembowled, and defeated. It is on the short list notions that are truly cognitio non grata.

I don't really care, if you're going to try to denounce anyone's opinion and argument simply because it's "fringe", and refuse to back your own claims while you're at it, I again suggest you mind consider finding a board where you need not actually debate or back your assertions with the actual links. If it was so easy to brush off people's fringe opinions by calling them fringe, there'd be no need for debate, it would be called "Discuss mainstream opinion" not "debate". However, as I've shown the Talmud discusses the 900 generations before Adam. It's not a new opinion. And Pre-adamite theory was quite common in the 1700s-1800s. So if you don't want to discuss my views, that's not my problem. My argument stands. If you don't like it, oh well. It's your credibility.

BTW, why do you put quotes around certain of my phrases? To borrow a page from your book, is that an implied ad hominem?

Why don't you explain how that would be ad hominem exactly.

We agree. It sure is.

And irrelevant.

As I've said before, and repeatedly, it doesn't even seek to address this irrelevent and unavailable albatross of an issue. Nor should it.

Then perhaps you shouldn't act as if the "scholarly conensus" is all there is to the argument.

To which scientific rebuttals do you refer?

See my exchange with Jackyl for a sample.

And are you now a reader of minds and character? Escape hatch? Rather, "escape hatch"?

There's a whole thread on this on the science board. The idea that the Authors never intended it to be literal, is something many of us here seem to agree is a recent "cop out".

Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about.

See the thread on the science board.

? Who died and made them modern men of modern mindset and knowledge? I'm sure there were tons of things they didn't know or understand that we do.

Ummm, what does that have to do with what Jesus and Paul said? You'd have to argue that they didn't intend to say Adam and Abel were real people with your argument. The "scholarly concensus" may in fact be sweeping over this little fact or perhaps they feel that Jesus and Paul were not in on the memo.

It could also mean that they were in on it. J and P could have had (did have) a premodern mythic-history mindset themselves. Stands to reason.

Ah, a Conspiracy Theorist. Haven't you called me that before? I suppose Jesus and Paul could have been "in on it", but that's quite a "Fringe" position I'd say. And one without any evidence. Unlike the idea of a preadamite race within old Jewish thought as we have the Talmud to testify about.

OR they could have been speaking the language of the time, reaching people where they were at, or if you like, pandering. It was all about stories and inherited tradition, language, tropes, memes, magic.

Uh huh. More fringe positions. Can you find me a single link to back this concept or will you admit that this is a "Fringe" position that the 'scholarly concensus" kinda seemed to forget to mention?

I assume that neither J nor P was crazy or a liar,

Assuming there was a P, I agree.

so I conclude they were participating in the mindset, language, and culture of their time and place, and doing so unselfconsciously and with little awareness of an alternative.

Okay, so that could possibly mean that they were in fact writing what they considered a literal truth, even within poetry. I'd ask you to back your assertion that they were totally being "mythical" in the sense of not being literal or historical but conveying a mystical/Theological message, but that would probably result in a dead end as before.

Why would that be a "kink"? According to whom?

According to anyone who doesn't think that Paul and Jesus were "in on it".

Seems like you're relying upon a self-validating religiously-motivated set of assumptions.

So you got any papers or links that talk about how Jesus and Paul were in on this conspiracy to call Adam and Abel real beings when they weren't? As well as the other writers who refer to the garden as real? And the Midrashists? If not, I'd look into revising your idea here and questioning whether the "Scholarly concensus" even thought about this. But if you have anything to back your claim that they were possibly "in on it", I'd love to see it.

Let me get this straight: you're suggesting the bible is literal because J and P, people who are also known only as characters in the very same biblical narrative, when read a certain way, possibly misread, seemed to think it so? Are you relying upon that obviously circular argument?

I fail to see why this is a circular argument, and why the alternative that it wasn't intended to be literal isn't. So yes, I am suggesting that J and the potential "P" never intended it to be anything BUT literal history, and I don't think its any more circular than the idea that they were intending it to be mythical. Please explain why this would be circular and the alternative idea wouldn't be. A link would be gre....oh yeah. Forgot. You don't do "dumb links".

But not to present one billion pages of scholarship.

One billion pages? I doubt there's even a million on the subject. You could start with one or two links, maybe a paragraph, start small like 250 words in a quote. That'd be great.

However, the wiki article on higher criticism, demythologizing, and historical jesus are decent places to start.

I've seen them. I've discussed higher criticism on this board before. However, those links are not very specific, perhaps YOU would like to quote from them anything you feel that backs your claim. Unless you don't feel the burden of proof for your own claims is on you of course.

I back up my claims with arguments and good faith references to consensus.

Ummm, not here apparently. Is this like your assertion that you used the word "Fundy" merely to save time?

Would you prefer if I presented the kind of lame and thin references that have turned up in this thread, like a youtube video from my favorite liberal perhaps, so then we could argue ad neauseum about that? Sorry,waste of time.

Any link will do as long as it discusses the actual evidence. If you consider linking to evidence of your claims a waste of your time, I'd say you MIGHT just be on the wrong board, just saying.

Opinion noted.
My philosophy is less about obedience, probably because my theology isn't about law so much.

So....are you saying your philosophy doesn't involve obedience to the standards of evidence according to this board you agreed to follow when you signed up? Noted.

If when one visited the library one was overwhelmed, say in an introductory grad level textbook, with a consensus around this argument, not an onscure article, then yes it would.

Okay, so that's a refusal to discuss your argument.

All the stuff I'm saying is literally first year divinity school bible class stuff.

That's great. Now perhaps you'd like to discuss this first year divinity school bible class stuff with the sources.

Not controversial, low hanging fruit.

So that's a refusal to discuss your argument.

That's as far as I went with it (my major was not bible) and I've maybe read the bible for 10 minutes in the intervening quarter century (I read what others say about it, scholars, exegetes, sages; I'm a consumer in this regard).

Wait, you've only read the Bible for 10 minutes? Wow, and here you are trying to write people off whose opinion doesn't involve having a 4 year degree, and you've spent less than 10 minutes reading the actual text?

We all prioritize. My schedule is not in your command. And I don't do lame links. Capisce? I try to do decent arguments. Why is an external link, posing as evidence, better? I don't buy that. Seems like painting by numbers to me.

If you don't do "lame links", what kind of links do you do? For someone whose spent 10 minutes reading the Bible, you sure seem to have some high standards of what constitutes grounds for making claims about it. Any link will do as long as it discusses the evidence. If you don't want to actually debate, why are you here? Do you think this board is called "Say what the scholarly concensus says and leave it at that"? No, it says "DEBATING Christianity", so debating involves backing your assertions. If you refuse to do so, no matter what the link is, where does that put you? I'm sorry if you think these "lame links posing as evidence" isn't good enough for whatever reason, but you need SOMETHING when asked to back your claim.

I do back up my assertions.

Not here apparently.

But if Otseng so instructs me to leave, I will.
In the meantime, mind your own garshdang business. I already take a dim view of your ideas and methods. But I have no obligation, incentive, or interest to heed your instructions, nor your narrow view or IMO low standards of evidence.

That's nice that you take a dim view of my ideas and methods, I'm honored. However, you are required to back your claims on this board, and you are repeatedly refusing to do so. I take a dim view of people who assert things and then act as if they only need to refer to the so-called "Scholarly concensus", not the first time this has happened. Probably won't be the last. Telling me that I have a narrow view? Wow, the irony is overwhelming. Telling me that I have low standards of evidence is not a substitute for backing your claims when asked. If all you need is a "scholarly concensus" to believe something, well, let's just say this would make a great thread topic.

Addressed above. It's about use, not intent, and the culture was mytho-historical and premodern. Get it? You're reading it backwards through a modern lens, even as a modern-by-definition fundamentalist (my fingers hurt!)

You are the one viewing it through a modern lens. So are the ones behind the "Scholarly concensus". You are the one suggesting that Jesus and Paul were "in" on some kind of idea that Adam and Abel were not real people. That is a VERY modern concept, I'd love to see some links that say this to back your case, but I doubt you'd be willing to present any OR admit that this is a VERY Fringe view. Reading it through the lens of the ancient writers and Midrashists, I'd say as Cyclops agreed, we can easily see that it was always considered intended to be read as a literal account. I'm sorry if your fingers hurt by typing fundamentalists. I suggest you practice typing it 100 times in a row and you'll build up the specific coordination to make it less tiring to type it out.

The literal intent vs. science issue is an albatross, for reasons I expressed in a earlier post.

Not really, the ones saying that it was not intended to be literal, as others have also suggested, appears to be a modern "cop out" for those who don't want to debate the science issues with Genesis.

It simply misses the point.

No, the "cop out" of saying it was never intended to be literal misses the point.

It's a by product of modernity, the wrong question, a distraction, and based on misreadings of what ancient mythic literature actually did and how it functions and can be read today.

There you go again, saying that its' a "misreading" to suggest that it was meant to be literal, is exactly what we are talking about here.

What atters is how the text soeaks to us, how we use it, what we make of it, what it inspires (transformation, kingdom, etc). The rest is dross, chaff.

How nice. However, the way it speaks to me, I believe you asserted does "violence" to scripture.

(And to be honest, I have not read more than 2% of what you have written in posts that didn't quote, address or reference me, so I can't and won't comment upon or engage these.)

That's fine.

I don't recall asking for your advice on this matter, and also I must note that you have hijacked the thread to discuss my methods and behavior and your apparent umbrage that they do not conform to your wishes, rather than to address the thread topic. Perhaps you should also consider forum rules? Or at least forget me and get back on topic?

I'd say Jackylantern if anything highjacked the thread, and if anything YOU highjacked it by asserting that it was never intended to be taken literally. If not, then why would I have highjacked it by merely questioning the basis of your claims? As for "conforming to my wishes", is that a way of you saying that you don't want to obey the rules and back your assertions with more than just "go to the library"? If my wishes are to obey the forum rules, what forum rules am I not considering?

Anyway, goodnight.

[/quote]

Don't let the bedbugs bite.

[Shermana]

PS, as for Jackel, I'm not getting into another 2 hour rebuttal right now on subjects fit for other threads, but I'll say this, my initial quote which you quoted, was in reference to the Archaeological claims of Finkelstein and how they are disputed by Dever and many others, perhaps you'd like to get into that while you're at it instead of just calling my argument (with quote by Dr. Dever) pathetic that his opinion is disputed. Other than that, your post was basically a defense of climategate and an attack on Theistic beliefs and an attack on the idea of not putting total blind faith in various scientific conclusions. There's a difference between observations in particle physics and Climate study as well as Philosophical conclusions from such. Your repeated use of "deceptive" and "dishonest" and "Willfully ignorant" as if that writes off the argument itself is getting a bit... old. If you're not willing to discuss alternative ideas and just want to write them off as "pseudo-science", what's the point of a debate board? And you put "They are all false and biased" in quotes, did you mean to imply that I actually said that? I suggest you make sure that non-existent quotes are recognized as such.

And 500 tokens to anyone else who can back your claim that you've decisively demonstrated how energy originated.

Also, as for the 'raw data", 250 tokens for anyone who can demonstrate how what you posted actually leads to the raw data itself. Did you bother testing your links? Let's pull one at random here:

http://www.pyclimate.org/

Now please demonstrate to the class how the raw data can be extracted from that one.

[otseng]

But no, we're ALL "interuppting" our lives by posting here and backing our claims with links, whether they are decisive proof or not, you don't get a special post. Kapiesce?

We all prioritize. My schedule is not in your command. And I don't do lame links. Capisce? I try to do decent arguments. Why is an external link, posing as evidence, better? I don't buy that. Seems like painting by numbers to me.

Moderator Comment

View it like writing a journal article (or any scholarly work). If you make a point, you should provide a footnote or an endnote and point to the specific source. If I wrote a paper without providing sources and simply said that it's in the library, my professor would fail me.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[TheJackelantern]

I'd say Jackylantern if anything highjacked the thread, and if anything YOU highjacked it by asserting that it was never intended to be taken literally. If not, then why would I have highjacked it by merely questioning the basis of your claims? As for "conforming to my wishes", is that a way of you saying that you don't want to obey the rules and back your assertions with more than just "go to the library"? If my wishes are to obey the forum rules, what forum rules am I not considering?

This is wrong on so many levels that it's not even funny.. Don't waste our time with your dishonest discourse and circular logic.... It's not my problem that you can't support your own position in an honest manner. Not only is the order of creation wrong, it makes no coherent sense, and is just a basic guessing game of order of events that have zero supportive value or coherency to reality. And I have backed up my assertions, and your denial of that fact is also not my problem, especially when you can't even seem to properly respond to anything discussed... Simply put.., This is the base of your positions:

1. Appeals to ignorance
2. Dishonest discourse
3. Dishonest source material or sources
4. Poor understanding of the subjects being discussed.. Hence why you rest on "oh that's disputable" for sake of just saying it when you can't provide anything credible, or anything that hasn't already been debunked 1000's of times over.
5. Denial of reality, or denial of the fact of reality in many of your posts.
6. Claims to be a literalist while showing every sign of being a literalist in only your own goal post moving interpretation to which stretches beyond the written context.
7. The inability to address and answer 90 percent of the questions I asked you.. In fact, you ignored pretty much every one of them.. I could make a list of questions you conveniently skipped over, and failed to properly address in any sort of honest discourse:

(Note this is towards fundamentalists and dishonest Christians and religions):
[youtube][/youtube]

This which makes me think this video is appropriate concerning your position to which has been thoroughly debunked:

[youtube][/youtube]

And this makes me think back when I was a fundamentalist Christian using the same dishonest arguments discussed in the first video. And often it was harder to admit to myself in regards to the second video that it was to admit being wrong to Atheists who tore up every argument I've ever made in some fleeting hope that I might actually learn something, and honestly take a look what reality really is. :/

[Shermana]

500 tokens to anyone who can prove that I've ignored "90 percent" of Jackels questions up until I said I'm not spending another 2 hours.

And 500 tokens to anyone who can prove that Jackel's claims that he has proven where energy comes from is not dishonest.

[1213]

Not only is the order of creation wrong

How is the order of creation wrong?

[SailingCyclops]

Just FYI, Finkelstein is highly contested and is not considered authoritative by most archaeologists, particularly the famous Dr. William Dever. He is arguably THE most living respected authority on Archaeology and considers these of Finkelstein's ilk to be "Revisionists"....

Well, Finkelstein is not the only source I cited. The general consensus within the entire Israeli archeological community is in agreement, that the bible is not history, but mythology and cultural pros. This is not me, nor is it some atheist group, it's from the Israeli government. The very people who have the greatest interest in that particular history.

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
King David and Jerusalem: Myth and Reality

To most Israelis it is axiomatic that the celebrations for the 3,000th anniversary of the conquest of Jerusalem by King David mark a real and tangible event; but this is far from certain. The biblical account of the capture of the city is the only one we have, and in the opinion of most modern scholars, the Bible is not an entirely reliable historical document.
[...]
before examining the biblical version, we should consider the nature of the Bible and of the historical material it contains.

The Bible is not - and was never intended to be - a historical document. A work of theology, law, ethics and literature, it does contain historical information; but if we want to evaluate this information we should consider when, how and why the Bible was compiled.

Until comparatively recently, the Bible was accepted as the word of God by most Jews and Christians, and therefore scholarly works dealing with it, such as the Talmud, rabbinical commentaries, and the work of Christian scholars, concentrated on its interpretation.

In the 19th century ce, the "Age of Reason," scholars began subjecting the biblical texts to linguistic, textual, and literary analysis, noting inconsistencies and interrupted rhythms, comparing styles, and placing the text within the archaeological, historical and geographical background. There are still many differing opinions regarding the origin of the Bible, when it was written, and under what conditions; but it is fair to say that, outside fundamentalist circles, modern consensus suggests that the assembling and editing of the documents that were to constitute the Bible began in the seventh century bce, some three centuries after David's time. (The earliest actual material in our possession, part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dates to the second century bce at the earliest).
[...]
The saga of the Israelites, as told in the Bible, was designed as a morality tale to prove the importance of faith in the One God. The stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and Joshua demonstrate that the Israelites were rewarded when they obeyed God, but were punished when they strayed.

The historical evidence to back up these events is sparse, and, in some cases, contradictory. In particular, the account of Joshua's conquest of Canaan is inconsistent with the archaeological evidence. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua in the 14th century bce were destroyed long before he came on the scene. Some, such as Ai and Arad, had been ruins for a 1000 years.

The Book of Judges, which directly contradicts Joshua, and shows the Israelites settling the land over a prolonged period, is nearer historical reality; but even it cannot be taken at face value.

The archaeological surveys conducted over the past two decades in the hills of Menasseh, Ephraim, Benjamin and Judah, on the west bank of the River Jordan, indicate that the origin and development of the Israelite entity was somewhat different from either of the rival accounts in the Bible. The survey was conducted by more than a dozen archaeologists, most of them from Tel Aviv University's Institute of Archaeology. Their conclusions were published in "From Nomadism to Monarchy," edited by Prof. Israel Finkelstein and Prof. Nadav Na'aman.
[...]
The conclusion is somewhat startling to Bible readers who know the Canaanites portrayed in the Bible as immoral idolaters: most of the Israelites were in fact formerly Canaanites. The story of Abraham's journey from Ur of the Chaldees, the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Sinai, and the conquest of Canaan, all these were apparently based on legends that the various elements brought with them from their countries of origin.

The consolidation of the Israelites into a nation was not the result of wanderings in the desert and divine revelation, but came from the need to defend themselves against the Philistines, who settled in the Canaanite coastal plain more or less at the same time the Israelites were establishing themselves in the hills.
[...]
Apart from the lists, the account appears to have undergone two separate acts of editorial slanting. The original writers show a strong bias against Saul, and in favour of David and Solomon. Many years later, the Deuteronomists edited the material in a manner that conveyed their religious message, inserting reports and anecdotes that strengthened their monotheistic doctrine. When it comes to Jerusalem, however, the challenge is to set the biblical texts in the context of the archaeological and historical evidence.

As noted in the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs document partially quoted above, most scholars, notably most Israeli archeologists, agree that the bible is, for the most part, an allegorical document, a biased work of literature, setting forth a religious and political point of view, and is not a true history of events as they happened. Nor is it a divinely inspired document. The only "revisionists" are those who would deny scientific evidence, and instead cling to an outdated and discredited literal interpretation of some ancient partial texts. Revisionism is not revising ignorance into knowledge, but rather revising knowledge into fiction. That is what you appear to have done.

If we extrapolate what we have learned about the origins and historicity of the bible, along with what we KNOW about the origins of the universe and of life, we must further conclude that the "order of creation" (the topic at hand in this thread) as laid out in the same document is also myth, and has no real relevance to reality. ALL independent evidence, including the bible itself, speaks to this fact.

Bob

[Slopeshoulder]

Oh my. Two flagrant errors:
1. I never said that, I never said 100%, guaranteed, or fact. Rather, I offered an opinion shared by the respected mainstream professional scholarly perspective. The consensus itself, its existence, is the only indistputable fact. But the consensus evolves. Do NOT put words in my mouth. This undermines whatever credibility you aspire to.

Okay, so if we're talking about credibility being undermined, please kindly repeat what I originally asked you to back your claim, which led up to this. I don't care what you think about my credibility, but you are clearly attempting to change the concept of what this is originally about. You said that it was never intended to be taken literally. Did you not? If so, end of subject. Worry about your own credibility.

WRONG. Exactly, I said it was never meant to be TAKEN literally, by the community, the reader. I never mentioned the author. In most cases the authors were scribes and editors setting down oral tradition, albeit often with a theological and artful twist. The modern sense of authorship didn't exist, inhere, or apply. I am astounded that you would persist in this series of misundersgandings and use them as a basis to attack me personally. Can we finally get past it now?

BTW, if you return and say that well then the community took it literally, I would remind you that fact and opinion, literal and figurative, historical and mythic, and scientific and imiganitive are distinctions that didn't exist. It's liek when native americans talk about "Cayote" etc. It's not real, except figuratively and interpretively. What matters is the meaning. Once again, it was mythic-history, not fact, not fable - a synthesized jumble of event-meaning that characterized the premodern. That's OK, I envy them; the modern explosion of this has come at a cost. But failure to see it leads to misreadings. I've said this several times in different ways. You're manifesting the defining fundamentalist error of holding up premodern literalness while not realizing that literalness divorced from mythic meaning is itself a modern invention!! That's the whole point.
Hans Frei, in inventing narrative theology, worked in this area and is worth reading about. Bultmann did too, but with a less siopohisticated and scripture-serving or orthodox agenda.

2. I have stated repeatedly that it wasn't about irrelevent and unknowable authorial intent, but rather about cultural and cultic intended use. Kindly go back and reread my posts and try to understand them and represent them honestly and accurately this time. Misquotes are hardly civil.

Kindly go back and read what you originally said of which I asked you to back up your assertion. For some reason, rather than backing up your claims, you told me to go to a library. Why? What claim did you make that you told me to go to a library about?

Because I am not making a specific narrow point that can be suported with a link, but rather a broad summary point that represents a broad consensus. A library is required, a link or two won't cut it. But at a simple popular level, Marcus Borg, Karen Armstong, and Peter Gomes have written well about it. I think NT Wright, for all his orthodoxy, speaks about it well. I mean, EVERYBODY in mainstream chrsitian scholarship does. To summarize it requires a book, and forum rules can't expect me to write a book and oublish here for free. This is an internet forum, not a university or a conference. We should maybe get real about expectations.

No way around it? You possess 100% guaranteed fact? I'll alert the top universities on Monday. End debate. Thank you.

Wow. Let the reader note, this is his response to me saying that he said he knew what the original author's intent was. Does it compute? Is it a cogent reply? Let's see someone else say that it is here.

In response, one can only say, "Wow. Let the reader note, this is his response to me saying that he said he continues to insist I said knew what the original author's intent was. Does it compute? Is it a cogent reply? Let's see someone else say that it is here.

Except you're wrong.

Care to back that assertion?

That is a false move, and apparently a favorite if yours. Let's imagine that I say that "Jews are great. AT least there is a consensus that they are as good and human as everybody else." Then Adolg Hitler says to me, :care to back that assertion?" Well, I'm fallbergasted. I find it outside the bounds of civilization that would even ask. So I refer one to teh broad consensus, and throw in some details for readers edification and pleasure. Well Adolf says, "it's all opinion and guesswork. you have to prove it scientifically, gimme a book. But I'll dismiss it anyway and I'll misquote, misrepresent and attack; I'll dismiss your consensus out of hand and out forward a bunch of illogic and psuedo science in its place." I find your attack on a broad modern consensus, taught at every non-fundamentalist seminary, assumed as a foundation of all scholarship, an article of faith in the academy and professional associations, to be analogous. It is an attack on civilization, profoundly wrong, and not to be accorded respect from the get go. There are endless details to occupy us in legitimate debate, but the historicity of genesis 1 and 2 is not among them. And hiding behind your interpretation of forum rules as requiring evidence is a smokescreen.

Oh, also, I never referred to authorial intent.

500 tokens to anyone else who can back you on that.
[/ quote]
Argument from popularity.
1000 tokens to anyone who steps in and admits that they understand me.

You are calling me a liar, uncivil, and lying to do so. Indeed, you are making repeatedl unsubstantiated claims.
Last time: I never referred to authorial intent, and I have clarified this point repeaptedly.

Have I said that enough yet? I'm a postmodern: I don't know or care what authorial intent was.

Okay, glad you admit that you don't know what the authorial intent was. Unfortunately for your "Credibility", this is not what you said originally, no matter how much you try to say otherwise.

Wrong. Repeated unsubstantiated claim. Repeated musinderstanding.
However, if the writers were more scribes and editors than authors in the modern sense, participants in the oral tradition and mythic community, then one could say that there intent was never for it to be taken literally. But this is a far cry from authorial intent in the modern sense.

When even Sailingcyclops calls you out on it, maybe you should consider dropping the act?

Well, then he got it wrong too. Two mistaen people constitutes evidence?
And kindly drop the incivility.

I care about how a culture used it, then and now. It was mythic in a time when the modern distinction between myth and history wasn't in place, when history wasn't a science and science didn't exist. Google higher criticism.

I have discussed higher criticism many times on this board. You are now going back to saying that you knew what the original author's intent was as we see below. If you're calling it "mythic" in the sense that they intended it to be a myth and not history because they had no "distinction between myth and history", are you not ultimately saying that it was intended to be read as a myth?

That doesn't follow. They lived within a mythic culture, with a mythic mindset. They didn't have the consciousness and objective apartness to rise to the level of intent beyond an interpretive gloss, which way to read the myth; literal or niot never entered thier minds. That's the whole point. (It'd be more fruitful to pay attention to how the jewish/hebrew/israeli culture did it's thing compared to other ancient mythic communities rather to waste time on these anachronstic and discredited insistence that we inpute modern literalism to premodern people). They simply reflected their time, culture and mindset. This doesn't constitue intent in any meaningful contemporary sense of the word. Your repeated failure to ascknowledge the premodern culture and mind, and the role of mythic literature in it, and specifically the subgenre known as covenant history, has you fall into the anachronistic trap of considering authorial intent viz. literalism. This is a flagrant error.

The people I reference as real vs. fictive reflect the scholarly consensus in the miastream.

Okay, modern scholarly concensus does not equate to matter of fact truth. You need to phrase it as such or be willing to back your assertions with the actual arguments that prove your assertions. Repeatedly telling someone to go to the library and that you "Don't do lame links" is not the way to build credibility or prove your case.

Discussed above.
And note in my last post I acknowledged that consensus is not the same as settled truth, but it sure gets close and represents the beast we have as a function of civilization. So the burden of proof is on those who would dismiss and demean it.

"No way around it." If that's blatant, you're right! I didn't make it up. Do you really want to take this thread in the direction of "was Noah real"?

I really don't remember saying you made it up or that thew scholarship on the matter doesn't exist. But it seems you absolutely do NOT want to discuss what this concensus says to prove the claim. At best, you can say that the scholarly concensus says so. But to phrase it as such that it's true because of such does not compute. There is no way of knowing that they did not intend the "magic parts" to not be taken literally as truth.

I think I've established that this is a category error, a hermeneutical error, and a misreading. It's like asking why the car doesn't fly.
the magic parts are to be taken mythically as truth. I don't see the intellectual, religious or moral problem with that. in fact, I think it frees the bible to say what it says and to live here among us in 2012. Literalism kills it, at least among serious and thinking people. Even Schleiermacher got that when having to deal with religions "cultured despisers" And 150 years later the Narrative theologians critiqued him and said, borrowing from Wittgenstein, that relifion is only meaningful and graspable as a grammar within it's own linguistic community. Literalism was not the point 2-3 thousand years ago, and it's DOA now..

Whether they are true or not. As others have discussed elsewhere, that I even agree with, this mentality that it was "never intended" in the first place seems to be a .....(drum roll) COP OUT that defies virtually ALL the early authorship.

So you've said.

It's not like a major concensus on an issue has even been wrong before either. There is no evidence, none, that I am aware of at least, perhaps you could give some...oh wait, you don't do "dumb links", anyways, there's NO evidence and plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. It seems none of the early Midrashists indicated any objection to the idea that these "magic stories" were meant to be taken literally.

They were premoderns right? There you have it; they didn't make the distinction.
Up until after piers the plowman and pilgrims progress, with modernity, no one really did. Not even the greeks.

Therefore, you must admit that you are simply stating what "modern concensus" thinks, but you cannot just say "here's what the concensus says" as if that is a substitute for discussing what they say for the sake of debate. Otherwise, why debate anything? This would be "Let's bash on literalists" board instead, with the rule for backing claims to be thrown out.

See above re: broad point, broad consensus, unweildy amount of material and poular summaries.

I leave the verse by verse adjudication of the text to the experts.

Define "experts"

Professional scholars with Ph. D.'s, employed by respected mainstream institutions who publish in respected mainstream and are members of the american academy of religion or the society of biblical literature or their global equivalents.

and why their opinions on the matter are truth.

Stop saying truth. They are simply more credible, and when in numbers, when broad consensus is reached, they shift the burden to deniers and represent a triumph of civilization against the forces of darkness.

[ quote] If you don't want to,

I just did.

I will suggest again, you find another board where you don't have this pesky rule to discuss the sources and claims behind your assertions.

Perhas you should find another board where attacks on civilzation from the fringe are encouraged. The internet is full of them.
Better yet, how about we drop the personal recommendations. It has to be outside the forum rules you keep referencing, which is itself aginst forum rules when done in a post by non-mods.

My own understanding is in broad outline and reflects an education that ended 25 years ago this spring, and with it a fading memory.

Good for you.

Why thank you!

I suppose you think that's a substitute for backing your assertions. I had this same problem with this PH.D student on Religiousforums, didn't want to back his claims on a similar issue and got hostile when pressed for it, I reported him on it, he's been less willing to avoid discussing the "expert opinion" as if it's done and done since.

The syntax of that sentence renders it incoherent.

But see the analogy above about Hitler (or substitute bin laden, glenn beck, etc). Some people you just can't reason with and have to appeal to civilization, which is not a logical fallacy but rather a moral appeal.

It's not rank opinion and guesswork as you imply;

Sure it is.

No it isn't.
Tag, your it.

it's a scholarly consensus,

Ah, that makes it perfect and undisputed without any need to discuss why,

I never said that. I said otherwise actually.

if you bother going against the concensus, your opinion is invalid no matter what, game over, that's it.

No. But the standards of scholarship will have to be high. You could start by uing the very best of postmodern postliberal thought. In christianity this would include hauerwas, milbank, and frei. I haven't seen this from you, only a bunch of discredited modern corruptions of premodern notions, per fundamentalism by definition. If you could summarize your argument against the modern consensus in a paragraph I'd read it carefully.

I guess this board should have a rule that says "If there is a scholarly conensus on a matter, there is no need to discuss it".

I don't agree with that as it would shut down debate. But it could have a rule that if somethign is cnsidered to be a broad consensus that could fill a library (e.g. genesis 1-2 is metaphorical, the holocaust happened, the earth is flat) that one needn't provide a detailed defense of that and can merely reference it unless one's opponent ass to focus on a narrow segment of it.
FWIW I';ve been here a while and we all have different stles, some argue with endless reference to external links etc, ohers don't. Persoanlly, I get no fun and have no time to pull down the books lookign for factioids, so I debate from memory. No mod had ever criticized me for it. I consider your demands to be simple bullying, a kind of methodological fascism.

however imperfect and evolving within legitimate and credible scholarly communities (from which I exclude both of us).

If you exclude my opinion because I don't have a degree, that's your problem, not mine. And I would say that's not too good for your credibility, just saying.

I exclude us from a community because neither of us are professionals. I do not exclude your opinion because you don't have a degree. Mine's nelry useless as it's 25 years old and I foget 90% of it 9as a recent perusal of some notebooks while packing for a move made abundantly clear). I dismiss your opinion early on and often because you seem to lack a grasp on some basic stuff, even as you have a lot of material at your fingertips and have clearly studied long and hard on your own (which I respect).

To reduce this serious work to mere opinion is an attack upon the notion of civilization. Shall we equate glenn beck and jaroslav pelikan next?

What is this "civilization" concept you keep bringing up? So, next rule for the board, if you attack the scholarly concensus or dare QUESTION it, you are "attacking civilization".

I have a theory that fundamentalisms, fringe ideas, and conspiracy theories are an attack on civilization and not to be accorded equal respect as a sap to formal niceties.

100 tokens to anyone else who can back this assertion.

Maybe it's time to let that little bit of theater go.

[/quote] Sounds pretty desperate. [/quote]
I rest my case.

Personally I disagree with a great deal of scholars like Pelikan, as well as Metzger and modern ones like Wallace. Do I need a degree to do so?

No of course not, who said so? Many scholars disagree with them, and are free by definiton to do so. Nobody says you have to be a liberal. But the world is round after all. And premoderns inhabited a mythic world where history and meaning comingled unencumbered by moder notions of literality. Some things are pretty settled, like the mythic structure, origins, and function of genesis 1-2 for example, and the wrongheadedness of an evidentiary scientific model applied to ancient scriptures, either to defend or detract.Although a serious and scholarly attack upon that, which gains momentum and creates a movement distinct from rank expressions of various fundamentalisms, is within the range of the possible. Milbank seems to be there for example.

It's a very common "Christian" tactic among liberals and conservatives to try to squash the debate by acting as if they somehow cannot be argued against or that you need a 4 year Theology degree to do so.

Well, they're wrong. But it does make it easier to at least be up to date with the best thinking and the rare consensus, as well as the standards for undermining richly devreoped arguments and broad threads if thought.

Such people might consider other hobbies than going on boards where the object is to actually discuss their assertions.

Indeed, you may be right. I've wanted to stop being here from the second day I was here because it's so much like amateur hour and the level of discourse is often so low. BUT, it's better than most, some folks are great, I enjoy it, and there's always the minsitry of trying to help the cinfused and save a few good people from left or right extremisms. Not that it's any of your business.
Maybe you'd like a forum where no one has a degree? Maybe you'd be elected king? Nah, it's wrong of me to ask. See?

And anyway, you offer only fringe contrarian unsupported unpublished unreviewed opinion. Is that better some how?

If only I had a dollar for every time someone wanted to squash debate because someone holds a position that few else hold as if there's no need to actually discuss it. Appeal to authority at its worst.

Actually, I LOVE edgy ideas. Bring then on, no apologist for anodyne opinion here.
But if I had a dollar for every time a fundamentalist or other fringer tired to muscle his or her untenable position on to the table of legitimate scholarhsip, I'd be rich.

No I'm not.
As stated above.

100 tokens to anyone who can prove this, because you're basically contradicting yourself with your appeals to authority as if they are the golden bar for truth.

Oh god, not again.

However, I am saying that to claim that genesis 1 and 2 and other fantastical accounts are historic rather than mythic is so far outside of the mainstream serious religious consensus as to be profoundly suspect and to represent a veritable attack on civilization, the darkness at the fringe, fanaticism, not to be engaged seriously nor accorded respect, only to be marginalized, disembowled, and defeated. It is on the short list notions that are truly cognitio non grata.

I don't really care,

I think the record shows otherwise.

if you're going to try to denounce anyone's opinion and argument simply because it's "fringe", and refuse to back your own claims while you're at it,

That's the nice thing about fringe arguments; we get to do that.

I again suggest you mind consider finding a board where you need not actually debate or back your assertions with the actual links.

This is getting old.
How about you become a moderator first? And then impose your ideas on everyone else second? Then we'll talk.

If it was so easy to brush off people's fringe opinions by calling them fringe, there'd be no need for debate, it would be called "Discuss mainstream opinion" not "debate".

I prefer discuss and debate non-fringe opinion because to engage clear fringe opinion (fundamentalism, hate, conspriacy theory etc) as an equal is to dilute civilization.
BTW, I back up my opinions, just not in the same manner as you do. Am I required to mirror your style? My friend McColloc and I rarely debate because we have different styles. No biggee.

However, as I've shown the Talmud discusses the 900 generations before Adam. It's not a new opinion. And Pre-adamite theory was quite common in the 1700s-1800s. So if you don't want to discuss my views, that's not my problem. My argument stands. If you don't like it, oh well. It's your credibility.

If I don't want to discuss that, it's only due to lack of interest in that specific topic. But if I did, I'd want to see how and why it should make a resurgence in the 21st century with reference to the best of contemporary thought as a backdrop. But I wouldn't rule it out out of hand, I don't know anything about it.

BTW, why do you put quotes around certain of my phrases? To borrow a page from your book, is that an implied ad hominem?

Why don't you explain how that would be ad hominem exactly.

It reads like sarcastic dismissal. Seems pretty clear.

We agree. It sure is.

and irrelevant.

Natch.
OK I'm bored and busy. Snipping the next parts.

And are you now a reader of minds and character? Escape hatch? Rather, "escape hatch"?

There's a whole thread on this on the science board. The idea that the Authors never intended it to be literal, is something many of us here seem to agree is a recent "cop out".

I know nothing of science sadly. So I rarely enter that forum. But I have little idea of what authorial intent has to do with science except maybe as psychology or cognition. But I'll take a look. Do you have the link? I suspect the agreement is between fundamentalists and and athiests who share a modern reductionistic allegience to non-religious and anachronistic notions of evidence and other epistemological concerns. Karen Armstrong summarizes this error well in her popular and easy book A Case for God.

? Who died and made them modern men of modern mindset and knowledge? I'm sure there were tons of things they didn't know or understand that we do.

Ummm, what does that have to do with what Jesus and Paul said? You'd have to argue that they didn't intend to say Adam and Abel were real people with your argument. The "scholarly concensus" may in fact be sweeping over this little fact or perhaps they feel that Jesus and Paul were not in on the memo.

No, I assume they were premoderns who participated in mythic history. I don't think they insisted upon modern literalism or fiction. It never entered thier minds. So what/ How is this relevant or decisive or probitive? Your misunderstanding of premodern mythic man is really undermining your understanding here, over and over.

It could also mean that they were in on it. J and P could have had (did have) a premodern mythic-history mindset themselves. Stands to reason.

Ah, a Conspiracy Theorist.

Hardly.

Haven't you called me that before?

Not that I recall. I did mention conspiracy theories, but never called you that IIRC.

I suppose Jesus and Paul could have been "in on it", but that's quite a "Fringe" position I'd say.

It seems legitimate to wonder the extent to which J and P were utterly premodern in mindset, and the extent to which Jesus (as probably illiterate but God after all) and Paul (as Hellenized) had an awareness of self-conscious reason apart from myth, but spoke in mythic terms. I don't have the expertise to know, but it's a point to ponder, not a conspiracy theory. Scates, aristotle, and plato all seemed to speak in rational and mythic terms. And I read somewhere that elite Romans seemed to know that the gods were a cult that was valuable, but not factually real. So around that time it's a jumble. If referencing this in an open minded way as a possibility is a cospiracy theory than I'm at a loss for words. Credibility indeed. I have to wonder if you're serious.

OR they could have been speaking the language of the time, reaching people where they were at, or if you like, pandering. It was all about stories and inherited tradition, language, tropes, memes, magic.

Uh huh. More fringe positions.

Here your ignorance is showing. This is actually mainstream.

Can you find me a single link to back this concept or will you admit that this is a "Fringe" position that the 'scholarly concensus" kinda seemed to forget to mention?

I wouldn't know where to begin. Try the works of mytholgists like eliade, or demythologists like bultmann, or some of frei's work on biblical narrative, or wittgenstein on religious language games, or gadamer and ricoeur on hermeneutics, or marleau-ponty or marcel on phenomenoloigy, or paul holmer or dz philips on religoius grammar and meaning. Endless links await.

I assume that neither J nor P was crazy or a liar,

Assuming there was a P, I agree. {/quote]
I'm referring to Jesus and Paul, not the 4 source theory. You qiestion Paul's existence? That would be fringe to an unprecedented degree.

so I conclude they were participating in the mindset, language, and culture of their time and place, and doing so unselfconsciously and with little awareness of an alternative.

Okay, so that could possibly mean that they were in fact writing what they considered a literal truth, even within poetry.

Well sure, but at a time when the distinction wasn't made. You're forcing a modern mindset onto them. Again, this is a very big mistake.

I'd ask you to back your assertion that they were totally being "mythical" in the sense of not being literal or historical but conveying a mystical/Theological message, but that would probably result in a dead end as before. [/qote]
My back up is that they were premodern. By definition they were histotic-mythic in their thought framework. I'm confdient that when they said today is Thursday they were being literal. But that is jejune. But when engaging scripture and the magic stuff, they were mythic-historic. Which is all good, I wish we were so lucky. The mormons seem to want to bring it back. It's nice, fun, but untenable. However, Milbank's work intrigues me.

Let me get this straight: you're suggesting the bible is literal because J and P, people who are also known only as characters in the very same biblical narrative, when read a certain way, possibly misread, seemed to think it so? Are you relying upon that obviously circular argument?

I fail to see why this is a circular argument, and why the alternative that it wasn't intended to be literal isn't. So yes, I am suggesting that J and the potential "P" never intended it to be anything BUT literal history, and I don't think its any more circular than the idea that they were intending it to be mythical.

I rest my case.

Is this like your assertion that you used the word "Fundy" merely to save time?

I spoke truth. Are you calling me a liar? Answer yes or no. In public. Now please.

That's as far as I went with it (my major was not bible) and I've maybe read the bible for 10 minutes in the intervening quarter century (I read what others say about it, scholars, exegetes, sages; I'm a consumer in this regard).

Wait, you've only read the Bible for 10 minutes? Wow, and here you are trying to

write people off whose opinion doesn't involve having a 4 year degree, and you've spent less than 10 minutes reading the actual text?

I've spent hundreds of hours with the actual text. But not in the past 25 years. I considered lectio dvina but preferred musica divina and eros divina. So I debate from menmory and secondary expert sources. Got a problem with that?
And I'm not debating bible here anyway but rather the premodern mind, myth, and hermeneutics.

Clearly it's debate. Sorry if I don't mirror your every stylistic whim.



.

I'm sorry if your fingers hurt by typing fundamentalists. I suggest you practice typing it 100 times in a row and you'll build up the specific coordination to make it less tiring to type it out.

Again with the suggestions.
Howabout you refer to me and mine as liberaltruthholders. That's my preferred moniker. Get typing.

The literal intent vs. science issue is an albatross, for reasons I expressed in a earlier post.

[quote[ Not really, the ones saying that it was not intended to be literal, as others have also suggested, appears to be a modern "cop out" for those who don't want to debate the science issues with Genesis.

There are no "science issues" within Genesis.

It simply misses the point.

No, the "cop out" of saying it was never intended to be literal misses the point.

"Care to back up that assertion?"

[SailingCyclops]

Not only is the order of creation wrong

How is the order of creation wrong?

The order of creation as outlined in Genesis is incorrect on every point. It states the earth's creation preceded the sun's, which we know is not factual.

It states the stars were created after the earth was (day 4), not factual either.

It states all land animals were created on the same day, not true!

It states there was no death till after "man", not true! Death preceded man.

The creation myth is just that, a myth, an inaccurate and out of order one at that..

Bob