Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 117

Thread: Dating the Flood back 650 years

  1. Top | #101
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,704
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,760
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Nope....the trick is to recognize that unexplained events are by definition 'unexplained' and not try to induce an explanation where no explanation currently exists.

    Especially not to interpret unexplained events in terms of your own beliefs.....like Christians seeing signs and wonders through the filter of Christian theology, Hindus through their own faith, this is the work of Shiva, that is attributed to Ganesh....Muslims and their Allah and so on.

    That is the work of fixed minds. Seeing the world through the filter of faith.
    Nope ...it depends on the historic aspects of scripture etc.. (if you accept or not ) that can turn out to be true ... but I guess you mean appying scripture to a scientific discussion dialogue e.g. God of the gaps.

  2. Top | #102
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן ǝɥʇ
    Posts
    8,188
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,094
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Nope....the trick is to recognize that unexplained events are by definition 'unexplained' and not try to induce an explanation where no explanation currently exists.

    Especially not to interpret unexplained events in terms of your own beliefs.....like Christians seeing signs and wonders through the filter of Christian theology, Hindus through their own faith, this is the work of Shiva, that is attributed to Ganesh....Muslims and their Allah and so on.

    That is the work of fixed minds. Seeing the world through the filter of faith.
    Nope ...it depends on the historic aspects of scripture etc.. (if you accept or not ) that can turn out to be true ... but I guess you mean appying scripture to a scientific discussion dialogue e.g. God of the gaps.
    It's how something is determined to be true or false that's the issue. Including probability and likelihood.

  3. Top | #103
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,423
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,399
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    I think you are misreading DBT. I don't see his mind as "set and fixed" but, on the contrary, is exploring evidence for possible and plausible explanations. A search for these possible and plausible explanations begins with some evidence to explain. An "open mind" that invents scenarios with no evidence as a basis is only constructing fantasies. Now there is nothing wrong with fantasizing... It can even be quite enjoyable. But one should be wise enough to distinguish between their fantasizing and their open attempts to make sense of possible and plausible explanations of evidence. If taken too seriously, accepting an invented fantasy as a reality can have undesired consequences.

    Yes, I enjoyed the fantasy of the Star Trek series... but I was never tempted to accept it as reality.
    I wasn't talking of "invented" fantasy ( if such "evidence" for invented could be shown regarding the bible). Besides I used to be a trekkie too.
    Apparently you are taking the Bible as the source. If so then it must be understood that the bible is a compilation of several different parts. There is the geographical and historical that tells the story of the Israeli tribe. This can be used to locate old cities and understand some of the culture and history of the tribe - but, like all ancient historical documents of the time, it should be understood that the writers exaggerate and glorify. Then there is the parables or fables (similar to the works of Aesop) that are only for offering moral tales, not descriptions of real events. Then there is the descriptions of god's power, commands, deeds, etc. that is drawn from nothing but the minds of the writers (often derived from the imaginative writings of other religions). These make up a comforting fantasy that there is a big daddy who will always take care of the believers.

    The trap seems to be that some assume that since the historical parts of the Bible accurately describes the location of cities then everything can be taken as literally true. For example: there is no evidence that should make anyone consider that snakes and donkeys can talk (as the Bible claims) than there is that Aesop's fables indicate that the animals he describes can talk.

    ETA:
    And then the story of the exodus appears from all available evidence to be in the fable or parable category rather than the history category.

  4. Top | #104
    Veteran Member funinspace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,179
    Archived
    10,245
    Total Posts
    13,424
    Rep Power
    60

    G'day

    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by funinspace View Post
    Well, getting beyond the reality that the earth never noticed a global earth surface covering flood of water in the last 800,000 or so years; or shall we bend the spoon? Nothing, absolutely nothing, supports the notion outside of fairy tales.

    Ok, that said...notions of 're-introduced writing systems' is purely and un-evidenced speculation. Secondly, what makes you think Shandi was about monotheism? Of course many think the roots of Yahweh weren't monotheistic either, so then they would have something in common. You might as well ask 'What if Loki is the real God, and he gets his socks off by playing differing gods to differing people over the ages and watching the cacophony?'. That would fit the evidence better than the God-breathed world of the Bible. Nothing suggests the Hebrew theistic roots have any ties to the Chinese.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shangdi
    The earliest references to Shangdi are found in oracle bone inscriptions of the Shang Dynasty in the 2nd millennium BC, although the later work Classic of History claims yearly sacrifices were made to him by Emperor Shun, even before the Xia Dynasty.

    Shangdi was regarded as the ultimate spiritual power by the ruling elite of the Huaxia during the Shang dynasty: he was believed to control victory in battle, success or failure of harvests, weather conditions such as the floods of the Yellow River, and the fate of the kingdom. Shangdi seems to have ruled a hierarchy of other gods controlling nature, as well as the spirits of the deceased.
    G'day Funinheaven,

    Hierachy of gods ,Shang Di still refers to one "ultimate" creator , An "Almighty". Not forgetting, gods (some were angels) plural, is also in the bible, that also states there IS only one "Almighty". An interesting discussion for another time maybe (should there be interest) since the topic of the thread is the Flood.
    Uhm...it is almost as if you are suggesting a pantheon (with a lead god) is synonymous with monotheism (ergo the point I was making that they do not share major traits with Chinese origins). Or maybe you see Christianity not so much a pure monotheistic faith, with Yahweh, Jesus, angels all being distinctly differing gods?
    Last edited by funinspace; 04-09-2019 at 02:30 PM. Reason: G'day

  5. Top | #105
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    21,284
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    63,757
    Rep Power
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post

    One almighty, quite a few names though.
    Indeed Mr. Higgins, obviously, more so with various different nations with various languages and dialects.
    I was talking about the Book of Genesis.

    OMG, who'd ever independently come up with the bad guy archetype?!
    Good question.
    You understand what an archetype is, right?

  6. Top | #106
    Veteran Member Sarpedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    MN, US
    Posts
    2,712
    Archived
    8,446
    Total Posts
    11,158
    Rep Power
    64
    Zeus was also sometimes referred to as "Almighty." In fact, in my college epic literature class, we compared the depiction of Zeus in the Iliad with Zeus in the Odyssey, with the point that in the later book, he had become more powerful relative to the other gods.

    The tendency to go from polytheism to monotheism through strengthening of the principle god is actually quite common.

  7. Top | #107
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,524
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    8,368
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarpedon View Post
    Zeus was also sometimes referred to as "Almighty." In fact, in my college epic literature class, we compared the depiction of Zeus in the Iliad with Zeus in the Odyssey, with the point that in the later book, he had become more powerful relative to the other gods.

    The tendency to go from polytheism to monotheism through strengthening of the principle god is actually quite common.
    Seems natural to me. An extension of "My Dad can beat up your Dad" argument into the supernatural realm.

  8. Top | #108
    Raspberry bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    19,725
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    30,202
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by James Brown View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarpedon View Post
    Zeus was also sometimes referred to as "Almighty." In fact, in my college epic literature class, we compared the depiction of Zeus in the Iliad with Zeus in the Odyssey, with the point that in the later book, he had become more powerful relative to the other gods.

    The tendency to go from polytheism to monotheism through strengthening of the principle god is actually quite common.
    Seems natural to me. An extension of "My Dad can beat up your Dad" argument into the supernatural realm.
    More of a reflection of the societal trend from collective decisions, to leadership by village elders, to leadership by a villiage chief with advisors, and finally to leadership by an absolute monarch whose word is law.

    At each stage, power is consolidated through personal loyalty and faith that the big man will make the best decisions.

  9. Top | #109
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,704
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,760
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    It's how something is determined to be true or false that's the issue. Including probability and likelihood.
    Yep , I agree and not forgetting the pieces of various data discovered "yesterday" that gave some perspective to some ideas, would no doubt alter again (and again) when there is newly discovered data, through continuous vigorous study.

  10. Top | #110
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן ǝɥʇ
    Posts
    8,188
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,094
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    It's how something is determined to be true or false that's the issue. Including probability and likelihood.
    Yep , I agree and not forgetting the pieces of various data discovered "yesterday" that gave some perspective to some ideas, would no doubt alter again (and again) when there is newly discovered data, through continuous vigorous study.
    So how does that relate to the Bible and its stories?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •