“there are alternative views in relation to the age of the Giant’s Causeway..”
Mark Devenport also spotted a mischievous question from the Alliance Party MLA Trevor Lunn to the Environment Minister, the DUP’s Arlene Foster [scroll down] – “Mr T Lunn asked the Minister of the Environment what is her assessment of the age of the Giant’s Causeway.” The problem is that her answer, an official written answer as the Minister for the Environment, a) doesn’t answer the question, and b) in doing so appears to give equal weight to those alternative views.
Mrs A Foster: Geologists generally agree that the Giant’s Causeway is some 60 million years old. As you will be aware, however, there are alternative views in relation to the age of the Giant’s Causeway.
And a reminder of where the future of the Causeway Centre fits into that.
ulsterexile @ 09:30 AM and @ 11:07 AM:
On second thoughts, take a patent out on that word evole. “Have you evoled?” could be a neat shorthand for asking any opinionated public figure: “Are you a man or a mouse?”.
Sorry: I’ll go back on the medication.
“Jared Diamond (nice one, Dewi! How you done his Collapse! How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed?)”
Sure have Malcolm – fascinating on Vikings in Iceland- but read “Guns etc” first – and still look at maybe once a month….
Sorry, we seem to have offended the Darwin Fundamentalist fanatics here by daring to suggest that their “pet theory” which is riddled with pre-suppositions and “constants” may be wrong!
Incidentally, could anyone here even explain why we KNOW as a fact that the Causeway is 60 million yeras old – apart from you read this in the Guardian while in your local pub!
A quick glance through science textbooks will unfold that they “estimates” has increased exponentially over time – good evidence in court? I think not……
Sam Hanna @ 10:16 PM:
Good question (particularly the corollary: why am I not reading the Guardian in the pub?).
Try any one of a number of Geology 101 course notes on the web: the one I found was http://gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/agea.htm, which explains in short order how the notion of geological time evolved (sorry: I’ll wash my mouth out for using the word). If you don’t want to do the look-up yourself, the answer seems to be the mass-spectrograph measuring the decay of radioactive isotopes.
Sam,
Of course science changes over time. It’s continuously improving and correcting itself as our understanding of the world around us improves. I don’t know why you have a hard time understanding that.
Sam
I’m genuinely interested to know what is the current biblical/creationist estimation of the age of the earth, and how this figure is calculated.
I am always attracted to these threads like a small child to a horrible eight or a moth to a candle. I really do not want to get involved but then I find myself tying more and more gibberish (I do that a lot). I also guess in my new found status as approved by a Jim Allister staffer I should try to avoid any flat earth nutter accusations.
I am, however, a creationist. There I have said it. Several of you are supposed to stand up and congratulate me now for being honest, the rest are meant to pity me.
Why am I a creationist? I do not really know. I was not always one. Even long after becoming a Christian I believed in evolution or such like. I gradually came to the feeling that that is what God wanted me to believe in. I do not, however, take a great interest in all the ins and outs of creation (nor evolutionary) theory. I am sure several people here will demolish most of the evidence for creationism. Then we can show some inconsistencies in evolution. Then we can all argue that both are beliefs. Then we can all quote famous important people who agree with us. Then we can all insult one another. Sound familiar?
Will I be remotely annoyed if I get to heaven and discover that the world evolved. No I am sure God will have much better things for me to do should he deign to grant me salvation as I believe he has through no merit at all of my own.
The one thing I would hold absolutely to is that God will not cast people into hell for believing in evolution. It is not a fundamental tennant of calvinism nor any other part of fundamentalist Christianity. I also (and I know I will annoy Sam Hanna here) believe that the most important role of Christians is to make Christ and Christianity attractive to non Christians. I believe we must put no stumbling block at all before anyone coming to Christ. There is a danger that Christians talking endless about creationism will make non Christians think they are mad or even that they (the non Christian) cannot become a Christian as they will have to believe all that. I do not doubt irrestible Grace for a moment but my reading of the bible is that one should put no stumbling block before anyone.
Incidentally Malcolm Redfellow, I am glad you like Paradise Lost. To my mind a brillant piece of writing, you can pick it up and read a few sentences, quite brillant. In that way a bit like Ulysees (sorry trying to look pretentious and half educated).
Pauljames,
In answer to your question, it involves working backwards from the genealogies in Genesis and elsewhere and the ages of the people mentioned.
Strangely enough I am reading Guardian in the pub. Know nothing about the religious stuff u talk about (why do not you have a special corner of slugger for religious stuff ?) nos da anyway.
Cheers T
I appreciate your honesty and I agree that it is presumptious to argue with a person of faith about why you hold that faith. I only ask that its not taught as science to my kids at school
pauljames, the trouble is that the creationists don’t understand what science is. They think that it is, like religion, about statements of irrefutable fact, and that is why they think religious views about origins are equivalent to the scientific views.
An apt cartoon
pauljames,
I am inclined to agree with you. Mainstream science seems to accept evolution. Since science education in schools is meant to be realtively basic it would seem sensible to teach what most scientists think. I would not mind a passing reference to there being other views but that should be about it. I do think that in RE children should hear the creation story though I do not regard it as the most fundamentally important part of the bible.
I tend to think that a lot of the current creationism / ID in schools is driven by the absolute ban on religion in American schools. As such religious Americans (of whom there are very many) want to have some sort of religion in their schools and this is a sort of back door for that desire to be achieved. The lack of any great demands for ID etc. in UK schools may be partly due to the fact that we have RE and assemblys etc.
Cheers Turgon
Groups such as truth in science are allowed to promote ID in a way that would not be allowed in the US. I believe RE should be taught as a course in comparative religion so that pupils are aware of the cultural and social references of all religions and should be the only place in school for bible stories.
Malcolm, Comrade Stalin et al
It always amuses me to read of these conflated views of the explanatory power of “science” to understand the world. I remember being at A Level Chemistry class many years ago and the teacher simply pointing out that any radioactive decay tests with a margin of error of 5-10 million years should be taken with a large pinch of salt. That advice has proven timely as I have studied the subject more over the years.
Let us utilise Malcom’s example of all of the ancient texts of the world as a reference point to see the problems. Almost all that I have read refer to a universal flood that changed the earth’s topography and biological balance, which prima facie suggests that this may be a truth as they are from different cultures, languages and geographical distributions. We know that the last 2,000 years e.g. the carbon/nitrogen balance has remained somewhat unchanged beacause of the historical records handed down to us. Likewise, it is only fair to judge the 4,000 years before that in light of the major extant sources of history.
The radioactive tests (assuming of course that they are correct and the constants are)are predicated on the pre-suppsoition that the world has always remained in the same state for the last 60 million years. That view is extremely questionable for the historical reasons above as well as numerous other problems e.g where are all the lost civilizations, bones, artifact, even how can we account for the fact that the oldest languages only appeared 5,000 years ago each very distinct and with highly complex grammars.
PAul James
I respect your right not to have creationism taught to your kids – can you give mine the same right not to be taught evolution as science, tolerance for sodomite lifestyles etc?
If not, your position is a sham.
“the trouble is that the creationists don’t understand what science is. They think that it is, like religion, about statements of irrefutable fact, and that is why they think religious views about origins are equivalent to the scientific views.”
err…and you base the Scientific Method on what objective fact? The reality is, as you well know, that all of us in this debate start with our own pre-suppositional faith commitments, whether you are a rationalist of theist.
It is sad that Kant, Hegal, Hume et al tried to sell this pup centuries ago and despite all of this time so many here at Slugger are uncritically falling for it. Use your mind to think for yourself. I know that is a problem as most of you here are passionate a priori material determinants and that by definition rules out your freewill and ability to trust your reason and logic. Yet you still try to reason and argue to change our opinions – why why why???
“Almost all that I have read refer to a universal flood that changed the earth’s topography and biological balance, which prima facie suggests that this may be a truth as they are from different cultures, languages and geographical distributions.”
Or it may suggest that as global climate has varied over the millenia, there have been localised floods which have been recorded separately in early written accounts. To establish a decent case for that argument, you would need to show that the different accounts refer to flooding at the same time, and to somehow show that the floods you refer to were truly “universal”, though global might be a better word, and not merely flooding that encompassed the complete geographical range of a given culture.
There is plenty of evidence for flooding of low-lying areas like the Mediterranean or the Black Sea, which had previously been dry land, and which must have seemed to those living in the areas at the time to be “universal”
I’d also call you on the sugestion that language emerged in distinct and varied forms in a variety of locations. All the linguistic research suggests that there were at most a handful of proto-languages that evolved into the vast range we know today.
The lack of evidence for “civilisations” prior to 5000 BP doesn’t add up to much either. There have been many cultures that leave virtually no trace – the vast majority of hunter-gatherer societies fall into that category. If pre-agricultural humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers, as the evidence suggests, and limited in group size, there is no mystery as to why they didn’t build cities.
Archaeological evidence for early humans is scant at the best of times. The vast majority of evidence simply disappears over time, and it is only in very specialised circumstances that it survives.
Physics is the relevant area of research that may be able to support the uniformitarian assumption. The vast amount of circumstantial evidence that supports it does not prove it, but I would argue that it leaves the onus on those who wish to falsify it. It remains our current best assessment of the nature of the universe.
“err…and you base the Scientific Method on what objective fact? The reality is, as you well know, that all of us in this debate start with our own pre-suppositional faith commitments, whether you are a rationalist of theist.”
This is just a complicated way of saying that my opinion is worth as much as yours, even though yours has evidential support and mine is merely a nonsense. It doesn’t hold water.
Sam
Same question to you that Turgon honestly answered, what is the age of the earth and how do you arrive at that figure?
PaulJAmes
There are numerous views among Conservative Christendom as to the age of the earth such as:
(1) The Gap Theory – This view believes that between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is billions of years and from Genesis 1:2 to today is around 6,000 years. This view is held by the current First Minister of NI – I don’t think we would refer to him as a rabid liberal.
(2) As Adam was created a mature man, all the trees and animals were created mature in Genesis Chapter One so the earth was also i.e. with the appearance of age so it could function immediately as a perfect ecosystem. That explains why we can see the light from distant stars etc. This may sound incredulous but no more so than ex nihilio of the Big Bang which passes for a credible theory in most scientific circles.
Personally, I believe the earth is 6,000 years old. I am sceptical of radioactive dating pre-suppositions for the reasons I have set out above. However, even if they were accurate I have no problem with the view that God created the earth with the appearance of age.
I don’t believe in Theistic Evolution as it is a nonsense and raises far more questions than Creationism. For instance, when did the soul of man evolve?
Turgon.
I don’t pity you, I respect your right to trust in fairy tales.
If you choose to ignore the evidence and trust in tales of the magic man, that’s your prerogative.
Where I do take exception is in you suggesting or implying that those of us who accept the evidence regarding evolution are somehow believers in the same sense as you.
People like to lean upon the theory part of the expression evolutionary theory, but this just tells us that they don’t really understand what a theory is.
For a theory to be accepted in the scientific community it has to fit three criteria.
It has to be something which fits the available evidence.
It has to be able to withstand the discovery of new evidence and still be true to it’s basic premise.
It has to be able to accurately predict what new evidence one is likely to find, before it is found.
Evolutionary theory fulfills these criteria perfectly.
When Intelligent design fulfills even one of them, come back and talk to me.
Snakebrain,
You are right that the extant historical records do not all agree as to the facts, but the fact that the majority refer to such a flood is surely suggestive. You are being a tad disengenuous or else you are less wide read than you claim for there are at least 500 legends of a “worldwide” deluge. For instance tablets excavated from Iraq recount the myths of ancient Mesopotamia. They speak of a vanished culture in Sumer and of a king called Gilgamesh. He was renowned for his great wisdom and knowledge. Gilgamesh related the story of a worldwide flood. For a more fuller listing for those who are interested:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/flood.asp
Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.
After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Bureau of Census on March 1, 2006.
Impact of the Flood
We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people.3 But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.
Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros.
TAFKABO,
I hate to tell you the bad news as clearly you haven’t matured yet in your thinking to join the grown up thinkers. However, what you call the “scientific community” is deeply divided over these issues. Secondly, and wait for it, scientists are as equally prejudiced in favour of the prevailing views that are in vogue, especially as to reject them would cause them to be held up in society to the highest ridicule.
Prevailing public opinion generally is the grounds of what sways most scientists. AS evidence of that I produce Sir Isaac Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell all committed creationists and not bad scientific thinkers either. In our own “Norn Iron” where it is still permitted to be a Creationist and a scientist publicly we have the leading recognized scientist in the Province in 2007, Sir Norman Nevin as a committed 6 Day Creationist who firmly believes evolution is a false theory.
Your Emperor has no clothes….go away and do some more research
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/217/63/
Sam
Incidental question:
What’s the theological basis for the existence of a soul in humans?
Sam
Sorry I didnt make myself clear enough, but what is the evidence for the earth being 6000 years old?
Sam you are selling what no one is buying
I hate to tell you the bad news as clearly you haven’t matured yet in your thinking to join the grown up thinkers. However, what you call the “scientific community†is deeply divided over these issue
The scientific community is not deeply divided over this issue, unless you count the 1/100th of 1/10th of 1% of scientist willing to sell their souls to your little fantasy.
Wait I gues .00001 is a fairly signifigant number. NOT
Sam.
A false theory?
Which part of it is false, and demonstrably so?
I can point you to a study, carried out over decades which demonstrated the theory perfectly (Peter and Rosemary Grant’s study of the Galapagos Finches). Can you show me where the theory has fallen under the accepted scientific criteria for testing?
I have set out the conditions by which a theory is generally accepted, instead of telling me that it’s wrong, show it’s wrong, if you can.
Creationists and other assorted believers in the Magic Man tend to rely on certain arguments.
The old Atheists and Evolutionists are just as dependant of faith as religious people argument (false)
The scientific community is deeply divided (false)
There’s no proof for evolution (false)
Reluctantly, I feel the need to intervene in this discussion.
Sam
“We know from the Bible..”
Indeed. Your reliance on biblical authority is clear.
But you provide neither evidence nor testable hypothesis.
And your attempts to co-opt scientific names into your argument simply reveal your lack of understanding of both science and personal faith.
Hint – Don’t start me on Newton.
We know from the Bible that the Sun revolves around the earth.
This must be true, because Magic Man told someone in a dream, and they wrote it down…
Ho hum…
Sam Hanna @ 07:05 PM:
Thanks for the mention, but no thanks: no way am I getting involved in another pointless debate between irreconcilable positions.
All I will say is that it astounds me that, with the honourable exception of a few fringe sects, the “conservative Christian” accepts all the benefits of modern science (medicine in particular) but rejects the findings of one particular branch of science (geology).
If geology is so fallible, are the other sciences which are contrary to Genesis (astronomy, for one obvious example) as easy to discount?
And why is the “conservative Christian” so much more dogmatic about creationism today than those dour Puritans and divines of the 17th century? What Biblical revelation do we now have that wasn’t available to (say) Milton?
One small point: the Great Flood (for which Archbishop Ussher’s date is 2348BC). There must be some catastrophic event preserved here in a folk memory. The Noah story (which has parallels in other non-Jewish cultures) is clearly derived from the Akkadian epic of Atrahasis, via the epic of Gilgamesh. That puts it in the Mesopotamian region. Although Wooley claimed the credit for the discovery at Ur of a flood deposit, he probably was prompted to “find” that evidence by Langton’s work at Kish. Max Mallowan (Mr Agatha Christie, of course) reckoned that the basis of the Flood story came from an earlier inundation at Shuruppak (later: Fara), about 2750BC — which coincides neatly with the first phase of Silbury Hill, and is 200-500 years later than Newgrange.
So, here’s another problem: we have clear records of continuous occupation of Britain and Ireland from before Silbury and Newgrange (and therefore from before the “Great Flood”). Did the “Great Flood” miss out on these islands, or what?
“Incidental question:
What’s the theological basis for the existence of a soul in humans?”
And whom may I say is asking?
“The scientific community is not deeply divided over this issue, unless you count the 1/100th of 1/10th of 1% of scientist willing to sell their souls to your little fantasy.Wait I gues .00001 is a fairly signifigant number. NOT”
Your arrogance only is exceeded by your ignorance Shawn. I would suggest you look up who Prof. Norman Nevins is and then put your credentials on the table.
When you are at it – google Stephen Mayer, John Polkinghorne, William Behe, Gerard Schroeder, Geoffrey Simmons. Alister McGrath, William Dembski etc etc and purchase their books.
The thing that amazes me is how so many people could be fooled by so long by the evolution fairy story
Malcolm
A little piece of research may assist you quandry to save elongating this thread on frankly a non-issue. Let me suggest a well written paper of which I will attach a pertinent quote,
The second hypothesis—that the Genesis account is dependent on the Epic—has significant difficulties. According to this hypothesis, the author of the Genesis account would have needed to revise the Epic as follows: change the concept of god from polytheism to absolute monotheism and add the strong, consistent moral motivation for the Flood by establishing God as righteous and gracious; write clear descriptions that show the Flood as universal in order to make the whole account consistent; change the character of the survivors to portray them as righteous and worthy to be saved; specify the survivors as four couples who are capable of replenishing the human race; add their descendants’ genealogy which agrees with the secular historical records; add the details about animals being included in pairs of every kind for the preservation of the created kinds; improve the source of the Flood from only rain to rain and underground water sufficient to cover the whole world; specify the duration of the Flood from only six days and nights and unspecified days to more than one year which is adequate for a universal Flood; redesign the structure of the Ark from the unstable cube to the ideal safe design for floating; change the order and the kind of the birds of the test flights in order to make them more logical; specify seven days interval between each test flight; and add the account of the freshly plucked olive leaf which is botanically realistic and more informative than the Epic.
Therefore, despite the many similarities between the two accounts, it would have been inconceivable to rewrite the Epic to the Genesis account, the more reliable one, unless the author was not only ethical, creative and logical, but also had enough knowledge about zoology, biology, physics, naval architectural skill, botany and ancient ethnic histories. If one does not accept the Genesis account as an historical record, there is no escaping the fact that an heroic effort has been undertaken to make that account appear to be historical.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/flood/conclusion.asp
“Indeed. Your reliance on biblical authority is clear.But you provide neither evidence nor testable hypothesis.”
If we go down that road Pete then we night as well burn all ancient history texts. However, if we accept that we can rely on historical research tools to independently test facts then we are in business concerning the Great Flood narrative. Choice is yours…..
““Incidental question:
What’s the theological basis for the existence of a soul in humans?â€
And whom may I say is asking?”
Me. Who did you think?
“We know from the Bible that the Sun revolves around the earth.”
Err.. have you just discovered a new Bible TAFKABO?
Here is just a few Biblical statements on science that are amazingly accurate:
“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in†(Isaiah 40:22)
“the host of heaven cannot be numbered†(Jeremiah 33:22,Genesis 22:17)
“His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.†(Psalm 19:4;6)
For many years, Bible critics mocked the Bible that this verse taught the old myth that the sun revolves around the earth! However, it was recently discovered that the sun is in fact, moving through space. It is not stationary, as was once thought. In fact, it is estimated to be moving in a gigantic orbit in the Milky Way galaxy through space at about 486,000 miles per hour, in an orbit so large it would take an estimated 226 million years just to complete one orbit! The Milky Way galaxy itself is moving among the other galaxies. So the circuit of the sun is, indeed, from one end of the heavens to the other.
“And whom may I say is asking?â€
“Me. Who did you think?”
Who is me?
Do you want my name and address?
so you named 8 scientists! I contend that is even less significant than .000001 of all scientists more like .00000000000000000000000001 especially when you consider most of them arent biology scientists!
Why am I arguing with someone who thinks you can accurately date the earth by counting the number of people alive at the moment?
No Sam, I just have the Bible, no new version.
Joshua 10:13
As for your amazingly accurate quotes?
Jesus wept…
Sam Hanna @ 04:06 AM:
Do you realise that your second paragraph (“The second hypothesis—that the Genesis account is dependent on the Epic—has significant difficulties…”) is the most comprehensive refutation of all assumptions about the evolution of narrative technique? I guess that, in its detailed exegesis, it explodes any ideas that Milton could have evolved Paradise Lost from the Genesis story, or Tennyson his Idylls of the King and THWhite his Once and Future King tetralogy from Mallory and that all-but-one of Shakespeare’s plays exist at all!
The whole corpus of Western thought and tradition discounted in a single paragraph!
Wow! I have spent a whole lifetime in literature, and it was all wasted, all totally wasted! At least I can now purge my home of many thousand texts, knowing they are totally specious and without value.
So tell me again, since I have to recommence from first principles, this Homer guy is giving us the straight facts, yeah?
Pete
Sam obviously doesn’t want to present us with his evidence as to the Earth being 6000 years old. I’m sorry that this has been a rehash of countless other threads but I do enjoy Sams posts and I admire the depths of his beliefs. It certainly provides a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a Christian Fundamentalist and reminds us that these are some of the views of those whom we have voted into positions of power.
The other thing sams view shows us is just how the allah crowd can believe they will get into heaven and be endowed with 72 virgins.
as quoted from a previous poster “jebus wept”
I hope readers understand that I am not avoiding all these questions, but can only answer a few or else I will be hogging the bandwidth like the DUP/SF axis.
I am not going to waste time answering fools, like Shawn, who have no basic understanding as to systems of thought and logic.
PaulJames
There are huge amounts of evidence that the earth could well be just 6,000 years old – just google it. I have set a couple of examples out above e.g. linguistics, archaelogy etc. However, as I also outlined Christians have posited two major theories as to why the earth is more than 6,000 years or why it appears to be so.
TAFKABO
First of all, I have given you a definitive scientific statement from Psalm 19 concerning the sun which has just recenlty been proven as accurate but you rejected it because it did not fit in with your pre-suppositional straw man.
Joshua 10:14 is not a problem if you had cared to read it in its context. Anyone with half a wit can see that Joshua is quoting from an ancient poem in a non-inspired Book, Book of Jasher so it is possible he was just referring to this. Secondly, it is quite possible that God could have done all of this as it literally is written. Thirdly, Joshua could simply have being using the common parlance to describe the situation – we do this all the time.
Malcolm
You really need to go back to school if you think narrative technique is as simple as that. Any decent historian will tell you that you simply cannot rely on the age of the manuscript to overturn another subsequent one on that basis alone. The Bible sets itself apart from the Gilgamarsh account in many different ways and has proved itself to be the most accurate ancient text in science, prophecy and history. A good example of this is the Gospel of Luke that has proven itself so repeatedly superior and reliable in respect of Roman/Greek/Jewish history and culture to archaelogists that they use it as a reference point when comparing other extant texts of that era. That is a fact.
Sam Hanna @ 03:36 PM
The Bible sets itself apart from the Gilgamarsh (sic) account in many different ways and has proved itself to be the most accurate ancient text in science, prophecy and history
(a) Do we not agree that the Gilgamesh story is a legend, which was not intended to be canonical?
(b) Do we not also agree that Gilgamesh derives from earlier sources, notably the epic of Atrahasis? It is the hyberbole of the Gigamesh story that changes a local flood into a global catastrophe.
Now, the oldest (so far) known Hebrew (from the Tel Zayit site) is from the 10th century BC (that is the time of David and Solomon), which is at least three centuries later than the text of Gigamesh. As for the text of Atrahasis, it can be conclusively dated to the period of 1646-1626BC. On the other hand, Biblical Hebrew only emerges at the time of the Captivity, which is the 6th century BC.
Are you therefore saying that there is evidence of the Noah’s Flood story predating Gilgamesh and Atrahasis? In which case it presumably exists in Canaanite, Phoenician or some other (lost?) Semitic tongue..
In place of your usual dismissive insults, can you explain what, if any, of that lot is in error?
As for the Lucan accounts, they are indeed valuable and admirable. They are not, however, canonically or historically without reproach. For example, which genealogy do we take as definitive: Luke 3 or Genesis 5/1 Chronicles 1?
As for history, perhaps you can clear up the confusion between Like and the other Gospels, at least in one small matter: the Roman Census. Luke 2, 1-3 is explicit (forgive me for using King James: old habits die hard):
“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.”
The census ordered (not by Augustus) by Quirinus took place in AD6-7, and was simply a registration for taxation purposes: there was no requirement to return to birth-places. By that date, Herod the Great was ten years dead, which contradicts Luke 1, 5:
“in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea”.
That, surely, is one, serious, inaccuracy in Luke. There are others: when Gamaliel speaks (Acts 5, 24-9) he is referring to the revolt of AD 46-47 in the past tense. Yet, Gamaliel’s speech must have occurred before AD40. Curious that. Gamaliel also says that “Judas the Galilean” revolted after the AD 46-47 rising: yet Josephus and every other account I can find dates Judas’s revolt in AD 6-7. Even more curious.
I realise that you do not like your faith to be confused by detailed enquiry. Can you, at least this once, defer your wrath and assist a poor, struggling seeker of wisdom?
“On the other hand, Biblical Hebrew only emerges at the time of the Captivity, which is the 6th century BC.”
Malcolm,
Do some research – Aramaic came out of the Babylonian Captivity. The Aramaic at the time of Christ was a combination derived from the Babylonian and Syrian Aramaic with smatterings of Hebrew. Biblical or Ancient Hebrew has been found in non-Biblical sources back until the 10th century BC. Using Usher’s Chronology, Moses wrote the Pentateuch in the 12 century BC so I really don’t know what your problem is.
I don’t agree that the Gilgamesh is necessarily derived from another written one. Over 500 ancient extant manuscripts from very diverse civilizations record the fact of a Universal Flood – I am not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. Clearly, only one of them can be right – question is which one? I am putting forward the Bible as the only reliable one.
Lucan Genealogy
I have already dealt with this on Slugger before so will try to be brief. The Bible harmonises beautifully if you put it all together. Each of the Gosepl accounts present different perspectives on Christ.Jeremiah 22:28-30 is the critical key to understanding the differences in the accounts of Matt 1 and Luke 3. Coniah is Jehoiachin and he was cursed on the throne and anyone succeeding him is in cursed line. Christ is of the Royal line, yet is the offspring of a cursed line through Joseph as the legal father. But in Luke 3:23 this is a whole different genealogy until we get to v31 but then enters the same line. However, it splits off at David. Matt 1 will go the route of Solomon, but Luke 3 will go through the line of Nathan and continues down to Mary. The split is because of the problem of Coniah. Joseph inherits the Royal line and Jesus receives the inheritance of Jospeh because He is the Firstborn. However, because He is not born of Joseph He bypasses the curse so Christ gained the Royal Inheritance without the curse.
LUCAN CENSUS
This is a passage that takes a little more care. Some conservative scholars would render the words, “This registration was previous to Cyrenius being governor of Syria†– as the word “first†(protos – meaning foremost (in time, place, order or importance in Greek) is rendered in Joh 1:15; Joh 15:18. In this case, of course, the difficulty vanishes. However, an other interpretation, which I prefer, was that the registration may have been ordered with a view to the taxation, about the time of our Lord’s birth, though the taxing itself – an obnoxious measure in Palestine – was not carried out till the time of Quirinus.
Cristophers Hitchen’s latest book God Is Not Great does a masterful job of debunking and demonstrating the bible false, or at least full of falsehoods, both old and new testaments.
“Cristophers Hitchen’s latest book God Is Not Great does a masterful job of debunking and demonstrating the bible false, or at least full of falsehoods, both old and new testaments.”
Of course it did – all scholaras have just signed up to Atheist International because of his startling revelations. It is amazing that so many poorly read and pub-educated paddies come on here and regurgitate the infantile arguments against the Bible which has outsold (and continues to do so) every book (including Hitchens) in every major advanced Western country since the advent of the Printing Press.
Hitchens book is just a poor man’s rehash of Hume, Russell, Voltaire et al. It says a lot for you that you would be so easily impressed and duped by such tales. I will make a simple prediction, based on around 400 years of experience, Mr Hitchens books will be selling off in charity shops for 50p in a couple of years from now, while the Bible will keep outselling any rival in every generation.
Hitchens arguments have been taken apart over countless centuries by apologetics experts. If you want a scholarly list I am happy to furnish the details though I suspect your reading list is typically one-sided.
Sam when did snakes lose the power of speech?
RS, I’d guess they were speechless when they heard Sam’s theory that sales volume equates to truth. Incidently, the bible is followed in 10th place by Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. So I guess Harry Potter isn’t fiction after all.
Sam Hanna @ 07:16 PM:
Well, hello, again!
Aramaic came out of the Babylonian Captivity.
No. Definitely no.
“Aramaic” is a term that covers a whole group and development of Semitic languages. It seems to have originated in (modern) Iraq, Syria and eastern Turkey, where its varieties were established by 1100BC. Its success was to adapt the Phoenician script to become the main lingua franca of record, trade and government across the Near East and North Africa. The four deportations which were the Captivity are datable precisely to 605-581BC. The return was authorised by Cyrus in 537BC. Referring to “Aramaic” as a single language is as deceptive as lumping together everything from the original Anglisc and tomorrow’s newspapers alike as “English”.
En suite!
Then we have this:
Using Usher’s (sic)Chronology, Moses wrote the Pentateuch in the 12 century BC.
Oh dear.
No way am I going to traduce (again) a fellow Trinity man, even though we were 360 years apart. Let’s leave that for another time (these creationist threads on Slugger recur with distressing frequency).
However, you and I have already had words about the Pentateuch. What we can both be (reasonably) assured of is that the four strands can be dated: J about 950BC; E about the 8th century BC; D about 650BC or late; and P sometime after 587BC. The earliest “composite” seems to be about 400BC. As you are well aware, that is why Ezra has been proposed as the “compositor” — first, I believe, by Baruch Spinoza. There is no, repeat no evidence (other than the internal claims for authorship by “Moses”, notably Exodus 34.27) for a version as early as the Mosaic period.
In passing, is it not arrogance that Christians “know” so much more about the Pentateuch than Jewish scholars? And why is Jewish faith not greatly disturbed by admitting that Mosaic authorship is arguable?
Encore!
As for Over 500 ancient extant manuscripts from very diverse civilizations record the fact of a Universal Flood, the difference between us is that word “fact”.
It’s a great story; but that doesn’t make it a “fact”, anymore than the numerous parallel versions of other folk-stories do. If the “500 ancient extant manuscripts” are up for evaluation, why should I have to prefer Noah over Deucalion? Or either over Gong Gong’s Chinese flood? It isn’t the case that only one of them can be right ; they could all be variants of a Jungian “collective unconscious” or, more viscerally, a general human fear and experience (ask the people of Sheffield, Hull, Worcester, Yarmouth … )
And, last, John 1, 15. I came across that in the original when I was doing (rather well, if you ask) the Irish Diocesan Examination in Greek Testament, back about 1960. You completely bewilder me how that verse’s use of Ï€Ïϖτος changes the meaning of ‘η απογÏαφη Ï€Ïωτη in Luke 2.2. Please elucidate.