Search This Blog

Sunday, May 14, 2006

Point three of Creation/Macroevolution

Point Three

"Third, there are evidences in virtually every culture that the Bible narrative of Genesis is true or at least evidences that support the narrative. Genealogies around the world mention Noah, Sham, Ham and/or Japheth and some go all the way back to Adam. There are world-wide flood accounts from cultures on every continent. The Biblical account was carefully safeguarded by the family of Adam through Noah down to Moses and then on through time by Jewish scribes carefully counting words and comparing scripts so that not "one jot or tittle" would be miscopied. This is why the Genesis account is plausible whereas other stories have the appearance of what we call myth."

Hopefully you have read Beowulf, Grendel, and a preponderance of Dinosaurs. Perhaps you read the Genealogies post (and I apologize for the mispelling). For those of you new to the discussion, I would urge you to read both those posts and the comment threads (to hear the other side) in order to catch up.

These two posts touch a bit on points two and three and they are both similar, really. There is a great deal of evidence in historical literature, carvings, drawings, statues, etc, that dinosaurs were living at the same time as men and did so for hundreds of years. There is also a good deal of evidence that the Genesis genealogies were shared by people around the planet even though most of them did not have access to the Book of Genesis.

We have already been through a bout of discussions about this so many comments would simply be re-runs. Suffice it to say that naysayers see this evidence and usually reply either "myth" or "hoax" without giving much serious consideration to the subject. This is a sufficient reply for many of you. Most of us grew up believing stories of "dragons" were simple fairy tales made up for the amusement of children. My research indicated to me that, no, the reports were by sober individuals made in the distant past, individuals whose testimonies are debunked now simply because, well, there couldn't really have been pterosaurs in England a six hundred years ago, could there? Pshaw!

For those of you with a genuine curiosity, my two linked posts will also point you to other sources of information that you may peruse in search of evidences for these two points.

I can say that such evidences are precisely what one would expect as a YEC creationist. Of course there were reports of dinosaurs since it took a great deal of time before they were made extinct by environment and mankind. Of course names in the Biblical genealogies would show up all around the world, for those people were the forefathers of all people now living!

In any event, point three, like point two, is a matter of looking at evidences that were produced in the distant past, the works of mankind whether written or graphically expressed. Point four will concern the rock layers. That will be the next one due for Monday if possible.

~~~~~~~~~~

6 comments:

creeper said...

"Suffice it to say that naysayers see this evidence and usually reply either "myth" or "hoax" without giving much serious consideration to the subject."

Actually the word is "conflation":

1. Myth in the way we've been using it in the context of the flood myth and the creation myth is a very different thing from a hoax, though it seems to register that way in your mind.

2. The Bible is an anthology of texts composed by different authors in different historical periods regarding a wide range of topics. Demonstrating an indication of historical accuracy in one part of the book does not mean that the entire Bible consists of literal truth.

Anonymous said...

ON NPR today:
 
Fresh Air from WHYY, May 15, 2006 · Neil Asher Silberman tests the historical accuracy of some of the Bible's oldest stories in a book he co-authored with Israel Finkelstein, David and Solomon.

The book focuses on the first two great kings of the Bible as a means of exploring the wider question of how the stories of the Bible evolved. Finkelstein and Silberman are archaeologists who also co-authored 2000's The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. . . .

. . . Thanks to archaeology, we now -- for the first time -- can dissect the main elements of the biblical story to see when and how each one emerged. The results of our search may be surprising, for the archaeological discoveries of recent decades have clearly shown how far from the glamorous scriptural portraits the actual world of David and Solomon was. Yet the legend was not merely a romantic fiction of imaginary personalities and events. It evolved over centuries from a core of authentic memories into a complex and timeless literary creation. In its unforgettable images and dramatic scenes -- the battle against Goliath, the rise of David from outlaw to king, the splendor of Solomon's court -- the legend of David and Solomon expresses a universal message of national independence and transcendent religious values that people all over the world have come to regard as their own. Yet as we will see, its origins are traceable in the archaeology and history of a single small Iron Age kingdom as it grew from a village society into a complex state."


Sounds interesting.

Will comment on myth soon - keep forgetting to . . .

blogverification says "croza"

-Dan S.

A Hermit said...

Radar, though I am not myself a man of faith I retain great respect for people who are commited to their faith; who find strength and wisdom in that faith. But I have to say I've always found the kind of faith you are expressing here on your blog to be the weakest, least inspiring kind.

How frail and on what shaky foundations rests a faith that is afraid of objective examination; that allows for no mystery, just a dry, colourless literalism. Clinging to literalism backs one into a corner, forcing one to adopt all kinds of denials and excersises in logical contortionism to explain away the contradictions and absurdities produced by a literal approach to the text.

Myth is not a bad word, Radar. Myths can contain many truths, and are not to be sniffed at for being symbolically, rather than literally, true. I no longer believe in the literal magic of the Bible, but I still find inspiriation of much of what it has to say, especially the teachings of Jesus. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

I recommend a good reading of Northrop Fyre's "The Great Code".

Sincerely
A Literary Hermit

A Hermit said...

And when discussing subjects like science, Radar, you would do well to take the advice of St. Augustine:

""It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.

"And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy in making mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly well; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, by their direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt? It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their assertions so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement."

When people who actually know something about genetics, or histtory, or paleontology see someone like you leaping to ignorant conclusions and dismissing what those scholars know to be true you do nothing but discredit faith.

Something to think about.

Sincerely

A Pensive Hermit

radar said...

"2. The Bible is an anthology of texts composed by different authors in different historical periods regarding a wide range of topics. Demonstrating an indication of historical accuracy in one part of the book does not mean that the entire Bible consists of literal truth."

The above is simply your view of the Bible. Others would say that God inspired men to write the Bible and that it hangs together as a complete work quite nicely.

A Hermit? Thanks for the inspiration!

creeper said...

"The above is simply your view of the Bible."

Which part of it do you disagree with, if any?

"Others would say that God inspired men to write the Bible and that it hangs together as a complete work quite nicely."

I didn't say that the authors weren't inspired by God, nor that the Bible doesn't "hang together quite nicely". It is, however, not a homogeneous text, and demonstrating an indication of historical accuracy in one part of the book certainly does not mean that the entire Bible consists of literal truth. That's just a simple fallacy of composition.