[_ Old Earth _] Food for Noah's Animals

[BobRyan]

L.K.
Is meat-eating specifically excluded by Genesis 1?

Bob said
Again - it is helpful to "Read the text".

[quote:281ea]Gen 1
23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 Then God said, ""Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind''; and it was so.
25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, ""Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.''
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "" Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.''
29 Then God said, ""Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food''; and it was so.
31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day

The point remains "from the text".

[/quote:281ea]

L.K
In parentheses, I find your use of multi-sized font and different colours confusing to follow. However, as far as the point you are making goes, you seem only to be confirming that Genesis 1 indeed does not specifically exclude meat-eating.

1. Is that why you completely deleted the Gen 1 text in your response ;-)
2. You have confirmed your statement - you were confused in reading the text.

By contrast - I appeal to the "details in the text" as stated above in Gen 1 you seem to be content to argue "from the void of what the text does NOT say".

I am happy to leave that as the perfect example of our difference on this subject.

The fact that the animals were created as herbavores means that even the adaption to a carnivorous diet was more likely an omnivore transation than suddenly "waking up to discover they could not eat plants".

You know --- the obvious.

But you are happy to speculate about things that might support your argument. If T Rex didn't make the Ark, it was an obligate carnivore before the Flood, which suggests other animals were also obligate carnivores before the Flood,

I have never seen a fossilied T-Rex digestive tract - nor one preserved -- have you? Since THAT is what determines what an animal "can process" in terms of meat vs plants "or both" where do you get your obligate assumption? More "assuming the central point rather than proving it"?

What process do you suppose caused that change in behaviour and dietary requirements? If the change occurred in T Rex, it is reasonable to suppose it affected other animals that we now know to be carnivores.

Again the "do you suppose" language is an "appeal to guessing".


True - certainly lions would have started out as God specifies in Gen 1 -- eating plant food and would have then "changed" to eat flesh food "at some point" since we see that they are carnivores today.

L.K
So is that "changing" anything but evolution under another name?

Evolution can mean
1. "minor change over time within a kind"

it can also be bent to the needs of atheist darwinism via a model of endless rounds of story telling about how one thing came from another - stories easy enough to make up -- but not actual science and framed for the public as

2. "descent with modification over time from a common ancestoral single celled life form" --

Equivocating between the TWO definitions for the SAME term makes a good parlor trick -- but is not good logic.

In Gen 3 we see a "curse" added and plant life is changed to include thorns and thistles "according to the text".

This shows a CHANGE in the biology of some kinds of plants but not ALL.

From what we SEE in Genesis 1 as the food source for ALL animals vs the fact that we SEE today the existence of Carnivores -- a CHANGE in biology would have been required WITHIN some species but not all.

This avoids the problem-under-every-rock speculation.

L.K
The verses do not support a change to meat-eating.

Again - I am happy to leave our difference framed just as we see it in that exchange -- it makes my point perfectly.

...

As in all these exchanges

I am simply answering the OP question "ABOUt the text FROM the text"

It is one thing to claim that you do not agree with the text -- it is another not to even know what it says and the difference between a wild guess outside of the text - vs a direct honest rendering of the text itself within the parameters of valid exegesis.

That I do not agree with your interpretation of the text is not evidence that I do 'not even know what it says'.

[/quote][/quote]

You seem to a have the need to "ignore" Genesis 1 regarding food and to "ignore" Genesis 7 regarding clean animals going in by pairs and all this is done on your part in a transparent effort to "CREATE conclusions that do not work" so you may add "and that is the problem with the Bible"!.

As I said -- transparent.

Hint: Avoiding such transparent agendas is the whole reason that the system of Exegesis was created.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Again - it is helpful to "Read the text".

And again the reading the text is insufficient to determine whether or not all animals were wholly herbivorous at creation. It is a conclusion you draw from inadequate data. Young's Literal Translation, for example, prefers this construction for Gen 1:30:

and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to every creeping thing on the earth, in which is breath of life, every green herb is for food:' and it is so.

which quite clearly implies a somewhat different meaning from that which you prefer. Even the word 'meat' may be used metaphorically or allegorically.

I would also be interested in what you imagine the herbivorous diets of, for example, ticks and vampire bats would have been, and also what the breeding habits of, say, digger wasps would have been before the Fall. It seems to me that you are requiring an awful lot of quite dramatic evolution in many, many creatures to make your scenario make sense.

[quote:850d0]L.K
In parentheses, I find your use of multi-sized font and different colours confusing to follow. However, as far as the point you are making goes, you seem only to be confirming that Genesis 1 indeed does not specifically exclude meat-eating.

1. Is that why you completely deleted the Gen 1 text in your response ;-)
2. You have confirmed your statement - you were confused in reading the text.[/quote:850d0]
1. No. It seemed redundant to keep quoting the same verse repeatedly.
2. No, I have merely pointed out that there is no absolute certainty about the precise meaning of the text. It is you who seem confused about the reasonableness of this argument. This is demonstrated by the alternative translation I have provided.

By contrast - I appeal to the "details in the text" as stated above in Gen 1 you seem to be content to argue "from the void of what the text does NOT say".

No, I prefer to admit doubt and uncertainty where confident and absolute certainty is unwarranted.

The fact that the animals were created as herbavores means that even the adaption to a carnivorous diet was more likely an omnivore transation than suddenly "waking up to discover they could not eat plants".

You know --- the obvious.

You have accused me of making guesses and imagining stories based on an inadequate understanding of OT verse. I would suggest that you are doing exactly the same, based on no more than your largely unsupported belief that all animals were created herbivorous.

[quote:850d0]But you are happy to speculate about things that might support your argument. If T Rex didn't make the Ark, it was an obligate carnivore before the Flood, which suggests other animals were also obligate carnivores before the Flood,

I have never seen a fossilied T-Rex digestive tract - nor one preserved -- have you? Since THAT is what determines what an animal "can process" in terms of meat vs plants "or both" where do you get your obligate assumption? More "assuming the central point rather than proving it"?[/quote:850d0]
You seemed happy before to accept the idea of T Rex as an obligate carnivore. Palaeontologists seem to be fairly certain of this fact. There is absolutely no doubt that T Rex was carnivorous:

For most dinosaurs, the best that we can say about their diet is based on the type of teeth that they have. In general, the meat-eaters (like T. rex) have long, pointed teeth that have edges like steak knives; these types of teeth are good for puncturing and slicing through flesh. Plant-eaters, on the other hand, usually have teeth that are good for snipping and cutting or crushing plants.

However, in a bit of luck for us scientists, we actually have some fossil evidence that tells us the types of animals that T. rex was eating. Tooth marks found in Triceratops and Edmontosaurus bones are perfect matches with T. rex teeth. Thus, we have good evidence that these two dinosaurs were part of the T. rex diet, but T. rex probably would've eaten any type of meat that it could find: dinosaurs, mammals, lizards, you name it!

From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3209/02-ask.html.

You may also want to do some research on studies of bite force and coprolites. I think your argument is little better than any others that encompass 'if you weren't there to see it, you can't know.'

[quote:850d0]What process do you suppose caused that change in behaviour and dietary requirements? If the change occurred in T Rex, it is reasonable to suppose it affected other animals that we now know to be carnivores.

Again the "do you suppose" language is an "appeal to guessing".[/quote:850d0]
And again you are happy to guess away in support of your own argument without any reference to evidence other than a particular interpretation of a particular translation of biblical verse. 'Do you suppose' is a form of words asking you to apply some reason and logic to your conclusions, rather than relying on rhetoric.

True - certainly lions would have started out as God specifies in Gen 1 -- eating plant food and would have then "changed" to eat flesh food "at some point" since we see that they are carnivores today.

Assuming your conclusion based on wholly inadequate evidence. The 'change' you imply suggests evolutionary adaptation to an extent much more extensive than the 'minor change' you attempt to weasel out of the dilemma with below.

[quote:850d0]L.K
So is that "changing" anything but evolution under another name?

Evolution can mean
1. "minor change over time within a kind"

it can also be bent to the needs of atheist darwinism via a model of endless rounds of story telling about how one thing came from another - stories easy enough to make up -- but not actual science and framed for the public as

2. "descent with modification over time from a common ancestoral single celled life form" -- [/quote:850d0]
Again, good rhetoric, but poor argument from evidence. Repeating the same mantra over and over does not make it in some way more true than it was before.

Equivocating between the TWO definitions for the SAME term makes a good parlor trick -- but is not good logic.

I suggest you apply logic and reason to your own arguments and provide some evidential support for your implied claim that I am equivocating between definitions of 'evolution.

In Gen 3 we see a "curse" added and plant life is changed to include thorns and thistles "according to the text".

This shows a CHANGE in the biology of some kinds of plants but not ALL.

From what we SEE in Genesis 1 as the food source for ALL animals vs the fact that we SEE today the existence of Carnivores -- a CHANGE in biology would have been required WITHIN some species but not all.

Assuming your conclusion again and again without any evidence to support it, biblical or otherwise.

[quote:850d0]L.K
The verses do not support a change to meat-eating.

Again - I am happy to leave our difference framed just as we see it in that exchange -- it makes my point perfectly.[/quote:850d0]
Your point is inadequately supported.

As in all these exchanges

I am simply answering the OP question "ABOUt the text FROM the text"

It is one thing to claim that you do not agree with the text -- it is another not to even know what it says and the difference between a wild guess outside of the text - vs a direct honest rendering of the text itself within the parameters of valid exegesis.

I think I have more than adequately demonstrated the extent to which you are prepared to draw conclusions from the text that are not supported by that text.

[quote:850d0]That I do not agree with your interpretation of the text is not evidence that I do 'not even know what it says'.

You seem to a have the need to "ignore" Genesis 1 regarding food and to "ignore" Genesis 7 regarding clean animals going in by pairs and all this is done on your part in a transparent effort to "CREATE conclusions that do not work" so you may add "and that is the problem with the Bible"!.
[/quote:850d0]
I have ignored nothing. You choose to interpret failure to agree with your own conclusions as in some way indicating a failure to read the OT verses from which you draw those somewhat shaky conclusions.

As I said -- transparent.

What appears most transparent to me is your unwillingness to consider your own arguments and conclusions critically and your absolute conviction that you have the key to an unassailable truth.

Hint: Avoiding such transparent agendas is the whole reason that the system of Exegesis was created.

Hint: that a system of exegesis for holy books was created does not in and of itself guarantee that any resulting extensive and critical interpretation of those holy books results in anything other than an unquestioning acceptance of myth, fable and legend as if it some value in describing the real world. Ho hum.

 

[lordkalvan]

.....Seems to me you could make an equally case for 2 of everything

.....
You engage in the either-or-fallacy instead to make your point.

I rely on both-and exegesis FROM The text. In the exegetical model all data on the topic is ADDED to frame the summary. In either or snippet models (we also call that eisegesis) one simply tries to spin one text against another to come up with a solution that DOES Not work at all.

As you are proposing.

Surely you see that.

In the BOTH-AND exegetical solution -- we see the animals going in -- in pairs... all of them. But the clean go in as pairs of SEVEN and the unclean - simply as a single pair.

BOTH-AND solutions avoid the transparent fallacy of either-OR (eisegesis whose only purpose is to create unworkable conclusions in scripture).

All this seems to me to be saying is that you are prepared to accept textual contradictions by resolving them in the fashion that best suits your argument. I am not proposing an either/or solution; I am pointing to textual inadequacies that support the conclusion that the OT is not an inerrant text. You engage in analytical sleight of hand that allows you to mask contrary data in order to support what I presume is a pre-existing assumption of biblical inerrancy.

[quote:4188a]so in answer to the question "what would the carnivores eat" -- we have an obvious solution "FROM the text" (as already posted).

LK Which is?

Notice that your answer is telling in two areas.

1. You did not read my prior posts.
2. You are seeking a non-solution in your snippet either-or appraoch to the text.[/quote:4188a]
In which case I apologize for asking a question you have already answered and which I inadvertently overlooked. However, on the face of it it seems that any question that challenges your conclusions is a quest for a non-solution based on an either/or approach. On the other hand, your solution seems to be to resolve contradictions, vagueness and improbability by claiming that they exist only as figments in the imagination of sceptical readers.

But as already pointed out -

These hanging non-sequiturs do not help advance discussion or understanding.

[quote:4188a]LK
Why only in theory? Were males and females penned separately? Did God miraculously prevent them breeding?

Bob said

Again the answer is obvious. (Numbering for your convenience)

The text says

1. the animals went in by twos and by sevens depending on their kinds

2. the text also says that Noah took food for the animals and the people.

3. What we don't know is whether animals on the ark went into a state of hybernation or semi-hybernation for that year as many of them do in normal life when food is scarce.

3 a. If they did -- it is likely that many of them did not breed during that period.

Either way - we have "solutions galore" instead of your problem-under-every-rock assumptions.[/quote:4188a]
The "solutions galore" are conjured from very thin substance. (1) is debatable, despite your insistence that it is clear and obvious. (2) has no relevance to my question as such, which was raised in response to a statement of your own that I assumed derived from biblical interpretation. (3) and (3a) are again speculative conclusions designed to make the practical impossibilities of the Ark as described in the OT appear more plausible.

[quote:4188a]But what we do know is that only certain animals hibernate or estivate. I am unaware of any birds that follow this practice and, of the larger mammals, it is pretty much restricted to bears.

Is it your guess that God 'was stuck" after CAUSING the flood - in terms of using the SAME solution of "hybernation' that HE created in some animals (not just bears) -- for preserving life on the ark.

Does it "make sense IN THE TEXT" to blindly "assume" that having CREATED all life in 6 days (chapter 1-2) and even creating some animals with the ability of true hybernation and others with semi-hybernation -- that he could then CAUSE a world wide flood but then was "stuck"??

I am simply offering MULTIPLE solutions for the problem-under-ever-rock crew.[/quote:4188a]
But those multiple solutions lack evidential support and again are designed solely to make the impossible appear possible. If when any difficulty raises its head that cannot be contested intellectually you resort to 'God arranged things so'' then you make an argument that is not susceptible to rational discussion. One would be justified in asking why God would require Noah to construct an Ark to save himself, his family, and the tens of thousands of earthly species, a solution then apparently requiring multiple instances of divine intervention to make it work, when he could far more easily have created a safe haven on land for Noah et al., thereby circumventing the innumerable difficulties with the Ark model that anyone who gives the story even a few seconds' critical thought can readily apprehend.

[quote:4188a]When you are guessing about details "not evident in the text" -- it remains " a guess in theory".

But it is helpful if that guess can be supported.

Indeed - and SINCE it turns out that God CREATED the animals that DO hybernate and CAUSED the flood and then CAUSED the saving-miracle of the Ark and the animals entering the ark, the door opening and closing etc etc -- the guess that the SAME CAUSE (already DEMONSTRATED to be well able to CREATE the ability to hybernate) was available for a hybernate solution on the ark - is simply in keeping with that the text DOES say... though as I have already stated it is still a guess since it is not "IN" the text.[/quote:4188a]
I understand and appreciate what you are saying about the guesses inherent in a discussion of this kind, based as they are on what is often an inadequate, implausible and and contradictory text, but it seems clear that those guesses depend on inherent assumptions about aspects of the OT text that do not of themselves withstand the scrutiny of critical analysis.

 

[lordkalvan]

....this is a photo of fossils, tens of thousands of rhinoceros, hippo, camels, and many other creatures that all died in the same place and apparently at the same time near Agate Springs, Nebraska. Why did all these animals migrate to the same spot at the same time just to die together? Did they slowly become fossilized over millions of years? No, a more likely scenario is that these animals were all searching for higher ground during the destruction of the flood of Noah and they found high ground near what is now Agate Springs, Neb. and they were all quickly buried by the fall out from volcanic eruptions and were instantly fossilized. At least ten such burial sites with many thousands of different kinds of animals have been found in the world.

My understanding is that palaeontologists believe the Agate Springs fossils to be the remains of animals died from drought. I also understand that the species identified there do not include extant species. Both these facts would seem to undermine rather than support your suggestion.

It is also the case that the Karoo Fossil Beds alone, for example, are estimated to contain the remains of something like 800 billion vertebrates averaging the same size as a fox. This figure alone seems to provide a serious problem for a Flood origin model.

By the way, is your photo of remains in situ or is a photo of excavated remains gathered together elsewhere?

 

[lordkalvan]

high in the mountains of Utah these are ripples made into rock form of course water moving over them.. question when did the water get this deep to do this to these rocks.. and they are found all over the world...

Another possible explanation would suggest that the ripples may have been formed when the mountains were they are now found were once part of a landscape that was much lower than it is now. There are many instances of vertical surfaces in high mountains that show every sign of once have been beach shorelines. This indicates that major land movement has occurred in the past. The current understanding of, and evidence derived from the study of, plate tectonics and mountain-building forces are more than adequate to explain these phenomenon.

 

[BobRyan]

Gen 1
23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 Then God said, ""Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind''; and it was so.
25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, ""Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.''
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "" Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.''
29 Then God said, ""Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food''; and it was so.
31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day

The point remains "from the text".

Again - it is helpful to "Read the text".

And again the reading the text is insufficient to determine whether or not all animals were wholly herbivorous at creation.

This is the part where you "exegete the text above" and SHOW that your speculation can be sustained IN an exegetically rigorous review of the text.

Simply assuming your point -- or stating a speculative proposal does nothing to establish it when we are talking about THE text.

It would be like reading Hamlet and making stuff up in direct contradiction TO the text -- without actually showing IN the text that such an imaginative idea can be sustained at all.

It is a conclusion you draw from inadequate data. Young's Literal Translation, for example, prefers this construction for Gen 1:30:
[quote:74dba]and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to every creeping thing on the earth, in which is breath of life, every green herb is for food:' and it is so.

[/quote:74dba]

The list of "every" in that quote leaves no room for "inadequate". You have EVERY for animals and you have EVERY for plant as "FOOD". You have no "SOME" and you have no "herb can alse be considered one of the food items" ... inserting vagaries into the text would be eisegesis.

Again -- you can't simply offer speculation without providing exegetical proof when dealing with text.

which quite clearly implies a somewhat different meaning from that which you prefer.

How so?

I would also be interested in what you imagine the herbivorous diets of, for example, ticks and vampire bats would have been

Do they have "the breath of life"? do they breathe? Yes?

What does "the text say" about animals that breathe?

Step one -- what does the text actually say.

Step two -- what ELSE do "you imagine"?

It is important to distinguish between the two.

Hint: My argument is not that all (or any) darwinists agree with the text of scripture.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You engage in the either-or-fallacy instead to make your point.

I rely on both-and exegesis FROM The text.

In the exegetical model all data on the topic is ADDED to frame the summary. In either or snippet models (we also call that eisegesis) one simply tries to spin one text against another to come up with a solution that DOES Not work at all.

As you are proposing.

Surely you see that.

In the BOTH-AND exegetical solution -- we see the animals going in -- in pairs... all of them. But the clean go in as pairs of SEVEN and the unclean - simply as a single pair.

BOTH-AND solutions avoid the transparent fallacy of either-OR (eisegesis whose only purpose is to create unworkable conclusions in scripture).

All this seems to me to be saying is that you are prepared to accept textual contradictions by resolving them in the fashion that best suits your argument.

Actually the exegetical model is well defined and objective and it serves to reduce the impact of "agenda and bias" that you might need to BRING to the text. (which is the whole point of the exegetical method).

Bob said
You seem to a have the need to "ignore" Genesis 1 regarding food and to "ignore" Genesis 7 regarding clean animals going in by pairs and all this is done on your part in a transparent effort to "CREATE conclusions that do not work" so you may add "and that is the problem with the Bible"!.

As I said -- transparent.

[/quote]

I am not proposing an either/or solution; I am pointing to textual inadequacies that support the conclusion that the OT is not an inerrant text.

1. Either or -- take one snippet of text and extend it so that it no longer fits with another. Then "pick the one that pleases your bias most".

2. DO the pick-and-choose selection with the intent to describe "the text" as flawed.

You seem to be affirming what I just said -- only stating it as if you are denying the point.

I find that instructive.

You engage in analytical sleight of hand that allows you to mask contrary data in order to support what I presume is a pre-existing assumption of biblical inerrancy.

Your argument is against exegesis itself when you argue against the both-AND solution I have used in keeping with the objective interpretive method of exegesis.

You just noted that both-AND practice preserves the integrity of the text in this case -- and you admit that your bias, your preference is to portray the text as flawed.

What part of that am I supposed to have "missed"?

My argument is simply that the text shows the animals and man to have been CREATED as herbavores. IF ANYTHING my bias COULD have been to argue that they are created just as we see them today so I don't have to be faced with "a change".

Certainly we have animals today "fed in zoos" for much longer periods of time than a year -- and they are "carnivores". hint: "It can be done".

But exegesis does not allow me to argue that they were created as carnivores. I have to stick with what the text says rather than "what every joe and sally up and down the street my wish to imagine". Which is the whole reason for the objective exegetical method.

You are missing the objective path in your response.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
But what we do know is that only certain animals hibernate or estivate. I am unaware of any birds that follow this practice and, of the larger mammals, it is pretty much restricted to bears.
Is it your guess that God 'was stuck" after CAUSING the flood - in terms of using the SAME solution of "hybernation' that HE created in some animals (not just bears) -- for preserving life on the ark.

Does it "make sense IN THE TEXT" to blindly "assume" that having CREATED all life in 6 days (chapter 1-2) and even creating some animals with the ability of true hybernation and others with semi-hybernation -- that he could then CAUSE a world wide flood but then was "stuck"??

I am simply offering MULTIPLE solutions for the problem-under-every-rock crew.

L.K said
But those multiple solutions lack evidential support and again are designed solely to make the impossible appear possible.

"Evidence IN the text" ? From Exegesis?

OR are you arguing that the question is not to be answer FROM the text -- but rather FROM our guesses today about what happened 6000 to 4500 years ago as documented by someone, something OTHER than "the text"?

My approach (since we have no videos and no historians other than Moses on this point) is to look at the question in the OP and observe that the question relies on THE TEXT to frame the question. So the answer must come from "THE TEXT".

In other words - step one is -- "WHAT does the Bible say" and it is not as hard as you might think.



Step two is for those who doubt the text and want to disprove it by arguing that chemistry or math or physics has somehow shown the text to be flawed.

But that is the part where we debate "IS THE BIBLE TRUE" which comes AFTER "what does the bible say".


I have no problem with believers in darwinism arguing "I do not believe the Bible -- I believe darwin" and then giving their reasons.

But what I don't find support for is imagining that the Bible "teaches darwinism" -- or that it can "be bent" to Darwinism.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
Hint: Avoiding such transparent agendas is the whole reason that the system of Exegesis was created.

L.K

Hint: that a system of exegesis for holy books was created does not in and of itself guarantee that any resulting extensive and critical interpretation of those holy books results in anything other than an unquestioning acceptance of myth, fable and legend as if it some value in describing the real world. Ho hum.

Exegesis does not guarantee that the Bible will turn out to be "true". Rather it guarantees that we are GETTING what the bible is SAYING -- rather than constantly falling into the trap of INSERTING into it what we WANTED to find.

Having said -- once you have what the Bible ACTUALLY can be "shown" to be saying -- you still may argue "well Darwin would not like that" or "I found a fossil whose ancestor would not approve" or whatever form of argument you might wish to bring against it. BUT in that case you have to ADMIT two things.

1. I do not agree with what the Bible actually says.
2. I found proof in "something that you name here" that the Bible is in fact WRONG.

(An approach that D.T takes in the OP for sure)

Which is a huge step AHEAD of

1. I am not sure what the Bible says -- maybe it teaches darwinist ideas or maybe it does not get specific enough on the subject either way.
2. I think I can be a Bible believing Christian AND be a Darwinist because the two are in agreement.

An approach that Barbarian is blindly trying to "get to work" at this link
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31943&start=45#p389628

In other words I argue that Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and all Bible believing Christians are right about coming to agreement on one thing - "Darwinism is totally opposed to what we find in the Word of God".

I would also argue that the for the person who finds himself confronted by those two religionist groups and then commits to darwinist orthodoxy over Christianity the only solution is the one you have selected "the Bible is wrong".

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

another one is fossilized trees gowning up through millions of years of rock.. question how did this happen?.. also I live near Mt Saint Helen's in Washington.. and this is happening right now.. trees where up rooted by the eruption and ended up in Spirit Lake as the trees with their roots intake began to sink bottom first and cover with sediment... again proof of a flood.

My understanding is that most fossilized trees are not found in volcanic deposits, nor do trees which have been uprooted by flooding and subsequently fossilized occur frequently in the fossil record.

That 'polystrate' (not a conventional geological term as far as I am aware) fossilized trees may in some instances penetrate through several layers of surrounding sediment may be taken as indicative of burial by flood, but are not in and of themselves indicative of burial by the Flood. Sediment can be accumulated to some depth quite quickly by localized flooding (see, for example, the eight feet of river-deposited flood sediment discovered at Ur in the 1920s by the British Museum-University of Pennsylvania archaeological expedition to Mesopotamia).

 

[lordkalvan]

Exegesis does not guarantee that the Bible will turn out to be "true". Rather it guarantees that we are GETTING what the bible is SAYING -- rather than constantly falling into the trap of INSERTING into it what we WANTED to find.

Having said -- once you have what the Bible ACTUALLY can be "shown" to be saying -- you still may argue "well Darwin would not like that" or "I found a fossil whose ancestor would not approve" or whatever form of argument you might wish to bring against it. BUT in that case you have to ADMIT two things.

1. I do not agree with what the Bible actually says.
2. I found proof in "something that you name here" that the Bible is in fact WRONG.......

It is clearly unlikely that there will be a consensus between us on this subject. That you may have misunderstood my arguments is most likely my own fault for expressing them badly. My final words on this subject are summarized below.

1. My understanding is that you regard exegesis not as a means of determining an ultimate truth but as an effective and value-free tool for deriving a single correct understanding of biblical text, in this particular case Genesis.

2. This is illustrated particularly by your argument that the both/and analysis overcomes the either/or contradictions, ambiguities and inconsistencies that appear to exist.

3. I disagree that it provides such a tool for I believe that it is used in the context of certain assumptions and ideas that are wholly independent of the text in question.

4. That your argument that the text alone is susceptible of only one conclusion and that that conclusion is derived from value-free exegesis is clearly demonstrated to be not proven by the widespread scholarly debate over the first five books of the OT that has given rise to the Documentary Hypothesis which argues convincingly for a multiple authorship of these books that

best explains the doublets, contradictions, differences in terminology and theology, and the geographical and historical interests that we find in various parts of the Torah..

From the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Religious Studies website at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html

5. The OT was compiled several thousand years after the events it purports to recount in a language almost certainly different from that in which it was originally conceived and subsequently requiring translation into English for us to understand. That errors, ambiguities and downright absurdities might be incorporated over the centuries as a result of mis-rememberings, mistranslations, innocent copying errors and the desire to tell a better story seems inevitable to anyone with even a passing understanding of the vagaries of the oral record in pre-literate societies and of the written record in largely illiterate ones with no rooted tradition of bureaucratic record-keeping.

6. Thus exegesis does not 'guarantee that we are GETTING what the bible is SAYING,' it only allows us to derive a conclusion that provides comfort to pre-existing assumptions about what can be got from it, hence your belief that the ambiguities inherent in

6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
.....
7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
.....
7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

can be satisfactorily resolved as susceptible of only one reasoned conclusion. I am persuaded that this is a wholly false assumption and hence other tools need also to be applied when analysing any biblical text critically.

 

[BobRyan]

Exegesis does not guarantee that the Bible will turn out to be "true". Rather it guarantees that we are GETTING what the bible is SAYING -- rather than constantly falling into the trap of INSERTING into it what we WANTED to find.

Having said -- once you have what the Bible ACTUALLY can be "shown" to be saying -- you still may argue "well Darwin would not like that" or "I found a fossil whose ancestor would not approve" or whatever form of argument you might wish to bring against it. BUT in that case you have to ADMIT two things.

1. I do not agree with what the Bible actually says.
2. I found proof in "something that you name here" that the Bible is in fact WRONG.......

It is clearly unlikely that there will be a consensus between us on this subject. That you may have misunderstood my arguments is most likely my own fault for expressing them badly. My final words on this subject are summarized below.

1. My understanding is that you regard exegesis not as a means of determining an ultimate truth but as an effective and value-free tool for deriving a single correct understanding of biblical text, in this particular case Genesis.

True -- Exegesis is simply a tool that enables "objective" rendering of text as appossed to panderint-to-prior bias as the need arises to bend the text to one's prior notions.

That is why some people find some texts so hard to exegete. They simply can not drag themselves away from their own bias long enough to read the text objectively.

L.K
2. This is illustrated particularly by your argument that the both/and analysis overcomes the either/or contradictions, ambiguities and inconsistencies that appear to exist.

3. I disagree that it provides such a tool for I believe that it is used in the context of certain assumptions and ideas that are wholly independent of the text in question.

If this is your attempt to argue AGAINST Exegesis - the first show an example of exegesis then show how it is failing to render the text as objectively as could be done otherwise.

In other words -- rather than offering speculation upon speculation as "conclusion" -- offer some evidence instead.

Having said that -- I still have THIS question for you -- why do you struggle so much trying to get the text to agree with you when ALSO claim the word of God is corrupt? (see your quotes below)

[
5. The OT was compiled several thousand years after the events it purports to recount in a language almost certainly different from that in which it was originally conceived and subsequently requiring translation into English for us to understand. That errors, ambiguities and downright absurdities might be incorporated over the centuries as a result of mis-rememberings, mistranslations, innocent copying errors and the desire to tell a better story seems inevitable to anyone with even a passing understanding of the vagaries of the oral record

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32847&start=60#p390319

I am not proposing an either/or solution; I am pointing to textual inadequacies that support the conclusion that the OT is not an inerrant text.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32847&start=60#p389826

Given that you are already arguing FOR the untrustworthy unreliable nature of the Bible -- why do you spend so much time running away from exegesis of the text? Go ahead and admit that text is not preaching Darwinism and is promoting a 7 day week for humans - based on the 7 day week of Genesis -- where GOD MADE everything (you know... just like the text says)-- AFTER all you claim the text is scripture is pretty much worthless -- what harm then does it do to admit that Exodus 20:98-11 is not preaching Darwinism -- no not even remotely?

As for your attempt to destroy objectivity when reading the text...

L.K
4. That your argument that the text alone is susceptible of only one conclusion and that that conclusion is derived from value-free exegesis is clearly demonstrated to be not proven by the widespread scholarly debate

You assume more than you demonstrate and you demonstrate that you have not followed their debate.

WHERE did you see even one Darwinist proponent attempt to "exegete Exodus 20:8-11" AS a case of "Moses preaching Darwinism"? Or even "Moses NOT speaking to the subject of the creation of of life on earth and the time frame in which it happened"?

I.e. Are you paying attention to the inconvenient details when you puruse those debates?

L.K
6. Thus exegesis does not 'guarantee that we are GETTING what the bible is SAYING,' it only allows us to derive a conclusion that provides comfort to pre-existing assumptions

Ok --- it's one thing not be be willing to DO exegesis -- it is another thing entirely not to even know what it is!

Why are you going that direction?

hint: there is no "THUS" in your argument because you do not claim to HAVE some secret access to an earlier more correct text (as you point 5 suggests) AND the point of Exegesis is the objective rendering of the text WE DO HAVE -- not of some "imagined text" that we don't have.

You have steadfastly refused to exegete the text WE DO have -- why do you then posit your speculation about texts WE DON't HAVE as being "even more reliable than the ones we DO have" in your points 5 and 6 AS IF such extreme leaps of logic were an argument against Exegesis???



Your arguments that the text can be bent to fit your needs for darwinist doctrine is not the question -- even Hindus can "bend the text" of the Bible as needed.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

If this is your attempt to argue AGAINST Exegesis - the first show an example of exegesis then show how it is failing to render the text as objectively as could be done otherwise.

In other words -- rather than offering speculation upon speculation as "conclusion" -- offer some evidence instead.

This is pointless. You seem to think that if you repeat the same thing over and over again you will in some way wear down my objection to the idea that subjective meaning in text can be understood wholly objectively and with certainty, and that exegesis can in some way be carried out independently of subjective bias and influence, conscious or unconscious, on the part of the person doing it. Well, I don't and I think you are deluding yourself if you think that you can.

Having said that -- I still have THIS question for you -- why do you struggle so much trying to get the text to agree with you when ALSO claim the word of God is corrupt? (see your quotes below)

1. I don't seek to get the text to agree with me. I am only sure that your certainty on the subject is misguided.

2. I do not claim that the word of God is corrupt. I argue that the OT was compiled by imperfect human beings with imperfect understanding and that, whether inspired by divine revelation or not, the frailties of those human beings would introduce exactly those contradictions, ambiguities, misunderstandings, misinterpretations and errors that we can see and thus demonstrate the wholly-to-be expected inadequacies of human beings.

Given that you are already arguing FOR the untrustworthy unreliable nature of the Bible -- why do you spend so much time running away from exegesis of the text? Go ahead and admit that text is not preaching Darwinism and is promoting a 7 day week for humans - based on the 7 day week of Genesis -- where GOD MADE everything (you know... just like the text says)-- AFTER all you claim the text is scripture is pretty much worthless -- what harm then does it do to admit that Exodus 20:98-11 is not preaching Darwinism -- no not even remotely?

Your point does not follow. If the text of the OT reflects the influence of human unreliability, analysis is best directed at understanding that unreliability rather than trying to ignore its existence by claiming certainty in analysing subjective meaning.

As for your attempt to destroy objectivity when reading the text...
[quote:38fdc]L.K
4. That your argument that the text alone is susceptible of only one conclusion and that that conclusion is derived from value-free exegesis is clearly demonstrated to be not proven by the widespread scholarly debate

You assume more than you demonstrate and you demonstrate that you have not followed their debate.[/quote:38fdc]
And you have quoted only part of my comment that refers specifically to questions of OT authorship exemplified by the Documentary Hypothesis that immediately call into question the certainties you claim for your argument.

WHERE did you see even one Darwinist proponent attempt to "exegete Exodus 20:8-11" AS a case of "Moses preaching Darwinism"? Or even "Moses NOT speaking to the subject of the creation of of life on earth and the time frame in which it happened"?

I.e. Are you paying attention to the inconvenient details when you puruse those debates?

Not relevant to my point or my arguments. Are you paying attention to anything I say or simply preaching?

[quote:38fdc]L.K
6. Thus exegesis does not 'guarantee that we are GETTING what the bible is SAYING,' it only allows us to derive a conclusion that provides comfort to pre-existing assumptions

Ok --- it's one thing not be be willing to DO exegesis -- it is another thing entirely not to even know what it is![/quote:38fdc]
You presume that disagreement must equate to ignorance. Exegesis presumes an attempt to view text objectively. Exegesis is not a guarantee that text will be viewed objectively. This is my argument with you - not that you are wrong in your interpretation, but that you may be wrong because your presumption of objective certainty is misplaced and misguided. That there are generations of erudite biblical scholars who are 'believers' but who disagree with your conclusions in detail or in general speaks volumes about the objective value of exegesis as a reliable tool for uncovering incontestable meaning.

 

[John]

I never read the entire thread i am too busy on a military course but seeing as i have a little down time i'll add my 2 cents.

God Told Noah to "Take all food that is eaten" Gen 6:21

Nuff Said

 

[Orion]

Well, the problems is, that ISN'T "nuff said", and that's the purpose of this thread.

And when lordkalvan said,. . .

"I do not claim that the word of God is corrupt. I argue that the OT was compiled by imperfect human beings with imperfect understanding and that, whether inspired by divine revelation or not, the frailties of those human beings would introduce exactly those contradictions, ambiguities, misunderstandings, misinterpretations and errors that we can see and thus demonstrate the wholly-to-be expected inadequacies of human beings."

. . . I think that about sums up my take on this subject as well. Whether or not anything WAS divinely inspired (whatever that would even mean in terms of its mechanics), there is no way to know if the HUMAN MIND, at that time, was able to comprehend it in a way in which they would understand what they were trying to grasp. Misunderstanding, misinterpretation, ambiguities, etc would follow as the stories were told down through the generations before being written, errors and all, on parchment (or some form of animal hide).

 

[VaultZero4Me]

My question to those who believe that all the animals were vegans is:

Did God know that there would be sin and therefore eventually the garden would be done for, and certain animals would begin to eat each other. Therefore he made their bodies better suited for meat-eating from their creation (and less suited for the veggies), in order to pre-empt the fall.

-or-

After the fall did God pick out which animals were to be meat eaters and change certain aspects of their physiology so they could eat meat. Of course this would go against "it is finished" being translated literal.

-or-

Did it evolve in some sort of super-evolution after the fall on its on for some unknown reason.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Another question:

Did animals, humans, and plant life give off offspring in the garden before the fall?

If not, the same question above would follow for the whole reporductive system from the actual ability to conceive, carry a baby to term, and care for the baby after term. Was it designed in before the fall or after?

If so, what was the plan for the population over growth on the earth that was bound to happen since nothing died, yet they were reproducing. That would be an exponential growth wouldn't it since their is no decay in the population?

 

[lordkalvan]

My question to those who believe that all the animals were vegans is:

Did God know that there would be sin and therefore eventually the garden would be done for, and certain animals would begin to eat each other. Therefore he made their bodies better suited for meat-eating from their creation (and less suited for the veggies), in order to pre-empt the fall.

-or-

After the fall did God pick out which animals were to be meat eaters and change certain aspects of their physiology so they could eat meat. Of course this would go against "it is finished" being translated literal.

-or-

Did it evolve in some sort of super-evolution after the fall on its on for some unknown reason.

This addresses an interesting point as we have no fossil evidence in the lineages of obligate carnivores such as T Rex and the cat family, for example, that suggests their dentition and digestive systems were ever anything other than designed for meat-eating. Thus, if God created these animals with the meat-eating dentition and digestive systems ready-made for a carnivorous diet - as it appears God did if we accept young Earth creationism - God must indeed have 'known' that the Fall would take place from the very moment of creation. Perhaps God even planned it that way? The alternatives you propose are equally thought-provoking.

 

[Orion]

lordkalvan, of course it was planned, . . . . . or a non-literal story. Either or. I choose the latter.

 

[Orion]

Question for the "all animals were vegan" people. . . . . . . What did the lifeforms of the ocean eat? :-?