[_ Old Earth _] Questions about ID

[BobRyan]

You had earlier claimed that Orthodox Rabbis who accept evolutionary-theory wholly supported your exegesis of Exodus.

True. Stay focused -- because that claim has not changed AND I gave you the resource at OHR.EDU to validate it.

Please focus. The argument was from linguistics - the Hebrew language and the context for the 4th commandment -- the reading of the actual text. Get it?

I show that EVEN though they had INCENTIVE to WANT to eiseget bend-and-wrench the text just as you feel you must when it comes to Ex 20:8-11 yet from a Hebrew linguistic POV even THEY admit this is not possible in that text.

L.K
Despite repeated requests asking you to support this claim, you have avoided doing so. Now you are reduced to claiming that they are really good at understanding the language and syntax of Hebrew,

CONTINUING to make the SAME claim is not "a reduction of it".

I never claimed that they were good at Bible doctrine - I claimed they were good at knowing "The HEBREW LANGUAGE" AND I claimed that BOTH Darwinist and non-Darwinists agreed to this glaringly obvious point.

These simple stepping stone points could not possibly have been easier.

and, I suppose, thereby implying that they wholly endorse your conclusions.

It can never be that a group that I CLAIM is teaching Darwinism is "wholly endorsing my conclusions" -- check out OHR.EDU if you do not believe me.

This is just common sense.

What they ARE doing is admitting that the Hebrew language SPECIFIC to Ex 20:8-11 can not be bent and wrenched to meet your darwinist eisegetical "needs".

I find your confident arrogance and dismissive contempt of scholars whose faith differs from your own indicative of the existence of the pre-existing assumptions

I am sure that many atheists and agnostics would "suppose" that Christians and Orthodox Jews should not dare to differ on doctrine or else they are "arrogant"

-- and your point?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Lot's of assertions -- pile atop of lots more assertions... when do we get to a substantive argument?

Take a point of mine - and show a counter point that is something besides "is not".

If I could find a point that I have not responded to that is anything other than your claiming incontrovertible certainty, I would. Your entire argument consists of unsupported assertion and misrepresentation.

 

[lordkalvan]

.....It is one thing for us not to agree -- it is another for you after all this time not to even know what the differences are.

I have stated repeatedly that we are taking this "very simply" just one text -- just Exodus 20 -- just trying to get you to admit to "the glaringly obvious" in that ONE case.

This is a childish argument. Saying that something is 'glaringly obvious' does not make it 'glaringly obvious'. Support your argument for your claim that the 'one case' is 'glaringly obvious'. You have not done this.

This is not a "ALL uses of Yom in all of scripture have only one meaning" from me nor do you have a quote from me claiming that.

Again you misrepresent me. Point to a post where I have ever suggested you have claimed anything of the sort.

Your logical fallacy is of the form "reductio ad absurdum" it is not helping your case to leap from fallacy to fallacy. You need to deal with facts at hand in the case of Ex 20:8-11 instead of casting about you for something that "will stick".

The fallacies exist only in your own imagination. You have yet to establish any 'facts' at all in respect of Exodus 20:8-11 except that the words exist in the text you are quoting from.

You have shown interest in looking at "other texts" as if they will help you in your escape from Exodus 20:8-11. I too am willing to look at them IF you can first show yourself to be well reasoned and logical with the OBVIOUS example of Exodus 20.. So far you struggle with this most simple of all cases and that causes me to hestitate to follow you on a rabbit trail.

I have no interest in 'escap[ing] from Exodus 20:8-11'; I am only fascinated by your inability to support your certainty concerning the conclusions you draw from the verses and the extent to which you will ignore or misrepresent my arguments in order to avoid addressing them.

 

[lordkalvan]

You had earlier claimed that Orthodox Rabbis who accept evolutionary-theory wholly supported your exegesis of Exodus.

True. Stay focused -- because that claim has not changed AND I gave you the resource at OHR.EDU to validate it.

The link you gave provided no such support. You have provided no link at all to an ohr.edu item that supports your point; what am I supposed to do, search the entire support looking for the validation you claim exists there? Your claim has slipped and slithered and still remains unsupported. And you accuse me of posting nothing but assertions?

Please focus. The argument was from linguistics - the Hebrew language and the context for the 4th commandment -- the reading of the actual text. Get it?

I cannot 'get' anything you decline to provide evidence for but only continue to assert as if assertion is definitive evidence.

I show that EVEN though they had INCENTIVE to WANT to eiseget bend-and-wrench the text just as you feel you must when it comes to Ex 20:8-11 yet from a Hebrew linguistic POV even THEY admit this is not possible in that text.

You keep saying this, but you don't demonstrate it. Where did this mysterious 'incentive' that 'they' (who are 'they'?) come from? Is it something else you have made up out of your own imagination in an effort to support a crumbling argument?

[quote:eec61]L.K
Despite repeated requests asking you to support this claim, you have avoided doing so. Now you are reduced to claiming that they are really good at understanding the language and syntax of Hebrew,

CONTINUING to make the SAME claim is not "a reduction of it".[/quote:eec61]
And 'continuing to make the same claim' is certainly not the same as supporting that claim.

I never claimed that they were good at Bible doctrine - I claimed they were good at knowing "The HEBREW LANGUAGE" AND I claimed that BOTH Darwinist and non-Darwinists agreed to this glaringly obvious point.

How do you define 'good at Bible doctrine'? That they agree with you? And until you can demonstrate that something is 'glaringly obvious', please stop referring to it as if that is all you have to do to demonstrate that it is 'glaringly obvious.'

These simple stepping stone points could not possibly have been easier.

You can patronise me when you have shown that the stepping stones you claim to have provided can be shown to be anything other than water lilies floating on a pond of empty rhetoric.

[quote:eec61]and, I suppose, thereby implying that they wholly endorse your conclusions.

It can never be that a group that I CLAIM is teaching Darwinism is "wholly endorsing my conclusions" -- check out OHR.EDU if you do not believe me.[/quote:eec61]
Well, I rather thought that was your whole point about these supposed rabbis: that they fully endorsed your exegesis of the Exodus verses. And, no, I am not going to trawl through the ohr.edu site looking for the fragment of an opinion that you claim exists somewhere.

This is just common sense.

Just like the 'glaringly obvious', no doubt.

What they ARE doing is admitting that the Hebrew language SPECIFIC to Ex 20:8-11 can not be bent and wrenched to meet your darwinist eisegetical "needs".

'They' have admitted nothing as far as I can see from the complete absence of evidence you have provided. And again, stop accusing me of 'ben[ding] and wrench[ing]' Exodus; I have done no such thing. I have no '[D]arwinist eisegetical needs'; these are a figment of your own imagination.

[quote:eec61]I find your confident arrogance and dismissive contempt of scholars whose faith differs from your own indicative of the existence of the pre-existing assumptions

I am sure that many atheists and agnostics would "suppose" that Christians and Orthodox Jews should not dare to differ on doctrine or else they are "arrogant"

-- and your point?[/quote:eec61]
One that you seem entirely unable to come to terms with: that exegesis is not a tool that provides the certainty of objective understanding that you fondly hope it does.

I note in passing those arguments and points I have made that you decline to address at all and draw my own conclusions from your avoidance of them, as no doubt will others.

 

[BobRyan]

You might want to visit the " is ID rebranded Creationism" thread L.K.

I think you will find it interesting.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

1. L.K I find it fascinating that you avoid all objective methods of exegesis or anything of the kind when it comes to the TEXT of Ex 20:8-11 as IT SUMMARIZES the very events you want to make wild claims about.

That is "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader -- hint -- "they notice".

2. I also find it interesting that in your need to eisegete "whatever Darwinism needs" into the text you are left with your own self-conflicted argument as you admit that there is no possible way for Moses to have been preaching Darwinism IN that text - and yet you have to keep claiming that you don't know the meaning of the 4 or 5 simple sentences in Ex 20:8-11!!

3. Your argument repeatedly goes to "there exists people the differ with the Bible" and "the bible is corrupt" and "we can not know what was ever really written" - same arguments atheist make all day long. Fine - then I am not trying to move you from your atheist argument there -- all I am asking is that you READ the 5 simple sentences and "Admit the obvious" in what we SEE THERE -- rather than going off into "imagination about what we DO NOT SEE there" and about sources "WE DO NOT HAVE".

4. Your argument also appeals to the "Barbarian Christian" theme that "Barbarian EXISTS" (and those like him) who make some kind of claim to Christianity (presumably you do to) and yet they believe in Darwinism and find ways to bend the bible to their usages. (AS if this is PROOF of something or as if it in anyway justifies the way flee the direct statements of Ex 20 AS IF you had anything like an objective argument FROM THE TEXT).

5. You at least seem to admit to your need to deny the text - and so you vigorously attack all objective methods clearly DEFINED and accepted by ALL Denominations today for rendering the text. You efforts to deny objective methods are noted. Your "excuse" is that even using objective methods -- selfish or subjective results could be had -- as your Darwinist examples show with OTHER TEXTs but you have STILL shown NO one even among darwinists exegeting Ex 20 to their atheist religionist benefit.

In all the pounding of the pulpit in your posts above - you do not address these problem points.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said.
What they ARE doing is admitting that the Hebrew language SPECIFIC to Ex 20:8-11 can not be bent and wrenched to meet your darwinist eisegetical "needs".

Question put to the Orthodox Rabbis - at ALL experts by one of their readers.

"My understanding is that Exodus 20:8-11 makes it pretty clear that we are to keep the 7th day Sabbath as God identified it in Exodus 16 and the reason given in Ex 20 is something like "SIX days you shall labor... for in SIX days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them".

I have two questions.

1. Based on the Hebrew language in the text of Ex 20 -- does the language itself argue for "redefining" the various forms of the word "yom" in Ex 20 so that it is literal when speak of Israel's observance but only figurative when it says "for in SIX DAYS the Lord made..."?

2. If the language or the text is not arguing for a darwinist form of creation (And I suppose Moses was not "preaching darwinism") then what is the means of bridging the gap between Darwinism and the actual language in the text of Exodus 20?

Has anyone written on this point?

Answer from them about the fact that no editing changing bending wrenching needed in Ex 20 so that it fits darwinism -- since darwinism is bunk.

Hi Bob,
Sorry for the delay in replying. Darwinism is not something we take
seriously. See Awake My Glory by Rabbi Avigdor Miller.
All the best,
Rabbi Yechezkel Fox

I provided the link but apparently you would prefer that I simply post it here.

As I said this is the case of the ALLEXPERTS site -- the OHR.EDU site was the one that was pro-Darwinist but still held to the glaringly obvious meaning of the text of Ex 20:8-11 that you seem to unwilling to admit to.

L.K
'They' have admitted nothing as far as I can see from the complete absence of evidence you have provided. And again, stop accusing me of 'ben[ding] and wrench[ing]' Exodus; I have done no such thing. I have no '[D]arwinist eisegetical needs'; these are a figment of your own imagination.

I simply point that your "day in Ex 20:8-11" can not possibly mean what is says -- is denied by even the Orthodox Rabbis in their rendering of the Hebrew text.

Here "again" is the text you claim to be either too difficult to read -- or too difficult to know what it's dark mysterious phrases mean or too non-specific to read and know what it is saying or ... (you put in the vaguary here)

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

[/quote]

OR are you arguing "this is not REALLY what is in the 4 commandment something else that nobody has seen is there"??

OR are you simply saying that in all the objective rendering of THIS TEXT that you have NOT shown ANY SOURCE AT ALL DOING -- you have proof that the obvious meaning above is "not correct"??

Since you seem to have argued all of these conflicted points at one time or another during the discussion it is difficult to know which of them you are focused on now.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Question put to the Orthodox Rabbis - at ALL experts by one of their readers....

Answer from them about the fact that no editing changing bending wrenching needed in Ex 20 so that it fits darwinism -- since darwinism is bunk.....

I provided the link but apparently you would prefer that I simply post it here.

Yes, Bob, I read the link. You may have noticed that I posted what passed for the 'answer' in my reply, but I guess you weren't paying close enough attention. It fails entirely to support your claim. Also, please refrain from asserting something you have not demonstrated. I could as well argue that the conclusions you draw from your 'objective' exegesis of Exodus 20:8-11 are entirely false because creationism is bunk.

As I said this is the case of the ALLEXPERTS site -- the OHR.EDU site was the one that was pro-Darwinist but still held to the glaringly obvious meaning of the text of Ex 20:8-11 that you seem to unwilling to admit to.

Please provide a link to this or stop repeating this empty claim. Also stop asserting that anything is 'glaringly obvious' unless you have shown it to be the case. It is 'glaringly obvious' to me that humanity and the great apes are closely related. I doubt you will accept my assertion as to the 'glaring obviousness' of this relationship as evidence of that relationship.

I simply point that your "day in Ex 20:8-11" can not possibly mean what is says -- is denied by even the Orthodox Rabbis in their rendering of the Hebrew text.

Support the claim or refrain from making it.

Here "again" is the text you claim to be either too difficult to read -- or too difficult to know what it's dark mysterious phrases mean or too non-specific to read and know what it is saying or ... (you put in the vaguary here)

I'm beginning to wonder whether your failure to grasp my argument is due to actual or just feigned disingenuousness. Please show me how you can be certain - that's certain, Bob - that the day referred to in v.8-10 is exactly the same as the day referred to in v.11. You did notice the full stop/period at the end of v.10 that doesn't occur at the end of v.8 and 9, didn't you? You do know the purpose of the full stop/period, don't you?

[quote:42c85]OR are you arguing "this is not REALLY what is in the 4 commandment something else that nobody has seen is there"??

No need for the double interrogative and no need to try shifting the goalposts, either.

OR are you simply saying that in all the objective rendering of THIS TEXT that you have NOT shown ANY SOURCE AT ALL DOING -- you have proof that the obvious meaning above is "not correct"??

[/quote:42c85]
Again, no need for the double interrogative. Equally, you have not shown any source agreeing with you - although I am certain that such must exist - and you have not shown any evidence for supporting your argument that 'the obvious meaning' is as you understand it. I have never said that your understanding is not correct (again, show me where I have if you think this is so); I have only ever questioned the grounds for your certainty as they seem to consist entirely of 'It's soooo obvious.'

 

[Free]

How many threads do we need going that are discussing Ex. 28:8-11?

 

[lordkalvan]

How many threads do we need going that are discussing Ex. 28:8-11?

You're right. Perhaps the mods could merge the relevant posts?

 

[BobRyan]

Question put to the Orthodox Rabbis - at ALL experts by one of their readers....

Answer from them about the fact that no editing changing bending wrenching needed in Ex 20 so that it fits darwinism -- since darwinism is bunk.....

I provided the link but apparently you would prefer that I simply post it here.

Yes, Bob, I read the link. You may have noticed that I posted what passed for the 'answer' in my reply, but I guess you weren't paying close enough attention. It fails entirely to support your claim. '

So far you have not found a single source that provided a different exegesis for my claim in Ex 20:8-11 .. not even one that goes to the text and shows it "to teach darwinism" nor that shows it's reference to "Day" IN THE TEXT to "change meaning whenever darwinists need it to".

That was the same point I started with -- it is the same one you have avoided after dozens of exchanges.

You would think that by now you could point to at least ONE source ONE area to prove your point...

So far you simply have come up with nothing -- even you admit that none of your sources exegesis Ex 20:8-11 to your benefit AND you also admit that you merely "imagine" a solution -- as your "substantive" contribution.

That says it all sir.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

That does not mean that the 'non-Darwinist' would bring to their interpretation of the text the same understanding that you do. Your point does not follow because you presume only two mutually exclusive alternatives: the 'Darwinist' is ideologically driven to deny that only one conclusion can be drawn from the text; the 'non-Darwinist' is logically driven to agree with Bob's conclusion drawn from the text.

You keep pointing to this mythical 3rd solution that is not the darwinist one you choose and is not the darwinist-and-Christian one that I demonstrate BOTH sides to accept. Please show such a non-Darwinist conclusion that ignores the direct meaning in the text that I SHOW BOTH Darwinists and Christians to "easly get" right off the bat!

Sorry, the burden of proof is with you.

Bob
I am not the one that keeps arguing that "there exists" a third option -- you do.

When you make wild claims like that the burden of proof is on you to prove that your claim is anything other then fleeting momentary imagination.

For example -- were you to claim that the easter bunny lives in a candy store on the far side of the moon from earth.

Wild claims have to be substantiated by the one making them.

Obviously.

(As it normally goes for these threads - I seem to be left with the job of pointing out the obvious points).

[quote:8a234]L.K
You argue the point that there are only two solutions to your stated problem,

And I show them BOTH due to the incredibly obvious nature of the language in the text..

You argue that there are three -- and then provide nothing to back up such a claim.

L.K
You see the world as either this or that when I see it as many shades inbetween.

Great -- now you claim to have even more than 3 for non-Darwnists.

I will accept you providing factual support for just one.

Please go ahead and provide factual evidence for your claim at any moment you feel is right.

L.K
I may have missed an earlier reply to this point, in which case I am sorry, but is someone who accepts the fact of microevolution but denies the fact of macroevolution a 'Darwinist' or a 'non-Darwinist'?

All Creationists I know - do that.

[quote:8a234]L.K
How could Moses, or anyone else at that time, be supposed to be 'thinking Darwinism'? Most of them probably thought the world was flat and the stars just tiny lights in the sky. Does this mean that whatever they were thinking must ipso facto have been correct?

Bob said -
In which case EVEN in your model the OBVIOUS conclusion they draw from the way the text is framed is?.... (you like dancing around that point for some reason)[/quote:8a234]

This is where you say "They read this text and then concluded that the SIX DAYS the LORD MADE meant..." because they were thinking the stars were tiny lights in the sky.

But instead (and of course "predictably") we get this...

L.K
I lack your confident certainty in being so sure in my interpretation as to what the obvious conclusion is. That you regard an argument based on the fact that text cannot be analysed with objective certainty, because both the act of writing and the act of analysis are inherently subjective, as 'dancing around [the] point'...

Ok -- so still not ready to commit on that one - eh?

Remember you are the one who admits they are not teaching darwinism and you are among those here who can easily read the plain language in the text.

so... we will continue to wait for you to come around on that one.

Bob said

[quote:8a234]L.K
Well, that would very much depend on the pre-existing assumptions the 'non-Darwinist' had about the use of language by the writer and the intent behind that use. What did the writer understand? What did the writer intend the expected audience to understand?

Fine - provide an example of the non-Darwinist coming up with something besides the obvious meaning in the text as we can all clearly see it?[/quote:8a234]

L.K.
You asked a hypothetical question. I provided you with a hypothetical answer.

In case of the "non-darwinist coming up with something OTHER THAN the obvious reading of the text" we have "only you" as a source for that.

Nothing hypothetical about that from my point of view -- I do not conjecture that such a thing exists -- but clearly you imagine that it exists.

I simply ask that you provide something other than imagination as support for your guess -- and innexplicably, you keep claiming that this is my job.

L.K.
I do not need to provide you with an example; I only need to show that the possibility of an alternative viewpoint exists.

I see that that exercise in imagination clearly satisifies your need for actual substantive evidence ...

needless to say -- I do not go for simply "making stuff up" as "all the evidence needed".

Clearly we differ there. But as Patterson notes "Stories in Darwinism about how one thing came from another - are stories easy enough to tell but not science".
[/quote:8a234]

Perhaps this is just "something you get used to" if you are a Darwinist.

Who knows!?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since Ex 20 discussion is already posted on another thread -- back to page THREE of this thread!


===================================================================
ID IS "is SCIENCE" by definition as Wernher von Braun head of NASA's Marshall Space flight center report sent to the California state board of Education - stated.

IT is the "Academic FREEDOM to follow the data where it leads -- EVEN IF it leads to a conclusion in favor of obvious design that does not pander to the religionist needs atheist darwinist doctrine"

That's what it does. It starts with the assumption of creationism, and any evidence that leads elsewhere must be denied.

Wrong... "again".

The YEC argument is distinctly and "specifically" for a 6,000 year origin for all life on earth.

Period.

By contrast -- ID is framed this way --

From “Discovery Instituteâ€Â
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

the pablum being feed to darwinists by fearful anxious (dare we say "paranoid") atheist darwinist masters is -- of the form "it is all YEC -- fear it... fear it ... pay no attention to the science ... just live in fear".

I would suggest a more rational approach -- something like an open mind, academic freedom and no fear of "following the data where it leads".

Leave the atheist pablum on the shelf.

==========================================================

 

[lordkalvan]

....So far you simply have come up with nothing -- even you admit that none of your sources exegesis Ex 20:8-11 to your benefit AND you also admit that you merely "imagine" a solution -- as your "substantive" contribution.

That says it all sir.

I rather think it is yourself who has come up with nothing other than a refusal to address any of my points substantively, a persistent and unsupported assertion that exegesis offers objectivity and that your exegesis of Exodus 20:8-11 thus provides absolute certainty as to the conclusions that can be taken from it and the consequences of those conclusions for your understanding of the creation myth in Genesis. Balderdash.

 

[BobRyan]

you are correct about two things -

1. We Christians argue in favor of the objective methods of objectivity and against the all-eisegesis-all-the time solution you use as you claim that "your imagination" is sufficient alone to challenge the clear and obvious meaning of the text.

I also gave you your own subject thread over on the Christian side of this board should you care to promote your "eisegesis not exegesis" ideas.

2. I have been claiming that the Ex 20:8-11 text is increadibly easy to read and SEE that the days are the same "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE.." and that exegesis would ensure that result every time.

And in your prior posts you did admit that you found NO SOURCE AT ALL that actually exegeted Ex 20 to some way favorable to Darwinists -- and so to this very time have given NO SOURCE at all doing it.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

you are correct about two things -

1. We Christians argue in favor of the objective methods of objectivity and against the all-eisegesis-all-the time solution you use as you claim that "your imagination" is sufficient alone to challenge the clear and obvious meaning of the text.

Is that all Christians, some Christians, many Christians, a few Christians? And I would say that all you have demonstrated so far is a subjective interpretation of OT text directed at validating your pre-existing assumptions about what that text suggests. Again, the 'clear and obvious meaning' is a product of your subjective interpretation of the text. Saying something is obvious does not make it obvious. You have shown no evidence to support you analysis of the text other than the text.

I also gave you your own subject thread over on the Christian side of this board should you care to promote your "eisegesis not exegesis" ideas.

You are too generous. As you would ignore my arguments there as you ignore them elsewhere, I would ask, what's the point? I have no intention of repeating everything I have already written, only to have you avoid the points you don't like, misinterpret others, accuse me of saying things I never said and generally plough your own furrow regardless of anything.

2. I have been claiming that the Ex 20:8-11 text is increadibly easy to read and SEE that the days are the same "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE.." and that exegesis would ensure that result every time.

Yes, you have indeed repeatedly claimed this. The whole point of this argument is that you cannot demonstrate that your conclusions are absolute and incontrovertible. Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it any more persuasive. A charitable interpretation would regard this constant repetition as eternal optimism; a less charitable one would categorize it as persistent stupidity.

And in your prior posts you did admit that you found NO SOURCE AT ALL that actually exegeted Ex 20 to some way favorable to Darwinists -- and so to this very time have given NO SOURCE at all doing it.

To the best of my knowledge I admitted no such thing. Please provide a link or I will regard this as another accusation that is simply not true. If you are correct I will, of course, acknowledge it.

It is also the case - which you still seem to fail to grasp - that if I regard exegesis as only offering the presumption of objectivity and wholly failing in delivering that objectivity, even if I were to find twenty exegeses of OT text that disagreed with your exegeses of OT text, these would be open to exactly the same criticisms as I level at yours and thus, in and of themselves, evidence of nothing but the fundamentally subjective nature of textual analysis.

 

[BobRyan]

1. You repeatedly argue for a "Bible can not be trusted" solution and a "Bible writer can not be trusted" and "exegesis can not be trusted" -- all good atheist arguments. Go make them on the bible vs Darwin thread -- we actually NEED you to make those points there so actual Christians arguing for Darwinism can see just how atheist their arguments are.

2. I can't believe you are now wanting to pretend that you either found someone exegeting Ex 20:8-11 in your favor OR That you want to now deny that you ADMITTED you had NOT found such a thing.

Be serious!

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

1. You repeatedly argue for a "Bible can not be trusted" solution and a "Bible writer can not be trusted" and "exegesis can not be trusted" -- all good atheist arguments. Go make them on the bible vs Darwin thread -- we actually NEED you to make those points there so actual Christians arguing for Darwinism can see just how atheist their arguments are.

Rubbish. I argue against your assumptions and the blatant weaknesses in your claims and assertions. I have no intention of dancing to your tune.

2. I can't believe you are now wanting to pretend that you either found someone exegeting Ex 20:8-11 in your favor OR That you want to now deny that you ADMITTED you had NOT found such a thing.

Be serious!.

Again you make an accusation against me without backing it up, presumably because it is so 'incredibly obvious'. Either support your accusation or withdraw it and acknowledge that it is not true. I have asked you to do the same with other unsupported accusations you have made against me and you have failed to either back these up or withdraw them as well.

 

[BobRyan]

L.K -- a hint from your own post

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=150#p391701

1. Nobody has been able to make the case that Darwinism was taught in the dark ages -- did you do it?? If so I missed it.

That was not my question. You have persistently implied that any biblical scholar who disagrees with your conclusions about the length of creation week days has 'caved in to Darwinian doctrine'.

Actually I have consistently argued that NOAH was not "preaching Darwinism" in Exodus 20:8-11.

I have consistently argue that even you give NO SOURCE AT ALL exegeting Ex 20:8-11 such that it bends and wrenches the term for DAY in the text between EACH USE OF it -- as "darwinism NEEDS".

so that would just be -- the glaringly obvious points so far.

I have pointed to biblical scholars whose conclusions about the length of creation week days predate the formulation of evolutionary theory and argued that their conclusions

Oddly enough not ONE of them exeget "And EVENING AND MORNING where the xth-day" or even "and Evening and Morning where AN x-th day"...

The most you got was to get a source to address THREE WORDS -- not even an entire sentence!!

Hardly "convincing" due diligence from darwinists who are still whining that I quote ENTIRE PARAGRAPHS from Patterson verbatim and yet darwinists whine about that as though "not enough context to understand Patterson". YET you can not even manage a complete SENTENCE from Gen 1 NOR ANY source at all dealing with Ex 20L8-11 exegeting it in a way bent-and-wrenched to your needs.

Bob said

2. The challenge was to "exegete Exodus 20:8-11" in your reponse above you appear to "admit" that not only did you refuse to do it -- but you gave no source at all that attempted to exegete Exodus 20:8-11...

Is this your way of agreeing with me on Exodus 20... to simply jump into Genesis 1 "instead"??

Your response is usually the flawed tactic of attacking exegesis while providing NOTHING more objective for rendering the text (unless NOT LOOKING at the text at all is what you call "more objective treatment" of the text)

L.K
As I have explained why I believe exegesis does not lead to incontrovertibly objective conclusions, exegeting Exodus 20:8-11 becomes a pointless exercise.

If you have a MORE OBJECTIVE way to RENDER the text -- do it... finally.

Bob said
2. I have asked that you show "actual exegesis" of the Exodus 20:8-11 takes so IT can be "seen" to make your case... you steadfastly refuse to do that -- preferring to "talk around that point" instead.

L.K. said
You make some assumptions here. You assume that exegesis provides a value-free tool for determining absolute meaning; I have explained fully and with reasons why I believe this is not so.

Blindly attacking exegesis while applying NOTHing more objective in it's place is not helping your argument they way you appear to imagine to yourself.

Bob -
Did you even show one of your "sources" condemning Exegesis?

L.K
Not necessary. I only showed that those biblical scholars to whom I referred come to differing conclusions about the length of the creation week days from you.

Then once again you missed the point entirely.

I never argue that there is no way EISEGETE whatever you want into the text -- you keep providing example after example of that... we all see it.

I argue that EXEGESIS (i.e. paying attention to ALL inconvenient details IN the text) only yields the reliable objective answer.

All you do in response to that obvious point is -- attack exegesis while offering nothing more objective in its place.

L.K

You also assume that I think your exegesis of Exodus 20 is absolutely wrong; I do not, I only believe that it is not persuasive and that other understandings of biblical text can be derived by biblical scholars whose knowledge and learning is at least the equal of yours

If you argue that my exegesis of Ex 20:8-11 is RIGHt -- then you might want to elaborate on that point.

Bob said -

If you have someone doing a sound exegetical presention of Exodus 20 SHOWING that we are free to bend the text on the whim of darwminism REDFINING the term for DAy -- in MID-Sentence as Darwinism "so desperately needs" -- then show it.

L.K.
I only need to show that biblical scholars have reached conclusions different from yours

Wrong -- you need to SHOW even ONE scholar actually DEALING WITH Ex 20:8-11 (so far you do not) and SHOWING that they use something OtHER than "eisegesis" to bend it to the usages of Darwinism AS IF Moses meant to REFEFINE YOM mid sentence each time Darwinism NEEDS it.

i.e. just the glaringly obvious point -- remaining.

So far you have given no source at all dealing with the text of Exodus 20:8-11 with anything close to "exegetical objectivey" (an objectivity that you condemn yet provide no alternative for).

L.K
I have not condemned exegetical objectivity; I have only pointed out that I believe it to be illusory

IF you have something better USE IT to render the text of Ex 20:8-11 otherwise stop rabbit-trailing and simply show that you are able to use exegesis to render the text accurately.

Bob said

3. You also provide no example of anyone ELSE exegeting Exodus 20:8-11 showing THE TEXT to conform to the usage you need to make of it. All you show is that there are those who agree with your need to spin it -- but so far no source at all showing your argument IN the Text of EXODUS 20 (from either you or any of your sources showing that the TEXT was intented to be bent in such a darwinist fashion).

L.K
I make no usage of Exodus 2; I only contest your certainty about it.

I find it interesting that you never give a source dealing with Ex 20:8-11.

Bob said -
Indeed - you have avoided Exodus 20:8-11 just like Exodus 2 (though I have never pointed to your argument being stuck in Exodus 2... only Exodus 20).

Why do you keep avoiding the text - quoted time after time -- SHOWN to contradict your darwinism ... All you do is "claim" that you coulda solved the problem in Exodus 20 if only you had a source that would do it for you... and even then you give no source at all able to do it.

Was I supposed to "not notice"??

L.K
You were supposed to notice the arguments I am making that address the reasons why I believe your certainty about the objective meaning that can be derived from exegesis

Ok I see this is a reference to your arguments about why Christians should stop using exegesis because what -- you found NOTHING BETTER (as in fact you have shown nothing to be the "alternative" objective method).

Bob said -
Your solution to the glaringly obvious problem that you have in Exodus 20 is of the following form.

1. Do not quote Exodus 20
2. Do not read it and deal with what it says
3. Do not provide any source that references it and SHOWS how Darwinism survives it.
4. Condemn the objectivity found in Exegesis.
5. Appeal to sources commenting on everything BUT Exodus 20 to make your case about Ex 20.

then you show your true "avoidance" of Ex 20 "at all costs" as your deny-all defense for the Ex 20 problem.

L.K
1. Why should I quote Exodus 20? Do you think I disagree that the words on the page exist?
2. If by 'deal with what it says' you mean 'agree with my interpretation of what it says', I have given you ample reasons for why I am unhappy with the certainty of your interpretation.

I.e not a SINGLE one of your OWN sources addressing Ex 20 and exegeting it to your favor -- yeah that is "some solution" for it.

L.K
3. This is irrelevant rhetoric. Exodus 20 is not evidence against evolutionary theory; it carries no scientific evidential weight whatsoever.

Now we are getting somewhere.

Why then do you dig your heels in on the text that you claim is corrupt? Is this just one long rabbit trail for you?

My argument has been that the text of scripture is not compatible with Darwinism -- my first exhibit is Ex 20:8-11.

So far your "solution" is to "avoid it at all costs".

Not a good answer even for atheists -- better as an atheist or agnostic to just say "yep it does not agree with Darwinism" and be done with it rather than continually "pretend" that "see darwinism under the covers in Ex 20".

5. The references I have given you and the arguments I have made have been directed towards supporting the conclusion that Exodus 20 provides no objective certainty as to its relevance to the actual length of the days of creation week.

that is pure bunk. Ex 20 CLEARLY identifies timeline for BOTH the days of Genesis 1 AND the days of the nation of Israel at Sinai "SIX DAYS YOU SHALL LABOR and do all your work... FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE..."

Impossible to miss. You keep "pretending" that we can not see what is staring us all in the face in that text.

But there is seen to be no substance at all to your argument in that regard.

you yourself have not even one known source on it in your favor!!

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

L.K -- a hint from your own post

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=150#p391701

I have no idea what this link is supposed to illustrate apart from a number of arguments I have raised that you have ignored, baseless slurs you have made against some of my sources, and a number of accusations you have made against me that you have still not substantiated.

Actually I have consistently argued that NOAH was not "preaching Darwinism" in Exodus 20:8-11.

I presume this is a typo as I was unaware that Noah cropped up in these verses at all. I for one have never asserted that Noah or anyone else in the OT was 'preaching Darwinism.'

I have consistently argue that even you give NO SOURCE AT ALL exegeting Ex 20:8-11 such that it bends and wrenches the term for DAY in the text between EACH USE OF it -- as "darwinism NEEDS".

The theory of evolution has no need of biblical authority to validate it. Your continued attempt to use the OT as a battering ram against evolutionary theory is pointless and futile.

[quote:6af39]
I have pointed to biblical scholars whose conclusions about the length of creation week days predate the formulation of evolutionary theory and argued that their conclusions

Oddly enough not ONE of them exeget "And EVENING AND MORNING where the xth-day" or even "and Evening and Morning where AN x-th day"...

The most you got was to get a source to address THREE WORDS -- not even an entire sentence!!

Hardly "convincing" due diligence from darwinists who are still whining that I quote ENTIRE PARAGRAPHS from Patterson verbatim and yet darwinists whine about that as though "not enough context to understand Patterson". YET you can not even manage a complete SENTENCE from Gen 1 NOR ANY source at all dealing with Ex 20L8-11 exegeting it in a way bent-and-wrenched to your needs.[/quote:6af39]

I have no needs hanging on Exodus 20:8-11; the needs seem to be entirely your own. And the worth of my sources is not dependent upon your assessment of them. You have pooh-poohed or ignored any source I have referenced that reaches different conclusions from your own about the meaning that may be derived from OT text or the subjective value of exegesis in deriving those conclusions. What is your worth as a critic? What is your worth as a biblical scholar? Why are you the infallible authority I should turn to on questions of interpretation? As far as I can see, like me, you're just some faceless nonentity posting opinion on an internet forum.

[quote:6af39]L.K
As I have explained why I believe exegesis does not lead to incontrovertibly objective conclusions, exegeting Exodus 20:8-11 becomes a pointless exercise.

If you have a MORE OBJECTIVE way to RENDER the text -- do it... finally.[/quote:6af39]
Do you not understand my opinion about this? I have tried to explain it many times. Here we go again. Exegesis presumes objectivity, it does not guarantee it. The act of writing text and the act of interpreting text are both necessarily subjective, even if just unconsciously so. There is no necessarily 'more objective way to render the text' because it is not possible to render the text so objectively that the certainty that can be drawn from that text is definitive. That you dismiss other examples of understanding derived by other biblical scholars who do not appear to agree with you and that you dismiss other biblical scholars' doubts concerning exegesis equally readily does not persuade me of the strength of your position.

[quote:6af39]L.K. said
..... You assume that exegesis provides a value-free tool for determining absolute meaning; I have explained fully and with reasons why I believe this is not so.

Blindly attacking exegesis while applying NOTHing more objective in it's place is not helping your argument they way you appear to imagine to yourself.[/quote:6af39]
I have not attacked exegesis blindly and to continually accuse me of doing so either suggests you have not paid sufficient attention to what I have written or that you prefer to hand-wave it away. I have given ample support for my argument that exegesis has been criticized by biblical scholars, that different religions and different denominations within those religions have disagreed on the conclusions and meaning they derive from exegesis, and that many biblical scholars who have no Darwinist axe to grind do not understand the days referred to in the Genesis creation myth to be actual, literal 24-hour hour days as we know them today. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you take it up with those scholars directly - those of them who still living, that is - as my only interest is in showing that uncertainty exists.

[quote:6af39]Bob -
Did you even show one of your "sources" condemning Exegesis?

L.K
Not necessary. I only showed that those biblical scholars to whom I referred come to differing conclusions about the length of the creation week days from you.

Then once again you missed the point entirely.

I never argue that there is no way EISEGETE whatever you want into the text -- you keep providing example after example of that... we all see it.

I argue that EXEGESIS (i.e. paying attention to ALL inconvenient details IN the text) only yields the reliable objective answer.[/quote:6af39]

It seems to me that your argument can be reduced to the claim that any exegesis that results in a conclusion different from your own is ipso facto eisegesis. This is a circular argument with no intellectual worth. You have no support beyond the text for the conclusions you draw from biblical text; your disparaging of others' conclusions drawn from biblical text is that they do not agree with your own conclusions. How does anyone decide between you? You're all like any other snake-oil salesman claiming to have a panacea for all ills.

All you do in response to that obvious point is -- attack exegesis while offering nothing more objective in its place.

There is nothing more objective, neither is exegesis sufficiently objective to deliver certainty.

[quote:6af39]L.K

You also assume that I think your exegesis of Exodus 20 is absolutely wrong; I do not, I only believe that it is not persuasive and that other understandings of biblical text can be derived by biblical scholars whose knowledge and learning is at least the equal of yours

If you argue that my exegesis of Ex 20:8-11 is RIGHt -- then you might want to elaborate on that point.[/quote:6af39]
The corollary of my conceding that your exegesis may not be absolutely wrong is not that it is therefore right. It is that it may be right, but it may also still be wrong as well.

Bob said -

.... you need to SHOW even ONE scholar actually DEALING WITH Ex 20:8-11 (so far you do not) and SHOWING that they use something OtHER than "eisegesis" to bend it to the usages of Darwinism AS IF Moses meant to REFEFINE YOM mid sentence each time Darwinism NEEDS it.

i.e. just the glaringly obvious point -- remaining.

And can you show one scholar agreeing with you?

Bob, you may be right and you may be wrong in your conclusions from Exodus 20:8-11; the point is I have no way of being certain that your conclusions are definitive.

What I can be certain of is that other biblical scholars seem to hold the opinion that the days of the Genesis creation myth are not actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them. This alone is sufficient to undermine your argument that exegesis of Exodus 20:8-11 all by itself in some way proves that they were actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them. This has nothing to do with validating or invalidating the theory of evolution, which stands apart from biblical text and is supported or otherwise entirely by observed, measured and tested evidence. If a consequence of evolutionary theory (and much other science) is that a belief that Earth and Universe are less than 10k years old based on an idosyncratic interpretation of OT verse is invalidated, that is a problem for your own 'deny-all' approach rather than for Darwinism.

IF you have something better USE IT to render the text of Ex 20:8-11 otherwise stop rabbit-trailing and simply show that you are able to use exegesis to render the text accurately.

Not possible as we have no means of measuring accuracy in this case; all we have is more or less subjective opinion. What is your definition of 'accurately'?

[quote:6af39]L.K
I make no usage of Exodus 2; I only contest your certainty about it.

I find it interesting that you never give a source dealing with Ex 20:8-11.[/quote:6af39]
And I find it interesting that you ignore the crux of my argument. You have already shown a propensity to dismiss any opinion that disagrees with your own for no better reason than that it does disagree with your own. At least I acknowledge that you may be right in the conclusions you draw; you, on the other hand, don't even acknowledge the possibility of uncertainty about your conclusions. Why is that?

[quote:6af39]L.K
You were supposed to notice the arguments I am making that address the reasons why I believe your certainty about the objective meaning that can be derived from exegesis....

Ok I see this is a reference to your arguments about why Christians should stop using exegesis because what -- you found NOTHING BETTER (as in fact you have shown nothing to be the "alternative" objective method).[/quote:6af39]
Something better might be to look for evidence beyond the text to support the conclusions you draw from the text. Text is subjectively written and subjectively understood. Consider the awful possibility that you may be a little bit wrong and other biblical scholars who you dismiss so readily may be a little bit right.

[quote:6af39]L.K
1. Why should I quote Exodus 20? Do you think I disagree that the words on the page exist?
2. If by 'deal with what it says' you mean 'agree with my interpretation of what it says', I have given you ample reasons for why I am unhappy with the certainty of your interpretation.

I.e not a SINGLE one of your OWN sources addressing Ex 20 and exegeting it to your favor -- yeah that is "some solution" for it.[/quote:6af39]
Again you assume there is a side that I favour. Let me say again that, if I have a problem with the objective certainty offered by exegesis, what would we gain if I proffered a different supposedly objective certainty to counter yours? No doubt just an argument about whose objective certainty was the least subjective.

[quote:6af39]L.K
3. This is irrelevant rhetoric. Exodus 20 is not evidence against evolutionary theory; it carries no scientific evidential weight whatsoever.

Now we are getting somewhere.

Why then do you dig your heels in on the text that you claim is corrupt? Is this just one long rabbit trail for you?[/quote:6af39]
Again you accuse me of claiming something I have not claimed. I do not claim the text is corrupt, in the sense that the words exist on the page as you have quoted them. As you are aware, all I contest is your certainty about the conclusions they allow you to draw.

My argument has been that the text of scripture is not compatible with Darwinism -- my first exhibit is Ex 20:8-11.

So far your "solution" is to "avoid it at all costs".

The text has no evidential weight because the conclusions you draw from the text are neither testable nor falsifiable. Whether you consider it to be compatible with Darwinism or not is irrelevant both to the validity of evolutionary theory and to the validity of anything other than a YECist interpretation of Christianity. Your determination that the text is incompatible with evolutionary theory is based on your subjective understanding, based on the YECist baggage you appear to bring with you, of what the text means and the implications this has for the days referred in the Genesis creation myth.

Not a good answer even for atheists -- better as an atheist or agnostic to just say "yep it does not agree with Darwinism" and be done with it rather than continually "pretend" that "see darwinism under the covers in Ex 20".

I do not 'see [D]arwinism under the covers in Ex 20'. I see nothing in Exodus 20 particularly that either confirms or condemns evolutionary theory. This is a strawman argument you have created for me entirely of your own making.

[quote:6af39]5. The references I have given you and the arguments I have made have been directed towards supporting the conclusion that Exodus 20 provides no objective certainty as to its relevance to the actual length of the days of creation week.

that is pure bunk. Ex 20 CLEARLY identifies timeline for BOTH the days of Genesis 1 AND the days of the nation of Israel at Sinai "SIX DAYS YOU SHALL LABOR and do all your work... FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE..."

Impossible to miss. You keep "pretending" that we can not see what is staring us all in the face in that text.[/quote:6af39][/quote]
Except that you have provided no convincing evidence that either the 'days' referred to can in each case only have been intended by the writer to always mean actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them. All you have claimed is that exegesis alone provides this certainty, to which I say, I can't see how you can be so sure that it does and this is why.

And even if you were to establish such an understanding beyond all reasonable doubt, all you would have established is that this is what the writer himself believed. In other words, yet another subjective judgement.

You cannot even establish that the seven days of the Genesis creation myth were not simply conveniently constructed by priests to provide doctrinal concordance with an already existing seven-day week in everyday use amongst the people to whom they were preaching.

The simple truth is that at this stage you do not know what the truth may be - and neither do I.