[__ Science __ ] WHO IS DEAD? GOD OR DARWIN?

[TMal3]

I agree with Gordon Johnston's review that Genesis and the Egyptian creation myths have a lot in common.

But who's to say the Egyptians didn't borrow the oral traditions from the descendants of Noah?

The Egyptian a la carte religions had no fewer than 12 creation myths. It seems to me the Egyptian creation myth singled out, the one with 4 different versions, is the polemic against the Jews and not the other way around.

Otherwise why refute only 1 out of their myriad of creation myths? There were other creation myths just as popular as the one Genesis is supposed to refute.

Due to multiple creation myths, each with varying versions, I'd say the parallels are more likely Egyptians borrowing from the Jewish traditions rather than Jews writing a scathing review of the Egyptian traditions.

Yes, but within diversity there were 4 main (prominent) competing Egyptian theologies, and these were geographically associated with specific Egyptian temple locations like Memphis or Hermopolis. Geographic centers/cities that each claimed to be the true location of the primeval hillock that emerged from the primeval waters of chaos during creation (like arguing that their sacred site is the true "Jerusalem" and not the others. Genesis 1 attacks most of the big ticket items of the four major competing theologies (which themselves have a lot of overlap; it was standard for one god's rule and territorial claim to end where another god's began). And interestingly, Genesis 1 repudiates all four of those claims of authority and goes beyond them. For instead of simply giving a counter claim geographic location that the true God Yawheh (and true primeval hillock of Mount Zion/Jerusalem) is real one, which merely adds a fifth territorial claim into the mix, Genesis 1 uses the same type of language used by those competing cosmologies to describe the emergence of the sacred hill from the primeval waters, to state that it wasn't simply "a hill," but the entire "earth" that emerged when the one true God Yawheh gathered the waters together for dry land to appear on Day 3 of creation. The significance of this cannot be overstated: instead of simply claiming a single, specific geographical location to assert divine rule over, Genesis 1 portrays Yawheh as ruling over the entire earth, indeed, the entire creation (pretty cool!). So, on the one hand we have YECs who want to argue that Day 3 is describing massive tectonic uplift (even though Genesis 1 says nothing about rising land)---which reduces Genesis 1 to a mere statement of useless, dry facts of geology that have zero personal, spiritual relevance to us---or in proper historical context it is an amazing pronouncement of Yawheh's solo claim as the single, one and only true God over the entire earth.

Regarding dependence, I hear what you're saying and in a lot of cases of literary dependence one can argue either way that story A came from story B or vice versa because there's often insufficient evidence to decide. But in this case, I suggest two reasons to think the Egyptian accounts came first: (1) The Egyptian cosmologies include the Pyramid Texts, which are recognized as *the* oldest religious texts in the world that predate Moses by ~2,000 years or so. And (2) traditionally Moses received the Pentateuch after the Exodus in the Wilderness/Sinai.

 

[TMal3]

Spontaneous generation "life from nothing" hasn't been a valid theory among scientists in quite awhile.

Scientists have created a living cell from a minimum of dna but it had some defects.

Spontaneous generation is actually a (historically) different idea than abiogenesis based on discredited ideas of vitalism.

Venter's team didn't actually create a cell. They made tweaks to a Mycoplasma genome (which they then assembled from 'scratch' and then inserted the DNA into a 'hollow' cell that they had removed the genome from and removed hydrolytic enzymes from so it wouldn't digest the new genome they inserted, and then used the genome "program" to "reboot up" the cell. Still fascinating and a breakthrough first but they had a living cell (minus its genome) to begin with. Very similar to cloning technology.

 

[BeyondET]

Spontaneous generation is actually a (historically) different idea than abiogenesis based on discredited ideas of vitalism.

Venter's team didn't actually create a cell. They made tweaks to a Mycoplasma genome (which they then assembled from 'scratch' and then inserted the DNA into a 'hollow' cell that they had removed the genome from and removed hydrolytic enzymes from so it wouldn't digest the new genome they inserted, and then used the genome "program" to "reboot up" the cell. Still fascinating and a breakthrough first but they had a living cell (minus its genome) to begin with. Very similar to cloning technology.

Regeneration is a fascinating thing. The flat worm can be sliced up into 10 pieces. Every part of its body carries genes to create a clone new flat worm some amazing functions.

 

[TMal3]

Regeneration is a fascinating thing. The flat worm can be sliced up into 10 pieces. Every part of its body carries genes to create a clone new flat worm some amazing functions.

Yep, the good old Planarian lab I sometimes do with my biology students. You're right, it truly is amazing. Believe it or not it has even been demonstrated that Planarians could learn to navigate an environmental "maze," and then cut in pieces like you said and regenerate the missing parts but retain or be able to reconstitute the memory of how to navigate the maze. An exciting area of research that could help amputees and those with malformed limbs if we ever figure out regeneration.

 

[Vaccine]

How many of the myths have you read?

I've read about the 4 different versions mentioned in the article that was cited. Plus the vulgar one you mentioned earlier in this thread. Plus several that mention cosmic eggs. Cosmic eggs are common in many of the Egyptian creation myths.

Noah would not have written that as it was not the truth.

I agree Noah didn't write anything. I said "oral", as I'm sure Noah passed on anything orally.

I doubt they even knew much about what the other thought. Relationships between the two people groups was not a pleasant exchange.

The reason I mentioned Noah is there is some school of thought the 8 Egyptian gods came from stories about Noah and his family. Just so I'm clear, I'm saying the Bible is 100% original. I believe any parallels or commonality found in antiquity is due to other cultures appropriating oral stories from the jews.

I doubt either borrowed from the other since the principle characters could hardly be more radically different.

I think we all agree the Bible isn't borrowed from anyone or anything. I'm sure you'd agree the oral traditions passed down among Jews are not borrowed either, they are 100% original and true.
I think the similarities Johnston identifies actually point to the Egyptians borrowing from Jewish traditions. I doubt Moses wrote it as some insult against Egyptians. It doesn't address the cosmic egg or other versions of Egyptian creation myths. Plus, there isn't a greater insult to the Egyptians than how Moses got out of Egypt.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I've read about the 4 different versions mentioned in the article that was cited. Plus the vulgar one you mentioned earlier in this thread. Plus several that mention cosmic eggs. Cosmic eggs are common in many of the Egyptian creation myths.

You read about them? So you’ve read what someone you agree says ABOUT them. Someone like the author who WANTS. then to agree so cherry picks out the bits suitable to that purpose? You’ve not done as I have and simply read the various unbiased Egyptian creation accounts?

I agree Noah didn't write anything. I said "oral", as I'm sure Noah passed on anything orally.

No, there were already books by that time and he took them with him.

The reason I mentioned Noah is there is some school of thought the 8 Egyptian gods came from stories about Noah and his family. Just so I'm clear, I'm saying the Bible is 100% original. I believe any parallels or commonality found in antiquity is due to other cultures appropriating oral stories from the jews.

This assumes they read and spoke each others languages which requires a lot of faith. We have better international communication and how many of us are even bilingual? That’s a real stretch.

I believe Moses spoke to God “face to face as a man speaks to his friend.” Having that foundation, I know God explained many things to him. He predicted the future and of course, learned about the past. When the Master is your teacher, you don’t borrow from blind students.

I think we all agree the Bible isn't borrowed from anyone or anything. I'm sure you'd agree the oral traditions passed down among Jews are not borrowed either, they are 100% original and true.

Since Enoch wrote books and Moses wrote books and the prophets wrote their messages, there doesn’t seem to be much oral tradition there. Writing things down was their custom, although I know unbelievers like to disagree so they can disparage it.

I think the similarities Johnston identifies actually point to the Egyptians borrowing from Jewish traditions.

The main points are worlds apart so I think it’s safe to say no Egyptians learned the Hebrew language. And the upper class (scholars) certainly didn’t so it’s doubtful there were exchanges between scholars and slaves in theoretical matters.

I doubt Moses wrote it as some insult against Egyptians. It doesn't address the cosmic egg or other versions of Egyptian creation myths. Plus, there isn't a greater insult to the Egyptians than how Moses got out of Egypt.

That Moses talked with God isn’t a factor for you? There has to be another motive?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This discussion has illustrated to me the reason why some believe the teachings of Christ and the Hebrew scriptures and some don’t. Presented with the same evidence, the responses are quite different. It reminded me of the atheist who decided to read the Bible in order to disprove the whole thing. He got to the ten commandments and decided it was all true. No man could have thought up those laws. The character of the men with whom God chose to walk with also speaks volumes.

And yet some cannot believe God is there, interacts with some (for known and just reasons) and explains matters (to some for, again, known and just reasons.) It has to be that men from totally unrelated languages and cultures made up stuff and then shared it like university students in a caucus.

 

[TMal3]

So you’ve read what someone you agree says ABOUT them. Someone like the author who WANTS. then to agree so cherry picks out the bits suitable to that purpose? You’ve not done as I have and simply read the various unbiased Egyptian creation accounts?

Laughable. You are one of the most biased, judgmental persons I've met. Thinking you know others' heart and motivations. MIS-judging the scholar's work. The scholar didn't "want." The scholar didn't "cherry pick." And making false assumptions about myself and Vaccine that we're only reading what we supposedly already agree with, while you're supposedly the "unbiased" one. How do you know we haven't read the "unbiased" Egyptian creation myths ourselves? You don't know. You just assume and make false assumptions about people you dont know. Scholars you don't know. And that is one of the reasons why your "conclusions" are wrong and laced with bias and prejudice.

 

[TMal3]

This discussion has illustrated to me the reason why some believe the teachings of Christ and the Hebrew scriptures and some don’t. Presented with the same evidence, the responses are quite different. It reminded me of the atheist who decided to read the Bible in order to disprove the whole thing. He got to the ten commandments and decided it was all true. No man could have thought up those laws. The character of the men with whom God chose to walk with also speaks volumes.

And yet some cannot believe God is there, interacts with some (for known and just reasons) and explains matters (to some for, again, known and just reasons.) It has to be that men from totally unrelated languages and cultures made up stuff and then shared it like university students in a caucus.

And this discussion has illustrated how puffed up and self-righteous Pharisaical some people can be where everyone has to agree with that person (speaking of "agree") to be "in." And those who don't agree, can't simply be believers too who just have a difference of opinion and can't be believers who love and believe God and God's Word just as much. An unbiased person would know how to have a discussion with fellow believers and focus on the topic without resorting to ad hominen personal attacks as you have done pervasively. And continue to do with your snide, judgmental remarks. The one who agrees with you is the godly person of "character... whom God chose to walk with"; while anyone who disagrees with YOUR interpretation is like the "atheist" who "cannot believe God is there." It can't be two believers who both believe in God and God's Word and simply have a difference of opinion on how a passage should be interpreted. A passage that has NOTHING to do with one's salvation as Barbarian has pointed out.

You need to stop making judgments about others, and stop questioning the "veracity of my faith" (in violation of this forum's Terms of Service Rule 1.4), and focus on the issues at hand, not the people you are talking with. Let's take a brief look at some of the accusations you've made against me and my character in just the past few days:

I will kindly ask you again to stop putting words in my mouth; stop trying to tell me what my own motivations are when I tell you otherwise (I know my own heart and mind; you do not); stop mischaracterizing me as being in league with Satan/the serpent in the garden and functioning in the same role as the devil did with Adam & Eve in the garden; stop insisting that I am "accusing God of not telling the truth to man," when I have made no such accusations against God and have repeatedly affirmed my belief in God's truthfulness and the divine inspiration and infallibility of the Bible multiple times; stop accusing me of "questioning God's integrity," when I have never done so, but repeatedly affirm God's integrity; stop telling me what I believe in contradiction of what I tell you I believe; stop telling me that "you believe God does not tell the truth," when I most certainly believe and affirm that God does; stop trying to speak on behalf of God, and pronouncing your own human judgments on me and pretending you speak for God, saying that "you will not find that He can trust you with truth including truth about Him," and He will "hide understanding" from me, and "He will not give you light as you prefer something else"; stop saying I "have decided that God's words have to mean something untruth," and accusing me of "refusing to understand what was intended by God to be communicated," and then comparing me to the people who "refused to understand "the word of the Lord" as given to "the whole host of prophets" and then "killed them," and even comparing me to "the people who originally received the Word, rejected it and killed the speaker, including the Son of God" and saying "this is the position" I "encourage."

If you truly think I'm this horrible a person, and this blinded to the truth, then perhaps you should pray for me instead.

But whatever you do, stop these senseless ad hominen personal attacks that contribute nothing productive to the discussion, and that are, in fact, a poor substitute "response" in place of addressing and rebutting specific arguments and points that I've made; that you summarily dismiss with a wave of the hand, while clairvoyantly divining what it supposedly reveals about my character, motivations, and spiritual state, instead of directly engaging with said points and arguments beyond a superficial, surface treatment.

 

[Barbarian]

I have no personal bias against Option 2. I prefer it actually. I truly wish I could say otherwise and say that science and the Bible are in agreement, because I personally like the idea of concordism better. But I don't see how it can be defended without twisting science to fit Scripture or (in this case) Scripture to fit science.

Unless one takes the view that everything in the Bible is inerrant, this is not a problem. Jesus said that the mustard seed is the smallest seed.
Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:

It isn't close to the smallest seed. But Jesus knew that for his listeners, that was the smallest they knew. This is a problem only if one assumes that Jesus was doing a botany lecture. If one focuses on the seed, one entirely misses His point.

The story of Noah is not about the nature of the sky above us. It's about sin and its consequences and and God's faithfulness to those who follow Him. The fact that the Hebrews imagined the sky to be a solid dome holding back the waters above, has nothing to do with anything God is telling us in Genesis.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Laughable. You are one of the most biased, judgmental persons I've met.

Ah yes, the personal ad hominem insult when faced with no reasonable answer. This tells us a lot. Your view of scripture allows you to engage in this sort of response.

Thinking you know others' heart and motivations.

Jesus said to judge the heart and motivation of others by their fruit. But I suggest you read the book of acts where you will find Paul and Peter judging ACCURATELY the heart and motivation of others. It’s called discernment and it’s only given to those who actually see the scripture not as copied from other religions but inspired by God.

MIS-judging the scholar's work.

If a scholar cannot take others judging their work, they’re ought to keep their views to themselves. It’s otherwise called peer review.

The scholar didn't "want." The scholar didn't "cherry pick."

Of course he did. Anyone who reads the unbiased Egyptian tales can see this.

And making false assumptions about myself and Vaccine that we're only reading what we supposedly already agree with, while you're supposedly the "unbiased" one. How do you know we haven't read the "unbiased" Egyptian creation myths ourselves?

You said said so. You didn’t read the actual accounts but only ABOUT them.

You don't know. You just assume and make false assumptions about people you dont know.

Read your own words.

Scholars you don't know. And that is one of the reasons why your "conclusions" are wrong and laced with bias and prejudice.

You cannot prove any of this but have no rational response so you employ the ad hominem.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

And this discussion has illustrated how puffed up and self-righteous Pharisaical some people can be where everyone has to agree with that person (speaking of "agree") to be "in." And those who don't agree, can't simply be believers too who just have a difference of opinion and can't be believers who love and believe God and God's Word just as much. An unbiased person would know how to have a discussion with fellow believers and focus on the topic without resorting to ad hominen personal attacks as you have done pervasively. And continue to do with your snide, judgmental remarks. The one who agrees with you is the godly person of "character... whom God chose to walk with"; while anyone who disagrees with YOUR interpretation is like the "atheist" who "cannot believe God is there." It can't be two believers who both believe in God and God's Word and simply have a difference of opinion on how a passage should be interpreted. A passage that has NOTHING to do with one's salvation as Barbarian has pointed out.

You need to stop making judgments about others, and stop questioning the "veracity of my faith" (in violation of this forum's Terms of Service Rule 1.4), and focus on the issues at hand, not the people you are talking with. Let's take a brief look at some of the accusations you've made against me and my character in just the past few days:

I will kindly ask you again to stop putting words in my mouth; stop trying to tell me what my own motivations are when I tell you otherwise (I know my own heart and mind; you do not); stop mischaracterizing me as being in league with Satan/the serpent in the garden and functioning in the same role as the devil did with Adam & Eve in the garden; stop insisting that I am "accusing God of not telling the truth to man," when I have made no such accusations against God and have repeatedly affirmed my belief in God's truthfulness and the divine inspiration and infallibility of the Bible multiple times; stop accusing me of "questioning God's integrity," when I have never done so, but repeatedly affirm God's integrity; stop telling me what I believe in contradiction of what I tell you I believe; stop telling me that "you believe God does not tell the truth," when I most certainly believe and affirm that God does; stop trying to speak on behalf of God, and pronouncing your own human judgments on me and pretending you speak for God, saying that "you will not find that He can trust you with truth including truth about Him," and He will "hide understanding" from me, and "He will not give you light as you prefer something else"; stop saying I "have decided that God's words have to mean something untruth," and accusing me of "refusing to understand what was intended by God to be communicated," and then comparing me to the people who "refused to understand "the word of the Lord" as given to "the whole host of prophets" and then "killed them," and even comparing me to "the people who originally received the Word, rejected it and killed the speaker, including the Son of God" and saying "this is the position" I "encourage."

If you truly think I'm this horrible a person, and this blinded to the truth, then perhaps you should pray for me instead.

But whatever you do, stop these senseless ad hominen personal attacks that contribute nothing productive to the discussion, and that are, in fact, a poor substitute "response" in place of addressing and rebutting specific arguments and points that I've made; that you summarily dismiss with a wave of the hand, while clairvoyantly divining what it supposedly reveals about my character, motivations, and spiritual state, instead of directly engaging with said points and arguments beyond a superficial, surface treatment.

Reams and reams of personal attack. Sigh!!! We’ve probably finished as all you have left is to attack me and my character…

moving on….

(I only read the first sentence and since the tone and message is clear, I didn’t read more.)

For anyone else following, you’ll find that academics who have embraced a theology that questions the integrity of God, they will not find that God answers a great deal of their prayers or that will they experience intimacy with Him. It’s easy to see why. Who among us would actively support those who question our integrity and teach others to do so?

 

[TMal3]

Ah yes, the personal ad hominem insult when faced with no reasonable answer.

You are a master of manipulation and misrepresentation. Despicable. There are several dozen points worth of "reasonable answers" that I have already given you in the previous pages that you have conveniently skipped over and failed to address. I even numbered most of them for you. You have dismissed all these points (many with no evidence that you actually read them, based on some of your follow up responses); dismissed them with broad, sweeping general statements and a wave of the hand with added ad hominen personal attacks thrown in for good measure that don't rebut any of my specific points.

So, don't kid yourself thinking that you've 'won' and demonstrated your position hands-down, when you've done nothing of the sort. But your puffed up pride is noted. Anyone can go back and read the prior pages for themselves and see how you are full of words but short on facts and persuasion. You summarily dismiss without actually rebutting specific points and arguments. A slew of "reasonable answers" have been given to you already that you have yet to rebut or invalidate.

 

[TMal3]

You said said so. You didn’t read the actual accounts but only ABOUT them.
Read your own words.

You cannot prove any of this but have no rational response so you employ the ad hominem.

More unfounded assumptions. I don't know where you make this stuff up. But you do have a bad habit of misunderstanding and misrepresenting me. I have, in fact, read them. I have read the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, and the Coffin Texts, and the Sabkah and more, and more than once. So I absolutely have read the Egyptian creation myths directly.

And you haven't even read the entire article by the scholar. If you had you would know the article is not the author's own original research (so he has no intrinsic bias), but a compilation of numerous *other* Egyptologists' research on the subject over the past one hundred years that the author has compiled and presented as a summation of one hundred years of work on the subject. But, of course, I already told you this, which shows once again that you are not carefully reading comments.

And after reading this Dr. Johnston's article a few years ago, I had a number of questions about the methodology, so I reached out to him and corresponded with him at length about the subject. So, I have personal firsthand knowledge about Dr. Johnston, who is also an Old Testament evangelical scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary (you don't get more conservative Christian than that) and a staunch defender of the inerrancy of the Bible. So, yes, you have absolutely slandered and misrepresented Dr. Gordon Johnston's work and good name.

 

[TMal3]

Reams and reams of personal attack. Sigh!!! We’ve probably finished as all you have left is to attack me and my character…

moving on….

(I only read the first sentence and since the tone and message is clear, I didn’t read more.)

For anyone else following, you’ll find that academics who have embraced a theology that questions the integrity of God, they will not find that God answers a great deal of their prayers or that will they experience intimacy with Him. It’s easy to see why. Who among us would actively support those who question our integrity and teach others to do so?

Slandering me is one thing. But slandering the good name of conservative evangelical Bible scholars who I personally know is another. In more than a decade of forum discussions, I've never reported someone. I'm about to with you. Stop saying that I question God's integrity. The only integrity I'm questioning is yours. Stop questioning the "veracity of [my] faith" (in violation of Terms of Service Rule 1.4). If you want to prove your case, then do so without personal attacks by focusing only on the subject at hand, not the person, and by addressing the many specific points on the previous pages that you have simply glossed over and failed to rebut or invalidate.

 

[TMal3]

Unless one takes the view that everything in the Bible is inerrant, this is not a problem. Jesus said that the mustard seed is the smallest seed.
Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:

It isn't close to the smallest seed. But Jesus knew that for his listeners, that was the smallest they knew. This is a problem only if one assumes that Jesus was doing a botany lecture. If one focuses on the seed, one entirely misses His point.

Yes! And another example of why the Bible must be read in the proper, original context instead of through the lens of modern scientific understanding. With the latter, it appears that there is an 'error' since the mustard seed. But in context, we see the mustard seed was the smallest known to them. Great point

 

[TMal3]

The story of Noah is not about the nature of the sky above us. It's about sin and its consequences and and God's faithfulness to those who follow Him. The fact that the Hebrews imagined the sky to be a solid dome holding back the waters above, has nothing to do with anything God is telling us in Genesis

Yes, again! Another excellent point.

 

[TMal3]

Jesus said to judge the heart and motivation of others by their fruit. But I suggest you read the book of acts where you will find Paul and Peter judging ACCURATELY the heart and motivation of others. It’s called discernment and it’s only given to those who actually see the scripture not as copied from other religions but inspired by God

Yes, it's called discernment, and you clearly lack it

 

[TMal3]

You've demonstrated lack of discernment by the incessant number of misrepresentations and false assumptions that you make about people that you don't even know

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Yes, it's called discernment, and you clearly lack it

Ah, yes, the personal ad hominem attack when losing.

Since that is all you have left at your disposal, you’re going on ignore.

Adieu