| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Dear Paleonetters, It bothers me a bit that some want to stop our discussion of the creation -evolution problem. Considering the trouble it seems to cause biology and paleontology teachers why would any scientist not welcome an unbiased discussion aimed at solving the problem? Somebody tried to call me a modernist at one stage. I don't like to be tied down to any 'ist' or 'ism' or religion for that matter. I like to be free to look at anything from any point of view and try to work out how it works regardless of the consequences to anybody's pet ideas including my own. I don't like to be wrong so part of my reason for entering the discussion is to have others considering and testing my ideas. I think just discussing things helps to sort out right from wrong provided we are prepared too take a square look at them (I wonder how the expression 'take a square look' might have originated). I agree with Frank Holterhoff that the Bible teaches through allegory and symbolism and that that is how the Lord taught. I think that if we forget about reading the Bible as history all of the problems that various ones have mentioned simply disappear. I know of no explicit statement that the Egyptians are descendants of Noah I suppose that idea came from reading the story of the flood as literal history in other words that it is religious tradition like the idea that the Earth is only six thousand years old. As I see it the Bible is about truths that are still operating. Truths that help us get on with each other and with the environment. Bill C. seems to be having trouble seeing eye to eye with me on truth so I'll have another go at explaining what I mean by truth. Truth as I understand it is 'that which fits and agrees with a standard' for instance in my mechanics trade we check that a cylinder head is true by comparing its gasket surface with a known straight edge. The truth we are talking about is abstract concepts that have to be checked against reality as we observe it around us. There is of course a less important kind of truth - an accurate record of physical things and events from which we derive these concepts and by which we check them. Perhaps I should say there are two levels of truth first the data we collect from observation and second the principles or theory we derive from that data. It is the second or higher truth that the word 'God' refers to this is what I like to call eternal truth in my 'theological' writings. Neither our observations nor our extrapolations are perfect so we have to keep on trying to improve on them this results in our perception of truth changing not truth itself. Your problem may be that you are confusing the words we use to express concepts with the concept itself this is an age old problem and if I understand it correctly is what idolatry is all about. If this does not clear up your problem Bill perhaps you could give us a definition of truth as you see it so I can get a better idea of how your ideas differ. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Frank Holterhoff <frank@matricus.com> To: <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 12:20 PM Subject: Re: paleonet Faith and skepticism > Does the Bible state explicitly that the Egyptians came from Noah (or > from those that were with him, although I guess they were all his > offspring)? I don't know, I just hadn't heard that. > > Here's an even better one - where did Cain's wife come from (first > mentioned Genesis 4:17)? There's no record in the Bible that Abel > married or had children before Cain killed him. And there's no record > that Adam & Eve had any other offspring that could have directly or > indirectly produced Cain's wife prior to the time she showed up. That > pretty much covers the entire known human race at the time. > > I love and revere the Bible, and I do believe that it embodies the Word > of God, just not literally. I think that the Bible teaches through > allegory and symbolism, which when you think about it is exactly the > same way Jesus taught. > > F > > bivalve wrote: > >> > And had an even larger > >> > problem with the story of Noah & the survivors. We are all Jews, right, > >> > since the Jews were the only people in the Ark? But just a little bit > >> > further in the Bible, the Egyptians are introduced. Where did they come > >> > from? Another non-Jewish ark? > > > > > > No, the Bible claims that both the Egyptians and the Jews, as well as a long list covering most of the nations known to the Jews, all descended from Noah after the Flood. > > > > Dr. David Campbell > > Old Seashells > > University of Alabama > > Biodiversity & Systematics > > Dept. Biological Sciences > > Box 870345 > > Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA > > bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com > > > > That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa > > > > > > > > > -- > Frank K. Holterhoff MATRICuS Inc. > Physical Design Engineer 570 South Edmonds Lane, Suite 101 > 972-221-1614 ext. 18 Lewisville, Texas 75067 > fax: 972-420-6895 USA > frank@matricus.com www.matricus.com > >
Partial index: