| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Folks -- If our local paper (Stockton Record) had not recently printed the two sides of the story in a so-called balanced view of evolution vs. intelligent design, I would have been willing to move on. However, the paper did print a couple of articles, so I suspect that the battle between science & religion will be moving into our local schools here in central California. I am getting frustrated with all the slippery arguments. If Genesis says that all of the tribes are descended from Noah, than they are all of Jewish descent. It really doesn't matter if you call them by various names, such as Egyptians; the words in Genesis are clear. I don't agree that Genesis truly tells the story of creation, but most of the language is reasonably understandable. I simply cannot believe that I must be a Biblical scholar before I (gently) poke and prod at the antievolutionists' beliefs. Do I have to have an in-depth understanding of alchemy or astrology before I question whether they should be taught as equivalent to chemistry or astronomy in our schools? Now, if, as I have been advised, I should only consider the Bible as an allegorical text, then I am free to populate the rest of the world with whomsoever I chose, since the Flood doesn't really mean the entire world was "drowned". But allegorical interpretations depend on both my understanding and possibly other's interpretations. All of which leaves me no closer to understanding the Bible or how (or not) to use it in a discussion. Andy -- As to how we might interpret the list of tribes in a Greek text -- probably as archeological information, assuming the Greek text is not claiming to be the word of God. My final thought are the Bible, whether interpreted literally or allegorically, is belongs in religion. Evolution is science. Perhaps it is easiest if we keep the two distinctly separate. Sandy Stratigrapher & Still Champion of the Early African Ancestors -----Original Message----- From: paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk [mailto:paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk] On Behalf Of bivalve Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 12:54 PM To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk Subject: paleonet cautions on biblical interpretation, from faith and skepticism > 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. This illustrates part of the danger involved in trying to bring up what the Bible says when discussing evolution. Genesis 10:6 lists Egypt among the nations descended from Noah, but many translations unhelpfully leave Egypt untranslated as Mizraim. Thus, examination of various translations and their footnotes, or reading a commentary, or knowledge of semitic languages is necessary to find the reference. Most people who are likely to be sympathetic to antievolutionary claims act out of a belief that they fit well with their scriptures. They are probably very familiar with at least parts of those scriptures, and so an inaccurate critique of those scriptures will get you dismissed as an ignorant enemy. Unless you have the time and inclination to do some detailed study of the relevant passages and the range of interpretations existing within the religious tradition in question, it's safest to avoid the topic. (Neither antievolutionists nor religion departments necessarily provide reliable guidance on these issues.) A safer and relevant approach could be: "I don't know too much about the Bible, but I do know it doesn't approve of lying. As a paleontologist, I know what is true about paleontology...." 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
Partial index: