Who wrote this?

[Cerebrum123]

He never said that was his intent or purpose though it is often portrayed that way on YEC websites. Here is what he wrote:

I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained, gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems...

He stated this was the result of something in Quarterly Review, not that it was his intention though it does appear that he approved.

That's not all of what he wrote though, and he knew he was fighting against the Bible, and he even said this "They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems", and this "I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses".

He knew what he was doing, and that was his intent.

As for the "who was Cain's wife" question. Really? You're asking that one? That sounds like a "fundy atheist" question(one they bring up a lot, but has been answered LONG ago). Given what information we have it would have either been one of his sisters or perhaps a niece. Also as far as the chronology being "contradictory" in Genesis, that's like saying that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are contradictory. There is ONLY a contradiction there if you are LOOKING for a contradiction. In fact in the NIV I don't see the contradiction because they translated it properly on this one.

Genesis 2:19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

The "had" isn't in all of the translations, but it shows that God had ALREADY formed the animals, and THEN brought them to Adam later.

From what I understand the ECF, and those who translated the KJV, had been using the LXX, and it had been translated as "firmament" even that early on, and likely due to foreign influence on Jewish thought. Also, the original Hebrew is STILL best translated as 'expanse" regardless of whether or not we have scientific evidence against "firmament"(but since they had been influenced to think in the direction of "firmament" the kept on using it). Also, I seem to remember reading something from an ECF, where he DIDN'T seem to take "raqiya" as a sold dome. He talked about how could water be held back by the sky since water is heavier than air(something he KNEW wasn't solid), so his theory was that water VAPOR was what is being held back, since rain clouds are formed from water vapor, and that they still are up in the air. I will try to find the quote(I'm thinking Augustine, but I could be wrong).
As for the whole 'myth" thing. People and cultures might change, but God does NOT change, and His thinking about myths is what is important here. Genesis 1 would have been direct revelation to Moses from God(other chapters may have been recorded previously, but since there would have been no witness other than God at this point, then no one would have been there to write it down.)

[Roy]

As for the "who was Cain's wife" question. Really? You're asking that one? That sounds like a "fundy atheist" question(one they bring up a lot, but has been answered LONG ago). Given what information we have it would have either been one of his sisters or perhaps a niece. Also as far as the chronology being "contradictory" in Genesis, that's like saying that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are contradictory. There is ONLY a contradiction there if you are LOOKING for a contradiction. In fact in the NIV I don't see the contradiction because they translated it properly on this one.

Really? You don't think this:

He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ...

... and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, ...

is a contradiction? You don't see that Joseph's father has been given different names? That Joseph is described as the son of two different men? How can that not be a contradiction as written?

It is not only a blatant contradiction, it can only be considered not to be a contradiction if you are LOOKING for it not to be a contradiction, and in that quest ignoring syntax, punctuation, logic and the Catholic tradition that Mary's parents were Joachim and Anne.

Who do you claim Heli and Jacob were?

Roy

[Cerebrum123]

Really? You don't think this:

He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ...

... and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, ...

is a contradiction? You don't see that Joseph's father has been given different names? That Joseph is described as the son of two different men? How can that not be a contradiction as written?

It is not only a blatant contradiction, it can only be considered not to be a contradiction if you are LOOKING for it not to be a contradiction, and in that quest ignoring syntax, punctuation, logic and the Catholic tradition that Mary's parents were Joachim and Anne.

Who do you claim Heli and Jacob were?

Roy

Here is an article that goes into that one in depth http://christianthinktank.com/fabprof4.html
Basically, Heli would be the father of Mary(do you really think that Catholic tradition is more accurate than the Bible, especially to a Christian that is NOT Catholic?), and Jacob the father of Joseph. You would need to know more about the inheritance laws of the day (Joseph would be made the son of Heli upon marriage with Mary). The above article goes into it depth, and you are an atheist, so it's not a surprising question coming from you(many atheists ask the same question), but rogue should have known the answer to this one already. Being a Christian we are supposed to be able to "give an answer for the hope that is in you". So him asking questions that are common from atheists, especially the "fundy" variety, isn't exactly very encouraging. It would probably be similar if you and Jorge were agreeing on science .

[phank]

You seem to be contradicting what you said in Post 55:


As you say there are different kinds of evidence.
Wise acknowledges that and says that in certain circumstances he would pick evidence of one type above evidence of another type. That is not denial of the evidence. It is selecting a method.

It is Dawkins who does the denying - he won't acknowledge any sort of evidence other than the type he he likes. He won't even acknowledhe other evidence.

Magellan

You still haven't got the hang of reading for context. Yes, Wise has placed biblical evidence above science evidence. When scientific evidence refutes biblical evidence, Wise is happy to reject the scientific evidence. BUT Dawkins is pointing out that Wise teaches science, which depends ENTIRELY on the sort of evidence Wise rejects, depends on a method Wise rejects, and depends on an understanding of objective reality Wise rejects. It's as though I were personally teaching a bible studies class!

[rogue06]

That's not all of what he wrote though,

Yet that is the quote so often presented as "proof."

and he knew he was fighting against the Bible, and he even said this "They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems", and this "I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses".

He was fighting against the Bible? Or against a particular outlook based upon it? Considering, as I already posted, that CMI acknowledges that "[Lyell] was a deist and, in his thinking, God made the universe, but then played no part in its subsequent history" it appears that Lyell's disagreement wasn't against the Bible itself (or he wouldn't have thought that God made the universe). Lyell saw God as a law-giver who had endowed the universe with fixed laws governing physics, chemistry, geology and biology. That was what he meant when he wrote to George Poulett Scrope about "free[ing] the science from Moses."

He knew what he was doing, and that was his intent.

I don't think the evidence supports this conclusion.

As for the "who was Cain's wife" question. Really? You're asking that one? That sounds like a "fundy atheist" question(one they bring up a lot, but has been answered LONG ago). Given what information we have it would have either been one of his sisters or perhaps a niece.

Funny how I remember discussing this back in Sunday School. How was I supposed to know they were a bunch of atheists.

Also as far as the chronology being "contradictory" in Genesis, that's like saying that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are contradictory. There is ONLY a contradiction there if you are LOOKING for a contradiction.

Read separately and independently you have, for instance, Adam and Eve being created at different times in one and together in the other. Not saying this is some sort of insurmountable problem but it does exist.

In fact in the NIV I don't see the contradiction because they translated it properly on this one.

Genesis 2:19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

The "had" isn't in all of the translations, but it shows that God had ALREADY formed the animals, and THEN brought them to Adam later.

Oookay.

From what I understand the ECF, and those who translated the KJV, had been using the LXX,

Pardon me but didn't Paul and even some of the Gospel writers quote extensively from the LXX? Guess they didn't know better.

and it had been translated as "firmament" even that early on, and likely due to foreign influence on Jewish thought.

Possible though there are several other parts of the Bible where the firmament is described as being solid (Ezekiel 1:22; Job 37:18; Psalm 148:4). According to Genesis 1:20 birds fly in front of the raqia (in the air), not in the raqia. And during the account of Noah's Flood we read that the waters above were released through the “floodgates of the heavens” (literally, “lattice windows”) in Genesis 7:11 and 8:2.

I suppose this is why the Jewish Encyclopedia describes the firmament thusly:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse

I don't think the Jewish Encyclopedia relies on the LXX.

Also, the original Hebrew is STILL best translated as 'expanse" regardless of whether or not we have scientific evidence against "firmament"(but since they had been influenced to think in the direction of "firmament" the kept on using it).

I'm not arguing that "expanse" isn't the best translation just that it wasn't the one used

Also, I seem to remember reading something from an ECF, where he DIDN'T seem to take "raqiya" as a sold dome. He talked about how could water be held back by the sky since water is heavier than air(something he KNEW wasn't solid), so his theory was that water VAPOR was what is being held back, since rain clouds are formed from water vapor, and that they still are up in the air. I will try to find the quote(I'm thinking Augustine, but I could be wrong).

Definitely not Augustine who wrote that the word firmament was used “to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below,” in his De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (“The Literal Meaning of Genesis”). And further in his "Exposition on the Psalms" at Psalm 48, Augustine compares the firmness and strength of the Church with that of the firmament.

If you can find that quote I would very much appreciate in that everything I've found indicates that it was universally seen as being a solid structure. Augustine, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Basil, Hilary of Poiters, Novatian, Theophilus of Antioch, John Chrysostom, Athanasius, Severian of Gabala, Diodore or Diodorus of Tarsus, Isidore of Seville, the Venerable Bede, John Philoponus (or John the Grammarian of Alexandria) and though too late to be ECFs, Thomas Aquinas and Luther, all held that it was solid. The first to depict it as an expanse appears to have been Calvin so if you can find someone prior to this I would definitely like to see it.

As for the whole 'myth" thing. People and cultures might change, but God does NOT change, and His thinking about myths is what is important here. Genesis 1 would have been direct revelation to Moses from God(other chapters may have been recorded previously, but since there would have been no witness other than God at this point, then no one would have been there to write it down.)

Where did I mention myth here?

[rogue06]

It's as though I were personally teaching a bible studies class!

My mind is officially blown at this thought

WpzIEMDuTJ.gif

[Cerebrum123]

Yet that is the quote so often presented as "proof."


He was fighting against the Bible? Or against a particular outlook based upon it? Considering, as I already posted, that CMI acknowledges that "[Lyell] was a deist and, in his thinking, God made the universe, but then played no part in its subsequent history" it appears that Lyell's disagreement wasn't against the Bible itself (or he wouldn't have thought that God made the universe). Lyell saw God as a law-giver who had endowed the universe with fixed laws governing physics, chemistry, geology and biology. That was what he meant when he wrote to George Poulett Scrope about "free[ing] the science from Moses."


I don't think the evidence supports this conclusion.


Funny how I remember discussing this back in Sunday School. How was I supposed to know they were a bunch of atheists.


Read separately and independently you have, for instance, Adam and Eve being created at different times in one and together in the other. Not saying this is some sort of insurmountable problem but it does exist.


Oookay.


Pardon me but didn't Paul and even some of the Gospel writers quote extensively from the LXX? Guess they didn't know better.


Possible though there are several other parts of the Bible where the firmament is described as being solid (Ezekiel 1:22; Job 37:18; Psalm 148:4). According to Genesis 1:20 birds fly in front of the raqia (in the air), not in the raqia. And during the account of Noah's Flood we read that the waters above were released through the “floodgates of the heavens” (literally, “lattice windows”) in Genesis 7:11 and 8:2.

I suppose this is why the Jewish Encyclopedia describes the firmament thusly:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse

I don't think the Jewish Encyclopedia relies on the LXX.


I'm not arguing that "expanse" isn't the best translation just that it wasn't the one used


Definitely not Augustine who wrote that the word firmament was used “to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below,” in his De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (“The Literal Meaning of Genesis”). And further in his "Exposition on the Psalms" at Psalm 48, Augustine compares the firmness and strength of the Church with that of the firmament.

If you can find that quote I would very much appreciate in that everything I've found indicates that it was universally seen as being a solid structure. Augustine, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Basil, Hilary of Poiters, Novatian, Theophilus of Antioch, John Chrysostom, Athanasius, Severian of Gabala, Diodore or Diodorus of Tarsus, Isidore of Seville, the Venerable Bede, John Philoponus (or John the Grammarian of Alexandria) and though too late to be ECFs, Thomas Aquinas and Luther, all held that it was solid. The first to depict it as an expanse appears to have been Calvin so if you can find someone prior to this I would definitely like to see it.


Where did I mention myth here?

This is a quick response, because I feel I need to do more research, but here is what I found. This is from Homily III "Therefore we read: "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide life waters front the waters." have said what the word firmament in Scripture means. It is not in reality a firm and solid substance which has weight and resistance; this name would otherwise have better suited the earth"

This was entirely about describing the "firmament", and as you can see he says that it is NOT a "solid substance".

As for the "myth" thing, that was in response to Sam, and I forgot to address it to him .

[Ansgar Seraph]

As for the whole 'myth" thing. People and cultures might change, but God does NOT change, and His thinking about myths is what is important here. Genesis 1 would have been direct revelation to Moses from God(other chapters may have been recorded previously, but since there would have been no witness other than God at this point, then no one would have been there to write it down.)

Well, I don't think that we've got a definitive position on how God fells about Myth as a medium or narrative. Arguing that God directly revealed Genesis 1-11 to Moses is a traditional argument . . . but it's an argument based on tradition. There certainly isn't a place in the Bible where such a direct revelation to Moses is recorded. Arguing, then, that God would not have used myth as an acceptable medium is simply assuming one's conclusion.

—Sam

[Roy]

Here is an article that goes into that one in depth http://christianthinktank.com/fabprof4.html
Basically, Heli would be the father of Mary

First, although your cited article goes into inheritance in depth, it provides no reason to believe that even if you are right about Heli being Joseph's father-in-law, Joseph would thereby be described as Heli's son. In fact, it gives an example (Sheshan) where the son-in-law is not described as a son.

Second, your cited article says: "It is debated whether the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family, and the one in Luke applies to Mary's line, or vice versa." It does not support your claim.

(do you really think that Catholic tradition is more accurate than the Bible, especially to a Christian that is NOT Catholic?),

Given that the author of Matthew appears in several places have been rather free with facts and figures to the extent of simply inventing them, then yes, Catholic tradition may be more accurate than Matthew. Also, I would point out that whichever of the two is more accurate does not change depending on your beliefs. If Mary's father was Joachim, then Catholic tradition is accurate, and if Mary's father was Heli then Matthew is accurate.

and Jacob the father of Joseph. You would need to know more about the inheritance laws of the day (Joseph would be made the son of Heli upon marriage with Mary). The above article goes into it depth, and you are an atheist, so it's not a surprising question coming from you(many atheists ask the same question), but rogue should have known the answer to this one already.

I knew the answer already. It comes as no surprise to me at all that you simply said that Heli was Mary's dad, with no justification either for picking Heli over Jacob, or for why such adoption wasn't mentioned. Though I hadn't expected you to dismiss Catholic tradition quite that trivially. I thought you might at least wonder why centuries of Catholic theologists didn't just smack themselves on the forehead and say "D'Oh! Heli must be Mary's father!This Joachim idea is rubbish!" I guess I overestimated you.

Roy

[Cerebrum123]

First, although your cited article goes into inheritance in depth, it provides no reason to believe that even if you are right about Heli being Joseph's father-in-law, Joseph would thereby be described as Heli's son. In fact, it gives an example (Sheshan) where the son-in-law is not described as a son.

Actually the article says the OPPOSITE about Sheshan.

Second, your cited article says: "It is debated whether the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family, and the one in Luke applies to Mary's line, or vice versa." It does not support your claim.

There are reasons to believe that Heli is Mary's father, and it has to do with the legal status of being a descendant of David. There's also the possibility that the curse on Jeconiah was still in place, and that having Mary be from that line wouldn't work well according to the curse. It is debated on which is which, but not debated that one line goes to Mary, and the other to Joseph, and that is the major point anyway.

Given that the author of Matthew appears in several places have been rather free with facts and figures to the extent of simply inventing them, then yes, Catholic tradition may be more accurate than Matthew. Also, I would point out that whichever of the two is more accurate does not change depending on your beliefs. If Mary's father was Joachim, then Catholic tradition is accurate, and if Mary's father was Heli then Matthew is accurate.

I have reason to doubt the accuracy of Catholic tradition(Papal infallibility, veneration of Mary, praying to saints etc.), but not the Bible itself. Also, other than some claims of miracles by Jesus, which you obviously reject as "made up", can you give an example of Matthew just "making things up"?

I knew the answer already. It comes as no surprise to me at all that you simply said that Heli was Mary's dad, with no justification either for picking Heli over Jacob, or for why such adoption wasn't mentioned. Though I hadn't expected you to dismiss Catholic tradition quite that trivially. I thought you might at least wonder why centuries of Catholic theologists didn't just smack themselves on the forehead and say "D'Oh! Heli must be Mary's father!This Joachim idea is rubbish!" I guess I overestimated you.

Roy

Do you know any Christians that aren't Catholic, that think that Catholic tradition is inspired? Can you find any Catholic Christians that believe that their tradition should be trusted over the Bible itself when the 2 are in conflict? I have reasons for my position, and I outlined some of them above, and for me it's not a deal breaker if Heli is actually Joseph's father, but that one just makes more sense to me.

Oh, and Sam, I will respond to your post in a bit, but I want to do some research first.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Oh, and Sam, I will respond to your post in a bit, but I want to do some research first.

No worries; I'll likely be indisposed for much of the day, anyhow. Memorial Day Weekend = Traditional Water Balloon Fight. Only now I'm one of the adults, which means I know how to use the hose

[rogue06]

This is a quick response, because I feel I need to do more research, but here is what I found. This is from Homily III "Therefore we read: "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide life waters front the waters." have said what the word firmament in Scripture means. It is not in reality a firm and solid substance which has weight and resistance; this name would otherwise have better suited the earth"

This was entirely about describing the "firmament", and as you can see he says that it is NOT a "solid substance".

As for the "myth" thing, that was in response to Sam, and I forgot to address it to him .

I don't think that quote demonstrates that the author didn't think it was a solid structure

[Cerebrum123]

I don't think that quote demonstrates that the author didn't think it was a solid structure

" It is not in reality a firm and solid substance which has weight and resistance; this name would otherwise have better suited the earth"

I don't know how he could have made it any clearer than that that the firmament was NOT a "sold dome in the sky".

[Roy]

First, although your cited article goes into inheritance in depth, it provides no reason to believe that even if you are right about Heli being Joseph's father-in-law, Joseph would thereby be described as Heli's son. In fact, it gives an example (Sheshan) where the son-in-law is not described as a son.

Actually the article says the OPPOSITE about Sheshan.

I can see nowhere in that article where Jarha is described as Sheshan's son, and two places where he is not:
"Now Sheshan had no sons, only daughters. And Sheshan had an Egyptian servant whose name was Jarha. 35 And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant in marriage, and she bore him Attai. 36 And Attai became the father of Nathan ... Judging by the precedent of the daughters of Zelophehad, Sheshan’s name and property would have passed to his son-in-law."

The article says exactly what I said it did about Sheshan and his son-in-law, it does not say the opposite at all, and I'm left wondering whether you are stupid, dishonest, or too lazy to read your own sources.

There are reasons to believe that Heli is Mary's father, and it has to do with the legal status of being a descendant of David.

No, no, no, no, no. Those aren't reasons to believe that Heli is Mary's father, they're reasons why Matthew might invent a spurious genealogy linking Jesus to David. They have absolutely nothing to do with determining whether Joseph's father was Heli or Jacob, since they would be equally applicable if Heli was Jacob's biological father and Luke's gospel never existed. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Heli might be Mary's father rather than Joseph's other than the contradiction with Luke. If Luke didn't exist, the question would never arise - the legal status of Jesus as a descendant of David would be seen as through Joseph, his biological father - and all this pleading about adoptions and lack of brothers would never have got started.

It is debated on which is which, but not debated that one line goes to Mary, and the other to Joseph, and that is the major point anyway.

Well, if it is debated on which is which, why did you flat out state that Heli was Mary's father and Jacob was Joseph's? Besides, it is debated whether one line goes to Mary.

I have reason to doubt the accuracy of Catholic tradition(Papal infallibility, veneration of Mary, praying to saints etc.), but not the Bible itself.

The fact that the gospels contradict each other, but do not contradict Catholic tradition is a reason to doubt the bible itself.

Also, other than some claims of miracles by Jesus, which you obviously reject as "made up", can you give an example of Matthew just "making things up"?

- the numerological fudging necessary to claim that the descent of Jesus from Abraham consists of the favoured number of 42 generation when only 41 are given;
- the enhancement of prophecy regarding the state of the temple to match what Matthew would have known actually happened
- the accounts of the massacre of innocents and the resurrection of hundreds, both of which would have been widely reported by others if they had actually occurred.

Do you know any Christians that aren't Catholic, that think that Catholic tradition is inspired? Can you find any Catholic Christians that believe that their tradition should be trusted over the Bible itself when the 2 are in conflict?

But the two aren't in conflict. The bible is in conflict with itself, not with Catholic tradition. It's only your half-baked highly-flexible interpretation that contradicts Catholic tradition. I don't think I'd have any problem finding Catholics that would trust their tradition over you.

Roy

[rogue06]

No worries; I'll likely be indisposed for much of the day, anyhow. Memorial Day Weekend = Traditional Water Balloon Fight. Only now I'm one of the adults, which means I know how to use the hose

rogue tech industries is of course working on increasing the fire power of those traditional water balloon fights

giant-water-bomb-slingshot.jpg
Of course everybody has water balloon slingshots but I never pass up an opportunity to post a picture of cute wimmenfolk in swim suits.





But for those who insist on going old skewl we have a trebuchet that oughta fit the bill







Next we turn to the water balloon bazooka...







And don't think we forgot about you hose-wielding adults...