< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 590 OF 590 ·
|Mar-19-18|| ||optimal play: <technical draw: <optimal play> <<technical draw> The tree is as old as the rings indicate.> El wrongo. The premise indicates instant creation so the tree's age is determined from the moment it is created and not by the rings it has.>|
No, your premise is that of "a tree fully grown, with leaves and fruit", which means that God created a mature tree.
You yourself said it is fully grown.
You're confusing creation with birth.
The tree wasn't born, it was created fully grown.
Therefore, according to the premise of your question, God created a tree that was, say, twenty years old.
So if the rings on the tree indicate it is twenty years old, then that's how old the tree is, even though God created the tree only an instant ago.
Do you see what I mean?
Or is God incapable of creating a twenty-year-old tree?
<One must guard to separate the physical from the spiritual.
<The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 1 Cor. 2:14>>
To put that verse in context, Paul is speaking about the saving power of Christ, as he makes clear when he says, "...we speak about Godís wisdom in a hidden secret, which God destined before the world began for our glory. None of the rulers of this world understood it, because if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." - 1 Corinthians 2:7-8
|Mar-19-18|| ||optimal play: <OhioChessFan: <OhioChessFan: ... You're ignoring my points.>|
<opt: Show me where.>
<As one example, do I get to decide if Jesus <really> meant it when he said he laid down his own life?>>
Whatever you or anyone else decide, Jesus really meant it when he said he laid down his own life.
<<opt: It's a rhetorical question. Obviously Jesus was teaching the Jews about his mission. The presumed authorship of the Torah was not up for debate.>
I kind of don't get your point in this issue, but fine.>
My point is this:
After Jesus healed the lame man at Bethesda, the Jews were angry because the healing took place on a Sabbath, so Jesus explained to them that he and the nature of his mission could be found in the Scriptures, and they should recognise that.
This is the irony that Jesus highlights, that they study the Scriptures so intently as to be experts, yet when the fulfilment of those Scriptures they study is actually standing right before them, they don't recognise him.
Now when Jesus refers to Moses writing about him (in the Scriptures) he is arguing from an a priori assumption, which is that everybody at the time assumed Moses wrote the Torah. Jesus, like everybody else, just takes that as a given. Since the Jews wrongly condemn Jesus on the basis of what they believed Moses wrote, Jesus says that it will be Moses who in fact condemns them since they refused to believe what was in fact written about Jesus himself.
So the point is not who actually wrote that particular Scripture but the truth contained therein about Jesus. So if modern scholars disclaim Mosaic authorship based on recent evidence, it makes no difference to what Jesus said or the intent of his message. The Gospel remains just as forceful.
<<OCF: I will note that the scientific evidence says someone can't raise from the dead after 3 days. What are you going with there?>
<The resurrection of Jesus defies scientific evidence but cannot be disproved. That's not the same as a 6,000 year old universe or world-wide flood 4,500 years ago, which have been definitively disproved.>
You have ad hoc faith.>
Quite the opposite actually.
In my case, nothing can dissuade me from the truth and power of Christ's resurrection.
In your case, if I may say, it all seems to hang on the dubious evidence of a young earth and Mosaic authorship.
<<Why can't you differentiate between the myths of the OT and the facts of the NT? They weren't even written in the same language!>
We're not even in the same universe on this matter.>
No, you're in a 6,000 year old universe and mine's 13.8 billion years old!
<<"Daniel couldn't have been written, etc, etc, etc" Your side gave that one up. I wish I could find a clearing house of similar cases, not that I'd expect it to matter to you.>
<opt: I'm sorry but I can't see from your answer why Moses referred to Laish as Dan.>
Another point you ignored. Per Laish and Dan, "I don't know.">
So that's your response?
Just shrug your shoulders and say "Duh, I dunno?"
I'm trying to explain it to you, but you have to open your mind to receive the answer.
<<opt: Anyway, if we can get back to your friend wanting to become a Christian: if he says that he has faith in Jesus and believes in the resurrection, but doubts Mosaic authorship of the Torah, would he be welcomed into your church, or would you tell him "he'd pretty quickly realize he didn't have faith in Jesus and you're not interested in pursuing gray area challenges.">
So am I to understand that you would reject his entreaty to become part of your little protestant church unless he accepted Mosaic authorship and a young universe?
Is that correct?
<Just to clarify, you who can understand exactly what Moses meant writing thousands of years ago, can tell when the Bible is speaking literally, when it's myth, but can't figure out what I'm saying now, I don't care to answer your question and would prayerfully worry about it if it ever happened.>
That's not really much in the way of clarification.
Look, don't get me wrong, I don't completely discount any writings by Moses, for example the ten commandments, but the idea that he wrote the first five books is just impossible.
If you don't care to answer my question, that's your prerogative, but my question is out there and shouldn't be avoided in the hope that situation never arises.
|Mar-20-18|| ||technical draw: <op> <Do you see what I mean?>|
I see exactly what you mean that's why I can say you are wrong.
|Mar-20-18|| ||optimal play: <technical draw: <op> <Do you see what I mean?>|
I see exactly what you mean that's why I can say you are wrong.>
How am I wrong?
The tree is aged according to the number of rings.
We know it has an age because we can count the rings on it. You said yourself we can count the rings on it.
That's how we determine the age of a tree. By counting the rings on the tree.
The fact that God instantly created the tree fully-grown only a moment ago does not mean that the tree has no age, since the rings on the tree reflect the fact that God created an aged tree, as determined by those rings.
If the rings on the tree indicate that the tree is twenty years old then we can say that God instantly created a twenty year old tree just a moment ago.
Therefore the tree is as old as the rings indicate according to God's creation.
|Mar-20-18|| ||technical draw: I just think I'll rest my case, <bp>, I don't like to get into deep debate with friends.|
|Mar-20-18|| ||playground player: <optimal play> I don't know how Darwinism can be described as morally neutral, when it serves as the engine of modern atheism and was the midwife at the birth of communism. Present company excepted, you'll find a lot of the villains gathered under Darwin's flag.|
"Social Darwinism" (albeit a label which its proponents rarely used), the doctrine of "the survival of the fittest people," took off like a rocket in the 19th century and inspired eugenics and Nazism in the 20th. Darwin himself was averse to signing on to eugenics because he had a profound distrust of government and didn't want government meddling with human life (gosh, something he and I have in common!).
I also don't see how Genesis is "myth" but The Big Bang is "fact." Sorry, but I don't consider abstract mathematical equations and computer models proof of anything.
If God started things off with a Big Bang, fine, that's one way to put it. But the only witness that we have is the Book of Genesis.
Written, for all practical purposes, by Moses.
|Mar-20-18|| ||jessicafischerqueen: |
Stalinist news from Canada:
<Unjustin Trudeau> forces applicants to the federal government "summer jobs" program to sign an "attestation" that they support the right to abortion.
1. The federal government shouldn't be spending tax dollars to "create" jobs in the first place
2. Even if you believe women have the right to an abortion, applicants to federal programs who don't believe this shouldn't be shut out of the program.
Ironically, this latest piece of Stalinist legislation has created strange bedfellows. Which groups are protesting this legislation? Civil rights groups? Free speech advocates from academia?
Well you can forget about that because these groups long ago sold their soul to the ghost of Joseph Stalin.
The groups that are united in protest are as follows: Catholics, Jews, Sikhs and Muslims.
|Mar-20-18|| ||playground player: <jessicafischerqueen> What???|
Leftids used to be content to tell you what you couldn't say, but I guess that got to be boring after a while. So now they tell you what you *must* say!
But they've exalted Muslims pretty high, so let's see what happens when the Muslims fight this.
Oh,wait, I know! The gov't will decide it only applies to Christians!
|Mar-20-18|| ||jessicafischerqueen: |
Moving to what you *must* say is bald faced Stalinism and why can't anyone recognize this except cranks like your steamed colleagues?
|Mar-20-18|| ||cormier: Gospel
When you lift up the Son of Man,
then you will realize that I AM
|Mar-20-18|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
|Mar-20-18|| ||optimal play: <technical draw: I just think I'll rest my case, I don't like to get into deep debate with friends.>|
Well, it's better than getting into deep debate with enemies, but if you want to drop it, we'll drop it.
Anyway, I know that you're a biblical scholar of the highest order, so I wonder if you would like to have a stab at my question regarding the city of Dan in Genesis 14:14
Abram pursued his enemies in search of Lot as far as the city of Dan.
Why doesn't Moses refer to the city as Laish?
This city was known as Laish until the time of the Judges when the tribe of Dan conquered it and renamed it after their ancestor (Judges 18:29).
During the time of Abraham, and even Moses, it was known as Laish. Why did Moses refer to it as Dan?
Thanking you in advance for your response.
<playground player: <optimal play> I don't know how Darwinism can be described as morally neutral ...>
All science is morally neutral.
It is neither good nor bad, virtuous nor evil.
It can be used beneficially or destructively depending upon its application.
For example, nuclear energy can be used for cheap power or an atomic bomb.
In the case of Darwinian evolution, it is the explanation for the diversity of life.
<I also don't see how Genesis is "myth" but The Big Bang is "fact." Sorry, but I don't consider abstract mathematical equations and computer models proof of anything. If God started things off with a Big Bang, fine, that's one way to put it. But the only witness that we have is the Book of Genesis. Written, for all practical purposes, by Moses.>
How is the Book of Genesis a witness to creation?
When you use the term <for all practical purposes> what do you mean by that?
<jessicafischerqueen: Moving to what you *must* say is bald faced Stalinism and why can't anyone recognize this except cranks like your steamed colleagues?>
I think more people are beginning to recognise this following such ridiculous examples as from Canada's ridiculous prime minister <Unjustin Trudeau> when he corrected a woman for saying "mankind" instead of the new politically-correct term "peoplekind".
This bloke must have no self-awareness of how ridiculous he appears.
Of course the Cultural Marxists applaud him but ordinary folks must be starting to see just how insidious this is.
|Mar-20-18|| ||technical draw: <optimal play> <During the time of Abraham, and even Moses, it was known as Laish. Why did Moses refer to it as Dan?>|
Names of places in that eastern land vary, from a slight resemblance in sound (paronomasia), a resemblance in sense (synonyms), a change of masters, or some other cause. Laish and Leshem are significant names, partly alike in sound, and applied to the same town. They took the place of Dan when the town changed masters. The recollection of its ancient name and story may have attracted the Danites to the place, who burned Laish and built a new city which they again called Dan. At the time of Gen. 14:14 Moses was already calling the city Dan.
|Mar-21-18|| ||optimal play: <technical draw> Thank you for your response.|
You make an interesting reference to the fact that the city was referred to alternatively as Laish (Judges 18:7, 18:14, 18:27, 18:29) and Leshem (Joshua 19:47).
I note your point regarding paronomasia, synonyms, etc, but it seems the most logical explanation is different authors, possibly the Priestly Source (P) composing Joshua 19 and the Deuteronomist (D) responsible for Judges 18.
There is no indication of the city being called Dan prior to its conquest by the Danites, which was after the time of Joshua, so depending upon the source, it was alternatively referred to as either Laish or Leshem.
This would have been the case in the time of Abraham and Moses.
So we're still left with the conundrum of how and why Moses would refer to the city as Dan long before its conquest by the Danites.
|Mar-21-18|| ||technical draw: <op> Have you considered that Moses might have been referring to the city as dan (judgement) and not Dan (son of Jacob)?|
|Mar-21-18|| ||jessicafischerqueen: |
<I think more people are beginning to recognise this following such ridiculous examples as from Canada's ridiculous prime minister <Unjustin Trudeau> when he corrected a woman for saying "mankind" instead of the new politically-correct term "peoplekind".>
I hope you are right.
I read a newspaper article this morning and I thought you might have some opinion on it based on the fact that you, like I, live in a "Constitutional Monarchy."
I live in BC, Canada. Today our Premier appointed a new Lieutenant Governer.
Although she is a "rubber stamp" for the BC legislature and has no actual power, she has announced she will dedicate herself to the issues of diversity, gender equality, early childhood development and pluralism.
Ok diversity and pluralism mean the same thing so why is she saying it twice. How will she "dedicate" herself to these issues when they and all other issues are outside her remit- which is to be a human rubber stamp.
Oh wait when a government falls from a vote of non-confidence, the Lieutenant Governor suddenly has some actual power. She/he/it has two choices- call an election or appoint someone to form a government.
Hmm that's actual power... So what a surprise to learn that our Premier was himself appointed by her previously when our government fell by a vote of non-confidence. ???
Non of this has anything to do with actual democracy and certainly not with liberty either.
The good news is that our latest human rubber stamp announced that she will live mainly in her Lieutenant Governor's mansion in Victoria, but plans to spend "lots of time in Vancouver" too. Imagine our relief. Doing what is anyone's guess. Guess who pays for her mansion in Victoria. Yes working folks pay for it with taxes in a province that is the most highly taxed in Canada to begin with. I work. I don't get money for free, and I really don't want to pay for this appallingly stupid woman's mansion.
I would like it if Canada withdrew from the Commonwealth and abolished our Constitutional Monarchy. I would prefer to live in a republic.
What is the situation on these issues in Oz?
|Mar-21-18|| ||playground player: <optimal play> By "for all practical purposes," I mean that Moses' original writings must have passed through a great many hands, over the centuries, a great many copyists--and anachronisms, additions, and editorial glosses are bound to creep in. |
As for the doctrine of evolution, I don't believe in it anyhow, I consider it more an ideological statement than anything else, and it cannot be disputed that it has inspired more than its share of wickedness in this fallen world.
Having stated our respective positions, which are probably reconcilable, we needn't fight about it.
There are more pressing issues in abundance, upon which I'm sure we can and do agree.
<jessicafischerqueen> I love Canada as our sister country (along with Australia and New Zealand), but it's turning into a mess--as is my own.
The whole post-Christianity enterprise is a disaster.
|Mar-21-18|| ||cormier: Gospel
"If the Son frees you, then you will truly be free"
|Mar-21-18|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
|Mar-21-18|| ||cormier: <optimal play> it may be that there's evolution in moralities and sciences, it very visible and audible etc...; yet i'm sure the eternal evolution in moralities and sciences are greater and perfecting englobing everything, God's gift of Science is very worthy in values indeed !!!|
|Mar-21-18|| ||optimal play: <technical draw: <op> Have you considered that Moses might have been referring to the city as dan (judgement) and not Dan (son of Jacob)?>|
No, because that wouldn't make any sense since a place is referred to by its common name, as known to everybody generally, not by some obscure unrelated epithet.
But if Moses did refer to Laish as dan (judgement) then he would have made that clear as he did just a few verses earlier when he wrote "Next they turned back and came to En-mishpat (which was also known as Kadesh) ..." (Genesis 14:7).
So you can see that Moses would have been consistent and written something like "...they went out in pursuit as far as Dan (which was also known as Laish)", but he didn't do that. He simply wrote "...they went out in pursuit as far as Dan" with no mention of Laish or Leshem.
So the straight-forward reading of Genesis 14 is clear enough. Whoever wrote "...they went out in pursuit as far as Dan" (Genesis 14:14) only knew the city as Dan, not Laish or Leshem, and therefore must have been writing this text sometime after the Israelite settlement of Canaan, which therefore must exclude Moses as the author.
<jessicafischerqueen> We call our resident representative of the Queen, Governor-General and he/she is a reflection of the government and PM in particular, so it's no surprise that your Lieutenant Governor will be dedicating herself to Unjustin Trudeau's pet issues.
We actually expect our GG to be non-political and just stick to "rubber-stamping" but sometimes they can't help themselves.
Our GG has reserve powers but haven't been used since 1975 so they rightly keep out of politics. They're a drain on the public purse but are expected to live in Canberra and keep their expenses down.
I would also prefer that Australia become a republic and withdraw from the Commonwealth, especially since there is no further purpose in being constitutionally linked to Britain, despite the Brexit vote.
<playground player: <optimal play> By "for all practical purposes," I mean that Moses' original writings must have passed through a great many hands, over the centuries, a great many copyists--and anachronisms, additions, and editorial glosses are bound to creep in.>
Then how can we trust the text?
I thought the Torah was dictated by God directly to Moses on Mt Sinai, and now you're saying that various copyists just decided to change and amend the direct words of God as handed to Moses?!
<As for the doctrine of evolution, I don't believe in it anyhow, I consider it more an ideological statement than anything else>
The theory of evolution is based on scientific evidence. If you want to contest evolution you must contest the evidence.
<Having stated our respective positions, which are probably reconcilable, we needn't fight about it. There are more pressing issues in abundance, upon which I'm sure we can and do agree.>
I never fight on your forum, I only ever engage in friendly yet rambunctious debate, always retaining respect and courtesy towards my interlocutors, most especially yourself.
<cormier> Certainly science progresses, but what do you mean by "evolution in moralities"?
Do you believe moral values evolve?
|Mar-21-18|| ||optimal play: Further to my above comment:
<But if Moses did refer to Laish as dan (judgement) then he would have made that clear as he did just a few verses earlier when he wrote
"Next they turned back and came to En-mishpat (which was also known as Kadesh) ..." (Genesis 14:7).
So you can see that Moses would have been consistent and written something like "...they went out in pursuit as far as Dan (which was also known as Laish)", but he didn't do that. He simply wrote "...they went out in pursuit as far as Dan" with no mention of Laish or Leshem.>
Upon subsequent consideration I think that any reference at all to Dan must exclude Mosaic authorship.
Moses could have written something like, "...they went out in pursuit as far as Laish (which was also known as Leshem)" but any mention of Dan is a dead giveaway of post-Canaanite-settlement authorship.
And in any event, why would Moses consider that Laish should be referred to as "Dan" on the basis of judgement?
"... the five men left and went to Laish, and observed the people who were living there carefree, as Sidonians tend to do, in peace and quiet.
There was no ruler in the land oppressing them for any reason. They were living far away from the Sidonians, and had no dealings with anyone."
"When you invade, youíll meet a carefree people living in a spacious territory."
"... the descendants of Dan took what Micah had made, along with the priest who had worked for him, and went to Laish, to a quiet and carefree people, and killed them with swords. Then they set fire to the city. They had no one else to deliver them, because they lived far from Sidon and had no dealings with anyone."
They are described as living in peace and quiet, not bothering anyone.
Why refer to their city as "Dan" meaning "Judgement"?
Judgement for what?
What did the quiet, peaceful citizens of Laish (Leshem) do that warranted judgement (dan) upon them?
What about all the evil war-like cities around the place?
Why didn't Moses refer to any of them as "Dan" meaning judgement?
Why pick on poor peaceful quiet little Laish to wear the sobriquet of "dan" (judgement)?
|Mar-21-18|| ||technical draw: <technical draw: <op> Have you considered that Moses might have been referring to the city as dan (judgement) and not Dan (son of Jacob)?|
<op> You answered no. The correct answer was yes.
|Mar-22-18|| ||optimal play: <technical draw: <technical draw: <op> Have you considered that Moses might have been referring to the city as dan (judgement) and not Dan (son of Jacob)?|
<op> You answered no. The correct answer was yes.>>
You know what? You're right!
The correct answer is indeed YES!
Yes, I did consider that Moses might have been referring to the city as dan (judgement) and not Dan (son of Jacob).
My detailed answer above proves that I gave consideration to the theory that Moses might have been referring to the city as dan (judgement) and not Dan (son of Jacob).
Of course now having considered it, we may discard it as a viable explanation.
The reference to Laish as Dan is a dead giveaway of post-Canaanite-settlement authorship.
Thank you <td> for an interesting and thought-provoking discussion.
|Mar-22-18|| ||technical draw: <op> Thank you. I will now go back to my study of the lazy prophet. This entails a prophet who is commanded to give a King a death sentence. However the prophet dallies and the King is dead before he arrives. Does the prophet get credit for his work? It is not as easy or silly as it sounds.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 590 OF 590 ·