Noah's Ark Found?

sergeanthulka

HR Heisman
Oct 1, 2001
5,894
1
36
Originally posted by Hawk24:
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
It would be fishy if creationists made the discovery...But they didn't.


You fail to address the point.

What good would it do to date the rock anyway? It's the picture on the rock that is important...What am I missing?
 

Sal_Paradise

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2002
15,110
3
36
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
Thumper:

Regarding Carbon 14 dating. Do you deny that - to say Carbon 14 dating is accurate - that it depends on the following 3 assumptions?


1) There has always been as much carbon 14 in the atmosphere as there is today.
2) Carbon 14 has always decayed at the same speed.
3) All living things absorb the same amount of carbon as the atmosphere has in it

Do you deny that any of these 3 assumptions are open to scrutiny or variance of opinion?




Okay, let's do this. But first let's recall what you said to me in another thread.

Originally posted by sergeanthulka:


If you're gonna run with the big dogs, Sal...you're gonna have to break down & read the whole thread...



I'm going to have to say the same thing to you here, if you're going to run with the big dogs on this issue you need to educate yourself on the nature of radioactive decay.

So, here we go.

1) There has always been as much carbon 14 in the atmosphere as there is today

No. What is actually important is the ratio of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12. Everything is calculated based on this ratio.

Now about the amount of Carbon 14 being constant. Carbon 14 is formed in the atmosphere by cosmic rays interacting with Nitrogen 14. This reaction rate is not constant, but rather is affected by supernovae and things of the like. But it has been shown that these event cause fluctuation in the data of only + or - 10% at most. We can also assume that a constant radiation background of cosmic radiation existed in our galaxy (other than the supernovae and like events) for millions of years based on models that are derived completely irrespective of this model.

Now this carbon 14 combines with an oxygen molecule to form CO2, and stays in the atmosphere. When the Carbon 14 decays it becomes nitrogen again and leaves the oxygen. This cycle forms a steady state where the rate of decay matches the rate of formation of C 14 by the cosmic rays.

2) Carbon 14 has always decayed at the same speed.

This is not an assumption but rather a derived principle. The rate at which Carbon 14 decays is not determined by what we measure, rather that is just an experimental verification of the quantum mechanical theorems.

One can completely derive the decay rates of any Isotope by solving the Schrodinger equation for the atom. The variables in the Schrodinger equation depend only on the energy interactions of the nucleons, these energy interactions are dependent only on the positions of the nucleons relative to each other. For carbon 14 to exist, each of it's nucleons must have the same postition probablility or the nucleus would not form. Thus carbon 14 would be the same thing 2 billion years ago as it is now. Its formation and its decay depends only on the energy interaction of the protons and neutrons, these things are not a function of time.

3) All living things absorb the same amount of carbon as the atmosphere has in it.

No one takes this position with the word All in it. Nearly all organisms do. But there are certain forms of organisms that consume carbon in other ways, I believe I've read mollusks feed on some other form of carbon and thus have a different ratio in their body.

It has been experimentally proven that a vary wide range of organisms that do in fact take in the same ratio of carbon as the atmosphere has in it.

Besides this is a mute point, even if there are some renagade organisms that don't take in the same ratio of carbon there are plenty we know that do, and we can focus our testing on those organisms. For example, people. People have been on this planet far longer than the effective range of carbon dating. We know people consume the same ratio of carbon as is in the atmosphere, so we can accurately determine the age of human fossils throughout the effective range of carbon dating.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Besides Hulka, there are plenty of radioactive dating techniques that use the decay rates of other elements such as uranium. These things have effective ranges of billions of years. What silly contentions are you going to make about those techniques?
This post was edited on 4/27 5:16 PM
 

sergeanthulka

HR Heisman
Oct 1, 2001
5,894
1
36
Re: So basically according to the link...

Originally posted by Hawk-A-Doodle-Doo:
...provided by NPR, Genesis, the age-old biblical story of how God snapped his mighty fingers and the heavens and the earth were instantly created, proves the existence and validity of the theory of evolution.

Here's a quote from NPR's link to the "explain the Bible to me Barney-style" web site:

"Genesis 6:20
Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.
----------------------------------------------------------

A kind is different from the way scientists classify animals today. We are not sure what God meant exactly, but it was probably 2 dog kind. 2 cat kind, 2 parrot kind, 2 finch kind, etc..

Noah probably only had to take less than 40,000 animals total!

He had enough room to keep all the animals just on one floor of the ark."

---------------------------------------------

So what this explanation says is that Noah didn't need two St. Bernards, two Yorkshire Terriers, two Black Bears, two Grizzly Bears, two Polar Bears, two Chimpanzees, two Gorillas, two Goldfinches, two Red-crested Finches, etc... He only needed two of "a kind". So how the heck then, did we get all these different breeds? Did God just zap them into place after the waters receded? If the two dogs that God supplied to Noah were Golden Retrievers, did their offspring just spontaneously turn into German Shepherds? And then their offspring's offspring spontaneously turned into Yorkshire Terriers???

Funny thing is, one of this boards most revered biblical literalists and defenders of the faith - our old pal Hounded - said that very thing last year when this same debate was raging. In response to Doodle's questioning how it would be possible for Noah to have one of every breed of animal on the ark, noting that the number would be in the hundreds of thousands (including every type of insect, bird, etc..) Hounded said, "Noah didn't need two of every breed, he just needed two of each species. For example he just needed two dogs, a male and a female." Hounded then went on to say that "science has proven that all the dog breeds currently inhabiting the Earth could very well have sprung from just two dogs."

Folks, if that isn't evolution, Doodle doesn't know what is!

Excellent question, Doodle...

The difference between the Creationist belief & the Evolutionary belief is that of SPECIATION. Evolution would say that over huge amounts of time that chihuaha, turned lab, turned great dane would eventually change into an entirely different species. Creationist argue that you can isolate genes selectively & (in a VERY short period of time) get huge variation (i.e. chihuahua's & Great Dane's) however, Creationists draw the line at speciation. That you will never get anything but a dog from a dog...You will never get a cat.

Darwin did a lot of research in this area with pigeons. He was able to get HUGE variation among pigeons in a relatively short period of time. But he was unable to change a pigeon into another species.

Creationists believe that microevolution takes place. (i.e. dogs, wolfs, coyote's are all the same fundamental 'kind' of animal & only one pair was needed for the ark) But they draw the line at speciation or 'macroevolution'.

Science has taken what is observed (microevolution) & has proclaimed as fact a rather large extrapolation (macroevolution). They claim that the fossil record backs them up. I disagree.
 

chafedHawk

HR Legend
Sep 25, 2002
11,875
0
36
Originally posted by NPRLover:

Don't you mean it is the ark that I'm missing? About 300 cubits long? Nestled in Mt. Ararat?

So, this translation you offer makes the bible and science compatible? You need to get the word out, my friend, for that is news indeed.

No, not the ark, my friend.

I've offered you a thoroughly reasonable explanation for an incorrect translation from Hebrew->King's English that directly alters the core theology you keep ranting about; that God and science can't come to terms according to Genesis. I've demonstrated that they can. Your retorts are simplistic and instigatory because you've got nothing reasonable with which to explain it away. Your entire argument against a divine Creation rests on Christians' (and your own) misunderstanding of the text and meaning of Genesis 1:2. And now it's been cleared up for you.

There isn't much reason for me to 'get the word out'. It's been 'out' for quite some time among Christian circles. You obviously haven't been made aware of it, so I correctly characterized your view on the matter as ignorant. Congratulations, you're no longer ignorant.
 

Sal_Paradise

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2002
15,110
3
36
Chafed-
Settle down, I don't think NPR would argue that a God couldn't have created the universe, but rather that he couldn't have created it in the way that literalists say he did in the Bible.

If you're interpreting it to read that God created the world long ago, through a slow process that we've observed through scientific investigations, I don't think you'll get much resistance from educated people, including (I believe) NPR. We may suspect that isn't true, but recognize that there is no scientific way to prove that it isn't.

The nature of God, as humans have defined him, makes explaining his work beyond science. But the stories in which people say he worked are often not.
 

chafedHawk

HR Legend
Sep 25, 2002
11,875
0
36
Sal_Paradise;

It's all good:), I wasn't getting worked up. My post was pointed, though. My apologies to NPRLover.

As far as literalists go, the explanation I've offered doesn't defeat their argument by any means, but only reinforces it.

To your last point, I think there's a heck of a lot of wisdom in that statement. It's valuable to those of us on either side of this fence and an apt reminder that Christians and non-Christians alike need to examine every bit of the Bible with their intellect and reason.
 

Sal_Paradise

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2002
15,110
3
36
Originally posted by chafedHawk:
As far as literalists go, the explanation I've offered doesn't defeat their argument by any means, but only reinforces it.

Well, it defeats their argument in that it says the Universe wasn't created in 7 24 hour days 8,000 years ago.

But you're right, it helps them because it atleast gives them a reasonable position to stand behind.
 

chafedHawk

HR Legend
Sep 25, 2002
11,875
0
36
Originally posted by Sal_Paradise:
Originally posted by chafedHawk:
As far as literalists go, the explanation I've offered doesn't defeat their argument by any means, but only reinforces it.

Well, it defeats their argument in that it says the Universe wasn't created in 7 24 hour days 8,000 years ago.

But you're right, it helps them because it atleast gives them a reasonable position to stand behind.

Reread my post. The term 'heavens', referring to the universe, is mentioned in Genesis 1:1, but NOT Genesis 1:2. The Creation event referred to in Genesis 1:2 does not involve the universe as a whole, just the Earth, specifically the Earth, and not a new Earth at that, but a complete remake of an existing Earth that was previously somehow destroyed and/or rendered uninhabitable. The 'chaos' referred to means specifically 'desolate surface'. There had to be an Earth already in existence for its surface to be made desolate. I tried to demonstrate as clearly as possible that there is no specific timeline attached to how long the universe has existed, when it was created, nor the length of time the Earth existed in its previous incarnation (the one with dinosaurs) before the remodel job God did on it. It could be trillions of years; there is no indication one way or another.

The problem here is that Biblical literalists, based on a solitary and erroneously translated Hebrew word, are incorrecty placing Creation of the universe and Earth at the same point in time as God's REMODEL JOB on the Earth. There is no indication whatsoever that those separate events occurred at the same point in time. It's not a Biblical inconsistency, it's human error and ignorance that perpetuate this obviously false notion.
 

Sal_Paradise

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2002
15,110
3
36
So, do you believe that God created man and the current incarnation of Earth in 7 days or not? Do you believe that the current species of humans have been on this Earth for 250,000 years?

Sorry for not combing the previous posts. I've been really busy. I appreciate you summarizing them for me.
 

$$Bob$$

Scout Team
Apr 21, 2004
127
0
16
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
And yet I get called 'crackpot'...

His tail sways like a cedar = His penis stiffens like a cedar...Hmmmm. Some translator needs to be shot...Those two things say something entirely different.

And this is exactly why people that believe in a literal translation of the Bible, and/or that the Bible is the unerring and divine word of God, are complete and utter morons. The Bible was written and interpreted by fallible human beings, just like you and me. By placing unwavering faith in another human being's interpretation of an ancient language that you do not understand, you are setting yourself up to be thoroughly and repeatedly embarassed, just like you're experiencing in this thread.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Originally posted by Wags2:
nm

Wags. Good post. Don't think that it went ignored.

I didn't know that a guy at the U of Chicago "invented" c14 dating.

The other forms of dating, like the argon-argon, were interesting.
This post was edited on 4/27 9:24 PM
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
From another site:

Regarding the Ark
(Source - mythofjesus.org.uk)

A conservative estimate of the lifeforms that Noah would have had to collect is:
Insects: 1,000,000
Mammals: 4,008
Birds: 8,600
Reptiles: 6,252
Amphibians: 2,000
TOTAL SPECIES - 1,020,860
TOTAL IF IN PAIRS - 2,041,720

According to the Bible, Noah's sons existed before he began collecting the species. One of his sons, Shem, was born 1,558 years after creation and the flood took place 1,656 years after creation. Therefore, Noah had about 98 years to collect all two million life forms. In order for Noah to do this he would have to collect 20,832 species a year, or 57 species a day. Taking into account the travel time required to gather all the life forms on earth Noah's task would have been even more difficult.
Additionally, Noah would have had to feed and care for all these animals during the time that he collected them all, and during the flood itself; therefore he would also have to collect many times more species simply for feed stock. There is also the fact that in addition to doing all this, there would have been several tons of animal excrement to remove every day.
Additionally, there is the fact that many species on this planet cannot exist outside their ecosystems (For example, how did Noah keep the polar bear alive in the middle east climate?).
This is omitting the fact that there is no indisputable evidence of a global flood and other problems such as how the animals survived after they got back on dry land, and also how they were able to migrate to other land masses surrounded by oceans.

Regarding the Flood
(Source - Talk.Origins Archive)

A global flood would have produced evidence contrary to the evidence we see:

- How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

- Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

- How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern climatic conditions.

- Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.

- Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (2) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (3) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
The fundamentalist stereotype is quickly becoming more representative of the average Christian: sadly, it is a fair represenation of many Christian's POV.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: So basically according to the link...

Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Doodle-Doo:
...provided by NPR, Genesis, the age-old biblical story of how God snapped his mighty fingers and the heavens and the earth were instantly created, proves the existence and validity of the theory of evolution.

Here's a quote from NPR's link to the "explain the Bible to me Barney-style" web site:

"Genesis 6:20
Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.
----------------------------------------------------------

A kind is different from the way scientists classify animals today. We are not sure what God meant exactly, but it was probably 2 dog kind. 2 cat kind, 2 parrot kind, 2 finch kind, etc..

Noah probably only had to take less than 40,000 animals total!

He had enough room to keep all the animals just on one floor of the ark."

---------------------------------------------

So what this explanation says is that Noah didn't need two St. Bernards, two Yorkshire Terriers, two Black Bears, two Grizzly Bears, two Polar Bears, two Chimpanzees, two Gorillas, two Goldfinches, two Red-crested Finches, etc... He only needed two of "a kind". So how the heck then, did we get all these different breeds? Did God just zap them into place after the waters receded? If the two dogs that God supplied to Noah were Golden Retrievers, did their offspring just spontaneously turn into German Shepherds? And then their offspring's offspring spontaneously turned into Yorkshire Terriers???

Funny thing is, one of this boards most revered biblical literalists and defenders of the faith - our old pal Hounded - said that very thing last year when this same debate was raging. In response to Doodle's questioning how it would be possible for Noah to have one of every breed of animal on the ark, noting that the number would be in the hundreds of thousands (including every type of insect, bird, etc..) Hounded said, "Noah didn't need two of every breed, he just needed two of each species. For example he just needed two dogs, a male and a female." Hounded then went on to say that "science has proven that all the dog breeds currently inhabiting the Earth could very well have sprung from just two dogs."

Folks, if that isn't evolution, Doodle doesn't know what is!

Excellent question, Doodle...

The difference between the Creationist belief & the Evolutionary belief is that of SPECIATION. Evolution would say that over huge amounts of time that chihuaha, turned lab, turned great dane would eventually change into an entirely different species. Creationist argue that you can isolate genes selectively & (in a VERY short period of time) get huge variation (i.e. chihuahua's & Great Dane's) however, Creationists draw the line at speciation. That you will never get anything but a dog from a dog...You will never get a cat.

Darwin did a lot of research in this area with pigeons. He was able to get HUGE variation among pigeons in a relatively short period of time. But he was unable to change a pigeon into another species.

Creationists believe that microevolution takes place. (i.e. dogs, wolfs, coyote's are all the same fundamental 'kind' of animal & only one pair was needed for the ark) But they draw the line at speciation or 'macroevolution'.

Science has taken what is observed (microevolution) & has proclaimed as fact a rather large extrapolation (macroevolution). They claim that the fossil record backs them up. I disagree.

Before y'all take your science lessons from the sarge, here's a site on speciation. Enjoy.

I'm not saying it contradicts anybody, but appears to be a reputable site.

I think it was supplied by Thumper.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Allopatric_Speciation:_the_Role_of_Isolation_in_Speciation
 

Mike Zierath

Family, football and fishing.....
Staff
Jun 3, 2002
17,088
9,290
113
59
Flower Mound, TX
I think the whole thread is worthy

of Legendary status.

This was one of the best reads I've seen in awhile. Very interesting.

Mike
 

Hawk-A-Doodle-Doo

HR Legend
Oct 1, 2001
20,121
8,548
113
Island of Misfit Message Board Posters
Excellent point Sal old friend.

Doodle has ALWAYS enjoyed debating the bible interpreters on this one. The literalists won't give an inch, and stick to their "man co-existed with dinosaurs" theory.

The interpretationists always respond with the "you're taking the bible too literally" and "it may be that a day was defined differently back then" arguments.

Doodle especially loves hearing that last one. What they're saying is that GOD, you know, the guy who created the Earth and started it spinning on its axis, and the guy who created the Sun and sent the Earth on its perpetual journey around it....yeah, apparently he doesn't know how long a "day" is.
 

NewsBreaker

HR Legend
Jun 5, 2002
25,347
0
36
Re: You're all wrong.

I got this in an email today:

The end is near
A priest and a pastor from the local churches are standing by the side of the road, pounding a sign into the ground, that reads: "The End Is Near! Turn Yourself Around Now--Before It's Too Late!" As a car sped past them, the driver yelled, "Leave us alone, you religious nuts!" From the curve they heard screeching tires and a big splash. The pastor turns to the priest and asks, "Do you think the sign should just say "Bridge Out?"
 

chilehawk

HR All-State
Sep 5, 2003
504
0
16
Re: Excellent point Sal old friend.

I am not sure why the Bible must be literally true to be an important work. Can't important lessons be learned from methaphoric teachings.
Anyways as to the authenticity of radiocarbon dating I just wanted to add a couple of important points. First of all it is true that radiocarbon dating assumes a constant ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmoshpere through time and that this assumption is invalid. However, a number of independent techniques are available for establishing the antquity of a site that are completely indenpendent of carbon. Ideally all sites should be dated by a number of techniques. One way of establishing a sites antiquity is by finding a clear association between extinct species and humans. At Folsom a point was found embedded in the ribs an extinct species of bison. This pushed back the antiquity of man past the 6,000 year barrier. The age of the site was then estimated by geologic dating which suggested a date between 10,000-20000 years old. Geologic dating essentially interprets the context of the site by examining the geologic processes that led to its formation and the duration of these processes based on the observance of geologic processes in the present. The site was then radiocarbon dated and an age of 11,500 years old was obtained. In other words three independent lines of evidence suggest that the site is much older than the Biblical 6,000 years old. In addition thousands of sites throughout the world have been dated well past 6,000 years old on multiple lines of evidence. I addition scientists can adjust for changes in the carbon ratio this is referred to as calibration. Calibration involves the use of dating methods that are independent of radioactive decay. The most common and most useful method is tree ring dating. Because certain types of trees accumulate a ring every year scientists can compile a record which can be compared to radiocarbon dates and adjust these dates for changes in carbon level in the atmosphere. In other words archaeologists and geologists have a number of independent lines of evidence that suggest an antiquity to the world much greater than 6,000 years. As to the Ica stones it is not necessary they may not be hoaxes they may simply be misinterpreted. Artwork is often difficult to interpret in addition we cannot be sure that they are representing reality. These people would have been every bit as capable as we are at creating mythical creatures.
 

Sal_Paradise

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2002
15,110
3
36
Re: Excellent point Sal old friend.

Originally posted by chilehawk:
First of all it is true that radiocarbon dating assumes a constant ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmoshpere through time and that this assumption is invalid.

Yes, the ratio fluctuates some, but as you pointed out independeny techniques indicate that it is still a valid assumption, it's just that the fluctuation leads to error bars on the values.

Originally posted by chilehawk:
I addition scientists can adjust for changes in the carbon ratio this is referred to as calibration. Calibration involves the use of dating methods that are independent of radioactive decay. The most common and most useful method is tree ring dating. Because certain types of trees accumulate a ring every year scientists can compile a record which can be compared to radiocarbon dates and adjust these dates for changes in carbon level in the atmosphere.

In case anyone is using this thread as a poor man's education in science, I wanted to point out that calibration is not a technique specific to carbon dating.

In science, you calibrate any instrument you use. To calibrate, you take a measurement on somethings that you know the correct values for. Hopefully these values cover a large range. Then you compare the reading that your instrument gives you to the correct value. You determine what function your instruments values need to be multiplied by to give the correct values. Then you can measure things which you don't know the value for and simply multiply your reading by the function to get the value for the unknown substance.
 

Hawk-A-Doodle-Doo

HR Legend
Oct 1, 2001
20,121
8,548
113
Island of Misfit Message Board Posters
Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

....100% literally true in order to be an important work, it's that the interpretationists seem fine with picking and choosing which parts of the bible require interpretation, and which parts are to be taken literally.

Definition of a "day" - okay, that's open to interpretation
Ten Commandments - NOT open to interpretation.

Parting of the Red Sea - okay, that may have been a metaphor
Woman is subserviant to man - NOT open to interpretation.

Guy builds a big boat and puts two of "every" animal on it and rides out a global flood - open to interpretation
Virgin birth - NOT open to interpretation.

etc..

In other words, the spectacular and outlandish stories and the inconsistencies in the Bible can be interpreted many ways, but ANYTHING having to do with affecting or controlling human behavior and thought is to be taken ABSOLUTELY literally.

Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the Bible is to be taken literally word for word, or it is open to interpretation. And if ONE part of the Bible is open to interpretation, then EVERY part of the Bible is open to interpretation.
 

ThunderHawk

HR Heisman
Oct 3, 2002
7,074
1
36
Re: You're all wrong.

Originally posted by NewsBreaker:
I got this in an email today:

The end is near
A priest and a pastor from the local churches are standing by the side of the road, pounding a sign into the ground, that reads: "The End Is Near! Turn Yourself Around Now--Before It's Too Late!" As a car sped past them, the driver yelled, "Leave us alone, you religious nuts!" From the curve they heard screeching tires and a big splash. The pastor turns to the priest and asks, "Do you think the sign should just say "Bridge Out?"
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Definition of a "day" - okay, that's open to interpretation
Ten Commandments - NOT open to interpretation.


I would say that the 10 commandments is definitely open to intrepretation. Take the "Thou shalt not kill" edict. It doesn't say "Thou shalt not murder", but uses the more inclusive term "kill". The word "Kill" is clearly being interpreted in a specific way, ignoring the common definition of the word.


Guy builds a big boat and puts two of "every" animal on it and rides out a global flood - open to interpretation
Virgin birth - NOT open to interpretation.


Again, the virgin birth is open to intrepretation. Some say that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah (something like almah - which means a young maiden) was mistranslated into something that means virgin. (Ignoring the similarities to numerous pagan religions that had virgin births, as well as sons of gods being resurrected, and the eating and drinking the body and blood of gods (Bacchus, for one)).


Here is an interesting blurb on almah.

There are two hebrew words usually translated 'virgin' in English. 'Bethulah' means virgin in the sense that we understand it. It was used, for example, in Isaiah 62:5. 'Almah' (the word used in Isaiah 7:14) simply means a young woman. Although it is sometimes used in the sense of a sexually pure woman, this is not it's exclusive usage. The context will usually point out the correct usage.

The confusion arose when the Greek Septuagint used the greek word 'parthenos' to translate Isaiah 7:14. This word, in Greek, does denote a sexually pure woman, and was the inspiration for the gospellers myth of the Virgin birth.

A look at the context of Isaiah 7:14 will quickly reveal that the woman that Isaiah was referring to was probably *already* pregnant, thus pointing out which sense of 'almah' was intended. In any case, the point of Isaiah's prophecy was that before the child reached the age of accountability, both Israel and Syria would be desolated. (A prophecy which was only partly fulfilled, by the way). The use of the word 'virgin' is not germane in Isaiah's prophecy. The 'sign' was the child, not a miraculous conception.

In short, Isaiah's 'sign' was fulfilled in it's own context, hundreds of years before anyone thought to apply it in a different sense.


So, you see and like Doodle mentions, there is much more open to intrepretation than one realizes. Don't expect your local church to mention these things.
This post was edited on 4/28 11:54 AM

http://www.2think.org/hii/virgin.shtml
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,563
113
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

NPR,

I don't have much time, but you speak so bodly about things you know so little about.

Of course the Hebrew and Greek words relating to the prophecy don't have to mean "virgin," but instead could mean "young maiden." But that is a completely irrelevant point. Jesus' virgin birth is not based on that prophecy. That was a dual fulfillment prophecy only known to be predicting anything in the future through later revelation.

Mary was known to be a virgin from the phrase later in the text. The word bolded below is "had not known a man" and is not up to debate.

Mt 1:18-25 - 18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away secretly. 20But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21“And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins.” 22Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 23“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” 24And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, 25and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. - (NASB)

Now that I look, this whole thread is full of half truths that would easily be refuted. I look forward to coming back in June for a spell.



This post was edited on 4/28 12:10 PM
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

NPR,

I don't have much time, but you speak so bodly about things you know so little about.


This seems to be a typical response from you and jonny. If only we, the untutored, would simply sit back and let your wisdom, knowledge, and experience wash over us in a spiritually cleansing bath, all would be well.

Unfortunately, people disagree on these things, Hounded.

My position is not that I am correct, but that anyone who claims to have the one true interpretation of Scripture is incorrect.

If you hadn't noticed, my "speaking boldly", as you put it, consists in no small part to external links, which goes to show that there is and can be reasonable disagreement among these matters.

Your learned opinion is but one of many: neither better nor worse than others. It is when you and jonny claim that you are God's Ambassadors, declaring who is or is not a christian, who is or is not going to heaven, who does or does not understand christianity, that you not only expose your narrow-minded fundamentalist point of view but also turn a lot of less zealous christians off, which is basically about everybody here.
This post was edited on 4/28 12:27 PM
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Now that I look, this whole thread is full of half truths that would easily be refuted.

Why treat sarge so harshly?
 

Sal_Paradise

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2002
15,110
3
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Beautiful NPR.

They need to get an emoticon with a single tear drop comming from its eye.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by Sal_Paradise:
Beautiful NPR.

They need to get an emoticon with a single tear drop comming from its eye.

Thanks, Sal.
 

sergeanthulka

HR Heisman
Oct 1, 2001
5,894
1
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by Hawk-A-Doodle-Doo:
....100% literally true in order to be an important work, it's that the interpretationists seem fine with picking and choosing which parts of the bible require interpretation, and which parts are to be taken literally.

Definition of a "day" - okay, that's open to interpretation
Ten Commandments - NOT open to interpretation.

Parting of the Red Sea - okay, that may have been a metaphor
Woman is subserviant to man - NOT open to interpretation.

Guy builds a big boat and puts two of "every" animal on it and rides out a global flood - open to interpretation
Virgin birth - NOT open to interpretation.

etc..

In other words, the spectacular and outlandish stories and the inconsistencies in the Bible can be interpreted many ways, but ANYTHING having to do with affecting or controlling human behavior and thought is to be taken ABSOLUTELY literally.

Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the Bible is to be taken literally word for word, or it is open to interpretation. And if ONE part of the Bible is open to interpretation, then EVERY part of the Bible is open to interpretation.

Doodle:

I am a Bible 'literalist'. However, I believe the definition of what it means to be a 'literalist' is often distorted or misunderstood. I'll show you by way of an example...

In the Bible, there is a verse that says...'If your eye causes you to sin - gouge it out. It is better for you to endure life with only one eye than to risk spending eternity in hell.'

Now how would a 'literalist' interpret this verse? In the case of temptation, by gouging his eye out, correct? Wrong. The LITERAL interpretation of this verse would mean that you flee from temptation not that you 'gouge out your eye'. It also intends to demonstrate the severity of habitual sin in God's eyes

Very few creationists believe that a 'day' is open to interpretation. It's 24 hours. God spread the Red Sea. He arose from the dead bodily on the third day. People who try to water down these messages imply that God cannot do it the way he says. If this is true...He's not really God...

Regarding the 'subserviency' of women. If you mean the spreading of legs & giving of blowjobs on demand - this is not what God had in mind. If you intend subserviency to mean that the specific way God made male & female lends them to better perform specific roles within the family & church - while at the same time always acknowledging them as equal in value to God, deserving of love, respect, honor, & sacrificial love from their male counterparts...Then I agree. And yes, this constitutes a literal interpretation of the Bible in my view...
 

sandimashigh

HR MVP
Mar 14, 2003
1,699
0
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

I would think that Hounded would be tired of trying to clean up hulka's messes.
 

Sal_Paradise

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2002
15,110
3
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Hulka,
If you didn't notice, I responded to your 3 point plan. I didn't hear anything from you.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Doodle-Doo:
....100% literally true in order to be an important work, it's that the interpretationists seem fine with picking and choosing which parts of the bible require interpretation, and which parts are to be taken literally.

Definition of a "day" - okay, that's open to interpretation
Ten Commandments - NOT open to interpretation.

Parting of the Red Sea - okay, that may have been a metaphor
Woman is subserviant to man - NOT open to interpretation.

Guy builds a big boat and puts two of "every" animal on it and rides out a global flood - open to interpretation
Virgin birth - NOT open to interpretation.

etc..

In other words, the spectacular and outlandish stories and the inconsistencies in the Bible can be interpreted many ways, but ANYTHING having to do with affecting or controlling human behavior and thought is to be taken ABSOLUTELY literally.

Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the Bible is to be taken literally word for word, or it is open to interpretation. And if ONE part of the Bible is open to interpretation, then EVERY part of the Bible is open to interpretation.

Doodle:

I am a Bible 'literalist'. However, I believe the definition of what it means to be a 'literalist' is often distorted or misunderstood. I'll show you by way of an example...

In the Bible, there is a verse that says...'If your eye causes you to sin - gouge it out. It is better for you to endure life with only one eye than to risk spending eternity in hell.'

Now how would a 'literalist' interpret this verse? In the case of temptation, by gouging his eye out, correct? Wrong. The LITERAL interpretation of this verse would mean that you flee from temptation not that you 'gouge out your eye'. It also intends to demonstrate the severity of habitual sin in God's eyes

Very few creationists believe that a 'day' is open to interpretation. It's 24 hours. God spread the Red Sea. He arose from the dead bodily on the third day. People who try to water down these messages imply that God cannot do it the way he says. If this is true...He's not really God...

Regarding the 'subserviency' of women. If you mean the spreading of legs & giving of blowjobs on demand - this is not what God had in mind. If you intend subserviency to mean that the specific way God made male & female lends them to better perform specific roles within the family & church - while at the same time always acknowledging them as equal in value to God, deserving of love, respect, honor, & sacrificial love from their male counterparts...Then I agree. And yes, this constitutes a literal interpretation of the Bible in my view...

Actually, sarge made some sense with this post. Maybe he just needs to stop fixating on Job and the dinosaurs.

However, what sarge described above sounds a lot like a type of interpretation to me. But the fundamentalists are blind to their own "interpretation"; they see it not as interpretation, but the only one true way. They are merely reading what is there - all others are mistakenly interpreting it.

And, no, I don't agree that a biblical literalist would say to remove one's eye. There is still a place for metaphor in biblical text.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,563
113
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by NPRLover:


NPR, Your learned opinion is but one of many: neither better nor worse than others. It is when you and jonny claim that you are God's Ambassadors, declaring who is or is not a christian, who is or is not going to heaven, who does or does not understand christianity, that you not only expose your narrow-minded fundamentalist point of view but also turn a lot of less zealous christians off, which is basically about everybody here.

Neither better or worse? Who are you to judge? Only a fool thinks many different opinions on the same subject carry the same weight. Jesus' birth was either by a virgin or not. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong. What is for sure, which is not up to debate by any scholar, is that Matthew's text says Jesus had a virgin birth. And that is what I pointed out.

And I really don't care if you think I turn people off or not. I had to refute your error. And I did.

See you in June.


2 Pe 3:16 - 16as also in all his (Paul's)letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. - (NASB)

This post was edited on 4/28 12:43 PM
 

sandimashigh

HR MVP
Mar 14, 2003
1,699
0
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
Originally posted by NPRLover:


NPR, Your learned opinion is but one of many: neither better nor worse than others. It is when you and jonny claim that you are God's Ambassadors, declaring who is or is not a christian, who is or is not going to heaven, who does or does not understand christianity, that you not only expose your narrow-minded fundamentalist point of view but also turn a lot of less zealous christians off, which is basically about everybody here.

Who are you to judge? .

Who are you and jonny to judge?
 

Sal_Paradise

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2002
15,110
3
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

That's easy Sandimas, the ambassadors of God. Join them or perish.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Neither better or worse? Who are you to judge?

That is absolutely right!!!

Neither one of us is to judge. Not me. Not you.

Point of clarification: I am not saying that ALL opinions are of equal weight, but some are.

As far as somebody being right and somebody being wrong, this type of "competitive relgion" is anathema to most christians; obviously not to fundamentalists. And I'm not talking about Muslims vs. christians, for if you are a christian it is expected that you would find christianity to be "right", but I am talking about the fundamentalists vs. the Methodists, Presybs, Episc, and Lutherans.

The desire for somebody to be right and somebody to be wrong is classic fundamentalist psychological behavior; the same mindset that leads them to a type of religion that eschews harmonious relations with other christian denominations.

As far as the Matthew text saying that Jesus' birth was from a virgin, that's all and good. Not all would agree with you that the Isaiah reference is irrelevant, however.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,563
113
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

sand,

I'm referring to judging all opinions as being equal. No one has the right to say that. In the ultimate sense there is a truth on every matter.
 

sandimashigh

HR MVP
Mar 14, 2003
1,699
0
36
Re: Chile, it's not that the bible HAS TO BE....

Originally posted by Sal_Paradise:
That's easy Sandimas, the ambassadors of God. Join them or perish.

I am not a learned theologist, but isn't there a verse or scripture in the Bible that says something about "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone"? I don't understand these guys.