Prove(or provide overwhelming evidence) to me the existance, or non existance of God

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred


The Mediteranean or the Rift Vally?

The Rift Valley is something you can see on the map. It goes from the Dead Sea through the Horn of Africa. It may be quiescent at the moment. Sometimes rifts start and then stop and never start again. It appears to be the same kind thing as caused the split between the Americas and the rest of the world when it was one single continent. A splitting and then a spread of a continental plate. Ony the split is not finished and may never be.

Looking for links. I keep finding site only mention the Mediteranean event in passing when they are discussing the Black Sea Flood. Also Lambert Dolphin and other Creationist sites keep poping up for the same reason. Lambert by the way has his own timeframe for the flood but he can't really justify it biblicaly. He also into inconstant constants. Very inconstant. I allready have a link for Lambert though.

When I first found out about the Mediteranean flood the religous links hadn't yet been forged. So its a lot harder to find an actual science site on it now.

Even a porn site showed up in the search somehow but I can't find a real geology site that covers it from a geologist point of view.

This is about the best I can do for the Mediteranean at the moment.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6040/flood10.htm

And a link to a book on Amazon covering the research.

Now for The Great Rift Vally.

Basic summery

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/world/A0821681.html

This one is pretty good despite the claim at the start the the San Andreas fault is another example of a rift valley which it is not. The San Andreas is a North-South slip fault and not a spreading zone. I live close enough the thing to be aware of it as all Californians are. Anyway all the rest looks accurate. I guess someone just got carried away by the famous nature of the San Andreas fault. After all how many faults have been in as many movies? Or delayed a World Series?

http://www.marekinc.com/GeoOverviewGreatRift.html

Sure was a lot easier to find something on that wasn't loaded with Biblical comments.

Thank-you but I still don't understand how the Great Rift would result in the flooding of the Dead Sea. I read the latter article and it mentions that the Horn of Africa might become an island but that is all I could ascertain about a phenomenon akin to the Black Sea Flood.

Did you mean Red Sea?

[ckweb]

Ethelred: Did you read this article, linked from the website you gave me?

http://www.varchive.org/itb/rift.htm

It's interesting. What do you think of it?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb


Thank-you but I still don't understand how the Great Rift would result in the flooding of the Dead Sea. I read the latter article and it mentions that the Horn of Africa might become an island but that is all I could ascertain about a phenomenon akin to the Black Sea Flood.

Did you mean Red Sea?

Dead Sea. Its my own personal speculation. If the rift widens enough the Dead Sea would eventually open and extend all the way to the Red Sea. That might however only create a salt water river rather than a waterfall. The Rift Valley extends from Africa to at least the Dead Sea. I am not sure what is the northern most extent. That may be the Dead Sea.

A similar but less extreme flood could happen in California if the land between Death Vally and the Gulf of California should drop much. Not the Death Valley itself as it has some high land between it and the Gulf but the Salton Sea is also a little below sea level and the land between it and the Gulf isn't much above sea level. Only a small drop would be need for Gulf to extend to the Salton Sea. There would be no waterfall though as there isn't enough difference in height.

The Salton Sea is sorta artificial yet natural. It was intially formed early in the 1900s by a overflow of the Colorado River but is maintained now by agricultural runoff. Unfortunatly salt is accumulating and if something isn't done to remove it the fish there will start dieing fairly soon.

I am going to ignore you larger post for today. I don't see a lot to say about it anyway. Maybe tommorow.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Dead Sea. Its my own personal speculation. If the rift widens enough the Dead Sea would eventually open and extend all the way to the Red Sea. That might however only create a salt water river rather than a waterfall. The Rift Valley extends from Africa to at least the Dead Sea. I am not sure what is the northern most extent. That may be the Dead Sea.

A similar but less extreme flood could happen in California if the land between Death Vally and the Gulf of California should drop much. Not the Death Valley itself as it has some high land between it and the Gulf but the Salton Sea is also a little below sea level and the land between it and the Gulf isn't much above sea level. Only a small drop would be need for Gulf to extend to the Salton Sea. There would be no waterfall though as there isn't enough difference in height.

The Salton Sea is sorta artificial yet natural. It was intially formed early in the 1900s by a overflow of the Colorado River but is maintained now by agricultural runoff. Unfortunatly salt is accumulating and if something isn't done to remove it the fish there will start dieing fairly soon.

Thanks.

I am going to ignore you larger post for today. I don't see a lot to say about it anyway. Maybe tommorow.

No problem. You don't even have to respond. It's more just a personal reflection than anything argumentative.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
Ethelred: Did you read this article, linked from the website you gave me?

http://www.varchive.org/itb/rift.htm

It's interesting. What do you think of it?

Wouldn't surprise if much of it was true. It would effect the idea that the Pillars of Salt in the Sodam and Gomorah story were based on the real pillars that are found near the Dead Sea. That could of course have been added to the story later as I think the part with Abraham meeting Jehovah was.

I don't know enough about the geology to be sure on that. I had thought the Dead Sea was quite old. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it has been and gone several times as well if the Jordon is shifting enough. The whole area is very active geologicaly. More so than California really. Maybe not on as frequent a basis but it seems to have more of a variety of geologic movements than California does.

It has the Rift opening or at least it did. Africa is moving north as well. The Mediteranean is squeazed between Africa and Europe. There is mountain building because of this so there are both forces moving land down, the Rift Zone, and forces moving land up, the compression from Africa which extends to causing earthquakes in Turkey. Its pretty complex so I guess all that stuff is possible.

I have my own idea on Sodam and Gomorah as you may recall. Not saying its the right idea but a split and fragmented meteor does fit the descriptions and such things have happened. I simply think the moral came later. People alway want a reason for things happening and if they can come up with a reason that will let them off the hook so much the better.

Try listening to motorcyle riders convincing themselves that if they are good enough riders they won't have an accident. You can see that sort of conversation in the movie The Right Stuff between the test pilots. Its the same basic thinking involved. I used to ride a motorcycle and I sure did recognize that conversation.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ckweb
About miracles and cures . . . There have been many documented cases of miracles and cures unexplained by science. Hospitals see it all the time; people who shouldn't pull through, do. Sure, doctors and nurses performed their work effectively but they are often the first people to admit that the person shouldn't have survived.

To what do they point? Are miracles something mysterious yet absolutely natural, or are they supernatural? Science has never posited it has found out everything there is to find out about nature, naturally there are things that are poorly understood.

Originally posted by ckweb
Other surprising and inexplicable events happen all the time. Some are documented; some are not. Do they prove the existence of God? No, except perhaps to the converted. All miracles and cures demonstrate is that the world is more unpredictable than science sometimes lets us imagine.

Is this a god-of-the-gaps argument? If event A cannot be explained by science, is it evidence for your god?

Remember this argument has been in use for aeons, yet science has been advancing. The gaps are being filled. What we didn't know twenty years ago are very likely part of the body of knowledge today.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
To what do they point? Are miracles something mysterious yet absolutely natural, or are they supernatural? Science has never posited it has found out everything there is to find out about nature, naturally there are things that are poorly understood.

Like I said, for the non-believer, they point to very little, except perhaps that the world is a little more unpredictable than science lets us imagine. For the believer, miracles and cures can take on deeper significance as they may see the hand of God at work. It is subjective; I understand that.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Is this a god-of-the-gaps argument? If event A cannot be explained by science, is it evidence for your god?

Remember this argument has been in use for aeons, yet science has been advancing. The gaps are being filled. What we didn't know twenty years ago are very likely part of the body of knowledge today.

It's not an argument and it's definetly not a god-of-the-gaps argument. Personally, I believe God is the active sustainer of all things. As such, I believe every day, every moment is a miracle of his design. When people are cured by modern science, I believe it is as much the result of the physical elements as it is God's design.

Anyways, as I quite obviously pointed out, I'm not providing evidence for the existence of God. I've indicated that apart from an experience with God; it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Just some food for thought: What alot of people also do not realize is just how much science does not know and just how tenuous some of its widely held theories are.

[Giancarlo]

No offense Ckweb but this comment makes me laugh:

I've indicated that apart from an experience with God

How can you have an experience with god if you don't even know if he/she/it exists or not?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Fez
No offense Ckweb but this comment makes me laugh:



How can you have an experience with god if you don't even know if he/she/it exists or not?

Because the existence of God is not dependent on your knowledge.

[Felch]

Who the hell cares?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Felch X
Who the hell cares?

About what?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by ckweb

My point of view on this matter, shared by a growing consensus of scholars, is that the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are midrash--a genre previously not understood by many scholars because of latent, or sometimes explicit, anti-Semitism that existed in the field. (Midrash is largely a Jewish genre). Midrash requires reading the text somewhat differently and the historicity of certain events would not be necessary.

Yes, I've heard of midrash. The Jesus-Mythers have suggested that whole Jesus story began as midrash: an allegorical story of a divine being descending to a lower realm (but not Earth) and ascending to Heaven again, but later treated as a literal account and fleshed out with details that later became the biography of Jesus in the gospels.

Personally, I suspect a fusion of this sort of myth (which appears in other religions of the region) and the story of a real person: it's common enough for stories to get combined like that.

However, I mentioned them in the context of bad prophecies, and the author of Matthew seems especially prone to ham-fisted attempts to make Jesus fulfil prophecies. I think it's pretty obvious that the prophecy he cites was not intended to apply to Jesus.

What do you think of Farrel Till's theory that the author of Matthew was not a native Hebrew speaker? In PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED he blames Matthew's bizarre version of the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem astride two animals (scroll down to the heading "Jesus Christ, Stunt Rider") on the author's unfamiliarity with the Hebrew habit of parallel emphasis.

Till also points out another incompatibility between the two gospels which mention the nativity: it took place in the reign of Herod (died 4 BC) and the governorship of Quirinus (appointed 6 AD).

I think it's pretty obvious that the whole Nativity legend was invented and added later.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by ckweb


Because the existence of God is not dependent on your knowledge.

Oh really?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Yes, I've heard of midrash. The Jesus-Mythers have suggested that whole Jesus story began as midrash: an allegorical story of a divine being descending to a lower realm (but not Earth) and ascending to Heaven again, but later treated as a literal account and fleshed out with details that later became the biography of Jesus in the gospels.

Your use of terms is imprecise.

Midrash is a Jewish method of interpreting Scripture. The Rabbis would employ midrash to elucidate the meaning of difficult passages or alternatively, in order to demonstrate the significance of contemporary events in light of Scripture. In the case of Matthew, it is argued by a growing consensus of scholars that midrash is employed by the author in order to demonstrate the significance of Jesus in light of the Old Testament.

The author accomplishes this objective in several different ways. One way is employing Old Testament passages to show that the God who acted in past events is the same God active in the events of Jesus' life. The author therefore cites passages from the OT that in some way resemble an event in the life of Jesus. The author does not intend to convey a simplistic one-to-one prophecy and fulfillment. Rather, as I've indicated, the purpose is to show the same God at work. For instance, when Matthew quotes "Out of Egypt I have called my son," Fundamentalists try to argue that the original passage in Hosea was a prophecy. However, it is clear that it is not prophetic but rather descriptive of God's activities in bringing the Israelites out of Egypt during the Exodus. Matthew's aim is not to show a direct prophetic fulfillment but rather to key on the similarity in the activity: i.e., as it happened in the past so it is happening now.

Another way Matthew employs midrash is to demonstrate how Jesus was like Moses, or more accurately, to argue that Jesus is a new Moses. He does this by structuring his narrative in five distinct units (akin to the five books of Moses, known as the Torah). The Sermon on the Mount also figures prominently in this objective, wherein Jesus reinterprets the law received by Moses. Other elements continue this objective.

Midrash has little to do with the "Jesus-Mythers" as you call them. Rather, the Jesus-Mythers, if I understand you correctly, build on the History of Religions School. By analyzing extra-biblical myths and religions, they argue for the influence of these contemporary religions on the development of the Jesus material. Rudolf Bultmann was one of the most noteworthy of the proponents of this method. In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Bultmann argues that the author of John was influenced by proto-Gnostic and Mandean redeemer-myths in his reconstruction of the life of Jesus. This is the descending-ascending myth you are referring to. Bultmann's commentary was a landmark in its time but since that time it has come under heavy criticism, particularly in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Central to Bultmann's theory was that the ideas and theology of the Gospel of John could not have arisen within the Palestinian milieu and therefore, must have been influenced by religions outside of Palestine. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that ideas similar to those found in the Gospel of John are found in the Palestine of the period. Furthermore, when put against the backdrop of the DSS rather than Bultmann's Hellenistic religions, the Gospel of John makes more sense. Suffice it to say, the history of religions school has suffered a significant setback. Increasingly, scholars have shown that the influence of non-Palestinian myths is minimal at best; the ideas are anathema and contradictory to the thoughts expressed in the Gospel of John despite whatever superficial similarities seem to exist.

I could go on but I fear I'd write a book . . . if I wasn't clear about something or you'd like further explanation on a point, do not hesitate to ask.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Personally, I suspect a fusion of this sort of myth (which appears in other religions of the region) and the story of a real person: it's common enough for stories to get combined like that.

There is no doubt that the Gospel writers attempted to understand the significance of the Jesus events in light of the world around them. And they obviously used ideas and concepts that were familiar to their readers in order to convey their message. However, such interpretive techniques should not lead to the assumption that their stories are mythical or legendary. Jesus must have accomplished something to invite the comparisons and arguments the Gospel writers make concerning him. There is no doubt that Jesus was a real person. It is still a common-place technique to explain the conduct of a real-life figure by making allusion to a legendary or even fictional character, i.e. allusions to Captain Ahab, or Robin Hood, or etc. etc.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
However, I mentioned them in the context of bad prophecies, and the author of Matthew seems especially prone to ham-fisted attempts to make Jesus fulfil prophecies. I think it's pretty obvious that the prophecy he cites was not intended to apply to Jesus.

I explained the problem of Matthew above. Like I said, Matthew is not attempting a simplistic one-to-one prophecy and fulfillment. His arguments have more depth than that.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
What do you think of Farrel Till's theory that the author of Matthew was not a native Hebrew speaker? In PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED he blames Matthew's bizarre version of the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem astride two animals (scroll down to the heading "Jesus Christ, Stunt Rider") on the author's unfamiliarity with the Hebrew habit of parallel emphasis.

It is quite obvious that most of the NT writers were not native-Hebrew speakers. The common language of Palestine at the time was Aramaic. The second language would have been Koine Greek. If they knew Hebrew, it was only in order to be able to read the Bible in Hebrew. NT writers often quote from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, contemporary to that time.

RE: Matthew again. To add about Matthew's characteristics . . . Matthew shows a fascination with numbers, particularly significant numbers such as two, three, seven, and ten. Matthew often reconstructs narratives in order to fit them into a numerical system. The passage of which you are referring is a quote from Zechariah. I'm not sure whether the mention of two donkeys is the result of an error in the LXX translation of the Hebrew or Matthew's misreading/self-attempted translation or Matthew's fascination with the number two. I'd have to look into it again. It has been some time. But, certainly the original Hebrew in Zechariah is an example of "parallel emphasis."

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Till also points out another incompatibility between the two gospels which mention the nativity: it took place in the reign of Herod (died 4 BC) and the governorship of Quirinus (appointed 6 AD).

There are certainly chronological problems in dating the birth of Jesus, due to incongruities between Matthew and Luke as well as incongruities in Luke alone.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I think it's pretty obvious that the whole Nativity legend was invented and added later.

That's a bit of a jump. Some confusion in the precise dating or precise political situation by the authors of Matthew and Luke does not necessarily invalidate their whole stories.

There is certainly no doubt that the infancy narratives were late additions to the Jesus story. Mark and Q, as the earliest Gospels, do not discuss the infancy of Jesus. John doesn't either. Paul, in his letters, shows no familiarity with any of the infancy material. Only Matthew and Luke are concerned with this material. Matthew has clear midrashic interests while Luke has typological interests. Even so, Luke obviously has some historical interest as well and so might Matthew. Both authors undoubtedly relied on second-hand information in the form of written documents or interviews. Some of their information was probably suspect and it shows. Nevertheless, certain details are probably reliable, i.e. whenever Matthew and Luke agree on something, the detail is probably reliable given that Matthew and Luke's stories are so different. In addition, there may be some other details that are true but they would have to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

If you have an interest in the infancy narratives, you might enjoy my controversial paper on the virginal conception of Jesus:

http://anduril.ca/christian/essays/index.html

Choose the essay entitled, "A Matter of Conception."

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Fez


Oh really?

Is this a surprise Fez? Or is everything that exists only in existence because you have knowledge of it? You'll understand if I disagree, won't you?