15 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Don't be silly, I recognised you from another platform and teased you a bit that's all.

Calm down, stop taking everyone on aggressively.

You called me a vile evil unhuman cunt, insisted I be banned, told me to fuck off, publicly announced you were putting me on ignore, encouraged everyone to do the same and falsely accused me of being a holocaust denier. Don't talk to me.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

This is unreasoned, unclear, and unhelpful. Conversation with you online is difficult and unrewarding. Off-topic, this might be a small part of the reason why you've had problems at other discussion forums.

My participation in this thread is clear, simple, straight forward. In fact I can summarize this entire thread for you in clear, reasoned terms. Religion, when popularized, politicized and misrepresented and corrupted by ideologues becomes misleading and dangerous. But not as much as science. My simple clear explanation of this happening with the soul was an example of how this plays out. You think the Bible soul is supernatural. It isn't. Its the blood and life of any breathing creature. This isn't even controversial. I provided numerous references from traditional apostate mainstream theological scholars supporting and explaining it. With numerous scriptural references.

Either you are screwing with me and pretending to be stupid or you are. I don't know which and I don't care. We've wasted enough time on this thread. If you have a problem with my argument you are going to have to do better than blame me for your inability or unwillingness to comprehend it.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

it seems nuance is lost on you...

If no one cares, really don't care, they wouldn't be here talking to me. Turn the channel.

Edited October 24Oct 24 by Pathway Machine

22 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

You think the Bible soul is supernatural. It isn't. Its the blood and life of any breathing creature. This isn't even controversial. I provided numerous references from traditional apostate mainstream theological scholars supporting and explaining it. With numerous scriptural references.

Your references mean nothing scientifically. They're opinions about biblical theology, and their opinions about the soul are just opinions, not fact, certainly controversial from a scientific standpoint. The soul is NOT blood, it's not life. We know what constitutes those things, and a supernatural soul simply isn't necessary. Your scriptural references are circular arguments, like the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.

27 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Either you are screwing with me and pretending to be stupid or you are. I don't know which and I don't care. We've wasted enough time on this thread. If you have a problem with my argument you are going to have to do better than blame me for your inability or unwillingness to comprehend it.

There's no need to attack anything but ideas here. Leave the personal attacks in your head, please.

We've already attacked your argument and found it lacking. If you want to concede that you misspoke or used fallacious reasoning, that's up to you. I think your arguments suffer from an overabundance of vitriol. It doesn't help them at all.

33 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

We've wasted enough time on this thread.

Moderator please, we are all agreed on this so put the thread out of its misery.

13 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

The responders don't seem to fully understand the logic behind my sentiment. The "science" here isn't science. I know what science is. The point I was making was that ideologically fixated science minded unbelievers are as notoriously bad representatives of science as ideologically fixated believers are of God and the Bible. To me the two are different sides of the same coin. "Science" in the context I'm using here isn't science. It is, in fact, far removed.

Words have meanings, and when you use non-standard definitions it tends to muddle things, in my experience.

13 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Uh-huh. Do you have evidence for this? I've already posted it, by the way.

Do I have evidence that you can read reports of experiments? Sure. They’re called journals. There are ones for just about every discipline and sub-discipline of science.

It's not my place to speak on another's behalf for fear I may misspeak, but in the spirit of science (ha) why don't you investigate for yourself.

You made a claim where did actually speak for others and are expected to provide quotes/citations to back up claims. Quotes and citations are providing others’ words, so you show you aren’t saying things on their behalf or misspeaking. If you don’t, or can’t, then it leaves open the suspicion that there’s some kind of deception afoot.

13 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

As I've said. I've already done it. Not only have I defined it for you and made the necessary distinctions, I've proved it. The Biblical soul is life. Blood. The nonsensical soul you are confusing it with comes from great thinkers like Socrates. and Plato. Ironically.

Let me reiterate. Biblical soul is life. Blood. Sorry to have overstated it.

So soul is blood, and you think science claims that it doesn’t exist? Or did you misstate the claim?

11 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

You called me a vile evil unhuman cunt,

Yes and I stand on that.

Actually I called you a stupid man initially and was the fourth person to comment as such, on a thread YOU started denying the Holocaust.

Start a thread here on it here genius, see how it goes?

Edited October 25Oct 25 by pinball1970
Missed word

15 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

. Don't talk to me.

And .....it does not work like that. This is a web platform not a private dinner party.

If I want to respond to something I will.

3 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

And .....it does not work like that. This is a web platform not a private dinner party.

If I want to respond to something I will.

You don't get it, as usual. Don't talk to me implies personal exchange. I have no problem with interactions. I have no problem commenting on something you said. None of this is personal to me, but with you it goes one step further. I can't stand talking to you on that personal level.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Words have meanings, and when you use non-standard definitions it tends to muddle things, in my experience.

I agree with this. Words are agreements and you have to play by the rules, but where atheists and I often have a problem in that context is when a word has the origins of a different meaning than the one that has become common use. So you have to acknowledge both. For example God doesn't mean supernatural being in control of the universe or creator, it means worshipped. Hell doesn't mean underground place of torment reserved for the immortal souls of the wicked and demons, it means grave. The words soul, cross, hell, god, heaven, make, create, sin, cosmos, spiritism, etc. have meanings which have become obfuscated through translation, syncretism, tradition, etc. That's why I explained in great detail the word soul as affected by religion and therefore misunderstood by "science."

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Do I have evidence that you can read reports of experiments? Sure. They’re called journals. There are ones for just about every discipline and sub-discipline of science.

I have no idea how this could possibly be relevant. This is a thread about misunderstanding of the soul caused by religion and science by discussing the more accurate meaning of the word or at least the distinction between the perceived and the reality. I don't care about reports, experiments, journals, discipline and sub-disciplines. I don't care about science or theology specifically.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

You made a claim where did actually speak for others and are expected to provide quotes/citations to back up claims.

What?

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Quotes and citations are providing others’ words, so you show you aren’t saying things on their behalf or misspeaking. If you don’t, or can’t, then it leaves open the suspicion that there’s some kind of deception afoot.

So soul is blood, and you think science claims that it doesn’t exist? Or did you misstate the claim?

Science minded atheists claim, if you like, that the Biblical soul doesn't exist. Because they see it as some supernatural part of us that lives on. That comes from Socrates and Plato, Greek philosophy rather than the Bible. For good reason as I've indicated. Because it was traditionally adopted by religion as such, but that isn't what the original word was intended to mean. It's only used as such - by the Abrahamic religions - about 400 years after Christ. It comes from much older traditions but was adopted by the "church" after 325 CE through the influence of Constantine the Great, the pontifex maximus or chief priest of pagan sun worship.

23 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

I have no idea how this could possibly be relevant.

I was responding to your challenge to me. We were talking about evidence and I said “results of an experiment are available for all to see” and you asked for evidence of this.

What?

You claimed science has determined the soul’s nonexistence. You spoke for science but provided no source for the claim.

Science minded atheists claim, if you like, that the Biblical soul doesn't exist.

And you did it again, right here. Which “science-minded atheists” claim this, and are these claims of science, or atheism?

But this doesn’t address the other issue: you said you had evidence that the soul exists, but keep jumping between descriptions. Seems like this is just an exercise in equivocation.

55 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

You don't get it, as usual.

As usual? We have hardly had any interaction.

Let's assume I was totally wrong and move on. New site and new thread.

58 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Science minded atheists

Can you explain this explicitly please? I was Christian when completing my UG.

1 hour ago, Pathway Machine said:

. I can't stand talking to you on that personal level

Try it out, I am open to different views and in your words "a hippy."

54 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

As usual? We have hardly had any interaction.

In the past we've had enough. Maybe you don't realize how your emotional politicization and condemnation without a trial damaged me on a personal level. Talking to you on a personal level is like having a casual conversation with a rapist of ones child.

54 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Let's assume I was totally wrong and move on. New site and new thread.

It isn't that you were wrong, though you was, it's the way you handled it. That's water under the bridge, I can't ask for forgiveness and be unforgiving, but nevertheless, I can't talk to you. Just keep it impersonal. I haven't changed so if I'm as bad as you said then that shouldn't be a problem. We've said enough and you were the first to silence me.

54 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Can you explain this explicitly please? I was Christian when completing my UG.

I know that.

To me science minded atheists are basically a product of scientism. Like the religious create an illusion of moral superiority science minded atheists create an illusion of intellectual superiority. You're a fool if you believe differently than them even if they are almost completely ignorant of what you believe. They use science as a crutch for their own sociopolitical gratification much like the self-righteous use God and the Bible. I see the conflict of atheism and theism as an unnecessary temporal façade.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I was responding to your challenge to me. We were talking about evidence and I said “results of an experiment are available for all to see” and you asked for evidence of this.

You claimed science has determined the soul’s nonexistence. You spoke for science but provided no source for the claim.

And you did it again, right here. Which “science-minded atheists” claim this, and are these claims of science, or atheism?

But this doesn’t address the other issue: you said you had evidence that the soul exists, but keep jumping between descriptions. Seems like this is just an exercise in equivocation.

We were talking about opinions. Science and theology are fallible. Speaking absolute truths on most subjects isn't scientific it's doctrinal. Or at least opinion. Science is opinion no matter how thorough the methodology or otherwise it would be infallible and therefore obsolete. Science, as knowledge etymologically speaking seems a misnomer to me. With knowledge the investigation is obsolete. this is what theists mean when they say science minded atheists are "religious." Ideology, after all, is the science of ideas. There isn't anything wrong with ideas, even bad ones - we learn by failing.

It was my fault, though, as usual I didn't express myself well. By science I mean science minded atheists. I didn't make that distinction although I later clarified it. Stating that it is all opinion in my mind implied that my observations are theological and anecdotal. Faith doesn't warrant scientific explanations or justification. To me that seems obvious. And anyway when you look carefully at words like evidence, truth, faith, they are often misapplied, overestimated, perhaps?

My point, this thread, the OP is about the distinction between the philosophical theological concept of the soul compared to the Biblical and practical Hebrew nephesh and Greek psyche. One of them is supernatural and can't be tested by science. So it's unscientific to make any claims regarding its existence or nonexistence. That is belief/disbelief. Opinion. Anecdotal. The Hebrew nephesh and Greek psyche are words unhappily translated into soul, but the latter (psyche) also has dimension. From Aristotle's butterfly not dissimilar, I think, to Chuang Tzu's dream. These are things that can take you to other places on a philosophical level without practical or mundane constraints. A sort of intellectual excursion, I suppose.

Maybe that's just me, though. Always measuring out the quixotic (impractical) and mundane (irreligious).

The OP was about religion, and the soul was used later as an example of how religion and even science can transmogrify an accurate understanding. That isn't to say, though, that religion and science are sentient entities that could perform such distortions. Not that we would need them to anyway. I make the distinction between science and "science" minded, between the Platonic and the Biblical soul. Between the quixotic and the mundane. Between knowledge and ignorance.

Edited October 25Oct 25 by Pathway Machine

4 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

To me science minded atheists are basically a product of scientism. Like the religious create an illusion of moral superiority science minded atheists create an illusion of intellectual superiority. You're a fool if you believe differently than them even if they are almost completely ignorant of what you believe. They use science as a crutch for their own sociopolitical gratification much like the self-righteous use God and the Bible. I see the conflict of atheism and theism as an unnecessary temporal façade.

Science has a good track record as far as scientism goes. Religion, not so much.

4 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

We were talking about opinions.

You can only speak for yourself.

4 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Science and theology are fallible. Speaking absolute truths on most subjects isn't scientific it's doctrinal.

And that applies to science…how? Science is provisional; at any moment it’s the best explanation based on the data we have available. It’s not doctrinal, though scientists aren’t prone to wasting time with objections to something that has mounds of evidence to support it based on thin objections, often from people who lack understanding of it.

4 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Or at least opinion. Science is opinion no matter how thorough the methodology or otherwise it would be infallible and therefore obsolete.

Repeating this does not make it true.

4 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Science, as knowledge etymologically speaking seems a misnomer to me. With knowledge the investigation is obsolete. this is what theists mean when they say science minded atheists are "religious." Ideology, after all, is the science of ideas. There isn't anything wrong with ideas, even bad ones - we learn by failing.

Equating science with knowledge is a flag that suggests not understanding what science is.

4 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

It was my fault, though, as usual I didn't express myself well. By science I mean science minded atheists. I didn't make that distinction although I later clarified it. Stating that it is all opinion in my mind implied that my observations are theological and anecdotal. Faith doesn't warrant scientific explanations or justification. To me that seems obvious. And anyway when you look carefully at words like evidence, truth, faith, they are often misapplied, overestimated, perhaps?

This seems to suggest that your objection is to the atheist stance, and “science-minded” is just along for the pejorative ride.

4 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

My point, this thread, the OP is about the distinction between the philosophical theological concept of the soul compared to the Biblical and practical Hebrew nephesh and Greek psyche.

In which case the atheistic view is irrelevant, so why bring it up?

4 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

One of them is supernatural and can't be tested by science. So it's unscientific to make any claims regarding its existence or nonexistence. That is belief/disbelief. Opinion. Anecdotal. The Hebrew nephesh and Greek psyche are words unhappily translated into soul, but the latter (psyche) also has dimension. From Aristotle's butterfly not dissimilar, I think, to Chuang Tzu's dream. These are things that can take you to other places on a philosophical level without practical or mundane constraints. A sort of intellectual excursion, I suppose.

Maybe that's just me, though. Always measuring out the quixotic (impractical) and mundane (irreligious).

If it was only spiritual then science is not a part of the equation. But the religious-minded have a habit of making claims that spill over into the physical (age of the earth, creation, etc.) and any physical claims should be testable.

4 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

The OP was about religion, and the soul was used later as an example of how religion and even science can transmogrify an accurate understanding. That isn't to say, though, that religion and science are sentient entities that could perform such distortions. Not that we would need them to anyway. I make the distinction between science and "science" minded, between the Platonic and the Biblical soul. Between the quixotic and the mundane. Between knowledge and ignorance.

Religion co-opted the notion of the soul from philosophy. I don’t see that you’ve made any case for science having a hand in this transmogrification.

5 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

We were talking about opinions. Science and theology are fallible. Speaking absolute truths on most subjects isn't scientific it's doctrinal

Despite swansont giving the impression that science is only about analysis there is far far more to science than that.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Science is provisional; at any moment it’s the best explanation based on the data we have available

There are other classifications, but thought and physical processes can be classified into two camps (since you like binary so much).

Explanations come from the first camp - Analysis.

The second camp - Synthesis is very different and much more difficult than analysis - Synthesis.

Both religion and science practice synthesis but science is just so much more effective at it.

Analysis of questions like Why or How does the Sun shine ? or How fast did the apple fall ? are so much better handled by the scientific method.

This leads to much better synthesis in relation to providing our own light ( a light bulb rather than the blinding light of angels) or being able to create, fly and land an aircraft, rather than expect to be carried of by angels.

Moderator Note

A reminder that discussion of anything that happened on another site is off-topic here. Leave the sniping and the baggage at the door.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

When Despite swansont giving the impression that science is only about analysis there is far far more to science than that.

There are other classifications, but thought and physical processes can be classified into two camps (since you like binary so much).

Explanations come from the first camp - Analysis.

The second camp - Synthesis is very different and much more difficult than analysis - Synthesis.

Both religion and science practice synthesis but science is just so much more effective at it.

Analysis of questions like Why or How does the Sun shine ? or How fast did the apple fall ? are so much better handled by the scientific method.

This leads to much better synthesis in relation to providing our own light ( a light bulb rather than the blinding light of angels) or being able to create, fly and land an aircraft, rather than expect to be carried of by angels.

There's several different points I could address there.

1. If it weren't for religion I would have absolutely no interest in discussing science. I'm not conversant and even as an unbeliever for 27 years couldn't have possibly cared less about science. I have nothing against it, but no interest. To me pitting the two or comparing the two is a necessary evil, so to speak. I think it's silly but am compelled to do so in the atheist arena. I have to get that out of the way first. If science announced the existence of God tomorrow I wouldn't be impressed but likely critical of its examination.

2. To me, your aversion to the binary seems odd given that you seem to think of science and religion in that light. It could be that you, not unlike myself, are compelled out of necessity or it could be that I'm overly defensive and am seeing you that way. Ideological fixation. I try to keep that in check but I'm an imperfect person.

3. When someone says something like "science is so much better at it" I just can't understand that thinking. That would seem to be like me saying religion is so much better at analyzing spiritual matters. Duh. Because science doesn't. So then when someone, who appears at least in a casual manner, representing science, says something about angels it's most likely they are responding to religion in a derogatory manner - BECAUSE - of religion being misrepresented in ignorance by casual representatives of it. So that's where I see science at now. When I see an atheist, in debate, making all sorts of ignorant claims about the creation account of Genesis I can't help but pity them because they are responding to creationists. That warrants caution on my part to try and not get into that same trap when criticizing science. Because if they knew more about what they were criticizing they could make a far more impressive case, or at least an objective and accurate one.

4. It is my opinion that organized religion is a loathsome thing because of the lack of there having been, historically, a separation of church and state. But I don't think religion would have ever destroyed the entire world. I'm making the distinction between the world and the planet. The Bible talks about the end of the world, but it talks about it having ended several times. There is a far more dangerous lack of separation of science and state, in my opinion. As dangerous to science as it was to religion, but far more capable and likely to destroy the entire world. So what I call "science minded atheists" will often scoff at the book of Revelation and the people of its time being superstitious ignorant people describing the end of the world in celestial terms. Stars, sun, moon. But they are the ignorant ones because the book references political and social upheaval using the celestial in a metaphoric sense. Government, people, environment (land, world). The same terminology was used in the books of Daniel and Ezekiel on a smaller scale. Terminology that described the political and social upheaval of Jerusalem (a world or system, arrangement, cosmos) later describes the same on a larger scale. The entire world. There are more examples of this than I could remember.

5. In conclusion, if science is knowledge, you have to know religion to make those comparisons and assumptions. The defense is, then, that science doesn't do that. Of course it doesn't. But they do. They do it in the name of science.

Edited October 26Oct 26 by Pathway Machine

11 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

When someone says something like "science is so much better at it" I just can't understand that thinking. That would seem to be like me saying religion is so much better at analyzing spiritual matters. Duh. Because science doesn't.

So which is - you can’t understand, or that it’s obvious?

11 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

So then when someone, who appears at least in a casual manner, representing science, says something about angels it's most likely they are responding to religion in a derogatory manner - BECAUSE - of religion being misrepresented in ignorance by casual representatives of it. So that's where I see science at now. When I see an atheist, in debate, making all sorts of ignorant claims about the creation account of Genesis I can't help but pity them because they are responding to creationists.

My experience has been that creationists spend a lot more time attacking straw-man arguments about evolution, and the topic of Genesis is pointing out that there are two accounts and they are inconsistent.

But saying that these are necessarily atheists making the points is flawed; creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, and there are religious scientists who don’t subscribe to that particular way of thinking.

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

So which is - you can’t understand, or that it’s obvious?

Both.

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

My experience has been that creationists spend a lot more time attacking straw-man arguments about evolution, and the topic of Genesis is pointing out that there are two accounts and they are inconsistent.

Could you give me an example of your experience? There are two Genesis accounts, the first chronological and the second topical. They are simply the same events given in a different order.

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

But saying that these are necessarily atheists making the points is flawed;

I'm up for suggestions on alternative nomenclatures.

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, and there are religious scientists who don’t subscribe to that particular way of thinking.

Oh, sure. I don't know if they have discussions on the subject. I personally don't recall any. I only speak form personal experience.

My take is as follows; linked to Bible hub where you can see the Hebrew for yourself and compare translations.

Genesis Chapter 1

[Genesis 1:1] The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

[Genesis 1:2] The planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)

[Genesis 1:3] Here the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.

The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:

A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."

Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."

The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.

[Genesis 1:4] Light and darkness is divided between the eastern and western hemispheres as the Earth rotates on its axis.

[Genesis 1:5] Here the Hebrew word yohm translated day, indicates the daylight hours, but the term will be applied in the following verses to indicate various lengths of time. The word is used to describe any period of time from a few hours to thousands of years. (Zechariah 14:8 / Proverbs 25:13 / Psalm 90:4 / Isaiah 49:8 / Matthew 10:15) It is interesting - to me at least - that the seventh day continues to this day and will only culminate upon man entering into God's day of rest. (Hebrews Chapter 4)

The terms evening and morning are metaphoric. At this point there are no witnesses on Earth to a literal night and day, but there are witnesses in heaven. (Job 38:4, 7) The evening symbolizes the period of time in which the events unfolding were indiscernible to the angels in heaven. The morning symbolizes the period in which the angels could distinguish what had been accomplished. (Proverbs 4:18)

[Genesis 1:6] The word expanse is translated from the Hebrew raqia, which means "spreading out." Since the root word from which raqia comes is raqa, which is sometimes used in a sense of "beating out" some confusion has been caused by the Greek Septuagint translation of raqia as stereoma, which means "firm and solid structure" concluding when the Latin Vulgate used the term firmamentum because, at that time it was thought that there was a metallic dome surrounding the earth with sluice holes from which rain fell.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states: “But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the O T.” - Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. I, p. 314. For example, at Job 36:27-28 the water cycle is described without any reference to the Dark Ages understanding of sluice holes.

[Genesis 1:7] In verse 6 and 7 part of the water that covers the Earth is lifted to the heavens to form a water canopy surrounding the planet. This canopy was used to flood the earth during the days of Noah. (2 Peter 3:5-6)

[Genesis 1:11] The Biblical kind, from the Hebrew leminoh, Greek genos, and Latin genus, differs from the Evolutionist kind. The Biblical "kind" can be defined as divisions in which cross fertility can occur, a boundary between these kinds is drawn where fertilization ceases. Apple trees, for example, don’t produce broccoli, squirrels don’t produce horses.

In biology a kind applies to animals and plants which possess one or more distinctive characteristics, meaning the biological term kind may contain several varieties within a Biblical kind.

[Genesis 1:14] The light in verse 14 is different from that in verse 3. In verse 3 the Hebrew word ohr is used, meaning the light from the source. Light in a general sense, whereas the light in verse 14 the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying the source of the light is now visible. See [3]

The sun, moon and stars are set as a sign of the seasons, days and years. A most accurate timepiece. The use of the term “sign” is often mistaken as a reference to astrology, which is incorrect. See What The Bible Says About Astrology and Does The Bible Condemn Astrology?

[Genesis 1:16] The Hebrew waiyaas (proceeded to make), from asah, in verse 16 is different than bara (create) in verses 1, 21 and 27. Asah is the imperfect state indicating progressive action. The luminaries as part of the heavens had already been completed in verse 1, but now they were visible on Earth and prepared for their intended use. Asah can mean make, or appoint (Deuteronomy 15:1), establish (2 Samuel 7:11), form (Jeremiah 18:4), or prepare (Genesis 21:8). Also see [1]

[Genesis 1:20] The word soul, from the Hebrew nephesh, means "breather." The soul is in the blood, the life itself, of any breathing creature. At Genesis 9:3-4, for example, the Hebrew word nephesh can be translated as life or soul.

[Genesis 1:21] Sea monsters, from the Hebrew tanninim, great reptiles. The Hebrew term remes means to creep or move about; an aimless movement. It covers a variety of creatures and distinguishes these animals from domestic or wild birds, beasts and fish.

[Genesis 1:24] Cattle; domestic or tame animal (Hebrew behemah).

[Genesis 1:25] There are two creation accounts. The first is a chronological account (Genesis 1:1-2:4) and the second is given according to topical relevance. (Genesis 2:5-4:26) They differ in order and are often wrongly thought to contradict one another.

[Genesis 1:26] God refers to his son, Christ Jesus in his heavenly pre-human existence. (Genesis 11:7 / Proverbs 8:30 / John 1:3 / Colossians 1:16) Being made in the likeness, image or semblance of God reflects mankind's potential for being like God, possessing his qualities of wisdom, power, righteousness and love.

[Genesis 1:27] Too often it is overlooked by selfish, dominating men that woman too were created in God’s image, and thus deserving respect.

[Genesis 1:31] God’s creation is good. There is no sickness, disease or slow progression to death. The small area they reside in is a paradise reflective of the potential, and in fact the purpose of growing throughout the entire planet. It isn’t God’s purpose for us to live in sin on Earth and then move on to heaven.

The creative days, each of which may have lasted thousands or even millions of years, and had taken place an indeterminate period of time after the creation was complete in verse one, are not indicative of any speculation regarding the age of the Earth and universe. The Bible simply doesn’t say.

Period 1 - Light; a division between night and day (Genesis 1:3-5)

Period 2 - The Expanse; a division between waters above and beneath. (Genesis 1:6-8)

Period 3 - Dry land and vegetation. (Genesis 1:9-13)

Period 4 - Heavenly luminaries become visible from Earth. (Genesis 1:14-19)

Period 5 - Aquatic and flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-23)

Period 6 - Land animals and man. (Genesis 1:24-31)

4 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Both.

Could you give me an example of your experience? There are two Genesis accounts, the first chronological and the second topical. They are simply the same events given in a different order.

The different order is the sticking point. You can’t e.g. have plants created before man, and after man.

My experience is on the USENET group talk origins in the 1990s

4 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

I'm up for suggestions on alternative nomenclatures.

Don’t call them atheists. People, maybe?

19 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

If it weren't for religion I would have absolutely no interest in discussing science.

I gotta ask ...

Given that this is a science site where we may discuss scientific aspects of Religion, and, as you have no interest in discussing science, nor do you think a scientific approach is relevant in religious discussions, WTF are you doing here ???

19 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

in conclusion, if science is knowledge, you have to know religion to make those comparisons and assumptions. The defense is, then, that science doesn't do that. Of course it doesn't. But they do. They do it in the name of science.

Not too sure who 'they' are.

However 'they' clearly are those who are ignorant of all science has done in the past and is doing to this day to discover anything that can be corroborated from religous writings, partucularly the Bible.

Of course this branch of science is not Physics since Physics has little or nothing in common with the Bible.

In the modern ages archaeologists, anthropologists, historians, geologists etc use some techniques from the physical sciences.

You would do well to read this book about such matters

One further comment.

For some reason, the humans have a definite tendency to try to pigeonhole anyhting and everything into artificially drawn categories. Indeed that is a very important part of the work of science, so often forgotten.

On the other hand 'nature' has shown a remarkable reluctance to fit into these categories.

In particular when discussing the scientific method scientists often say that the 'effect' must be reproducible and predictable.

This is actually not completely the case. There are instances of effects which are one off or one time only. Yet science still manages to deal satisfactorily with these.

33 minutes ago, MigL said:

I gotta ask ...

Sure . . .

33 minutes ago, MigL said:

Given that this is a science site where we may discuss scientific aspects of Religion, and, as you have no interest in discussing science, nor do you think a scientific approach is relevant in religious discussions, WTF are you doing here ???

What gave you that idea. I'm interested in discussing the Bible. That's my thing. It's a religious book. I have a considerable amount of stuff on science and the Bible. If you're talking the Bible I don't care what your approach is. But let's be serious for a minute and drop the territorial pissing, tribal mentality and guarded hostility. I'm talking about you guys. Yeah. My God (science) is better than your God (religion) stuff. Huh? My God isn't religion. I could say lots of stuff about religion and the Bible that was bad.

My God doesn't dislike your God. There is no animosity there. My criticism is for those who's "scientific" approach to the Bible is found wanting. That's all. Imagine me making a religion board [shudders] and having a science portion of it devoted to Science and anyone coming there to talk about science my responding to them as if they were washing their dirty socks in the punch bowl.

No Kool-aid! No Kool-aid jokes!

Yes. I think not only do you owe me an apology but I should be welcomed and honored.

Huh?

I'm joking. Sort of.

30 minutes ago, studiot said:

Not too sure who 'they' are.

You know . . . [looks from side to side] them.

30 minutes ago, studiot said:

However 'they' clearly are those who are ignorant of all science has done in the past and is doing to this day to discover anything that can be corroborated from religous writings, partucularly the Bible.

Of course this branch of science is not Physics since Physics has little or nothing in common with the Bible.

In the modern ages archaeologists, anthropologists, historians, geologists etc use some techniques from the physical sciences.

You would do well to read this book about such matters

One further comment.

For some reason, the humans have a definite tendency to try to pigeonhole anyhting and everything into artificially drawn categories. Indeed that is a very important part of the work of science, so often forgotten.

On the other hand 'nature' has shown a remarkable reluctance to fit into these categories.

In particular when discussing the scientific method scientists often say that the 'effect' must be reproducible and predictable.

This is actually not completely the case. There are instances of effects which are one off or one time only. Yet science still manages to deal satisfactorily with these.

Okay.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The different order is the sticking point. You can’t e.g. have plants created before man, and after man.

I'll say it again. The first account is chronological and the second is topical. So, in the second aspects of creation are introduced in line with the narrative rather than in the chronological order of the first account. So, it was all created for Adam. Once it was done Adam was created. The last of creation. The topical account is given from his perspective. There's a brief prologue, then Adam was to live in the garden so it is mentioned. Adam was to name all of the animals so they are mentioned even though the first account makes it clear they were created first.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

My experience is on the USENET group talk origins in the 1990s

My condolences. I've been doing this since 95-96.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Don’t call them atheists. People, maybe?

Well, they are people that are atheists. I'm a person that's theist. As I've mentioned the term believers and unbelievers is more suitable to me, but there's not much difference. I found it necessary to use those terms after they - the atheist people - started developing various terms for their degree of atheism. I don't have the patience for that nonsense. You either believe or you don't.

Edited October 26Oct 26 by Pathway Machine

19 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

My God (science) is better than your God (religion) stuff.

Remember that you came here, i.e. nobody sought you out, and if any hints of this have popped up it’s because you instigated it.

19 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

My God doesn't dislike your God. There is no animosity there. My criticism is for those who's "scientific" approach to the Bible is found wanting. That's all.

I think we’re waiting for the first confirmed & supported example of this. Nobody here can control what has been said elsewhere, nor do we have to answer for anyone’s else’s individual opinion or arguments.

1 hour ago, Pathway Machine said:

Okay.

I must say that since you came here to discuss the relationship between science and your beliefs, you have show remarkably little interest in what they have to say, despite starting several threads and posting a great deal about what you think.

I don't see how that can lead to sustainable discussion.

3 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

What gave you that idea.

Your posts.

3 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

I'm interested in discussing the Bible.

But we're only interested in discussing certain aspects of the Bible that can be verified through evidence using the scientific method.
As I said, we are a science site, not a Religion site. While we might discuss its historical significance such as the morality that the Bible purports to teach, how it is influenced by the times its various texts were written, and how it has evolved over time, we don't discuss concepts such as the 'soul' which cannot be investigated using the scientific method.

Perhaps a Religion site might be a better fit for you, as I certainly won't go to a religious site to discuss atomic theory.
And, if I did, I would not be welcomed warmly.

3 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

You either believe or you don't.

So, there are no agnostics? I had no idea belief was so binary.

Just now, TheVat said:

So, there are no agnostics? I had no idea belief was so binary.

Are agnostics believers or unbelievers, because, you know, believers don't know - have knowledge - they have faith. Do you want to know why? Let's say your a very wealthy person. Person. Just one. You want a faithful companion, a spouse perhaps. Two people. If you advertise your wealth what will likely happen? If you don't tell them you're wealthy they are far more likely to be sincere. God doesn't want unbelievers. God wants believers. People who want his kingdom over the current system. People who, unlike Adam, appreciate his rightful sovereignty. That's why Jesus didn't want the unbelievers to understand his message. So they, in his words, wouldn't be saved. They don't want it.

That's perfect. Everyone wins.

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

But we're only interested in discussing certain aspects of the Bible that can be verified through evidence using the scientific method.

Oh. Well, I just got here, maybe you could show me around show me some of those threads you and the others have made before I got here. Maybe someone who actually knows what they are talking about wouldn't hurt the - what? Scientific integrity of the forum.  

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

As I said, we are a science site, not a Religion site. While we might discuss its historical significance such as the morality that the Bible purports to teach, how it is influenced by the times its various texts were written, and how it has evolved over time, we don't discuss concepts such as the 'soul' which cannot be investigated using the scientific method.

[Laughs] Lot drunk and his daughters? David, Uriah and Uriah's wife? Solomon? Don't even get me started on Solomon. With wisdom granted by God. 

History? Whew, boy. I'm a bit rusty, but 

The Historicity of the Bible

First we should establish a pivotal date that both Biblical and secular histories largely agree upon, such as 29 CE. The early months of 29 CE fell in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar's reign, who was named emperor by the Roman Senate on September 15, 14 CE (Gregorian calendar). This year also marks when John the Baptist began his ministry, baptizing Jesus six months later (Luke 3:1-3; 3:21, 23; 1:36).

Alternatively, we could use 539 BCE, the year Cyrus the Persian overthrew Babylon, as confirmed by historians like Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, Ptolemy, and the Babylonian tablets.

Cyrus issued a decree allowing the Jews to return from exile, likely in the winter of 538 BCE or spring of 537 BCE. This timing would have allowed them sufficient preparation for the four-month journey to Jerusalem, arriving by the seventh month (Tishri - October 1) of 537 BCE (Ezra 1:1-11; 2:64-70; 3:1).

Egyptian chronology holds a unique position due to its extensive use in ancient historical studies and because it intersects with the history of Israel at crucial points. According to biblical accounts, Israel entered Egypt around 1728 BCE and experienced the Exodus in 1513 BCE, 215 years later. Pharaoh Shishak's assault on Jerusalem happened during the fifth year of Rehoboam's reign in 993 BCE. King So of Egypt was contemporary with Hoshea, around 758 - 740 BCE, and Pharaoh Necho's battle, which resulted in the death of King Josiah, likely occurred in 629 BCE (1 Kings 14:25; 2 Kings 17:4; 2 Chronicles 35:20-24). Modern historians often diverge from these dates by up to a century, though by Necho's time, the variance narrows to about 20 years.

Modern historians rely on documents like Egyptian king lists and annals, including the fragmentary Palermo Stone, which outlines the first five "dynasties," and the Turin Papyrus, providing incomplete records of kings from the "Old Kingdom" to the "New Kingdom." These, along with other inscriptions, were chronologically organized by Manetho, an Egyptian priest from the third century BCE. Manetho categorized Egyptian monarchs into 30 dynasties, a system still employed by modern Egyptologists. His chronology is supported by astronomical data from Egyptian texts detailing lunar phases and the heliacal rising of Sothis (the Dog Star), allowing for the construction of a chronological framework.

Manetho's work survives only through the later writings of historians like Josephus, Sextus Julius Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus, from the third, fourth, and late eighth to early ninth centuries CE. These sources are fragmentary and often distorted, compounded by scribal errors, revisions, and the inclusion of much legend and myth.

Part of the issue with Manetho's chronology is that he included local princely lines from which later rulers of all Egypt emerged. Consequently, several Egyptian kings could rule simultaneously in different regions, not just in succession, leading to an inflated total number of years for Egyptian history. Thus, when the Bible places the Deluge at 2370 BCE, it implies that Egyptian civilization must have started post-Flood, even though traditional Egyptian chronology extends back to 3000 BCE.

Egyptologist Dr. Hans Goedicke of Johns Hopkins University proposed a controversial theory linking the Biblical account of the Red Sea crossing and the Exodus with a volcanic eruption at Thera in 1477 BCE, suggesting that this event caused a tsunami which drowned the Egyptian army. However, this theory largely ignores the Biblical narrative, which does not mention any such wave.

The Hyksos period in Egyptian history requires the same level of skepticism and scrutiny as other historical accounts. Some scholars suggest that the Hyksos, considered foreign invaders, ruled Egypt during the time when Joseph and his family arrived, reasoning that a non-Egyptian might more easily gain a high position under foreign rule. However, this theory contradicts the Biblical narrative where Potiphar, an Egyptian court official, and other native Egyptians surrounded Joseph (Genesis 39:1; Genesis 43:32).

Josephus, who introduced the term "Hyksos," acknowledged a connection between these invaders and the Israelites but disputed many of Manetho's details. Josephus favored interpreting "Hyksos" as "Captive Shepherds" over "Shepherd Kings."

According to Manetho, the Hyksos took control of Egypt without a fight and proceeded to destroy its cities and temples. He describes a later Egyptian uprising that led to a brutal conflict, culminating in a siege at Avaris, where an agreement allowed the Hyksos to leave Egypt peacefully to settle in Judea and even build Jerusalem. Manetho also adds a fantastical detail, which Josephus dismisses as fiction, about an influx of 80,000 leprous and diseased people settling in Avaris, leading to further complications (Against Apion 1:14; 26; 28).

Modern historians accept the idea of a Hyksos conquest but disagree with Josephus's association of the Hyksos with the Israelites, citing a lack of corroborative ancient Egyptian records for the "Thirteenth to Seventeenth Dynasties." The absence of records leads to speculation of a power vacuum during the "Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties," and it's generally concluded that the "Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties" were under Hyksos control based on limited evidence, folklore, and conjecture.

Archaeological interpretations of the Hyksos vary; some describe them as northern invaders with chariots, others as gradual infiltrators. Jaquetta Hawkes in "The World of the Past" (1963, p. 444) suggests they were Semitic traders rather than invaders, which raises questions about how these groups could have gained control during Egypt's peak power in the "Twelfth Dynasty." This reflects considerable confusion in ancient and modern interpretations of the Hyksos period, casting doubt on its validity.

Moreover, Egypt's history is intertwined with its priesthood and scribes, which might have led to propagandistic narratives to explain the actions of Egyptian gods in relation to Jehovah and the Exodus. The lack of Egyptian records of the Exodus can be explained by the tendency of pharaohs to document only victories, not defeats, and to erase anything conflicting with their nationalistic ideology. For instance, Thutmose III removed inscriptions of Queen Hatshepsut.

Manetho's anti-Semitic bias is evident in his accounts, as noted by Josephus, who quotes Manetho describing the Jewish ancestors as subduing Egypt before being expelled (Against Apion 1:26). Despite the historical inaccuracies in Manetho's work, he acknowledges the presence of Jews in Egypt. Josephus also references other historians like Chaeremon and Lysimachus, who similarly connect Joseph and Moses's expulsion from Egypt.

Jeroboam's flight to Egypt under Shishak's rule (1 Kings 11:40) and Shishak's subsequent invasion of Judah in 933 BCE, documented by archaeological finds like the Megiddo stele and Karnak inscriptions, show Egypt's interests in controlling trade routes rather than solely supporting the northern kingdom (2 Chronicles 12:1-12).

Pharaoh Necho, son of Psammetichus I, is noted by Herodotus for his naval and canal projects. During Josiah's reign, Necho's involvement in regional politics led to Josiah's death at Megiddo, followed by Necho's actions against Judah, including the imposition of Jehoiakim as a vassal (2 Chronicles 35:20-36:4; 2 Kings 23:29-35). Necho's defeat at Carchemish by the Babylonians soon after marked a shift in regional power (Jeremiah 46:2).

Well, that's about half of it. I'm sure you and the others are eager for the other half but too much of a good thing, huh? I wrote that, what? 10 15 years ago on the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Steve and I go way back. He used to link all of my response to his site on his site. That's was nice of him wasn't it! Actually, that was taken from an English atheist who used to post there - Jimbo. Or Rambo. I think it was Rambo. He was a history buff and really enjoyed that discussion. I also published it on Sam Harris site the Reason Project when I was an writer there.

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

Perhaps a Religion site might be a better fit for you, as I certainly won't go to a religious site to discuss atomic theory.
And, if I did, I would not be welcomed warmly.

Nor would I. As it turns out, believing and unbelieving ideologues don't take too kindly to truth. But if you don't mind, in case someone should pass by who does - what could it hurt, huh? Science isn't completely appalled by debate and knowledge, are they? No! 

And if they are we won't hold it against them, will we? They can just ignore us, and even down vote us with zealous fervor. We don't care, do we! 

Edited October 27Oct 27 by Pathway Machine