You were using historical facts (i.e. “the nature of the development” etc. and that “the notion that Scripture” etc., to make your case that evidence is needed “that anyone actually believed” etc. Your Brittanica cite supported the first part, but I disagreed with the significance, for reasons given. The second assertion - the one that I challenged - was that the “notion that Scripture adhered to that factual presentation only arose shortly thereafter”. It now seems that this was not a factual assertion. Essentially you are saying that you personally believe that the Scriptures were not meant literally (for reasons you outline) and on that very basis have decided that no one else ever believed it either. But is not a “given” from which you can further extrapolate. It is part of your opinion itself.
The narrative texts of Scripture are history (or story). The issue is not that no one believed the stories were true, but that no one invested that belief in the underlying facts. I have never seen any ancient text comparing Josephus to Herodotus or Herodotus to the Torah in which the various contradictions were either challenged or reconciled. That aspect of history was not important to the people who wrote it or read it–the point supported by the reference to the Britannica.
Investing importance in the literal nature of the works is the recent development. I am sure that the readers of trhe Torah accepted the accounts of the Creation and the Flood and the migrations of Abraham as story–and, therefore true. The story was important, and could not be changed. I do not see any evidence that our modern concept of matching the literal accuracy of an event to the tale that recounts it occurred any time before the eighteenth century. Where is the evidence that people demanded that sort of correspondence between literal portrayal and story–the correspondence that the EB notes is a recent phenomenon?
I don’t see the distinction you are making between believing the story and believing that the stories are true. The question is did the average person who believed the Bible to be “true” also believe that the world was in fact created in six days. Are you saying that the answer is no? I don’t see any connection between the EB and this issue. Here’s your quote again:
This is not discussing whether people believed in texts like the Bible only so far as to believe that they contained an underlying “truth” (your position). All this is saying is that until recently people did not study history as a discipline in its own right - rather, history was used in service of other disciplines. In the 18th century the idea grew that the study of historical facts could provide a greater understanding, and that it was worthwhile to study history for that end.
I am not disputing this. As I mentioned before, the Bible is not a history book, and it contains a selective reading of historical events, which are brought in for the purpose of teaching certain lessons. But this does not mean that it is not - or was never taken as - factual. As per my example earlier of the economics textbook - this too would not fit in to the EB essay about modern historiography, but is factual (and taken as factual) nonetheless.
I have a question that may sound silly or sarcastic but i really dont intend it that way, but i am interested to hear the replies.
In evolution, did the evolved specie exist at the same time as the specie it evolved from and the one it evolved to? For example, did the monkey, monkey-man, and the man all exist on the same day? I’m just trying to figure out where the transformation points took place in this theory.
I’m not on expert on biology or paleontology, so please don’t place too much value on my reply. There is fossil evidence that Cromagnon and Neanderthal man existed at the same time. WRENCHEAD, please let me know if I’m wrong, but I think you’re assuming evolution takes place in a straight line with no deviations. It’s my understanding that it doesn’t. It’s more like branches on a tree. You can trace a path from the roots to the highest branch, but there are a lot of other paths you can trace. Also, transformations didn’t take place immediately. It wasn’t as if one day there were Australopithecus one day, then suddenly the next day Cromagnons appeared (if I’ve skipped a hominid, forgive me). The current theory of evolution does not hold that man evolved directly from apes, but rather that men and apes share a common ancestor.
I understand that some people who don’t accept evolution claim that fossil evidence was put there by the devil to deceive us. My main problem with this is I don’t believe evil has the power to create. I see the fossil record as being more of a wonderful puzzle given to us by God to solve. Christ does, after all, command us to “Love the Lord, thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (emphasis mine). I believe the Bible is the Word of God; however, I’m also aware that it’s passed through, in the case of Genesis, several thousand years of fallible human beings.
Anyway, I don’t mean to disrespect your beliefs in any way, shape, or form. I am a Christian myself, if a somewhat unconventional one. I hope what I’ve written helps a bit.
Ok, that sounds reasonable. I guess im just wondering #1 if they did co-exist how long did the process take? I will spot evoluntion the chance that the law of averages might allow this transformation to happen once to make a human as we know it today. But how long did that one human have to wait for the second one to come along and how long did it take for one to come along that was suitable for procreation (i.e. opposite sex)? Was the first human able to live long enough to see this or where there multiple incidents of the same phenomenon? #2 If they did not co-exist, why do they co-exist today? Primates and man inhabiting the planet at the same time without any apparent change to become like the other (although a middle school gym class may tend to prove me wrong). If its not mokeys that we came from but another common ancestor, what was it? And why is it gone today with the other sides of the link still intact? Has evolution stopped? If so when did this happen and for what reason? Surely we are not the best that nature can come up with since we have not fully adapted to our environment.
Personally, i welcome the evidence of fossils because i believe they paint a different picture than evolution. I believe that the earth was created with age such as mature trees rather than a planet of sapplings. There is nothing that would make me not believe that the fossils were there from the beginning not to mention catastrophic events such as the flood taking place causing mass destruction and the creatures being buried under layers of setiment as it settled afterwords.
Thanks, i have enjoyed the debates. I have heard viewpoints on here that i have never heard before and this has prompted me to more fully develop my beliefs and the reasons behind them.
So I looked it up. Not much there, I’m afraid. His commentary to Genesis 2:4 (the beginning of the supposed second creation story) consists of the following: “because in the beginning it (i.e. the Bible) abbreviated some of the matters, now it returns and explains how they were done.”
I also looked at the (editor’s) overview at the front of his commentary, and to his entry in the Jewish encyclopedia, and there is no hint that he might have said something radical as you suggest.
What I think your source is referring to is something far less revolutionary, and unconnected to anything we are dealing with here. In his commentary to Exodus 16:13 and Numbers 20:8 he says that the stories of the water and pheasants that are recorded in Exodus are the same stories as those recorded in Numbers. But he is decidedly NOT saying “that the parallel stories found throughout the Torah had been written separately, then joined together in a single narrative” as you stated. What he says is this: “there (i.e. in Exodus) it (i.e. the Bible) relates how [God] sustained the Jews with manna and pheasants and water in the desert, and afterwards it writes each incident in its place … and this is the way it is in many chapters, it “closes”* and afterwards explains them in a different place, like the chapter of the spies…”.
IOW, he is not saying that the stories were written separately and then joined together – merely that one story is an expanded treatment of the other – remarkably similar to what I (& others – including him) have been saying about the “two creation stories”.
So – nothing to do with our issue. But it is interesting that your source said “he assumed duplicate accounts” which fits the bill, and you expanded that to “written separately and then joined together”, which does not. I don’t know if you saw your version elsewhere or perhaps subconsciously expanded on what you saw here – either way, it shows how much caution is warranted is relying on anything less that primary sources.
*[sub]literal translation. It means to give the bare bones essentials of the story – I couldn’t think of a direct English translation for this word – sorry[/sub]
First off, a nitpick: “specie” is not the singular of “species”. Species is the singular and the plural: one species, two species, a a bucket of species.
Second, cjhoworth is right about the branching bit. Speciation occurs when populations diverge from one another to the point where they no longer interbreed if left to their own devices. This divergence is a gradual process (relative to an individual’s lifespan; geologically, this occurs very rapidly), so it is not often possible to point to two populations and say, “There! That’s where a new species has formed!”
By the time one of those new populations has split off again, chances are the “original” version has died off (indeed, a prediction based on how natural selection works is that the daughter population, being better adapted, will, in most cases, replace the parent population). So, the answer to your question is “no”. The ancestor to man would not have co-existed with true man.
Populations evolve, not individuals. Therefore, there is no danger of “one human” having evolved first, and having to twiddle his proverbial opposable thumb, waiting for a mate.
**
Recall the branching. We share a common ancestor with apes. Our closest living relative appears to be the chimp, which means we share a more recent common ancestor with chimps than we do any of the other apes. Our specific lineage is also separate from all of the extant apes. Since they are separate, there is no reason to expect that just because we see that our lineage has survived, the others should not. But realize also that the apes around today are not of the same species as any of our common ancestors.
**
Therein lies a crucial difference between arguments based in science and those based in faith: one can (and does) change as new evidence comes to light.
Moderator’s Note:WRENCHEAD, I’ve edited a couple of your posts to insert closing quote tags; without them, it’s very hard to follow who said what.
All vB codes come in pairs, with the codes enclosed in brackets: [example] will be followed by [/example]; the second tag, with the " / ", will “turn off” whatever code you’re applying. Thus, in order to make text bold you would use the [b] and [/b] tags:
[b]The quick red fox jumps over the lazy brown dog.[/b]
Becomes:
The quick red fox jumps over the lazy brown dog.
To properly use the “quote” function you need to type the following:
[quote]The quick red fox jumps over the lazy brown dog.[/quote]
Which will become:
If you want to go back and forth between what the other poster said and your replies, you need to enclose each section of quoted text in the quote tags:
[quote][i]Originally posted by Poster#123[/i]
Roses are red.[/quote]
Roses come in many colors. Some roses are yellow, for example.
[quote]Violets are blue.[/quote]
I would say that violets are more of a purple color.
Becomes:
Roses come in many colors. Some roses are yellow, for example.
I would say that violets are more of a purple color.
There is also a link to the vB Codes Explained page at the bottom of each thread in the “Forum Rules” box down towards the lower left corner. (Or you can just follow the link I just gave.)
WRENCHEAD, when I first started posting her, I used the Post Reply button a lot until I figured out how to code things. I also still use the Preview Reply for things I’m still not entirely sure how to do, such as pasting links. This thread contains a lot of information on how to do things, speaking of the Preview Reply button.
Getting back to the topic at hand, you might want to take a look at my post on page 1 of this thread where I talk about Manchester’s infamous moths. While I admit they’re not evidence of a completely new species evolving, it does show how changing conditions influences what survives within a species and what doesn’t. Also, when it comes to the fossil record, you’ve got to understand that only a fraction of all creatures become fossils. I’d guess this figure is well below 10%. Not all species will be recorded or, if they are recorded, since fossils are buried in solid rock, it’s going to take time to get to them. We don’t have a complete picture; we’ve got a handful of pieces of a very large jigsaw puzzle, and we don’t even know how big it is. In the case of human beings, we do have complete and partial skeletons that become closer to modern human beings the more recent they become. Could they interbreed? Who knows? There are still a bunch of competing theories as to why Neanderthals vanished while Cro-Magnons apparently evolved to become human beings. I’ve read at least one theory that suggests they did interbreed, although I’ve got no idea how credible it is.
Evolution does have dead ends. The pterodactyl was apparently one of them. According to current theory, birds and reptiles share a common ancestor, but that ancestor has long since died out, presumably because climactic and environmental conditions changed.
Like Meatros, I’d like to learn more about your views and how you came by them. I’ve learned a tremendous amoung hanging out here, and one of the most marvelous things for me is hearing from people who I might normally never get to meet in real life.
If it would be one layer of sediment that could indeed make sense but how do you explain multiple layers?
Creating mature trees and animals, ok.
But why create a geografic earth that would only look like it was billions of years old? Why shuffle some fossilized bones in distinct layers, so that it looks as if they are seperate creatures living in seperate ages.
Do you think God did this to have a laugh or something?
‘Hehe, let them figure that one out.’
Wrenchead, this is the “big dog” that I have in this argument.
God said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” To quote Queen Elizabeth I, “He was the Truth that spake it.”
To me, that means that whatever God is or does is the Truth, to which I have to hold firm.
But that isn’t just limited to the Bible.
He is the Creator of everything we see around us.
The idea that Genesis 1 is a literal account, a “tech. manual” if you will, of how He created, is a human idea.
Certainly the Bible contains poetic language, not to be read literally but with an eye to what the poetry says about Him.
Psalm 89:13 says of Him: “You have a mighty arm; strong is your hand and high is your right hand.” But from this we are not supposed to ask what God’s biceps measurement is, or how high He can reach. (“Can God slam-dunk a basketball? Can God make a basketball basket so high that He can’t slam-dunk a ball into it?” ) Rather, that passage is a poetic tribute to His strength, on which we frail mortals can rely.
So what I’ve been saying is that Genesis 1 can either be read as what it seems to be – an effort told in a particular style to drive home to even the dullest reader that He created everything, that He did it by His Word, that He did it step by step, that He looked on all He had created and called it good, and that the Sabbath was an integral part of His creation. It’s not a literal, step by step account, and doesn’t pretend to be – it’s the insistent, repeated conveying of the message that it wasn’t Satan or Baal or anyone else who made anything – it was all His doing, and all made for good.
He was no more interested in saying that speciation-by-mutation does not occur in it than he was in explaining how supernovas occur. The point to the “kind” thing, and it was a relatively new concept at the time Genesis 1 became a part of the Jewish heritage, was that if you domesticate a given species of plant or animal, you can trust it to continue bringing forth that same kind of whatever-it-is. Sheep have lambs that grow up to be sheep; cattle have calves that grow up to be cattle; grains of barley germinate and become barley plants, and so on.
That over the course of time Rocky Mountain sheep would speciate and some of them become Dall sheep is the last thing that Moses or whoever was concerned with. He was out to say that one can trust in God’s providential Hand.
Now, here’s the kicker:
If you take Genesis 1 and consider it a literal account, you’re left with a world where there seem to be fossils millions of years old, and showing odd beasts like Ambulocetus and Paleoscincus that aren’t around any more. There are volcanic sediments with layers of potash and thoria in them in which radioactive elements are undergoing breakdown, and that repeated tests will show dates in the millions or hundreds of millions of years.
Yeah, He could have created all this junk on a given day in October, 4004 BC, and planted all that false evidence to mislead geologists and paleontologists.
But that makes God a liar. It makes Him the biggest practical joker of all time. It means that He told us to use our minds to follow Him – and then planted evidence to mislead us.
I believe in the truth of the Bible. I believe in the truth of Creation. Because the Author of Truth is responsible for both.
And if some human dude tells me how I need to read the Bible because it proves his theories, well, if it makes my God into a liar, then he’s flat out wrong.
Duane Gish is so hung up on trying to prove his reading of the first chapter of Genesis to be literally true, that he doesn’t care one whit about the rest of the Book.
The first chapter of Genesis is true, the way America the Beautiful is true – as a statement of belief, a poetic affirmation of God’s goodness in creation. That the fruited plain is covered in snow right at the moment, and that Americans seem pretty well intent on refusing to crown our country’s good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea, makes no matter. It’s what we aspire to do and to be. And the point to the first chapter of Genesis does not depend on whether God did something in six twenty-four hour days or not – it’s that everything that is, is His work, through His Word, and good.
I totally agree Lib.
I did have a question for Poly (or you if you want to try to take a shot at it): I’ve often heard that evolution/old earth evidence is the result of the devil. I realize this idea still tries to force Genesis to be a “literal” event, but I was wondering, is their any biblical basis for thinking like that? I remember something about God allowing Satan to test Job, could he theoretically be doing the same thing with us?
Lib’s answer is very much tongue in cheek, but I’ve got to go with it.
The Book of Job is the taking of a traditional legend, the story of Job the righteous man who lost everything but his faith in God, and using it as the framework to explore the fallacies of much of classic Judaistic thought, with the final outcome of the impossibility of understanding the divine purpose from a mortal perspective.
It’s a brilliant piece of work, and one that’s inspired a lot of modern authors, from MacLeish to Heinlein, but it is certainly not to be understood as a factual account of anything, far less the scenes in the “court of Heaven.” The very notion of Satan as “prosecuting attorney” and “special investigator” for God dates from a time before, under Zoroastrian influence, Judaism, and later Christianity, came to regard Satan as the archrebel against God.
) Rather, that passage is a poetic tribute to His strength, on which we frail mortals can rely.