I think you might be mistaken, I’m pretty sure that’s just some dude on the internet.
If that’s what he means, then he’s wrong, because we know about “religious stuff” a lot older than that. If I’m not mistaken, Dianetics is partially based on events that allegedly occurred millions of years ago.
If cave paintings were invoking supernatural help for the hunt, we even have recorded religious stuff from tens of thousands of years ago.
Surely he’s aware that there are other religions than Judaism?
Never mind, duplicate post. What’s the deal with SDMB today — it keeps hanging up?
You’re making the following implications:
- That my pastors had little or no relevant training.
- That they pulled this idea out of their collective asses, rather than, say, relying on the best scholarship they could find.
These are both ad hominem fallacies, specifically poisoning the well.
“They have thousands of years of tradition behind them, therefore their interpretation must be correct” is the appeal to authority fallacy.
Add in the bonus “just in case you’re not familiar with your own holy book” bit before you quoted the relevant text, and yup, you win a :rolleyes:.
[QUOTE=brocks]
Surely he’s aware that there are other religions than Judaism?
[/quote]
Dude, the Rabbi’s obviously speaking from within the context of his own religion. Easy on the insults.
Oh. Well, as long as you know that I was talking about your pastors, rather than you (which was not at all clear from your overreaction), yeah, I questioned their credentials.
But you read a lot more into it than is really there. OF COURSE I was questioning their credentials, but that doesn’t mean I think they pulled stuff out of their ass. I very much doubt that they are qualified scholars on ancient Jewish genealogists, but I don’t think they made stuff up, I think they probably reported exactly what they learned at some Bible college that subscribes to the principle that the Bible is never wrong if correctly interpreted.
In other words, I think it’s likely that people who say the genealogies have gaps are saying so, not because they know or care anything about how ancient Jews wrote genealogies, but because they know that nobody will take them seriously if they stick to the 6000-year old earth that a literal reading of Genesis mandates. It’s exactly the same case as the “a day is as a thousand years” bullshit about the Creation.
You can refute this by finding a scholarly consensus from before the 19th century (i.e., before it became clear that the earth was much older than 6000 years) that said the genealogies had gaps.
But I really don’t see the point. Gaps might account for a few hundred years, but not the two million or so that the Bible is missing just to the first humans, let alone the billions to the creation of the earth. Anybody who believes Adam lived for 900 years, or that there was a worldwide flood that destroyed all but one family, might as well believe the whole thing.
So it is. But that’s not what I said.
As long as you’re looking up fallacies, see if you can find the term for twisting “I’m willing to bet that ancient Jewish scholars knew more about it than your pastors” into “therefore their interpretation must be correct.” Or was this just an illustrative example of what you mean by “pulling things out of your ass?”
Heh, kind of fascinating to see how your mind works, by comparing what I said to your paraphrasing. But speaking of facts you’re not familiar with, you are obviously not familiar with the fact that many, if not most, Christians are not familiar with their own holy book, and especially what they are pleased to call the Old Testament. If I had a nickel for every Christian who has told me that it’s irrelevant, and has been for the last 2000 years, I’d… have a lot of nickels.
Then he should have said “Jewish history” instead of “recorded history.”
Thanks, Flyby.
Indeed, “we just know about 5772 years” implies that he was speaking of Judaism. I’m pretty sure other folks have different calendars. 
Jeez, did an altar boy steal your lunch money at school or something?
Having your economy based on pumping dinosaurs out of the ground probably helps.
I do not know about Jewish theologians, or specifically about genealogies, but St Augustine made it quite clear, in the 5th century, that Christians did not have to insist on a literal reading of the Bible, and, indeed, that it would be foolish to do so when a literal reading conflicts with otherwise known facts. As Augustine is widely considered, by Christians, to be the greatest theologian evah, I think there has been a scholarly consensus about that.
Giving non-literal interpretations to the Bible in order to fit known scientific facts absolutely is traditional in Christianity. I am pretty sure it is traditional in Judaism too, probably starting even earlier. It is really only modern American fundamentalists and their atheist doppelgangers (and, apparently, a few Muslims who have been influenced by the former group) who think that the default is to interpret everything that is in there literally.
So far as gaps go, are we ever explicitly told how long Adam lived as an immortal in Eden before the fall? There is room for a huge gap there, pretty much right where it is most needed.
The OP did not assert otherwise. It asked whether the explicit belief in a young Earth was traditional in Islam. As your experience, and the testimony of actual Muslims higher up the thread, indicate, the answer seems to be know. (This was, indeed, what I would have guessed, but I wanted to be sure.)
Maybe, but the local version of Islam has a reputation for being ‘extra spicy.’
Further, oil is not really dinosaurs. It really is a zillion tons of ancient algae and vegetable muck. Animal flesh would never account for the amount of the stuff in the ground.
It’s one of many possible interpretations, and IMO not the default. And I still say your interpretation makes no sense. If he’s treating Genesis as literal recorded history, then he has to admit that he believes in a 6000 year old world, and not just 6000 years of recorded history. If he’s picking and choosing which chapters of Genesis to take literally, then he has no basis, other than his imagination, to assign ANY date to its events.
Jeez, you guys can’t seem to handle anybody questioning your religious leaders, and I’m the one who’s out of line? You do realize, don’t you, that your rabbi thinks FBN’s pastor is dead wrong about his fundamental tenets, and vice versa?
I agree with both of them.
So I’ll put you down as agreeing with me that modern Christians’ claims about genealogical gaps is based, not on a careful study of ancient Jewish traditions, but on the realization that 19th-century scientific discoveries makes a gapless genealogy look foolish.
Thanks for your support.
I presume that if they though the same, they’d go to services together.