Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any Christians/Creationists torn over the timeline presented in the GP?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Writing styles improved over time as literature improved. The two testaments are a vast improvement over cave drawings of hunting parties. The field of genetics helps us to understand the bone data better. What is most surprising is that Y-DNA has a rib missing when compared to X-DNA. And DNA is the genetic rib . . .

    Jesus Christ's life was to save mankind from sin. The New Testament has Matthew written for the Jewish people (Gift of God), Mark written for the Romans (hammer, action, results), Luke written for the Greeks (enlighten, intellectuals, discerning), and John written for the believers (Grace).

    (I picked this up from some where including television)

    As I understand it, the Holy Land was divided into the people of the North and the people of the South. Each had their own leaders who wanted the story to be told their way. And so we have writer E and writer Y. Writer P was interested in Holy things, and writers D were scribes. (First five books of the Bible)

    Scholars in late 18th century Germany noted that in most of the duplicated stories, one set described God using the Hebrew word Elohim (usually translated "God") while the other set tended to use God's four-lettered Name Y-H-W-H (usually translated "Lord," sometimes miscalled "Jehovah.") This gave rise to the theory that there were two different authors, one called E and one called J (German for Y), whose works were somehow combined to form a single text.

    Later analysis of the grammar, vocabulary, and writing style provided evidence for two other authors--called P for the Priestly author (mostly Leviticus, and lots of the genealogy) and D for the Deuteronomist, since the book of Deuteronomy seemed different (grammatically and politically) from the earlier books. The multiple-author view has come to be called the "Documentary theory," [or the JEPD Documentary Theory.]
    Last edited by GregKiroKH2; 16 November 2006, 05:57 PM.

    Comment


    • About Jeff's post: I have read the Collins book. It promotes Theistic Evolution (God using the method of Evolution through aeons in His creation). Collins frankly admits that not many people have bought into that theory but believes it deserves a second look.

      About GregKiroKH2's post: The Documentary Hypothesis (J, E, P, D) is something a German scholar named Julius Wellhausen took a leadership role in devising. Its implications are that human understanding of God evolved through the centuries with various types of writers adding their "say" to it. Recent thought is that the theory has kind of a Marxist ring to it.

      Comment


      • Everyone should not mistake the bureaucratic democratism of modern mainstream Protestant and Catholic Christianity for real Christianity. St. Basil, in his work on the Holy Ghost, speaks of a

        "tacit and mystical tradition maintained down to our own times, and of a secret instruction that our fathers observed without discussion and which we follow by dwelling in the simplicity of their silence. For they understood how necessary was silence in order to maintain the respect and veneration due to our Holy Mysteries. And in fact it was not expedient to make known in writing a doctrine containing things that catechumens are not permitted to contemplate."

        Again, let us study the words of St. Denys the Areopagite:

        "Salvation is possible only for deified souls, and deification is nothing else but the union and resemblance we strive to have with God. That which is bestowed uniformly and all at once, so to speak, on the Blessed Essences dwelling in Heaven, is transmitted to us as it were in fragments and through the multiplicity of the varied symbols of the Divine oracles. For it is on these Divine oracles that our hierarchy is founded. And by these words we mean not only what our inspired Masters have left us in the Holy Epistles and in their theological works, but also what they transmitted to their disciples by a kind of spiritual and almost heavenly teaching, initiating them from person to person in a bodily way no doubt, since they spoke, but I venture to say, in an immaterial way also, since they did not write. But since these truths had to be translated into the usages of the Church, the Apostles expressed them under the veil of symbols and not in their sublime nakedness, for not everyone is holy, and as the Scriptures say, Knowledge is not for all."

        So I am far from being misinformed or a 'crackpot'...

        slumbuzzle, I can't help it if my IQ and idiosyncratically erudite diction does not correspond to the needs and tastes of the 'average reader'...

        Mmadi, what is your problem? You simply do not let things go. Every minute you bring up to others, in the demagogic manner of a Soviet informer, my supposed 'ideological misdeeds' in a passive-aggressive attempt at psychological blackmail and reputation-blackening. Here in America at least, we have not totally devolved into a fear-ridden Marxist Orwellian terror state where everyone needs to be slavishly servile before the official idols and taboos of 'political correctness' and their self-appointed enforcers. Perhaps instead of relying on inaccurate popularizations (wikipedia) of and demagogically demonizing untimely figures like Schopenhauer, Gobineau, Guenon, Evola, etc., people could actually read these philosophers' words for themselves to challenge their own unquestioning conformance to the involutive trends of the modern West...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hrodberht
          slumbuzzle, I can't help it if my IQ and idiosyncratically erudite diction does not correspond to the needs and tastes of the 'average reader'...
          Don't worry, they teach all that in high school.

          Originally posted by Hrodberht
          Here in America at least, we have not totally devolved into a fear-ridden Marxist Orwellian terror state where everyone needs to be slavishly servile before the official idols and taboos of 'political correctness' and their self-appointed enforcers. Perhaps instead of relying on inaccurate popularizations (wikipedia) of and demagogically demonizing untimely figures like Schopenhauer, Gobineau, Guenon, Evola, etc., people could actually read these philosophers' words for themselves to challenge their own unquestioning conformance to the involutive trends of the modern West...
          And if you can't make time for Evola, at least make time for Roget.

          "Everything I need to know, I learned from my thesaurus.
          Last edited by vineviz; 16 November 2006, 10:22 PM.

          Comment


          • vineviz, your ad hominem and red herring attacks are not worthy of response. The genius H.P. Lovecraft (also notorious for not conforming to the trends of modernity) similarly faced the fallacious accusation of being overreliant on thesauri by modern ill-spirited, presumptuous critics... Certain minds are just at certain levels.

            In any case, why is it that, on the one hand, I can carry on fine, in-depth online conversations with people like Spencer Wells, Bennett Greenspan, etc., while, on the other hand, there are all sorts of interactive problems with certain members of this board? Perhaps that question should be reflected upon...

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=Hrodberht]Everyone should not mistake the bureaucratic democratism of modern mainstream Protestant and Catholic Christianity for real Christianity. St. Basil, in his work on the Holy Ghost, speaks of a

              "tacit and mystical tradition maintained down to our own times, and of a secret instruction that our fathers observed without discussion and which we follow by dwelling in the simplicity of their silence. For they understood how necessary was silence in order to maintain the respect and veneration due to our Holy Mysteries. And in fact it was not expedient to make known in writing a doctrine containing things that catechumens are not permitted to contemplate."

              QUOTE]
              Hrodberht, St Basil sounds just like a truculent Zenmaster! "
              "Don't ask me questions, and talk, go away and
              meditate on nothingness!" Hit! Hit!

              Christ, unlike his hijacker Paul, sometimes sounds like a modern
              cosmologic physicist ("God is One..." )
              A Singularity, of course!
              And sometimes, like a sociologist: "Do unto others....etc"
              Perhaps that's it.
              Christianity in two sentences.
              And close to what a well informed scientist might admit,
              if forced to "invent a religion".

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hrodberht
                Mmadi, what is your problem? You simply do not let things go. Every minute you bring up to others, in the demagogic manner of a Soviet informer, my supposed 'ideological misdeeds' in a passive-aggressive attempt at psychological blackmail and reputation-blackening. Here in America at least, we have not totally devolved into a fear-ridden Marxist Orwellian terror state where everyone needs to be slavishly servile before the official idols and taboos of 'political correctness' and their self-appointed enforcers. Perhaps instead of relying on inaccurate popularizations (wikipedia) of and demagogically demonizing untimely figures like Schopenhauer, Gobineau, Guenon, Evola, etc., people could actually read these philosophers' words for themselves to challenge their own unquestioning conformance to the involutive trends of the modern West...
                My problem? My problem is that you like to hide behind big words and various kinds of gobbledigook philosophies. When someone calls you on some racist belief you espouse, you say that you were just quoting someone else, but don't necessarily believe the philosopher you quoted. At least have the intellectual integrity to stand by what you believe, instead of avoiding the issue!

                Slumbuzzle asked if you were joking, because your strange, vitriolic language was difficult to be taken seriously. I just linked to your past postings to answer his question. They're your words and people can judge what they think of them and, based on those words, what they think of you.

                The bottom line for me is that I think that genetic genealogy and population genetics are fascinating and have a lot to teach everyone. I don't like it when someone tries to use those disciplines to justify their twisted beliefs. That doesn't justify those kinds of beliefs, but it blackens the reputation of genetic genealogy and population genetics.

                Mike

                Comment


                • In spite of slumbuzzle's wikipedia-derived oversimplification and mocking misportrayal of Evola as some sort of irrational weirdo, he was positively evaluated by distinguished scientific and cultural people like C.G. Jung, Mircea Eliade, Guiseppe Tucci and Marguerite Yourcenar. Were all of these people who were publicly supportive of Evola 'wackos' and 'cranks' too?

                  Dear Mike: The problem is that you are trying to meddlesomely legislate your own liberal humanist psychological attitudes and preconceptions as the untouchable dogmas and hermeneutical a priori of 'acceptable' thinking. My own interest in unpopular and controversial philosophical figures like Schopenhauer, Spengler, Evola etc. has no relationship to my objective perception of genetic and genealogical problems. By the way, it was Leon Trotsky, the Schiff-financed Marxist Bolshevik ideologist, who, in his spare time between brainstorming the revamping of the Soviet concentration camp and organizing the bloodthirsty Bolshevik military to eventually slaughter hecatombs of innocent Orthodox Christian Russians, coined Orwellian terms like 'racism' and 'sexism' in order to divide Western civilization. (The OED credits Eastman, in a translation of Trotsky from French to English, with the first usage, in 1932.)
                  Last edited by Hrodberht; 17 November 2006, 01:08 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Hrodberht
                    Everyone should not mistake the bureaucratic democratism of modern mainstream Protestant and Catholic Christianity for real Christianity. St. Basil, in his work on the Holy Ghost, speaks of a

                    "tacit and mystical tradition maintained down to our own times, and of a secret instruction that our fathers observed without discussion and which we follow by dwelling in the simplicity of their silence. For they understood how necessary was silence in order to maintain the respect and veneration due to our Holy Mysteries. And in fact it was not expedient to make known in writing a doctrine containing things that catechumens are not permitted to contemplate."

                    Again, let us study the words of St. Denys the Areopagite:

                    "Salvation is possible only for deified souls, and deification is nothing else but the union and resemblance we strive to have with God. That which is bestowed uniformly and all at once, so to speak, on the Blessed Essences dwelling in Heaven, is transmitted to us as it were in fragments and through the multiplicity of the varied symbols of the Divine oracles. For it is on these Divine oracles that our hierarchy is founded. And by these words we mean not only what our inspired Masters have left us in the Holy Epistles and in their theological works, but also what they transmitted to their disciples by a kind of spiritual and almost heavenly teaching, initiating them from person to person in a bodily way no doubt, since they spoke, but I venture to say, in an immaterial way also, since they did not write. But since these truths had to be translated into the usages of the Church, the Apostles expressed them under the veil of symbols and not in their sublime nakedness, for not everyone is holy, and as the Scriptures say, Knowledge is not for all."

                    So I am far from being misinformed or a 'crackpot'...
                    Although I am nihlilist now I come from a strong Orthodox tradition. During several years I was visiting monasteries in the Caucasus mountains, learning from the monks who were the representatives of unbreakabale chain of teacher-to-disciple teaching of many centuries. I've read most of the Church Fathers and many of them in originals and I can tell you that there is NO ESOTERISM in anthroposphic or theosophic fashion in Christianity!!! The mysteries and secrets the Church Fathers like Saint Basil or Dionysius the Areopagite (who was most probably Georgian btw, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-...the_Areopagite) are talking about is the mystical union with God which is achieved by continous repentance and 'Jesus prayer'. But this path is open to EVERY member of the Church and not some 'secret inner circle'...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hrodberht
                      vineviz, your ad hominem and red herring attacks are not worthy of response.
                      Apparently they were.

                      In any event, when you assert your alleged erudition and superior intellect to support your argument, as opposed to some form of objective internal support, refutation of that erudition becomes legitimate.

                      Originally posted by Hrodberht
                      In any case, why is it that, on the one hand, I can carry on fine, in-depth online conversations with people like Spencer Wells, Bennett Greenspan, etc., while, on the other hand, there are all sorts of interactive problems with certain members of this board? Perhaps that question should be reflected upon...
                      Perhaps because Spencer and Bennett are paid to be nice to their customers, even the crackpots?
                      Last edited by vineviz; 17 November 2006, 07:25 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Although lively debate is always encouraged, please make sure to limit your discussion to topics related to genetic genealogy or we will have to close this thread. Thanks!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hrodberht
                          Dear Mike: The problem is that you are trying to meddlesomely legislate your own liberal humanist psychological attitudes and preconceptions as the untouchable dogmas and hermeneutical a priori of 'acceptable' thinking. My own interest in unpopular and controversial philosophical figures like Schopenhauer, Spengler, Evola etc. has no relationship to my objective perception of genetic and genealogical problems. By the way, it was Leon Trotsky, the Schiff-financed Marxist Bolshevik ideologist, who, in his spare time between brainstorming the revamping of the Soviet concentration camp and organizing the bloodthirsty Bolshevik military to eventually slaughter hecatombs of innocent Orthodox Christian Russians, coined Orwellian terms like 'racism' and 'sexism' in order to divide Western civilization. (The OED credits Eastman, in a translation of Trotsky from French to English, with the first usage, in 1932.)
                          Hrodberht (or whatever your name really is),

                          I'm not trying to legislate anything. I have no power to control your right to free speech, nor do I wish to. For the most part, I refer people who are questioning your strange views (for example, Slumbuzzle asking if you were joking), to some of your more outrageous posts on this board, where you "let it hang out," so to speak. I leave it to them to judge you and your views. I obviously have made clear my view of you and your views, but no one is obliged to agree with me.

                          Trotsky? Now I am being accused of being a Trotskyist? That's laughable. As if I want to put you in a concentration camp! All that's necessary is to quote you - by that means, your own words quarantine you and your views from reasonable people who wish to discuss serious issues in genetic genealogy.

                          You are very quick to come up with some strange slanders to throw at people who criticize your postings, but can't seem to tolerate any criticism of yourself by others. What's that old saying, something like "those in glass houses..."?

                          Mike

                          Comment


                          • Yog-Sothoth is the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the key and guardian of the gate.

                            Originally posted by Hrodberht
                            In spite of slumbuzzle's wikipedia-derived oversimplification and mocking misportrayal of Evola . . .

                            slumbuzzle, I can't help it if my IQ and idiosyncratically erudite diction does not correspond to the needs and tastes of the 'average reader'...
                            Sorry to disappoint you, Hrodberht, but I’ve had to endure the ramblings of Evola “true believers” on other forums, so your little dig at me about Wikipedia doesn’t hold.

                            I was an English major during my undergraduate career and the two rules I found to be true in almost all cases were:

                            1. The more intelligent a writer, the more easily they can express complicated ideas in simple language.

                            2. Those with little of true value to say or espousing a view with logical inconsistencies tend to use stilted language to make themselves sound more intelligent than they really are.

                            Originally posted by Hrodberht
                            The genius H.P. Lovecraft (also notorious for not conforming to the trends of modernity) similarly faced the fallacious accusation of being overreliant on thesauri by modern ill-spirited, presumptuous critics... Certain minds are just at certain levels.
                            I agree that Lovecraft was a genius for a number of reasons, but please don’t debase his memory by equating yourself with him. He intentionally used anachronistic language to great effect in a literary style most suited to weird fiction. You, on the other hand, seem to use language as a vehicle of your own self-importance. Lovecraft’s view on life and lack of belief in the types of mystical worldviews you seem to like are the basis of his stories and are exemplified in his quote in my signature. Before you speak with authority, you should try reading his personal correspondences.

                            As this thread seems to be evolving into something of a flame war (my apologies for helping it grow), I’ll be bowing out now. I just hate seeing my favorite author used as a prop.

                            As for Collins' book, despite the flaws, I hope it can still be of use to some here.

                            Slainte,
                            Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Nomdeklavier
                              Human beings are just walking chemical reactions:
                              http://www.howstuffworks.com/cell.htm/printable

                              Billions of people attend millions of churches around the world to worship contradictory versions of God.

                              Yet the God they worship is completely imaginary. Their belief represents a delusion.

                              It is easy to prove that God is imaginary.

                              http://www.godisimaginary.com/

                              I CAN PROVE GOD EXISTS

                              I WONT DO IT HERE but i can do it as good as any scientist can vlidate their work

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Andrew M
                                Consider also that the word "Bible" means "Library". What we know as the Bible is a collection of dozens of books with varied authorship that have been collected throughout the ages. Not all authors agree or are speaking to the same audience. Many scholars also think that even individual books in the Bible contain postings (sometimes contradictory) from several different sources. If you look up the story of the flood, for instance, it mentions animals going into the ark by twos and then by sevens.

                                Saying "the Bible says" without acknowledging the context (authors, content, audience, etc.) would be like taking someone's post from this forum and saying "the ftDNA people say..."

                                thats too simple the author might be the same but the power telling them what to say isnt. and the interpretors arent. also gettting people with no axe to grind to translate and comment on the bible is harder

                                on top of this the bible stories have flesh and blood.
                                people say how could moses write this so many years later.
                                well abraham was schooled by seth and noah. maybe they knew the story and abraham to moses is4-5 generations most coexisted.

                                you science people listen you study say the therory of relativity might be simple for you to understand . then other scientists of other fields dont get it right . then comes me untrained in any field and i screw it all up. not cause i want to but i just do.

                                this applies to the bible the same way.

                                to compare you need to know both to a tee.

                                simply put not many people alive today can do that

                                the bible is much more open then most people think as is science

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X