Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Someone I knew at university, Denis Alexander, wrote an excellent book 'Creation or Evolution Do we have to choose?' [Monarch Books 2008]. He wrote with some authority from both a scientific and a theological point of view. What is even more remarkable is the way that he set out many of the different viewpoints sympathetically, even though his personal answer to his question is 'No'. (Such an approach would be very dull on this forum but it makes for a very good book.)


No doubt one of Denis' motivations was to stop Christians quarrelling, but tensions can run high amongst agnostic and atheistic scientists too. Andrew Brown in his book ‘The Darwin Wars’ (Simon and Schuster UK Ltd 1999) charts the debate over ‘the selfish gene’, and its place in understanding human behaviour. The book tells how Richard Dawkins attempted to build a moral philosophy on the discovery of the selfish gene. But it really centres on how evolutionary scientists could teach Christian theologians a thing or two about in-fighting!


It includes the sad story of George Price, the man responsible for the mathematics behind ‘the selfish gene’. A convinced atheist, a consideration of the implications of his discovery produced a nervous breakdown, religious mania, a period of Tolstoyan Christianity where he gave all his worldly goods away, and ultimately to his suicide in 1974.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Introduction - The arguments for and, particularly, against suicide are very similar to ... probably because it was an extremely rare event in ancient Jewish society. .... Furthermore, suicide is worse than murder for in killing one's fellow man one is .... the common finding that religious adherence is associated with low suicide ...

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites
Steven. The CMF article goes on to say: “One of the difficulties facing the Christian who wishes to arrive at an ethical understanding of suicide is that the Bible has little to say about it either directly or indirectly, probably because it was an extremely rare event in ancient Jewish society.” I would suggest that this difficulty faces Christians who wish to arrive at an ethical understanding of anything: you need not just a translation of a relevant passage but an understanding of its context, and an interpretation. I'm not sure you would end up with a “Biblical Law” as the website suggests, but you would find some useful guidelines.


“... the common finding that religious adherence is associated with low suicide”, even if statistically true, seems an odd bonus offer for a faith that promises eternal life.


I also find a similar oddness in the idea of the world being “6000 years old”. I am pretty sure that the mathematics textbook I previously mentioned presented this figure about 7 years ago, so shouldn't that figure be 6007 now? My suspicion would be that the 6000 figure is a token one, meaning “comparatively recently, and not nearly so long ago as Darwin thought”, whilst appearing to have the mathematical precision that modern society respects and has come to depend upon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WHAT !!!!!!!!! ??????? !!! ??? That you think the Bible doesnt say much about suicide demonstrates the extreme paucity of Biblical knowledge you possess.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Sir you have little to none knowledge base of the Bible.
-----------------------------------------------
Bible Scholarship is immense and vast. The Bible is studied more than any other book in the world. Things are put into context via integration of linguistics, archaeology, history,cosmology,biology.philology, numerous social sciences, geology,ect,ect,ect.
The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies defines the field as a set of various, and in some cases independent disciplines for the study of the collection of ancient texts generally known as the Bible. These disciplines include but are not limited to archaeology, Egyptology, textual criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology.
=================================================
The meaning of the Bible is understood by Biblical hermeneutics.
========================
Why should you trust the Bible? It’s such an old book—isn’t it outdated and irrelevant? In Making a Case for the Bible, John MacArthur helps you see why the Bible can be trusted now and forever, by everyone, in every circumstance
RADIO PROGRAMS TO ENLIGHTEN
======================================================================
======================================================================
61 Bible Verses about Suicide
000000000000000000000000000000000
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
The Bible and SuicideWhat Does the Bible Say About Suicide?

By Mary Fairchild

How to Study the Biblercg.org

Basic Rules that Govern Bible Study Learn How to Study the Bible!

Suicide is the act of intentionally taking one's own life, or as some have called it, "self-murder."

Over the years, I've received several emails from readers with questions about suicide:

  • "Does God forgive suicide, or is it the unpardonable sin?"
  • "Do Christians who commit suicide go to hell?"
  • "What does the Bible say about suicide?"
7 People Committed Suicide in the BibleLet's begin by looking at the seven accounts of suicide in the Bible.

Abimelech - Judges 9:54
After having his skull crushed under a millstone that was dropped by a woman from the Tower of Shechem, Abimelech called for his armor bearer to kill him with a sword. He did not want it said that a woman had killed him.

Samson - Judges 16:29-31
By collapsing a building, Samson sacrificed his own life, but in the process destroyed thousands of enemy Philistines.

Saul and His Armor Bearer - 1 Samuel 31:3-6
After losing his sons and all of his troops in battle, and his sanity long before, King Saul, assisted by his armor bearer, ended his life. Then Saul's servant killed himself.

Ahithophel - 2 Samuel 17:23
Disgraced and rejected by Absolom, Ahithophel went home, put his affairs in order, and then hung himself.

Zimri - 1 Kings 16:18
Rather than being taken prisoner, Zimri set the king's palace on fire and died in the flames.

Judas - Matthew 27:5
After he betrayed Jesus, Judas Iscariot was overcome with remorse and hung himself.

In each of these instances, except that of Samson, suicide is not presented favorably. These were ungodly men acting in desperation and disgrace. Samson's case was different. And while his life was not a model for holy living, Samson was honored among the faithful heroes of Hebrews 11. Some consider Samson's final act an example of martyrdom, a sacrificial death that allowed him to fulfill his God-assigned mission.

Does God Forgive Suicide?There's no doubt that suicide is a terrible tragedy. For a Christian it is an even greater tragedy because it is a waste of a life that God intended to use in a glorious way.

It would be difficult to argue that suicide is not a sin, for it is the taking of a human life, or to put it bluntly, murder. The Bible clearly expresses the sanctity of human life (Exodus 20:13). God is the author of life, thus, the giving and taking of life ought to remain in his hands (Job 1:21).

In Deuteronomy 30:9-20, you can hear the heart of God crying out for his people to choose life:

"Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. Now I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, so that you and your descendants might live! You can make this choice by loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and committing yourself firmly to him. This is the key to your life..."

So, can a sin as grave as suicide destroy one's salvation?

The Bible tells us that at the moment of salvation a believer's sins are forgiven (John 3:16; 10:28). When we become a child of God, all of our sins, even those committed after salvation, are no longer held against us.

Ephesians 2:8 says, "God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God." (NLT) So, we are saved by God's grace, not by our own good deeds. In the same way that our good works don't save us, our bad ones, or sins, cannot keep us from salvation.

Paul made it plain in Romans 8:38-39 that nothing can separate us from God's love:

And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God's love. Neither death nor life, neither
nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God's love. No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(NLT)

There is only one sin that can separate us from God and send a person to hell. In this article, "What is Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit?," I explain that the only unforgivable sin is refusing to accept Christ as Lord and Savior. Anyone who turns to Jesus for forgiveness is made righteous by his blood (Romans 5:9) which covers our sin—past, present and future.

God's Perspective on SuicideA few years ago, I attended the funeral of a Christian man who had committed suicide. The experience gave me a new perspective on the issue of Christians and suicide.

The man who had killed himself was the son of one our church staff members. In the short time he had been a believer, he touched many lives for Jesus Christ. His funeral was one of the most moving memorials I had ever attended.

With more than 500 mourners gathered, for nearly two hours, person after person testified of how this man had been used by God. He had pointed countless lives to faith in Christ and shown them the way to the Father's love. I left the service convinced that what had driven him to commit suicide had been his inability to shake his addiction to drugs and the failure he felt as a husband, father, and son.

Although it was a sad and tragic ending, nevertheless, his life testified undeniably of Christ's redemptive power in an amazing way. I do not believe this man went to hell.

His funeral made me realize that no one can truly understand the depth of someone else's suffering, or the reasons that could drive a soul to such desperation. Only God knows what is in a person's heart (Psalm 139:1-2). Only he knows the extent of pain which might bring a person to the point of suicide.

In conclusion, it bears repeating—suicide is a terrible tragedy, but it does not negate the Lord's act of redemption. Our salvation rests securely in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. So then, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13, NIV)

More About Suicide
Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites
Steven, I didn't say “... the Bible doesnt say much about suicide ...” as you suggest in your headline: I was quoting the Christian Medical Fellowship article which you cited in your previous post. I acknowledge your impressive list of instances of biblical suicides, but I don't think they would be of much help in counselling a depressed or suicidal person, where other parts of the Bible, some of the Psalms for example, might be more relevant; or not, as the case may be: Job's 'comforters' apparently got it right for the first week of their 'comforting' when they simply sat with Job and didn't say a word. As you yourself make clear, with numerous biblical references, it is the overall picture that the Bible paints of God's relationship with people that is particularly relevant to this sensitive subject.


Perhaps it would help if I explained my own standpoint more clearly. I was converted to Darwinism at the age of 11, and became a Christian at the age of 18. I personally see no conflict between these two, but I recognise that some Christians reject Darwinism (including, as it happens, my vicar). Please don't assume that because my keyboard has an aversion to writing words like 'hermeneutics' that I am unaware of what it means.


I tend to think historically rather than theologically (despite having had a licence to preach from the Bishop of Chelmsford for the last twenty years.) I think the story of George Price is important as an illustration of the relationship of Christianity and Darwinism in the 20th Century.


Basically I find it fascinating that working on an equation that transformed scientific understanding about Darwinism forced an atheist to believe in original sin, and become a Christian. A parallel 20th century story – which I think is relevant to what happened to George Price, is, I believe, the essential over-defensiveness of Western Christianity in the face of science, of which I think the Young Earth theory is a symptom. On this issue, Steven, we will no doubt disagree, but I would still be interested in your understanding of the biblical evidence.


Now I've found 'The Darwin Wars' on my shelves I can perhaps tell George Price's story in more detail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GOOGLE THIS > christian suicide counseling get this.>
===================================================
Is Christian Counseling Effective?: What the Research Shows
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Establishment science
For 15 plus years the head establishment archaeologist in Israel ( Israel Finkelstein) said David didnt exist. Now "OK" he existed but the Bible story is still wrong
it was a small city-state he ruled.
QUESTION : DID CHRIST LIE THAT NOAH EXISTED ??
36"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 37"For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.…
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

The Life of Darwin, Part 1 (Intro) Feb 10, 2014 Answers ... with Ken Ham http://media.answersingenesis.org/audio/answers-daily/volume-112/AWKH20140210.mp3 btn_play.gif

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve, I agree with your comment about King David. Considering he lived about 3000 years ago I was always amazed at the readiness of the Establishment to dismiss the idea that he ruled over anything like a kingdom. A couple of years ago I attended a lecture which reported the discovery of the ruins of a fortress in Israel that dates from this period. It had two entrances, making it very unusual, and the Bible describes such a fortress on the border with Philistine territory. This is very strong evidence that an iron-age kingdom existed at that time so the readiness to disregard the evidence of the Bible as to what this kingdom was like seems odd, to say the least.


Conservative biblical scholarship is, I suspect, less conservative in the UK than in the US. Denis Alexander, whom I mentioned before, was from a Conservative Evangelical background, and I think was a member of the Brethren. He and his brother founded 'Lion' publications, a leading Christian publisher in the U.K., with a multitude of books to their credit which have done much to take some of the stuffiness out of Christian publishing in this country. Their History of Christianity Handbook has a high reputation, and has been compared favourably to the Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity: for one thing it gave much greater prominence to women.


I don't personally think it is either accurate or helpful to insist that “Jesus Taught a Recent Creation, Jesus Taught that Adam and Eve Were Real People”.


I wanted to say more about George Price because I think he exemplifies the problems that arise out of the fragmented, quarrelling Christian church. All these quotes are from “ The Darwin Wars” that I referred to above.


“He had reformulated a set of mathematical equations that shows how altruism can prosper in a world where it seems that only selfishness is rewarded. The equations had been discovered ten years before by Hamilton, but Price's reworking was more elegant and of wider application. He had provided a general way in which to measure the direction and speed of any selection process; this makes possible, in principle, a Darwinian analysis of almost anything.


“When Price had first found them he was so shocked that he set himself to do the work again, sure that there must be a flaw. He ended up reformulating them more generally and more powerfully; when this work was completed, he went mad. For though his equation showed that truly self-sacrificing behaviour can exist among animals, and even humans, it also seemed to show that there is nothing noble in it. Only behaviour which helps to spread the genes that cause it can survive in the very long term. Since man, too, is an animal, the human capacity for altruism must be strictly limited; and our capacity for cruelty, treachery and selfishness impossible to eradicate. Through algebra, George Price had found proof of original sin.”

[TDW p. 1-2]


“Price came to biology as an amateur in 1967, when he was 44. He had trained as a chemist, working on uranium analysis for the Manhattan Project in his early twenties, and getting a doctorate in the subject from Harvard, where he taught for a couple of years. He did medical research at the University of Minnesota in the early Fifties, and then spent four years as a freelance journalist and technical writer, while trying to write a book about Cold War strategy. He then spent six years working for IBM in New York State before emigrating to London. This final move followed his divorce from a devoutly Catholic wife, and surgery for a tumour on his thyroid which left him dependent on medication to supply the missing products of his thyroid gland for the rest of his life.” [TDW p. 6]


From the point of view of science George Price was important for providing the mathematical basis for the idea of 'the selfish gene' and the work associated with Richard Dawkins. However, his encounter with Christianity is also of interest:


“In an overwhelming moment of spontaneous prayer, just north of BBC Broadcasting House, Price became convinced that Christianity was true. The absolute and unconditional altruism that Jesus preached in the parable of the Good Samaritan was to guide the rest of his life. He did not abandon his scientific work; indeed, he came to consider his discovery a miracle, for he had no training in biology. But he also began to help tramps, alcoholics, and all the wretched of the earth. He gave them time, sympathy, and money – eventually everything he owned.


As an atheist and materialist, Price had been an insufferable zealot; as a Christian, he was just the same. He soon quarrelled with the priest who received him, whom he found insufficiently zealous.” TDW p.2-3


To put it another way, in the London of 1974 this American couldn't find a Christainity that matched either his equation or Jesus Christ's most famous parable.

“At Price's funeral, the preacher told his grieving, bewildered, tiny congregation that 'The trouble with George was that he took his Christianity too seriously.' At this Hamilton rebuked him: “I think George felt that if it was good enough for St Paul, it was good enough for him.” TDW p.220



I don't think that a George Price would feel quite so isolated in his beliefs if he were living in London today. There are now many Christian groups working amongst (a rather large number) of needy people, and a self-destructive Christian approach would have more chance of developing into a self-sacrificing one within a community. British and American sensibilities are also perhaps closer now than they were then.


One really odd thing about the Darwinism/Religion clash is that it was much less of an issue in 19th Century England than is generally thought. The famous Huxley-Wilberforce debate is not typical. The findings of geologists, as they began to make an impact from the end of the 18th Century onwards, were generally accepted, including by the religious. 'Intelligent Design' is therefore regarded in some Christian circles here, including me, as a recent American import, and as a re-invention of an idea that was beginning to be questioned by scientists 200 years ago.


I don't pretend to understand the scientific arguments. But I do know a bit about the history of science, and if the idea of a Young Earth were true it would mean that the entire community of science must be part of a massive conspiracy – and one conspiracy too many for me.


Hence my shock at seeing the “6000-years old” idea apparently casually dropped into a school textbook. If this alternative theory of the world's age is to overthrow so much of existing scientific understanding, is it not reasonable to be asking for a very detailed explanation of the genealogical tables in the Book of Genesis on which much of this figure has to be based? In particular, how certain can you be?

Link to post
Share on other sites
JFK was killed by a lone gunman ,just check any textbook. Do you have any textbook being used in Schools that says different ??
establishment consensus.........
========================
I read the Selfish Gene Book many,many moons ago.
The teachers at University wanted me to go into science (Chemistry or Biology Viruses) and were upset I chose Pharmacy School. (Later also got RT & RN)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Does establishment science believe in a Great Flood ?? SEE POST # 5 this thread.
QUESTION : DID CHRIST LIE THAT NOAH EXISTED ??
36"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 37"For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.…
+++++++ Establishment Science
1970 ice age coming,1980s global warming,now a divide group ice age (via less sun activity) and Global warming (CO2 gas + other gases).
Many have backtracted from the Global Warming theory. Establishment consensus......
+++++++++++++++++++
Biblical Chronology usually gives 6500-6000 years as the age of the earth. SEE POST # 26 this thread.
=================================================

(Hebrew is unequivocal, If they say not = you have to ask 'why' they are wrong (not question > they are wrong,they are wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!),Gaal)

The meaning of yôm in Genesis 1:1–2:4

by Francis Humphrey

Some preliminary considerations

The question often arises as to the correct meaning of ‘day’ in the opening verses of Genesis. There are those who argue that the word signifies a long period of time (e.g. progressive creationists like Hugh Ross). Others contend that the passage in question (Genesis 1:1–2:4) is not meant to be an actual historical account of the creation but is rather a theological reflection on God’s creative power and His sovereignty over the created order (e.g. the ‘framework hypothesis’ of Meredith Kline, Henri Blocher et al.). In the latter case the text is seen as having no relevance in determining the sequence of events at the time of origins.

The traditional view has been that the text is meant to communicate a straightforward account of God’s creation of the universe. The account is, therefore, of six 24-hour days of creative acts followed by a seventh 24-hour day of divine rest.

6385numbers.jpg
Theological reflection approach

Regarding this approach it is important to note that it is not really a question of Hebrew textual exegesis but rather a hermeneutical conclusion driven by factors external to the text. Taking the ‘framework hypothesis’ as an example, at an initial glance, Days 1–3 seem to be showing the creation of three empty ‘realms’ or ‘domains’ and Days 4–6 showing the creation of their respective ‘kings’ or ‘rulers’. Even if this was true, it would simply inform us that God created the universe in a specific order of divine acts. It would not annul the historicity of the account unless the reader felt compelled for other reasons to see the pattern as purely literary.1 In fact the structure of Genesis 1:1–2:4 does not really lend itself fully to the schema. For further details the reader is invited to consider the analyses of Wayne Grudem2 and Jonathan Sarfati.3

Poetry or prose?

A question arises as to the genre of the passage: is it poetry or is it prose narrative? If it is poetry, then perhaps there is greater flexibility in the meaning of the words. If it is prose narrative, then it would be appropriate to read it as intending to give a historical account of the creation.

Regarding the issue of genre, even if it is poetry, the passage would not necessarily be overly flexible in its interpretation. Psalm 78 is clearly poetic and yet gives an accurate account of Israel’s history from the Exodus to the anointing of David.

In passages that are universally recognized as historical narrative there is a marked preponderance of preterites over the other three [verb] forms. In poetry there is a preponderance of imperfects and perfects. … Given the ratio of verbal forms, the statistical evidence for the text [of Genesis] being prose is overwhelming.

Furthermore, it can be easily demonstrated that Genesis 1:1–2:4 in fact is not a poem. Hebrew poetry is characterized by certain syntactical features. A thorough grammatical/syntactical treatment of Hebrew poetry is that of M. O’Connor.4 A simple test is the use of parallelism where a second grammatical clause repeats the idea of the preceding clause either by way of rewording it, or further explicating it, or by expressing its antithesis. O’Connor’s analysis goes far beyond these simple observations but does not nullify them. Reading the Hebrew text shows that it lacks these requisite poetic markers. Therefore, the Hebrew text is most reasonably read as prose narrative.

Secondly (and more objectively), in prose narrative there is a different ratio of verbal forms than there is in poetry. This has long been recognized by Hebrew scholars and has most recently been exhaustively analyzed by Steven Boyd.5 By way of explanation there are four forms of the finite verb in biblical Hebrew: the preterite (vayyiqtol), the imperfect (yiqtol), the perfect (qatal) and the vav perfect (veqatal). To quickly summarize, in passages that are universally recognized as historical narrative there is a marked preponderance of preterites over the other three forms. In poetry there is a preponderance of imperfects (yiqtol) and perfects (qatal).

Boyd demonstrates that, given the ratio of verbal forms, the statistical evidence for the text being prose is overwhelming. Indeed it would be irresponsible to read it any other way.

The use of the word yôm in Genesis 1:1–2:4 with particular reference to the use of the cardinal number echad in 1:5b

Regarding the word ‘yôm’ in Genesis 1:1–2:4, it is apparent that there are three different uses of the term in the passage. In 1:5a it denotes ‘daylight’ as opposed to ‘night’. In 1:5b it denotes the combination of the two. The word ‘echad’ is most probably to be read as a cardinal number (‘one’) as opposed to an ordinal (’first’) in contrast to many translations. Thus it appears that the text is in fact defining what a ‘day’ is in the rest of the Creation Week. Finally in Genesis 2:4, yôm is part of an anarthrous6 prepositional compound beyôm meaning not ‘in the day’ but simply ’when’.

The fact that for the bulk of the passage, the word yôm is accompanied by sequential numerical denotation and the language of ‘evening and morning’ gives a prima facie case that regular 24-hour days are in view.

Concerning the use of the cardinal as opposed to the ordinal in 1:5b, it will be helpful to examine this a little further. For a more detailed examination of echad in Genesis 1:5, the definitive study is that of Andrew Steinmann.7 After examining echad as an ordinal number in numbering units of time he concludes that it may be used in place of the ordinal r’ishon in only two idioms: namely to ‘designate the day of a month, the other the year of a reign of a king’.8

In addition, in a non temporal sense, the cardinal can stand for the ordinal when dealing with a small number of ‘countable’ items.9

In contrast it has sometimes (often) been claimed that when a list of ordinal numbers is given, the cardinal form ‘echad’ is to be rendered as an ordinal (‘first’).10 BDB under usage #7 states ‘as ordinal, first … ’11 and then cites Genesis 1:5, 2:11; Exodus 39:10; Ezekiel 10:14; Job 42:14 and then adds references to the first day of a month or first in a verbally compound ordinal number (thirty first … ).

This claim, as noted in the preceding comments, can be challenged. The word echad occurs 960 times in the Hebrew Old Testament.12 In the AV it is rendered by the English ‘first’ a total of 32 times. The majority of these cases are part of a formulaic expression ‘day one of the nth month’. Another cluster of ordinal renderings of echad is found in compound numbers, e.g., ‘thirty-first year of Asa’ (1 Kings 16:23) (lit. ‘in year of thirty and one of year’). These two clusters of citations are the very exceptions noted by Steinmann.

Another distinction that may be noted is that between simple ‘countable’13 lists and ‘temporally sequential’ events. To illustrate this distinction I will consider as examples of the former category five lists where the cardinal form (echad, ‘one’) is followed by ordinals (‘second, third … ’) and can itself be considered as an ordinal.

1. Genesis 2:11: the list of the four heads of rivers flowing out of Eden follow this pattern.

2. Exodus 28:17: the same pattern is used to denote the four rows of jewels on the High Priest’s breastplate.

3. Exodus 39:10–13: the same pattern appears, again in reference to the same article of clothing.

4. Ezekiel 10:14: the four heads of a cherub are enumerated in this way.

5. Job 42:14: the three daughters of Job are designated using this convention.

There are six other lists which share this same pattern.14 Furthermore, in each of these cases the article is included. Steinmann concludes:

‘The description of the use of
echad
as an ordinal number for the first element in a small number of countable items should state:
With a definite noun,
echad
serves (as an ordinal) to count the first of a small number of things. In this construction the noun may be elided after a recent mention,
[but]
the article is never omitted from the adjective or its governing noun. The following items are counted with ordinal numbers.

In effect, this means that when echad is unaccompanied by the article and used adjectively it is reasonable that it be considered as a cardinal (‘one’). Some may challenge this conclusion claiming that it may be an example of ‘denying the antecedent’ but it does seem to have merit.16

Another observation is that in lists, which particularly stress sequential events, the ordinal r’ishon (‘first’) is used. I consider six such occasions:

1. Numbers 7:12–89 gives the offerings of the twelve tribal leaders on succeeding days. The first day uses the ordinal r’ishon. This text illustrates another feature, namely that once you reach the compound Hebrew numbers (11 and up) the terms are in the cardinal form.17

2. Numbers 28:16: r’ishon is used to describe the first day of unleavened bread. In verse 25 the text refers to the seventh (ordinal) day of the feast. Intervening ordinals are not present in verses 17–24.

3. 1 Chronicles 24:7–18: the sequence of 24 lots is cast for the divisions of the priesthood who serve in successive order. Again the ordinal r’ishon is used to begin the sequence.

4. 1 Chronicles 25:9–31 gives a similar sequential ordering of the 24 families of temple singers and r’ishon is used to commence the list.

5. 1 Chronicles 27:2–15 gives the monthly rotation of David’s 12 army divisions (24,000 men per division) who served in sequence throughout the year. The ordinal r’ishon is used for the first division.

6. Zechariah 6:2–3 lists the four angelic chariots are listed but it appears from the text that they are coming out from between the two mountains, possibly in temporal order. This latter point depends on whether they are pictured as emerging in single file and not coming out four abreast. I would tend to opt for the former since r’ishon is used instead of echad. Nevertheless, certainty eludes us in this case.

From this survey it does appear that a list emphasizing a temporal sequence of events tends to commence with the ordinal r’ishon as opposed to the cardinal echad which we found employed in the five lists of ‘countable items’ (plus the further six cited in the endnote).

Given that Genesis 1 is describing a sequence of creative acts one would expect to find the first day designated by the ordinal r’ishon. Instead, we find the cardinal form echad. From the preceding overview of lists it would seem clear that this initial appearance of the cardinal form is in fact signifying a cardinal meaning.

Furthermore, both echad and yôm are without the article indicating that the expression denotes ‘one day’. In fact the article does not appear until the sixth day—yôm hašišiy.

Steinmann comments:

‘But even here the grammar is strange, since there is no article on
yôm,
as would be expected. This would indicate that the sixth day was a regular solar day, but that it was
the culminating day of creation
. Likewise, the seventh day is referred to as
yôm haš
e
bi‘iy
(
), with lack of an article on
yôm
. This also, the author is implying, was a regular solar day. Yet it was a special day, because God had finished his work of creation.’

An additional comment to Steinmann’s which I believe reinforces his point is that the prefix beth attached to yôm in Genesis 2:2a and 2:2b is both times pointed by the Massoretes with the pathach, implying the presence of the article. He is quite correct that in the concluding use of ‘day the seventh’ in Gen. 2:3b that yôm is anarthrous. Thus the pattern is actually:

: ‘day the sixth’

: ‘in the day the seventh’

: ‘in the day the seventh’

: ‘day the seventh’

This pattern highlights the peculiar nature of the concluding citation. Since the two prepositional phrases employ the expected use of the article, the fact that in the final reference the article is absent from
yôm
we are alerted to its uniqueness

it is clearly preferable to read 1:5b as defining a
yôm
for the following sequence of ordinals-namely one cycle of evening and morning, signifying a complete 24-hour day embracing both the period of darkness and the period of light. Having used the cardinal echad to establish that definition of
yôm
, the chapter then goes on in the expected ordinal sequence.

Further emphasizing the special nature of the seventh day is the fact that it is the only one to have the day + ordinal occurring more than once.

In light of the preceding, it is clearly preferable to read 1:5b as defining a yôm for the following sequence of ordinals-namely one cycle of evening and morning, signifying a complete 24-hour day embracing both the period of darkness and the period of light. Having used the cardinal echad to establish that definition of yôm, the chapter then goes on in the expected ordinal sequence.

The only other passage in the entire Bible that makes reference to the Creation Week as a six-day sequence followed by a seventh day of rest is Exodus 20:8–11, where a one to one correspondence is seen between the regular 168 hour week of humans and God’s work of creation and rest.

From the standpoint of Hebrew exegesis it is would be unreasonable to read another meaning into the text. The only reason for so doing would appear to be based on considerations other than a careful reading of the actual narrative.

A final observation

It has been my experience that those who question the normal historical narrative reading of Genesis 1:1–2:4 tend to be my fellow evangelicals. Theological liberals recognize the text as saying that God created the universe in six 24-hour days. They see evangelicals who adopt alternative readings of the text as engaged in a form of suspect apologetics. I believe the liberal critique to be accurate. Where I differ from them, however, is that I believe the text is correct in what it is teaching. A more effective apologetic therefore lies in simply admitting what the text proclaims and showing that it has far more explanatory power than many people think. In that light, I am excited by the kind of research being conducted by CMI and likeminded creation science organizations. God means what He says and He did it just as Genesis says he did!

Related ArticlesFurther ReadingReferences
  1. Wenham, G.J., Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary, Word Books, Waco, TX, 1987. On p. 19 he states: ‘ … “day”. There can be little doubt that here “day” has its basic sense of a 24-hour period. The mention of morning and evening, the enumeration of the days, and the divine rest on the seventh show that a week of divine activity is being described here.’ Then on p. 39 he contends, ‘It has been unfortunate that one device which our narrative uses to express the coherence and purposiveness of the creator’s work, namely, the distribution of the various creative acts to six days, has been seized on and interpreted over-literalistically, with the result that science and Scripture have been pitted against each other instead of being seen as complementary. Properly understood, Genesis justifies the scientific experience of unity and order in nature. The six-day schema is but one of several means employed in this chapter to stress the system and order that has been built into creation. Other devices include the use of repeating formulae, the tendency to group words and phrases into tens and sevens, literary techniques such as chiasm and inclusion, the arrangement of creative acts into matching groups, and so on.’ In the main body of my text I point out that elegance of order and literary finesse do not preclude the historicity of a narrative account. Return to text.
  2. Grudem, W., Systematic Theology, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 302, 1994. Return to text.
  3. Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, pp. 94–101, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp. 94–101, 2004. Return to text.
  4. O’Connor, M., Hebrew Verse Structure, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1980. Return to text.
  5. Boyd, S.W., Statistical Determination of Genre in Biblical Hebrew: evidence for an historical reading of genesis 1:1–2:3; in: Vardiman, L., Snelling, A. and Chaffin, E. (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (Vol. II), Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ, pp. 631–734, 2005. Return to text.
  6. I.e. lacking the definite article. If the definite article (represented by the vowel marking pathach under the beth) then it would signify ‘in the day’. Its lack signifies an idiomatic use meaning ‘when’ as in the NIV translation. Return to text.
  7. Steinmann, A., אֶחָד [[echad] as an Ordinal Number and the Meaning of Genesis 1:5, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45(4):577–584, 2002. Return to text.
  8. Steinmann, ref. 7, p.580. Return to text.
  9. Steinmann, ref. 7, pp. 581–582. Return to text.
  10. e.g. Davidson, B., The Analytical and Chaldee Lexicon, Zondervan Edition, 8th printing, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 17, 1976, ‘II first, only in the enumerating of time, where the cardinal stands for the ordinal.’ He cites the usage when dealing with the first day (day one) of the nth month. See my comments in the main text. Return to text.
  11. Brown, F., Driver, S.R. and Briggs, C.A., (Eds.), A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, UK, reprinted with corrections, p. 25, 1972. Return to text.
  12. Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K., Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, Volume 1: Moody Press, Chicago, IL, p.30, 1980. This also corresponds to my count in Wigram, G.V., The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance, Zondervan Edition, 7th printing, Grand Rapids, MI, 1978 where I counted 966. Return to text.
  13. Steinmann, ref. 7., p. 581; Waltke, B.K. and O’Connor, M.P., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, p. 274, § 15.2.1b, 1990. Return to text.
  14. Genesis 4:19: ‘the name of the first [of two wives] was Adah’; Exodus 26:4,5; 36:11: ‘the first curtain’ [of two]; Exodus 29:40, Numbers 28:7: ‘for the first lamb’ [of two]; 1 Kings 6:24: ‘the first cherub’ In each case echad is followed by ordinal forms (second, third … ). Return to text.
  15. Steinmann, ref. 7, p.582. This is a refinement (indeed, correction) of Waltke and O’Connor’s treatment. Return to text.
  16. ‘Denying the antecedent’, i.e.

    a)
    echad
    with the article signifies an ordinal use.

    B)
    In this text
    echad
    does not have the article.

    c) Therefore, in this text
    echad
    has a cardinal use.

    ‘Denying the antecedent’ since the premise does not assert that an ordinal use of
    echad
    necessarily has the article. However, in this case it is still reasonable to take it as a cardinal usage since the default meaning of
    echad
    is cardinal. Its ordinal usage is apparent from the context and in these cases the article is always present. Context shows that in the vast majority of cases the default cardinal meaning is implied and in those cases the article is missing. For the few cases where the meaning may be disputed, the burden of proof lies with those who would challenge the regular pattern. I note this mild caveat since Steinmann (see above) does maintain that the ordinal use is always accompanied by the article. Therefore,
    he would restate the premise
    as:
    a) echad
    with, and only with, the article signifies an ordinal use.
    B)
    and c) would, therefore, logically follow. I believe Steinmann is correct and I simply note a mild objection that might conceivably be raised.’
    .

  17. Actually ‘eleven’ is interesting in that it uses ‘ashtēy in construct with the cardinal ‘asar (‘ten’). The etymology is uncertain and is only found in the plural construct form attached to ‘ten’. Return to text.
  18. Steinmann, ref. 7, p.583–584. Return to text.
Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils Embarrassed evolutionists try to ‘muddy the waters’

by Gary Bates

http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils

who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.

(PLEASE NOTE THE SENIOR PALEONTOLOGIST at the BM is "is" considered the top fossil man in the world,GAAL)

=============================================

=============================================

Scientific Consensus Redux Looking back, it turns out that a lot of scientific consensuses were wrong.

Ronald Bailey | June 29, 2010

Last week, the prestigious journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published an article that tried to assess the relative credibility of climate scientists who “support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change” versus those who do not. One goal of the study is to “provide an independent assessment of level of scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic climate change.” The researchers found that 97–98 percent of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field are convinced of man-made climate change. In addition, using publication and citation data, the study found that the few climate change dissenters are far less scientifically prominent than convinced researchers. The article concludes, “This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change.” Translation: reporters, politicians, and citizens should stop listening to climate change skeptics.

Naturally, there has been some pushback against the article. For example, Georgia Institute of Technology climatologist Judith Curry who was not pigeonholed in the study told ScienceInsider, “This is a completely unconvincing analysis.” One of the chief objections to the findings is that peer review is stacked in favor of the consensus view, locking skeptics out of publishing in major scientific journals. John Christy, a prominent climate change researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who is skeptical of catastrophic claims, asserted that because of “the tight interdependency between funding, reviewers, popularity. ... We [skeptical researchers] are being ‘black‑listed,’ as best I can tell, by our colleagues.”

This fight over credibility prompted me to wonder about the role that the concept of a “scientific consensus” has played out in earlier policy debates. We all surely want our decisions to be guided by the best possible information. Consider the overwhelming consensus among researchers that biotech crops are safe for humans and the environment—a conclusion that is rejected by the very environmentalist organizations that loudly insist on the policy relevance of the scientific consensus on global warming. But I digress.

Taking a lead from the PNAS researchers I decided to mine the “literature” on the history of uses of the phrase “scientific consensus.” I restricted my research to Nexis searches of major world publications, figuring that’s where mainstream views would be best represented. So how has the phrase “scientific consensus” been used in past policy debates?

My Nexis search found that 36 articles using that phrase appeared in major world publications prior to my arbitrary June 1985 search cutoff. One of the first instances of the uses of the phrase appears in the July 1, 1979 issue of The Washington Post on the safety of the artificial sweetener saccharin. “The real issue raised by saccharin is not whether it causes cancer (there is now a broad scientific consensus that it does)” (parenthetical in original) reported the Post. The sweetener was listed in 1981 in the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens as a substance reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen. Interesting. Thirty years later, the National Cancer Institute reports that “there is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans.” In light of this new scientific consensus, the sweetener was delisted as a probable carcinogen in 2000.

Similarly, the Post reported later that same year (October 6, 1979) a “profound shift” in the prevailing scientific consensus about the causes of cancer. According to the Post, researchers in the 1960s believed that most cancers were caused by viruses, but now diet was considered the far more important factor. One of the more important findings was that increased dietary fiber appeared to reduce significantly the incidence of colon cancer. Twenty years later, a major prospective study of nearly 90,000 women reported, “No significant association between fiber intake and the risk of colorectal adenoma was found.” In 2005, another big study confirmed that “high dietary fiber intake was not associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer.” While dietary fiber may not prevent colon cancer, it is associated with lower cardiovascular risk.

In its June 1, 1984 issue, The Washington Post reported the issuance of a massive new report by the White House science office supporting the scientific consensus that “agents found to cause cancer in animals should be considered ‘suspect human carcinogens,’” and that “giving animals high doses of an agent is a proper way to test its carcinogenicity.” Although such studies remain a regulatory benchmark, at least some researchers question the usefulness of such tests today.

The December 17, 1979 issue of Newsweek reported that the Department of Energy was boosting research spending on fusion energy reactors based on a scientific consensus that the break-even point—that a fusion reactor would produce more energy than it consumes—could be passed within five years. That hasn’t happened yet and the latest effort to spark a fusion energy revolution, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, will not be ready for full-scale testing until 2026.

An article in the June 8, 1981 issue of The Washington Post cited a spokesman for the American Medical Association opposing proposed federal legislation that would make abortion murder as saying, "The legislation is founded on the idea that a scientific consensus exists that life begins at the time of conception. We will go up there to say that no such consensus exists." It still doesn’t.

In the years prior to 1985, several publications reported the scientific consensus that acid rain emitted by coal-fired electricity generation plants belching sulfur dioxide was destroying vast swathes of forests and lakes in the eastern United States. For example, the March 10, 1985 New York Times cited environmental lawyer Richard Ottinger, who asserted that there is a “broad scientific consensus'' that acid rain is destroying lakes and forests and ''is a threat to our health.'' In 1991, after 10 years and $500 million, the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program study (as far as I can tell that report is oddly missing from the web) actually reported, according to a 1992 article in Reason: “The assessment concluded that acid rain was not damaging forests, did not hurt crops, and caused no measurable health problems. The report also concluded that acid rain helped acidify only a fraction of Northeastern lakes and that the number of acid lakes had not increased since 1980.” Nevertheless, Congress passed the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that regulate sulfur dioxide emissions through a cap-and-trade scheme. Acid rain was clearly causing some problems, but was not the wide-scale environmental disaster that had been feared.

Interestingly, the only mention of a scientific consensus with regard to stratospheric ozone depletion by ubiquitous chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs) refrigerants was an article in the October 6, 1982 issue of the industry journal Chemical Week. That article noted that the National Research Council had just issued a report that had cut estimates of ozone depletion in half from a 1979 NRC report. The 1982 NRC report noted, “Current scientific understanding…indicates that if the production of two CFCs …were to continue into the future at the rate prevalent in 1977 the steady state reduction in total global ozone…could be between 5 and 9 percent.” Such a reduction might have been marginally harmful, but not catastrophic. It was not until 1986 that the mainstream press reported the discovery of the “ozone hole” over Antarctica. This discovery quickly led to the adoption of an international treaty aiming to drastically reduce the global production of CFCs in 1987. (For what it is worth, I supported the international ban of CFCs in my 1993 book Eco-Scam.)

With regard to anthropogenic climate change, my Nexis search of major world publications finds before 1985 just a single 1981 New York Times article. “There has been a growing scientific consensus that the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is creating a ‘greenhouse effect’ by trapping some of the earth's heat and warming the atmosphere,” reported the Times in its January 14, 1981 issue.

What a difference the passage of 25 years makes. My Nexis search turned up 457 articles in major publications that in the last year cited or used the phrase “scientific consensus.” Checking to see how many combined that phrase with “climate change,” Nexis reported that the number comes to 342 articles. Briefly scanning through a selection of the articles it is clear that some of them involved the controversy over whether or not there is a “scientific consensus” on climate change. The majority appear to cite various experts and policymakers asserting the existence of a scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is dangerous to humanity.

So what to make of this increase in the use of the concept of “scientific consensus?” After all, several scientific consensuses before 1985 turned out to be wrong or exaggerated, e.g., saccharin, dietary fiber, fusion reactors, stratospheric ozone depletion, and even arguably acid rain and high-dose animal testing for carcinogenicity. One reasonable response might be that anthropogenic climate change is different from the cited examples because much more research has been done. And yet. One should always keep in mind that a scientific consensus crucially determines and limits the questions researchers ask. And one should always worry about to what degree supporters of any given scientific consensus risk succumbing to confirmation bias. In any case, the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality.

===================

(Page 2 of 2)

Disclosure: For what it is worth I generally accept the current "consensus" that anthropogenic climate change could be a big problem. I do worry that what governments are likely to do about global warming may be worse than climate change.

Join Ron Bailey, Nick Gillespie, Matt Welch, and Jacob Sullum on Reason’s weeklong Caribbean cruise in February 2011. Sign up today!

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven. With regard to your last post, and global warming, we in the UK have been receiving the leftovers of your winter weather in the form of massive storms for the last three weeks. We've seen nothing like it for 250 years. I think both experts and the general public are keeping an open mind on whether it's weather, climate, or a trend. However, I'm inclined to go with Stern:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/13/flooding-storms-uk-climate-change-lord-stern

And talking of open minds your earlier comment ...

"JFK was killed by a lone gunman ,just check any textbook. Do you have any textbook being used in Schools that says different ??"

... doesn't really apply in the UK, where the JFK assassination remains a popular subject in secondary schools for looking at a wide range of evidence (including, often in a critical way, that of textbooks) with an open mind. The government hates this approach, and made a concerted effort to try to stop it, which spectacularly failed.

I think one needs a similar open-mindedness when approaching the Bible. I don't think this story by Andrew Brown is exactly his finest hour. Because camels weren't around 3000 years ago there couldn't have been an Abraham?? The phenomenon of anachronisms in the Old Testament has been known about for years. This all sounds more like Dan Brown:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2014/feb/13/old-testament-camels-zionism-genesis

Steve. Please don't be sidetracked by the Zionism bit. And thank you for all your references. I will attempt to follow some of them up, with an open mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rejection of Biblical and traditional sexual laws and promotion of sexual promiscuity and homosexuality would result in a greatly increased incidence of infectious diseases and premature death, with a half million of Americans dead because of AIDS.

Colleges and universities largely became the seminaries of the new cultural "religion" and its ethos.[57] Revised standard studies and new courses, such as gay studies, became part of the new orthodoxy, with a later neglect of core subjects.

I'm a little disturbed by this; I might be misinterpreting it but it seems to me to be very homophobic. That's an attitude I do not agree with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this story by Andrew Brown is exactly his finest hour. Because camels weren't around 3000 years ago there couldn't have been an Abraham?? Norman Pratt

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When the Camel story broke a few days ago I emailed a friend and said "same old crowd that brought you David didnt exist".

Its based on Carbon 14 data and I can give you links about problems with that method 24/7.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now try to wrap your head around what I gave you...the top (and I mean very top) Fossil man said there were not tranitional fossils.......which can imply that creatures were created in less than CARL SAGAN billions,billions of years and that evolution is flatout wrong.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

there is a lot of intolerance.

Reject Darwin, get fired - GodofCreation.com

He has published numerous creation science papers and serves as a technical ... The Privileged
  • Ohio Nice Time! Creationist Science Teacher Stays Fired, Will Have ...
    wonkette.com/.../ohio-nice-time-creationist-science-teacher-sta...‎
    Wonkette
    Loading...

    Nov 20, 2013 - Creationist Science Teacher Stays Fired, Will Have To Lie To Kids On ... dumb “intelligent design” movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

    Doubting Darwin: Creationist Biologist Fired for Views
  • doubtingdarwin.blogspot.com/.../creationist-biologist-fired-for-views.ht...‎

    Dec 8, 2007 - do you have other examples of scientist fired for their creationist ... In this movie, Ben Stein journeys around the world talking with scientists, ...
  • Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Watch Free Documentary Online
    topdocumentaryfilms.com › Religion
    This movie is offensive for many reasons, only some of them being the conjecture ... 1) Can science test and prove what sparked the creation of the universe ... I think that they should propably be fired if they try to misuse funds for studying ID.
  • Christian Science Teacher Fired Over Creationism to Head to Ohio ...
    www.christianpost.com/.../christian-science-teacher...‎
    The Christian Post
    Loading...
    Feb 26, 2013 - A 20-year Ohio middle school science teacher who was fired in 2011 for ... Christian Science Teacher Fired Over Creationism to Head to Ohio Supreme Court .... to Launch New 6-Week Bible Study Based on 'Son of God' Film

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOT THIS SATURDAY ,BUT NEXT I AM GOING TO A LECTURE FROM A RECENTLY FIRED >BECAUSE OF HIS CREATIONIST VIEWS< SCIENTIST. HIS CRIME > PUBLISHING A PEER REVIEWED PAPER.====

++ YOU SEE HE FOUND TRICERATOP SOFT TISSUE (FROM THE HORN) > PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS A "60 MILLION" YEAR OLD HORN. AFTER APPROX 200,000 years it should be all stone. SOFT TISSUE FOUND IN HOT AREA WHERE THIS HORN WAS FOUND WOULD BE AT AN OUTSIDE MAXIMUM 8000 years OLD.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Triceratops Soft Tissue with Mark Armitage

Date: Oct 4, 2013 Length: 28:49
Download: Dialup / Broadband Stream: Dialup / Broadband Comment: at TheologyOnline
special shows: Real Science Radio

triceratops-tissue-armitage.png* Interview & Photo from iDINO's Mark Armitage: Fulfilling last year's promise, Mark Armitage of the CRS iDINO project presents Real Science Radio with a formerly unpublished photo (right) of soft tissue in a Triceratops horn. It's beautiful! (Well, in the eyes of the beholder, anyway. But God Himself probably thinks it's pretty cool too!) Armitage, a Creation Research Society board member and microscopy expert, along with iDINO microbiologist Dr. Kevin Anderson, excavated a Triceratops horn from the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. As with scientists from Harvard, North Carolina State, and dozens of other universities and institutions, they broke it open and... Guess what!

* Armitage and Anderson at Acta Histochemica: One of the latest of hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published by Darwin Doubters and even by (say it's not so) creationists, the prestigious secular journal Acta Histochemica has published the paper by Mark Armitage and Kevin Anderson titled, Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus in Volume 115, Issue 6, July 2013, pp. 603–608; Mark Hollis Armitage, Department of Biology, California State University, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8303, USA; Kevin Lee Anderson, Department of Biology, Arkansas State University Beebe, Beebe, AR, USA.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Do you really believe God? Editorial from Creation magazine, January 2014

by Don Batten

believe-in-God.jpg

I recently had a conversation about Genesis with a Christian who is a university campus worker (‘UW’). This man has a real heart for spreading the gospel, and would say he believed the Bible is the Word of God.

Part of the conversation went like this (not the exact words): UW: “But you can’t take Genesis 1 in a straight-forward way!” I replied, “Why not?” UW: “Because scientists have shown that the world is very old.” It is now clear that my friend is confused about the nature of science, because claims about what happened in the past (history) are not open to experimental testing. And, there is much evidence that should encourage serious scepticism about the claimed billions of years—e.g. the wealth of data from dinosaur fossils indicating that they are not old; see p. 12. There is also much evidence that geological processes happened much faster than ‘deep time’ advocates usually assume (see ‘Fast forming Fly Geyser’, p. 15, and ‘Dinosaur stampede’, p. 38).

Many have not thought through the consequences of trying to accommodate the secularist creation myth into the Bible.

UW ventured that Genesis was not about time. I pointed out that Genesis is replete with time elements, such as the 7 days of the Creation Week and the chronology in chapter 5 (‘When person x had lived z years, he fathered son y’), the sequence of events with the Flood (chapters 7 and 8) and more chronological data in chapter 11. A child can add up the figures to get 1656 years from Creation to the Flood. Time is a major focus of Genesis.1

I asked him what it means when a story is introduced with ‘Once upon a time …’? He replied that it would be a fairy story. Exactly! History demands a time frame (see ‘Thinking about chronology’, p. 45). And this includes the time of Jesus’ birth (see ‘The census of Quirinius’, p. 42), death and resurrection.

It became clear that UW had not thought much beyond Genesis chapter 1. It was almost as if he thought this chapter could be quarantined to make the Bible compatible with the secular ‘scientific’ view of history. For example, he correctly believed in a real Adam and Eve and the Fall (in Genesis 3). I pointed out that long ages meant death and suffering before Adam sinned (the Garden of Eden sitting on a deep pile of the remains of dead things, aka fossils), and that this undermined the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:21,22).

It was also inconsistent with the goodness of God, who described the finished creation as “very good”. UW ventured that death was not so bad; it could have a good purpose. But death is called “the last enemy” in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 15:26), so how could death be “very good”? He conceded this strong point.

There are so many ramifications of not believing Genesis 1 as history. For example, Exodus 20:1–11, says, “And God spoke all these words, saying … ‘For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them.’” So if we won’t believe that Genesis 1 describes a week of time at the beginning of history, we actually deny the words of God that He Himself wrote on the stone tablets (Exodus 32:16). And Jesus authenticated even the tiniest letters of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:18), so if it is unreliable, so is Jesus. Everything crumbles.

Many have not thought through the consequences of trying to accommodate the secularist creation myth into the Bible.

Related Articles

Further Reading

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Steven but YOU are regurgitating their claims. If you believe the refutations are wrong then please explain why they (the refutations) are wrong.

explain why they (the refutations) are wrong.Burton

Since the refutation assumed the assumption of the young earth people (rapid decay) they have assumed a nonetablishment viewpoint (rapid decay) then to be consistant they should (can) assume that the heat radiation would not effect life. BTW rapid decay seems to be correct (possible) by recent evidence,thus putting one one the side of young earth scientists,(EXPLAINED)

NOW ALSO please let me add = THEY DONT REFUTE ARGON DECAY<DO NOT ADDRESS IT> see below

POINT # 60

http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers

============================

A million-year-old volcano would eliminate argon

The answer relates to the fact that not only helium, but also argon, can leak from minerals. The hotter the minerals, the faster the leaks.11 Feldspar, a common mineral in the granitic rock (Figure 3), contains a lot of potassium, about 0.01% of which is the radioactive isotope potassium-40. Today it decays very slowly into the stable isotope argon-40. Comparing the two isotopes and assuming today’s rate of decay is the basis for the familiar ‘potassium-argon’ dating method, Harrison et al. found that in the deepest, hottest part of the borehole, over 20% of the nuclear-decay-generated argon has leaked out of the feldspar crystals. They also measured how fast argon leaks from the feldspar at various depths in the borehole. Using those data, I show that even assuming that the deepest sample did not get hotter than its present temperature, it would have lost nearly all of its argon in a million years.12 That is why Harrison et al. were forced to assume the temperature was very low until relatively recently. Then, they assumed that some unknown, unspecified source of heat rapidly raised the temperature in just twenty thousand years up to today’s high temperature. Creationist geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner told me that “given the small value for the measured heat conductivity of granite, such a temperature scenario for this site is not defensible, since it violates the simple and well-known physics of heat diffusion.”

Argon data say the site is young

The rock in the borehole is dry, which combined with its low heat conductivity means that its temperature cannot change rapidly. Even if we assume Harrison et al. were correct in postulating a recent (and as yet completely unobserved) intrusion of lava very close to the borehole, the temperature could not have changed by more than 50 Celsius degrees (90 Fahrenheit degrees) over the past five millennia.13 That is a relatively small change. More reasonable uniformitarian heat models14 for the site done by Los Alamos National Laboratory give much smaller changes. That allows us to assume (for simplicity of calculation) that the rock temperature has been roughly constant over those past few thousand years.

The uniformitarian scenario of long ages would leave the rocks with almost no helium and little argon, contrary to the observations of both RATE and Harrison et al.

Then, using Harrison’s own data and equations, I calculate that the feldspar in the rock formation would have lost the observed amount of argon in only 5,100 years, give or take a few millennia according to my estimate of the experimental uncertainty in the data. This age is consistent with results in the Harrison et al. paper, although they wanted to regard the numbers as indicating only the duration of their assumed fast heating pulse after their alleged eons of incredible coolness.

This 5,100-year argon diffusion age is consistent with RATE’s helium diffusion age of (6,000 ± 2,000) years for the same rock formation. So now we have two different age measurements using two different gases from two different types of nuclear decay in two different minerals—and the two methods agree within their error bounds. In contrast, the uniformitarian scenario of long ages would leave the rocks with almost no helium and little argon, contrary to the observations of both RATE and Harrison et al.

Steven,

I'm having some trouble with this. The "Point 60" link does not seem to lead to the source of the text quoted under it; could you help me and point me to the source for your text?

BTW, apologies for the delay but as I said in the opening post, I question whether it is actually worth debating this issue. Add into the mix that this is a highly complex area in which I have no expertise, and that I have little time to spare for this task, so my replies will take a while. Sorry!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Point 60" link does not seem to lead to the source of the text quoted under it; could you help me and point me to the source for your text? BURTON

=================

SOURCE OF TEXT LINK BELOW (about mid page). At bottom of the link below is the link back to link given.

http://creation.com/argon-from-rate-site

=======================================

LINK I GAVE DID GAVE MORE INFO ON TOPIC BUT NOT LINK OF MATERIAL QUOTED> SORRY. SINCE WERE ON THE TOPIC OF RADIOMETRIC DATING AND MR. PRATT BROUGHT UP THE CURRENT TOPIC OF THE CAMEL-BIBLE LET ME ADDRESS THAT.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CAMEL BIBLE TOPIC IN THE NEWS.((As you can see below I follow topic of Bible reliability (and thus creation/evolution debate) closely))


In the last 7 days
Archeologists’ discovery suggests the Bible is wro... Daily News, New York 15:52 Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Big mistake discovered in the Bible The Oklahoman 14:22 Thu, 13 Feb 2014

In the last month
Camel bones refute Bible? Fox News 01:27 Thu, 06 Feb 2014
Camel bones suggest error in Bible Fox News 13:48 Wed, 05 Feb 2014
Have Camels Disproved The Bible? The Huffington Post UK 10:36 Wed, 05 Feb 2014
Camel archaeology contradicts the Bible The Times of Israel 18:23 Tue, 04 Feb 2014
=============================================================
First see"BAD" LINK I GAVE > on the topic of carbon dating

http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers

==============================

Second see below RE Carbon Dating

===========================================
===========================================
SO many Camel/Bible stories...so much a push against God....I ask WHY ???
Willful Ignorance by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

pdf_dl.gifDownload Willful Ignorance PDF

We frequently receive requests from readers asking us to reply to anti-creation articles appearing in their local papers. The problem is that such articles appear so frequently all over the country--in scientific journals and popular magazines as well as newspapers--that we could not possibly reply to all of them. When we do try to write such a response, it usually is not published anyway. Even when one is published it usually is edited and its message diluted.

Consequently, we have in recent years tended just to ignore these attacks and to get on with our mission. However, a recent lead editorial in our own local paper (San Diego Union-Tribune, 8/5/05) was so blatantly misleading that I was almost tempted to write to the editor anyhow.

The article, in fact, was itself written as a negative reaction to President Bush's recently publicized statement that he felt intelligent design should be taught in public schools along with secular evolutionism, thus allowing students to think and decide for themselves. The writer called his editorial "Creationism Redux," by which title he seemed to be suggesting that the intelligent design movement was nothing but "creationism with a slick makeover" (his words). Intelligent design, he said, is "worthy of respectful acknowledgement in any discussion of philosophy and religion," but any "admiration for its scientific value is laughable." Even so, he says it is "much more compelling than crude theories of creationism, which depict Bible class as tantamount to biology 101 and geology 101 combined."

The best one can say of such gratuitous comments is that this anonymous editorial writer, and many other such opinionated wordsmiths, "willingly are ignorant," as the Bible's insightful phrase (2 Peter 3:5) puts it. They have simply not done their homework before pontificating.

Since that writer presumably lives in San Diego, he easily could have checked with some of the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research. He claimed that few creationists or I.D. advocates have degrees in biology, but that is wrong. ICR's biology chairman has a Ph.D. from Harvard, for example, plus much research experience. There are also dozens of fully credentialed biologists in the Creation Research Society and other creationist organizations. Creationists may be in the minority, but scientific truth is never determined by majority vote. And that minority is growing as more and more biologists and other scientists are becoming aware of the actual evidence.

The editorialist approvingly cites a surgeon who has argued that evolution must be true because "physical adaptations to environmental pressures have been documented in hundreds of modern species." This kind of supposed "proof' is given as the main evidence of evolution by almost all evolutionary apologists. The adaptation of insects to pesticides and the different beaks on the Galapagos Island finches (the evidence that so impressed Charles Darwin) are among the most common "evolutionary" adaptations cited by evolutionists. If they would read almost any book by creation scientists, they would know that such horizontal variations (or microevolution) and adaptations are accepted by all creationists, who recognize them as evidence of the Creator's forethought. Each creature has been designed with a genetic system that can recombine its components as needed to keep it from becoming extinct when the environment changes. But evolutionists don't want to imply any validity to creationism by debating its advocates or reading their books. This looks like willful ignorance. We stress again and again that it is only the concept of macroevolution (the transmutation of reptiles into birds and mammals, or of apes into men, or other "upward" changes) that we find void of scientific proof.

In fact, it is just such a reaction on the part of evolutionists that seems to fit Peter's prophecy (in 2 Peter 3:3-4) so perfectly: ". . . there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." This is precisely the concept of naturalism, or uniformitarianism, which dominates most scientific thinking today, stressing that all natural processes have operated since the very beginning of the world in the same way they do today.

God's Word, the Bible, says otherwise, of course. God "rested" after the six days of creation "from all His work which God created and made" (Genesis 2:3). Whatever processes were used by Him to create and make all things in that beginning week, are, therefore, not in operation today, so cannot be observed scientifically. But most evolutionists categorically deny that there ever was any real creation; therefore they insist that everything must be explained by some kind of evolution.

That is exactly what Peter prophesied would be the situation in the last days. "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water." That is, Peter was predicting that a time would come--the last days of the age in fact--in which people would be scoffing at Christ's promised return. The reason for such an attitude would be--not just ignorance--but willful ignorance of the primeval creation of the heavens and the earth by the omnipotent Word of God.

Their refusal to understand or even consider the evidence for creation can thus only be described as willful. It reminds me of an atheist professor whom I was trying to win to Christ many years ago while I was teaching at a secular university. I gave him two excellent books to read setting forth the strong evidences for the deity of Christ and the divine origin of the Bible and he at first agreed to read them. A few days later, however, he angrily returned the books, saying he had started reading one of them but then changed his mind and refused to read any more. What he said, as I recall, was something like this; "I don't care what the evidence is: I just don't want to believe" and that was that!

The writer of the local editorial, in common with almost all of the multitudes of evolutionist writers on this issue, insists that evolution has been proved by science, whereas creation (and also more currently, intelligent design) is simply religion and thus should not even be mentioned in science classes.

But evolution has not been proved by science. Surely they ought to know this. Science is based on observability and repeatability but there is no recorded example of true macroevolution in all the thousands of years of human history. That in itself is proof that it is unscientific. Furthermore, there is no way to test it. No matter what kind of evidence for creation is presented, evolutionists can devise an evolutionary "just-so-story" to explain it away.

If they resort to the fossil record and the imagined billions of years of pre-history as their proof (as they, in fact, have to do, since macroevolution is not observed in action today) they must use the principle of uniformitarianism as their warrant for doing so, just as Peter prophesied they would do! "The present is the key to the past" has been their watchword. Even there, however, they can find no real evidence of evolution. In all the billions of fossils known to exist, not one example of a real evolutionary transformational series has ever been found. There ought to be multitudes of such series there if they ever really existed.

There is, therefore, no real scientific evidence of either present or past evolution. Furthermore, the universally acknowledged scientific law of increasing entropy seems clearly to indicate that any significant vertical evolution toward greater organized complexity is impossible without certain artificial constraints (which evolutionism cannot demonstrate are available). Willful ignorance again!

Once I had a formal debate with two biologists on the faculty at a state university. I used the entropy law as one of my main arguments, but neither of the evolutionists even mentioned this argument in their rebuttals. In the question period that followed, the professor who was teaching the course in engineering thermodynamics at that university asked them how they would answer the argument, which seemed valid to him. After consulting with each other, they said they did not know how to answer it, since they had both done poorly in physics. But they still insisted evolution was science.

Peter's prophecy also included the evolutionary rationalization for assuming evolution through long ages in the past. "For this they willingly are ignorant of, . . . the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (2 Peter 3:5-6). The Greek word for "overflowed" literally means "cataclysmic." But evolutionists deliberately ignore the Biblical record of the global deluge of Noah's day, as well as the geological evidence of that terrible worldwide cataclysm.

The fact is that virtually every geological formation shows by its fossils and by its very structure that it must have been deposited very rapidly--indeed catastrophically. Although individual formations in a vertical column may be separated from each other by one or more time gaps, there are no worldwide time gaps. That fact can only be explained by a worldwide cataclysm, primarily hydraulic in nature.

Hundreds of anti-creationist articles have been published in recent years, and the Intelligent Design movement is currently being subjected to the same ill treatment. Many of them have been more sarcastic and insulting even than this one mentioned here. The common theme of all of them is that evolution is scientific, while creation and intelligent design are not. The utterly fallacious nature of such a pronouncement is hard to explain by anything other than willful ignorance.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

OPPS !! Golly I bet many had hopes Bible untrue.........sorry

http://creation.com/camels

=============================

B. L., Faroe Islands, 11 February 2014

(1) Camels are mentioned in a sumeric lexicon of tame animals from Ugarit (dated to the ancient Babylonian period 1950-1600 BC

(2) An ancient babylonian text has a food-recipe mentioning camel-milk as an ingredient

(3) a seal-imprint from around 1850 BC depicts two men sitting on an animal with two bulbs on its back. The imprint was announced in 1939 by C.H.Gordon, who categorized the animal as a camel. In 1977 the wellknown seal specialist Dr Edith Porada confirmed the animal to be a camel.

============================== ALSO

Lita Cosner responds

Domesticated camels apparently have different wear on their joints because of their use as pack animals. The earliest ones they found in Israel with this sort of evidence of domestication were dated later than Abraham. However, as the article stated, there are other considerations that the team should have noted, such as the existence of domesticated camels in Arabia and Egypt at that time.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Camel deniers ignore reams of secular research for Bible smear campaign
Posted Feb. 21, 2014, 11:20 a.m.

Secular scholars pounced on an archeological study released last week on the age of domestic camels that they claim proves the Bible is not historically accurate. But biblical scholars say researchers are ignoring historical findings and making assumptions based on incomplete archeological evidence.

The camel researchers say radiocarbon dating shows bones found in an ancient copper mine site are from camels used no earlier than about 966 B.C., a date centuries later than the time of the patriarchs whom the Bible describes as owning domesticated camels. Secular archeologists point to the fact that no bones of domesticated camels have been found in earlier archeological layers as proof the Bible is inaccurate and the presence of camels in biblical stories was inserted by authors writing long after the fact.

“Camels are mentioned as pack animals in the biblical stories of Abraham, Joseph, and Jacob,” American Friends of Tel Aviv University said in a press release. “But archaeologists have shown that camels were not domesticated in the Land of Israel until centuries after the Age of the Patriarchs (2000-1500 B.C.E.). In addition to challenging the Bible's historicity, this anachronism is direct proof that the text was compiled well after the events it describes.”

But Corné J. Bekker, professor of biblical studies and Christian ministry at Regent University, said the finding is a “non-story.” The Bible does not claim widespread use of camels in the area during the time of the patriarchs, Bekker said. It states that Abraham, a visitor to the area, brought camels with him. The Bible mentions the use of camels only for Abraham and those associated with him, such as Jacob, Jacob’s sons, and the Ishmaelites.

Extra-biblical texts give clear evidence to the early domestication of camels north of Israel, possibly explaining why Abraham owned camels. A Sumerian text from the Old Babylonian period (1950-1600 B.C.) mentions camel milk, wrote Biola University’s T.M. Kennedy in a recent paper. Other texts mention camels in a list of domesticated animals during the same time period and offer proof of domestication by describing food rations given to camels.

The absence of bones from domesticated camels in deeper layer excavation sites cannot be used to assume there were no domesticated camels in Israel in earlier eras, Bekker explains.

“Archeology is an imprecise science,” he said. “Archeologists could find camel bones tomorrow that would document their use during the time of the patriarchs.”

The researchers of the carbon dating study are simply ignoring a vast body of evidence that suggests a much earlier date for the domestication of camels in the region, according to the Associates of Biblical Research. Kennedy’s research of Assyrian royal annals indicates that camels were used in the Battle of Qarqar in Western Syria, which took place around 835 B.C. Camels would not have been used in war unless they had been previously trained and had proven reliable long before the battle, Kennedy said.

Evidence of early camel domestication has been found in several areas of the ancient Near East, according to Kennedy’s research. A statuette of a camel carrying two water jars is dated between 1292 and 1190 B.C. Petro glyphs depicting camels indicate humans began using them as pack animals in Egypt no later than the 16th century B.C. Another figurine of a harnessed camel is dated between the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium B.C.

The real story, Bekker said, is questioning why secular researchers would want to extrapolate from such limited information to try to discredit the Bible.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

on the topic of carbon dating

http://creation.com/...ons-and-answers

==============================

see below RE Carbon Dating

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...