Sunday, May 10, 2009

Who is your grand daddy?

UPDATE: Issues Etc has a topic for this here.

Inostrancevia.

That was our grand daddy some 230m+ years ago.
....

It so happen I went to the museum yesterday.


I happened to chance upon the skeleton of Inostrancevia.

There was some printed blurb about this creature... what struck me was this portion in of what our museum says about this mammal-like reptile. Printed at the bottom of the platform where the skeleton is displayed, it spoke about its behaviour and so forth, then we get into this part...



"these mammal like reptiles eventually led to modern mammals including humans".[Italics mine]

So, I wonder what some of you think of this statement.

If I take this seriously, my ancestors used to lay eggs..., and that goes for yours too!


If you find no problem with this statement, then it is either I do not know how to read Gen 2:7, or I completely missed the poetic meaning of what our museum just said.

166 comments:

matthias said...

and Dawkins has the temerity to believe that Genesis is fable. this explanation by the Museum shows the belief of time+chance=progress??. FrancisSchaeffer ennunciated this a lot better than i

Past Elder said...

Mammals actually derive from cynodonts, rather than theriodonts like the Inostrancevia, though both are of the therapsid order.

"led" implies an intentionality which evolution does not address.

So what this one of "some of you" thinks is that the statement could use a little revision to be less of a popularisation impying things scinece does not imply, regardless again of the theology of some scientists.

Or they were all made on the "sixth day".

L P said...

PE.

If "led" is as you say, someone is misleading us.

popularisation?


Evolutionary scientists by enlarge are teaching we came from reptiles, dinosaurs. Our Melbourne Museum curators and whoever are responsible are giving us that teaching in no uncertain terms. What I gave here is just one example, but I can give some more actual quotes.

So are you "implying" that they need some correction, that they do not really understand evolution (unlike you)?



Either you are spinning us, or they are being up front of what evolutionary science implies.

But hey, what is the worry, you teach, believe and confess, by your comments in the past that, for example, Gen 2:7 is NOT HOW we were created by God but THAT we were created by Him?

So that should be fine isn't it, just believe with your eyes wide open, that God created, don't bother about how.

Made on the "sixth day"? Actually they were made earlier, because man came last.

God made man a little lower than the angels, so when it comes to "being", according to the Bible, he is of a different order ontologically.

And as to what you say "science[sic] does not imply", I wonder how you can say that, unless you are distinguishing between science and scientist.

So let us just put it this way, you believe science does not teach that we came from dinosaurs, correct?

So would you agree that it is not science but the scientists who are teaching us we that came from apes?

Would you agree with that sophistic distinction?

In short, science really could not and does not teach anything really, for how can it do those?

It is the scientists that do.

LPC

L P said...

Matthias,

Understood.

Yet some accommodation oriented Christians treat Genesis 1-3 as fable too, because God was not really speaking of HOW, God was speaking of THAT. You are to close your eyes to what those words say in Gen 1-3, you must disregard them - just believe that He created everything. Just believe.OK?

And when you do, you will be happy as a kangaroo.


I don't know about some people but Gen 2:7 seems pretty plain to me, that God was speaking of HOW he created man, in fact it was a joint engineering project within the Godhead.

But I must be arrogant for suggesting I can even understand this verse, that plainly, he took dust from the ground and formed man from it, and breathed on him the breath of life.

LPC

LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

How do scientists KNOW in the first place?

They don't. Bald assertion is taken as gospel truth.

Augustinian Successor said...

He who doesn't want to be a "fool" for Christ must therefore be judged as a FOOL.

For you too JK, read this article:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days

Augustinian Successor said...

At the end of the day, it is a question of belief.

You trust your senses, we trust the Word of God.

Sense experience is limited and particular, so that it is never exhaustive.

The Word reflects God's omniscience and is universal, so that it is always true.

Our faith is in divine revelation; not fallible science.

Augustinian Successor said...

Evolution is make-belief. This is reflected in the "confession" of its proponents, including the ones here.

This is why it is always making invalid inferences, and changing its opinions.

Shifting sands.

You would rather build your house on sand rather than the solid rock of the Word.

A very unwise decision.

Augustinian Successor said...

On distant starlights ...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove

Augustinian Successor said...

So Adam and Eve were not created by God but evolved, which means Cain and Abel cannot be taken literally too, and so on and so forth. The Bible loses it UNITY, not to mention coherece then.

Well, it's not so much Moses they are insulting ...

joel in ga said...

The museum's bald assertion illustrates at least this Biblical truth: "If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive" (John 5:43).

Adrian said...

The poetic meaning of the Museum's statement is plain. "We are all creatures of time and chance, even if by random we believe ourselves to be studying the randomness of the past." Or "The center cannot hold. . ."
Adrian

L P said...

Joel/Adrian,

My field is not in physics nor biology etc. My field is in applied logic. I have written some papers and have been published.

One of my recent ones had 3 major bodies reject it. It was rejected because it was examining an old idea that never got a hearing and even promoted its possibilities. Last year my prof and I sent it to another community, they passed it and not only did they pass it, but they gave it an award. It so happened this other body is open to unorthodox scientific idea and they understood our work.

What am I saying?

I am saying that scientists are not bias-less objective individuals, they are governed by sin as we are. If you challenge the mainstream current idea you will ruin your academic career. This is the default culture operating. They are also affected by band wagon.
They know this is true but no one dares to admit it.

John 12:43
For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.


LPC

L P said...

BTW, as an idea,just try suggesting the speed of light called c may not have been constant at t-n, where n is a very large number.

No one has proven that the speed of light has always been constant, they assume it is eternally constant which is begging the question.

Science is empirical, it observes what is there, and what is there if the Bible is taken as historical truth, has been affected by the fall.

So ergo, you cannot interpolate what is present to what it was like in the past.

Even philosophy (of science) will tell you that.

LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

This is evolution? The souls of animals EVOLVED into HUMAN souls? Some animals evolved, whilst others did not? I mean how ridiculous can it get?

Xan said...

AS, congratulations! You can knock down a straw man in no time flat!

Every one of you young-earth dogmatists is a "compromiser" by your own standards. It's just a matter of degree.

By your standards, you must believe in:

A) Geocentrism

Joshua 10:13 - And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

Psalm 19:4-6 - Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

1 Chronicles 16:30 - Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

B) Flat earth

Daniel 4:11 - The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

Matthew 4:8 - Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.

Deuteronomy 28:64 - And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other.

Ezekiel 7:2 - ...the end is come upon the four corners of the land.

C) The sky is solid, and rain is when God opens a window

Job 37:18 - Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

Genesis 8:2 - ...and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.

D) Stars are tiny points of light not far away

Matthew 24:29 - ...and the stars shall fall from heaven...

E) The continents are sitting on top of water

Exodus 20:4 - ...or that is in the water under the earth.

It's clear that the biblical writers believed this was how the physical universe was organized. It's also clear that these details are simply not important to one's relationship with God.


So take the beam out of your own eye. Why do you not believe these crazy things? And remember, what's important is the text itself, and what the writers themselves believed, not anything that feeble, fallible science has taught us in the 2000+ years since.

You're going to have some fancy explanation, of the very kind that you decry when interpreting the first chapters of Genesis. And I'm not going to be impressed.

Augustinian Successor said...

"Joshua 10:13 - And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed."

How is that geo-centrism, Xan? The Sun stood STILL. It was a miraculous EVENT. "Night and day" in Genesis implies a rotating earth.

Augustinian Successor said...

"Ecclesiastes 1:5 - The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises."

How is this geo-centrism, Xan? The Sun rotates too, you know. Just like comets, they do cut across the orbits of the planets.

Augustinian Successor said...

"Psalm 19:4-6 - Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof."

How is this geo-centrism?

L P said...

Xan,

Also, there is fallacy in what you just threw into the mix.

YOu have mixed the genres as one pot. Poetry is not to be read similar to narrative. Properly distinguishing and the art of making distinctions is part of theology. Psalms are not to be read like Narratives.

What we are asserting is in Gen 1-3, we are examining a narrative. As for me, I assert that it is not poetry, but a narrative structured in a form of an argument.

Matthias' bringing Schaeffer into the discussion is helpful.

Francis Schaeffer for example asserts that in the Hebrew concept of truth, truth is historical.

This is absolutely correct because looking at the Gospels (say Luke's or Matthew's), we see that for them, truth is grounded in history.

Further, this what faith is all about.

If Abraham looked at himself empirically, there was no way a 99 year old woman would give birth, that was why they all laughed at the suggestion of God.

Faith believes what God's word says even though the senses say otherwise. The only evidence for why faith should hold on to something is the simple testimony of God.

No wonder faith is so precious to God, without it, no one will please him.

To be a Christian is - whether we like it or not, to be peculiar and naturally absurd.

That is the nature of the Christian faith, it is looking odd and strange to the world. Noah was like that, Abraham was like that.

LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

"1 Chronicles 16:30 - Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

If you're right, then it proves TOO much. God is not the sovereign Creator that He is. Earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, etc. are beyond His control.

So, how is this geo-centrism?

Augustinian Successor said...

"Daniel 4:11 - The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth."

How does this prove the world to be flat? It was a vision, wasn't it?

Augustinian Successor said...

Careful, Xan. You're using God's Word to prove its "foolishness" in the eyes of science.

Augustinian Successor said...

"Matthew 4:8 - Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."

Careful here.

How does this prove flat-earth concept? Does all here means all without exception? You read the Bible and you know emphatically not.

But when you read science, the ALL means precisely ALL. And that is the "flat-earth" theory in action.

Augustinian Successor said...

"Deuteronomy 28:64 - And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other.

Ezekiel 7:2 - ...the end is come upon the four corners of the land."

How do these verses prove the flat-earth concept? Don't people use that colloquial expression in their speaking and writing too? Even atheists and evolutionists??

Xan said...

AS, if you don't see how every one of those is talking about geocentrism, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Lito, I cited 12 references (and could have cited many more). One (1) was from the Psalms.

I certainly agree with you that making proper distinctions among literary genres is part of theology. I've argued for that throughout this whole thing. I simply disagree with the distinctions that you are making.

And you're making your particular distinctions into cornerstones for the entire faith. And again, it's just goofy.

What if I could find somebody who enjoyed being laughed at even more than you do? Somebody who would insist that only degenerates believe that the sky isn't a big slab of marble? Somebody who would insist that all the weathermen, pilots, astronauts, etc only have jobs because of sin? Would that person be a better Christian than you? Why or why not?

Augustinian Successor said...

"Job 37:18 - Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

Genesis 8:2 - ...and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained."

So, isn't God the Creator of heaven and earth??? Are you denying the power of His Word???

Xan said...

I must have struck a nerve... I think AS has broken his own record for most useless blather per minute.

Augustinian Successor said...

"D) Stars are tiny points of light not far away

Matthew 24:29 - ...and the stars shall fall from heaven..."

And why not, isn't God sovereign? Who are you to tell God what He can or cannot do???

Xan said...

AS, no, what I'm pointing out is that it's possible to hyper-literalize any of these statements, and make them out to be saying more than what they really are. Which is what you do with the beginning of Genesis.

Augustinian Successor said...

"E) The continents are sitting on top of water

Exodus 20:4 - ...or that is in the water under the earth."

Xan, take the speck and log out of your own eye. Don't you know that the continents are in fact sitting on water. How do you explain tectonic shifts in the first place?

Augustinian Successor said...

Xan,

You have failed to prove the falsity of the Bible. Why you're trying so hard? That's because of your unbelief.

May God the Holy Spirit open yours eyes to see the truth.

Xan said...

So you do believe the continents are sitting on water? Well you've just proven you haven't a clue. Really. How would that even work?

Augustinian Successor said...

"AS, no, what I'm pointing out is that it's possible to hyper-literalize any of these statements, and make them out to be saying more than what they really are."

Yes, you are hyper-literalising them. Which is why you are wrong that the Bible teaches geo-centrism.

Augustinian Successor said...

Just ask any geologist and they'll you!

Augustinian Successor said...

So, who's the one who is ignorant of science?

Xan said...

I can't keep this up anymore, I have too much to do. But to answer your last question, AS, you may want to look in the mirror (after looking at this link). I think you'll find that it's water that sits on rock, not the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Active_Margin.svg

Augustinian Successor said...

Look up for GROUND WATER. Then check geysers, inter alia.

Augustinian Successor said...

http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritter/images/hydrosphere/hydrocyc_small.jpg

Check this out, Xan. You forgot the UNDERLYING water of the UNDERLYING layers. You really make me chuckle!

Past Elder said...

Neither the lithosphere nor the asthenosphere are water.

Augustinian Successor said...

http://books.google.com.my/books?id=me8NAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=lithosphere+ground+water&source=bl&ots=q_bZtgr8Pv&sig=WH9euawvdPGXLD19aI11_o1fLQY&hl=en&ei=r7AHSpXdD9KGkQX87sXWBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2

Water circulation IN the lithosphere.

Augustinian Successor said...

So, the biblical account of the FLOOD is accurate.

Here's an article on 'fountains of the great deep':

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf

L P said...

Xan,

What if I could find somebody who enjoyed being laughed at even more than you do? Somebody who would insist that only degenerates believe that the sky isn't a big slab of marble? Somebody who would insist that all the weathermen, pilots, astronauts, etc only have jobs because of sin? Would that person be a better Christian than you? Why or why not?Who is this person, did I make such a claim?

This is such a block of straw man argument, it is not good form.


This is not about me, nor about that guy who believes that the sky is a big slab of marble.

I am not talking about a better Christian than me or I being better.

What I am saying is that the nature of Christian faith is that of the faith of Abraham, he believes the testimony of God's word to him, regardless of what the senses declare.


Again, neither you nor P.E. could offer any arguments why my understanding of Ex 20:11 is wrong. Let us not go anywhere, let us just stick to this one, when you guys have hurdled this, we can move on.

I certainly agree with you that making proper distinctions among literary genres is part of theology. I've argued for that throughout this whole thing.The problem is that you did not make such distinctions when you lumped together and mixed the verses. So you are not following your own dictum.

I won't go any further, I will just stick with the hardest science of all - physics, it is a hit or miss affair. The theory of the very big does not work with the very small and vice versa. Light behaves like a particle if you assumed it to be so, it also behaves like a wave if you assumed it to be so. Gravity breaks any cosmology model.

What do these things say? Physics the most precise of all of them, does not have a clue. If this is true for physics, the more it is true for biology who is at a loss at the moment as there is no unifying mathematical model for the processes it is examining.

That alone should give food for scepticism about the limits of what science can and cannot do. It deserves a grain of salt whenever it makes pronouncements.

A bit of philosophy of science will help this conversation.

We won't go anywhere unless you can admit that science has problems and has flaws. When you have recognized that, this conversation will be a lot fruitful.



LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

Xan,

What is light anyway? Is it a particle? A wavelength? A wavicle?

matthias said...

Job or is it jeremiah shows one thing xanny me old mate "
"He Who sits on the circle of the earth,laughs at the inhabitants thereof" flat earth ?! Bah humbug.
Nice to see you over here PE

Augustinian Successor said...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070227-ocean-asia.html

"Huge Underground "Ocean" Found Beneath Asia"

From the pro-evolution National Geographic ...

Xan said...

Lito,

Of course our knowledge of the physical universe is incomplete. But pointing out flaws is not evidence for a 6000 year-old universe.

If the nature of the Christian faith is simply believing God's word to you, then why do you not believe in geocentrism, a flat earth, solid skies, continents floating on water, etc?

In the argument about Ex 20:11, you've simply asserted that it requires 144-hour Creation. Well here's my counterargument: no it doesn't.


AS, I'm stunned that we're having this argument. You believe that the existence of GROUNDWATER means that continents are floating on it? You mean the water that collects in crevices in rock? The water that, in that "Asian ocean" article you linked to, accounts for .1% of the mass down there?

I've got news for you: the earth's crust is rock. Some of it's got water on it, and some doesn't. Have you heard of the ocean floor? Does that ring any bells?

And not only that, you said that groundwater is the enabler of continental drift!

But really, the best part is that you're so sure of your theology that you fancy yourself an expert in every other field, including this one, and then proceed to make a fool of yourself, and in the process expose your cause as futile.

L P said...

Xan,

If the nature of the Christian faith is simply believing God's word to you, then why do you not believe in geocentrism, a flat earth, solid skies, continents floating on water, etc,I have not examined the evidence for geocentrism so I have not yet formed an opinion on this. However, I have examined the evidence for a 24 hour day creation and my conclusion is that it is so on the basis of God's word and on the basis of the Torah. This is the focus of this discussion.

We must avoid the kind of hoop jumps that cultists make. Cults when confronted by scripture, do not deal with the scripture instead they jump around making side remarks on issues not pertinent to the scripture on the floor.

In the argument about Ex 20:11, you've simply asserted that it requires 144-hour Creation. Well here's my counterargument: no it doesn't.
This is not a counter argument, this is hand waving. To argue against my position, you must show that the text does not say what I thought it says and why! The why is the most important bit.

Lastly to recognize the flaws of science and yet to trust it to speak on matters that are contrary to the text of Scripture is to put faith in a flawed or fallible system of knowledge. That is the point I am making.

If physics does not have a clue as to what light is and yet it uses it to judge the age of the earth, why should it be trusted as to what it says about cosmology? Also as I pointed out it assumes that light speed is constant. But that discovery is in our present condition after the fall. Adam's sin affected the universe therefore whatever we observe now, we can not use to interpolate what it is back then before the fall.


LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

Xan,

The existence of groundwater means that land, and by extension, the continent is floating on water. Groundwater is water, not ground.

So, the Bible is right on that. The article confirms precisely that. It is your inability to distinguish between the core, mantle and crust.

Only core could be said to be 'solid.' Even then it is pure conjecture. But it's well known that both the crust and mantle contain water and other forms of liquid.

Tectonic shifts can only happen because of the underlying water. You seemed to think that continents are immovable. They're not.

On the National Geographic article, Here's what the it says ...

"The water is locked in moisture-containing rocks 400 to 800 miles (700 to 1,400 kilometers) beneath the surface.

The wet zone, which runs from Indonesia to the northern tip of Russia, showed up as an area of relatively weak rock, causing the seismic waves to lose strength much more rapidly than elsewhere (see map of Asia.)

...

The water got there by the process of plate tectonics, in which sections of the Earth's crust shift. This process caused the ocean bottom to be pulled beneath continental plates all around the Pacific Rim."

Augustinian Successor said...

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070228_beijing_anomoly.html

Here's another article on the subject.

Note what they say ... the presence of a large body of water in the MANTLE.

The mantle represents the second basic layer of the Earth, between crust and the core. That's saying something.

Augustinian Successor said...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060720103605.htm

On ocean floor, here's an article on the detection of methane, a type of water ice from the ocean floor.

Xan said...

This is getting really stupid. Maybe somebody else can jump in here and give AS an elementary school geology lesson.

"The researchers estimate that up to 0.1 percent of the rock sinking down into the Earth’s mantle in that part of the world is water"

That's called rock. And plate tectonics have not one thing to do with water. Nothing. Zero.

L P said...

Xan,

AS is a lawyer, and I am a maths/philo guy.

We do need education.

But there is no point in education if we can not read properly what the text says such as ignoring the argument exhibited in the text.

The National Geographic adds to your 0.1%, this

Given the region's size, however, that's enough to add up to a vast amount of water.The LifeScience side bar has this to say
Scientists probing the Earth's interior have found a large reservoir of water equal to the volume of the Arctic Ocean beneath eastern Asia.These are scientists making these statements. Now, unless they are purposely being sensational, in which case again a flaw on their part which I have pointed out or you are doing selective reading and interpretation of what they are saying. I suggest the latter is happening that you are not aware of as exemplified in your reading of Gen 1-3 and Ex 20:11.

As I suggest, what we have on the floor will be a lot more educational if PE and yourself, do a bit more reading on Philosophy of Science.

BTW, I have not read Nietsche but he wasn't one of those suggested for reading when I was doing Philo of Science at uni i.e., probably because he had nothing to say on the subject.


LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

Xan,

I am getting the impression that it is you who is a fundie, at least concerning science. The National Geographic article refutes your claim that there is no water underneath continents. Can you see that?

Continents are 'fixed' or immovable.' They 'float' on something, and this something is water plus some other elements.

Aren't you aware of geysers and volcanoes? Do you know that volcanoes emit water too?

Xan, you just can't prove the Bible wrong. But the Bible can prove science to be wrong, if it wants to. All the time.

Xan said...

I'm being trolled here, right? You can't possibly buy this.

You think that because there exists an area where a continent has .1% water embedded in it, that means that continents are floating on water, and that it's responsible for continental drift?

About .15% of the human body is the element sodium. According to you, then, when I'm lying in bed, I'm "floating" on sodium, and it's responsible for my tossing and turning.

Please, AS, really, go ask a geologist whether water relates to continental drift in any way. I'd love to find an article refuting the idea, but that's like Googling for the effect of the Herschel Walker trade on the moon's orbit.

Augustinian Successor said...

Xan,

I have already the answer to you. But you're not listening. Continents FLOAT; they're not plugged in or rooted like trees are. So, you're confusing trees with land mass.

You failed to mention 0.1 percent of what? Read the title of the article and this again ...

"The water is locked in moisture-containing rocks 400 to 800 miles (700 to 1,400 kilometers) beneath the surface.

The wet zone, which runs from Indonesia to the northern tip of Russia, showed up as an area of relatively weak rock, causing the seismic waves to lose strength much more rapidly than elsewhere (see map of Asia.)

...

The water got there by the process of plate tectonics, in which sections of the Earth's crust shift. This process caused the ocean bottom to be pulled beneath continental plates all around the Pacific Rim."

Augustinian Successor said...

Xan,

I have already the answer to you. But you're not listening. Continents FLOAT; they're not plugged in or rooted like trees are. So, you're confusing trees with land mass.

You failed to mention 0.1 percent of what? Read the title of the article and this again ...

"The water is locked in moisture-containing rocks 400 to 800 miles (700 to 1,400 kilometers) beneath the surface.

The wet zone, which runs from Indonesia to the northern tip of Russia, showed up as an area of relatively weak rock, causing the seismic waves to lose strength much more rapidly than elsewhere (see map of Asia.)

...

The water got there by the process of plate tectonics, in which sections of the Earth's crust shift. This process caused the ocean bottom to be pulled beneath continental plates all around the Pacific Rim."

Augustinian Successor said...

So, you're wrong that there is NO water underneath continents. It's that clear. The Bible can never be wrong.

Augustinian Successor said...

This is getting better and better, I'm really enjoying this.

Here's an another article from National Geographic:

"Inner Earth May Hold More Water Than the Seas"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0307_0307_waterworld.html

Augustinian Successor said...

Xan,

You seemed to be denying the reliability of the Bible as a whole. It's no wonder that the LCMS pastor refused your membership. I'm certainly glad he did. He had his reasons. Now I understand why ...

Augustinian Successor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Augustinian Successor said...

http://s8int.com/noahsark6.html

Another article. Not necessarily biblical because of the old earth theory but illuminating nonetheless.

Augustinian Successor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Xan said...

You have an unusual method of reading, AS. You may see the words, but you only understand what you believe to be already there.

You seem to be betting the believability of the Bible on trace amounts of water that can be trapped inside rock.

Your new article is talking about water as making up .19% of the mass of rock. Calling that "water and some other minerals" is like saying I'm made of sodium and a few other things, or that the city of New York is composed of the hot dog stand on 118th street and a few other places.

And nice job on attempting to shift the debate from your ridiculous idea that continents float on water to an argument on whether or not there is any trace of water in the mantle. Completely different question. Which do you believe the Bible describes? Tiny amounts of water embedded into rock, or continents floating on water?

You are the one who denies the reliability of the Bible, by your own standards. You still haven't addressed geocentrism, flat earth, solid skies, tiny and close stars, etc. You focused on continents floating on water, which I can't believe I'm having such trouble curing you of, but you haven't addressed the main issue. Why don't you believe all those other things? Or do you?

Augustinian Successor said...

Xan,

It is clear to me as it is to you, that it is you who have failed to refute the Bible on science. The Bible does not support geo-centrism. But all you do as Kuya Lito says is engaged in hand-waving, bald-assertion, spin and so on.

That water exists deep in the inner earth is something that you refuse to accept. Why? Because it destroys your spin that there si no water underneath the continents.

Indeed, the more you deny, the better it gets for it just goes on to show how wrong you are. And you know it.

Augustinian Successor said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading

How continents are formed.

One super-continent formed by sea-floor spreading. The new ocean separates the two continents. This is what is meant by tectonic shifts.

Augustinian Successor said...

So, continents do sit on water. Admit it, your views are just crankpot and miscreant science.

You just can't refute the Bible, can you?

Xan said...

The Bible does not support geo-centrism.You're right! It doesn't support 144-hour Creation. Your only consistent options are that it supports both, or neither. Which is it?

What is it exactly about your articles that I've refused to accept? All I've done is told you what it is they're saying, because you're obviously incapable of comprehending them yourself.

Thanks for the helpful Wikipedia link. You may have noticed while reading it (but you probably didn't) that water is not involved in that process! Did you think that link would support you?

Past Elder said...

No-one said there is NO water there.

No-one said science is truth, or infallible.

And no-one said the reading of Exodus 20:11 is wrong.

Speaking of reading a text.

What was said was, the "6 day" reading in Genesis is not that which must be so right off the bat or the rest of the Bible falls apart, and has never been held to be so in Judaism.

BTW, ground water is less than 1% of the water in the world. The water in the Great Artesian Basin is about a million years old on average, the oldest water being to the west. Funny to hear what is "always false" cited in defence of what is "always true".

Augustinian Successor said...

http://records.viu.ca/~earles/subduction-water-oct01.htm

No water involved. Read this: The critical importance of water to plate tectonics

Thanks for the chuckle, bud!

Augustinian Successor said...

No water there. Since when does PE vehemently disagrees with scientists? Science says that there is water inside the lithosphere (i.e. upper crust), aethenosphere (i.e. lower crust), mantle and possible the core too.

Hand-waving in the typical fashion of PE.

Augustinian Successor said...

So, Xan and PE, partners-in-crime, you who claim to be scientific have been exposed to be UNscientific. How AMUSING. What a SPECTACLE.

To see the both of you refusing to deal with FACTS.

Well, both of you are sore losers because both of you just cannot admit losing. Losing the war against the Bible, that is.

At the end of the day, both you have had some bruising from us, but it's the Holy Spirit that the both of you have gotta reckon.

Never say we did not warn the both of you.

As Bro. Matthias has said, nice to see you here PE ...

(Laughs out loud!)

Xan said...

AS, if I handed you an object which weighed 100 pounds, and 3 ounces out of that consisted of water molecules trapped in the rock (that's the ratio we're talking about here), would you call what I had handed you "rock" or "water"?

If I constructed a floor out of this material, which we could call, say, "ground", and then you walked on it, would you claim to have walked on water? Or would you admit that you were walking on rock?

Augustinian Successor said...

http://www.google.com.my/search?hl=en&q=subterranean+water+continents&meta=

Xan, haven't you heard of subterranean water?

And Xan you're just getting comical by the moment. WALKING on water is an impossibility. FLOATING on water is a possibility. So, your analogy falls FLAT to the ground (no pun intended. Then again, why not)

LOL

L P said...

Xan,

Why don't you believe all those other things? Or do you?This is slippery slope argument is applicable to our discussion of the Supper, you ought not to believe it is the body and blood of the Lord, rather it is just mere symbolic if you be consistent with your hermeneutic.

No rebuttals forth coming on my Ex 20:11 until the cows come home.

My friend has a water bed, so when he sleeps on it, we are not allowed to say he is sleeping on water, no? So if the bed happens to be so hard it does not wobble, still we are not allowed to say he is sleeping on water, but he is sleeping on a hard surface.

Why not face your inner earth? Resistance is futile.


LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

Dear Kuya Lito,

I sense that the "twins" are getting desperate! As you say, resistance is futile!

L P said...

PE,

When I was in uni getting a degree in religious studies, my early judaism subject came out loud and clear on the belief of the Jews concerning the Torah.

The Jews believed that God created man for the Law - including the Sabbath. The Torah is everything - Moses is their Prophet in case you missed that bit. Further they believe that the Torah came first before man.

Therefore all of my studies jibe with what Jesus said when he rebuked the Jews, God made the Sabbath for man not man for the sabbath i.e., not man for the Law. The rebuke of Jesus to the Jews will not make sense under your spectacles.

And mind you my professor is not a Christian but a Scottish agnostic.

So I do not know what form of orthodox judaism you got involved in but at any rate, some of them are into Kabala too so those ones would not take the 6 day period literal but numerical i.e., it stands for something other what it normally signifies.

LPC

Past Elder said...

Again, no-one here said there is no water in the lithosphere. What that means is, no-one here said there is no water in the lithosphere. Good Lord. Have you ever understood a text to say other than what you already have determined it says?

Xan said...

So you persist in your claim that continents are "floating on water".

I'm really not sure what else to say; you're obviously not rational about this.

I'll make it as simple as I can: A rock which weighs 100 pounds, and has 3 ounces of water embedded in its structure, is a rock. It is not water.

Nothing can "float" on such an object.


Lito, if that's a slippery slope, then why don't you believe in a solid sky, a flat earth, tiny stars, etc?

Augustinian Successor said...

Good heavens, PE, twisting your words again, eh?

You said NO water there, in clear contradiction of science.

Augustinian Successor said...

Xan,

Rocks aren't just the only stuff you find. Besides that, there is water too. That is how subduction can occur. As a lubricant.

This is why lava is 'MOLTEN.' This is why you have geysers. BTW, this is why magma which comes out as lava IS molten rock.

Xan said...

Ah, okay. We've reached a teaching moment. I've suspected this based on your previous posts, AS, but now you've made it clear.

You believe that liquid == water. You believe that anything that is liquid is so because it contains water.

Not so. You can cool nitrogen so that it becomes a liquid. (You may have heard of it.) You can also head rock so that it becomes a liquid. Water has zero to do with either case.

Geysers are groundwater under pressure. Again, nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Xan said...

"head" -> "heat"

Past Elder said...

What I said was: Neither the lithosphere nor the asthenosphere are water. This is not an equivalent statement to: there is no water in either the lithosphere or the asthenosphere. Good God.

The form of Orthodox Judaism I "got into" was Orthodox Judaism. Kabbalah is not normative in Orthodox Judaism. I believe you miss Jesus' reference entirely. The Sabbath was always made for Man, it is God's gift to Man as a taste in time of rest in eternity. The Law is not seen by Jews as some curse laid on them while the rest of us get off easy. A religious Jew prays daily on dressing in gratitude to have been given the Law, the reading of which over the year in the synagogue concludes with a Feast of Rejoicing in the Law.

In re Exodus 20:11 since no-one is saying you are wrong, there will be no rebuttal, except to point out that the part of your argument which is not from the text but from a supposed unity of understanding prior to Darwin et al is just not so.

Augustinian Successor said...

Good heavens, PE, so now you're agreeing that there is water in the lithosphere? Good on you. Because this disproves both you and Xan's that there is no water beneath the continents.

Here a repeat article on the subject:

http://www.physorg.com/news90171847.html

Augustinian Successor said...

"Geysers are groundwater under pressure."

So, your "argument" against no water underneath continents fall flat to the ground. You have just argued against your own earlier assertion.

Augustinian Successor said...

There's vast amount of water underneath continents. This proves the Bible's right, and your opposing position wrong.

Xan said...

My argument only falls flat if you define "under the continent" to mean "under the topsoil". Which is a strange definition, but since it would support your argument, I'm not surprised to see you making it.

Since you've just failed the 3rd grade here, you may want to go back and review rather than continuing to embarrass yourself.

Augustinian Successor said...

On reflection, PE must have confused the crust with the underlying water. The crust precisely includes the lithosphere and by extension the continental shelf!

All the while, I was referring to the mantle, not the crust. And the mantle is full of water, as the articles have shown.

Good heavens ... you're even good at twisting other peoples' words.

Augustinian Successor said...

Xan,

You don't even come close in your argument here. So, not no prize, but I'll give you a straight F(!)

;-)

Xan said...

The mantle is full of rock. It is rock. If .19% is the cutoff for "full of", what do you call with the other 99.81%?

Augustinian Successor said...

Face it, we're sitting on water, groundwater and in turn there a lot more water in the mantle, and who knows even in the core of the earth.

This accounts for the 'fountains of the deep,' tectonic shifts, tsunamis, volcanoes, geysers, etc. etc.

Augustinian Successor said...

Read the articles again. The mantle is full of WATER. I trust the articles are intelligble enough for you to understand ...

Augustinian Successor said...

PE, Seems like you have learnt nothing from Orthodox Judaism. The research by Paul Griffith-James has cearly refuted your misconception regarding the Orthodox Jewish understanding of the days of creation.

Xan said...

You read the articles again! The one about the "Arctic Ocean" described up to .1% water. Can you explain how .1% is "full of"?

If your drink were 99.9% water and .1% orange juice, would you say it was full of orange juice? Why or why not?

Augustinian Successor said...

"A seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis has made the first 3-D model of seismic wave damping — diminishing — deep in the Earth's mantle and has revealed the existence of an underground water reservoir at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean. It is the first evidence for water existing in the Earth's deep mantle."

From the latest article I posted ...

Xan said...

Well, your reading comprehension problems are well-documented.

I think from this thread it's clear that YEC is for people who can't pass elementary school science, and non-YEC is for people who can.

Can't we all get along?

Xan said...

Look more carefully:

"If you combine the volume of this anomaly with the fact that the rock can hold up to about 0.1 percent of water, that works out to be about an Arctic Ocean's worth of water."

Yes, there's water down there, as much as the Arctic Ocean. But it isn't an ocean inside the earth. It's that equivalent amount of water embedded in 1,000 Arctic Oceans worth of rock.

L P said...

PE.

I do not think I missed Jesus, but rather you missed my point.

When you say
The Law is not seen by Jews as some curse laid on them while the rest of us get off easy. A religious Jew prays daily on dressing in gratitude to have been given the Law, the reading of which over the year in the synagogue concludes with a Feast of Rejoicing in the Law.
As I said, when I was doing this, it was made clear that Jews by enlarge believe that God made Man for the Law so he can serve the Torah.

Repeat--- so man can serve the Torah.

It is a bit arrogant to suggest that my my Scottish Agnostic professor is so misinformed. She has no liking for Jesus and has no need to support his rebuke for the Jews in thinking that way - the Torah was made first so that man may serve it. At least she calls the shots where she finds it.



And BTW...

To Xan,

She believes that there are NO prophecies really in the Bible, these are all backward projection through the hagiographa, i.e. making it appear that it was prophecy when in fact all things have already happened when it was written.
-----

PE/Xan

Again let me help you guys to rebut my Ex 20:11.... Thus PE you agree that my interpretation is correct. Or is plausible, now demonstrate that it is NOT THE ONLY plausible argument or explanation of the Sabbath rule.

If you cannot demonstrate another plausible argument or advance one, then you are locked in a corner -
you are in a check mate situation, and must agree that the day in Gen 1-3 has no other way of being read except my 24.

Pr Will was gentleman enough to accept my argument as convincing.

Now between you, me or him, since he is a pastor, he has more exercises in exegesis than both of us. I think it is wise to follow the lead of a man who is more accustomed to doing exegesis than we two.

Calling the shots where one finds them is a Luther trait.


LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

So Xan, what does this tell you?

THERE IS WATER UNDERNEATH THE CONTINENTS = You are wrong.

Augustinian Successor said...

No Xan, we can't get along because you choose to demean the Bible. You are on the opposite side. You choose foolishness overagainst wisdom. That's why.

Augustinian Successor said...

Xan, There is WATER = WATER UNDERNEATH the continents. Not just sediments, minerals and other elements.

This EXPLAINS the flow of these materials in the first place, their molten state, the tectonic shifts, etc. etc.

NO water, no rheology in the inner earth.

Augustinian Successor said...

"E) The continents are sitting on top of water

Exodus 20:4 - ...or that is in the water under the earth."

Replay from the past post.

So, there is NO water under the earth???

Xan, you ARE a JOKER!

I mean, you REALLY are!

You know why, I bet nearly everyone on this blog can see that. Nearly, because I know PE shares your delusions.

Augustinian Successor said...

And everyone can see that PE talks incoherently. It seems that he's not even trying to make a point, but just babble ...

Good heavens ...

L P said...

Xan,

Let me put some sanity here.


Just in case you do not get the logic of AS...for the record...

It was you who brought up Ex 20:4 to the intent that AS should believe that text and to insinuate it to be a preposterous belief.

He affirmed he believed that text and gave some scientific articles.

Here is what you said...
Yes, there's water down there So which is it, you seem to agree now that there is water down there, and yet before that you implied by the use of Ex 20:4 that such a belief is outrageous!

You are engaging in sophistry as much as PE is.

AS called it a joke, I call it hypocritical.

Stay away from such reasoning or you will convince yourself of what you want to deny and make blunder of rejecting the evidence.

Just like PE you are in a check mate situation, the honorable thing to do is to resign your game. Admit that on this occasion the 24 argument based on Ex 20:11 is air tight and to put some pun - holds "plenty of water".

The reason you guys are hitting a brick wall is not because there is anything clever about us...

It is because you are kicking against the Word of God, the text was written by him.

As St Paul said you can only side by the truth. Truth knows how to defend itself, it does not need anyone's help, by its very definition, it will win in the end.


LPC

Past Elder said...

No, Judaism does not teach that Man was made for the Law, nor that the Law was made for Man. The Law of Moses is a covenant between God and, not Man, but Israel, who was called out from Man to receive it from which it would be a light unto the Gentiles. The only part of the Law which applies to Man is that given in Genesis 9 where the obligations incumbent upon all Man, traditionally numbered as seven, are given to Noah after the Flood. These obligations remain, were retained by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem, listing them exactly, and now, the Law being fulfilled in Jesus the glory of Israel and the light unto the Gentiles, are all that applies to Jew and Gentile alike. The Law remains, not as a covenant now but as a curb, a mirror, and a guide.

Jesus was making a point about a particular manner of observing the Sabbath being held to be essential in honouring the fact of the Sabbath when it is not -- much like the 24 hour understanding being held as an essential understanding of manner without which the fact of Creation and everything else in the Bible falls apart, when it does not.

Nor has Judaism ever held that it did. It's kind of like the water, which AS in his typical manner insists either one says it exists as he says it exists or one says it does not exist at all.

I suppose it would be to no avail to point out that the crust does not include the lithosphere, but the lithosphere includes the crust along with the topmost part of the mantle, or that motion of techtonic plates is not the same as continental drift, or that oceanic crust and continental crust are not the same, any more than to point out that no-one here has said there is NO water there.

As with the afternoon's visit to the yeshiva, rather you find what you already believe to be there and like the Pharisees insist on that manner being essential to the fact therefore finding those who differ on the manner also differing on the fact, understanding not one word.

Xan said...

I may be guilty of snipping out too small of a quote initially. Here:

Exodus 20:4 - Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is ... in the water under the earth.

You're talking about a single molecule of H2O trapped within 1000 molecules of rock structure. That isn't any quantity of water. You're not going to find "things" in it. Are you saying that molecules trapped in crystalline structure is what is meant by "fountains of the deep"?


"This EXPLAINS the flow of these materials in the first place, their molten state..."

AS, is it possible for something to be liquid without containing water? I think I saw this one on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader".


And in any case, I listed five ridiculous things that you must believe along with 144-hour Creation to be consistent: geocentrism, flat earth, solid sky, tiny stars, and continents floating on water. You're defending one of them, although I don't believe the water that you've described meets the criteria for "simply interpreting" God's word. Where do we stand on the other four?

L P said...

PE.

No, Judaism does not teach that Man was made for the Law, nor that the Law was made for Man. The Law of Moses is a covenant between God and, not Man, but Israel, who was called out from Man to receive it from which it would be a light unto the Gentiles. I really hope no one is paying attention to your word stitching, because I am sorry to say, it is high fillutin b.s.

It contains both contradictory ideas or self contradiction.

First you say the Law was for Israel, then you come around and indeed affirm it is fulfilled by Christ.

If the Law was only intended for Israel, how can it accuse you - the Gentile? If the Law was only for Israel, then Jesus fulfilled the Law only for Israel and not for you the Gentile.

Also the light to the Gentile is Christ not the Law but in the first part you claim the Law was the light, then you claim it is Christ on the second.

Has God intended the Law to be the light to the Gentiles or has it always been intended that it should be Christ?

You are incredible in contradicting the Bible, and affirming it.

Rom 2:14-15.


So as the old axiom in logic - from a contradiction, you can prove anything.

That is why your system is very very strong, because it has the marks of sophistry, and those not trained in critical thinking can get swayed by it.

It is so unlike you (from what I know).

LPC

PS.
Again, to clarify my position on 24, I claim you will have an inconsistent Christian world view. As to whether your Christianity will fall, I have always used the word - wobbly, because it may succeed in toppling the belief of others to the ground, I cannot see peoples hearts, that is left to God.

Xan said...

Christianity that insists on 144-hour Creation is wobbly. You may be able to get away with it, but I couldn't. Requiring belief in obvious falsehoods, based on misinterpretations, is a sure way to topple the belief of people who are interested in truth. It's a good thing Christianity, in reality, has no such requirements.

Insisting on this makes anything else you might say that much less believable, regardless of how tidy you think it makes your theology.

Augustinian Successor said...

You're talking about a single molecule of H2O trapped within 1000 molecules of rock structure. That isn't any quantity of water. You're not going to find "things" in it. Are you saying that molecules trapped in crystalline structure is what is meant by "fountains of the deep"?

Are you saying that water 'trapped' underneath is not water at all ...

How do you square that with this?

"A seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis has made the first 3-D model of seismic wave damping — diminishing — deep in the Earth's mantle and has revealed the existence of an underground water reservoir at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean. It is the first evidence for water existing in the Earth's deep mantle."

There is not only water, PLENTY of water inside the Earth.

Augustinian Successor said...

And in any case, I listed five ridiculous things that you must believe along with 144-hour Creation to be consistent: geocentrism, flat earth, solid sky, tiny stars, and continents floating on water. You're defending one of them, although I don't believe the water that you've described meets the criteria for "simply interpreting" God's word. Where do we stand on the other four?

You know full well the Bible does NOT teach ANY of those things. Why bring them up? Those are just strawmen.

Augustinian Successor said...

Xan,

What you can't accept is the fact that besides water inside the ROCKS, there is water INSIDE the Earth as a whole, and plenty of them. Again, you have made a categorical confusion. First, you confused the core with the mantle. Now you're confusing rocks with earth. By the way, the deeper it gets, them rocks aren't really SOLID, but MOLTEN. That's another categorical confusion.

I have already produced articles after articles showing that not only there is plenty of water but water is indispensable for the underground activities such subduction, tectonic shifts, etc.

Xan said...

AS, this is getting tiresome. I squared my statements with your quote up above, where I quoted from the same article, describing how there isn't an Arctic Ocean under there. There's that equivalent amount of water inside 1,000 Arctic Oceans worth of rock. How much liquid water are we talking about? The answer is zero. You're reading a journalist's version of a scientist's statement, while there's a direct quote from the guy right next to it that explains it!

I also know full well that the Bible does not teach 144-hour Creation. I bring them up because you're being inconsistent in your interpretation.

Xan said...

"Molten" does not mean "water"! How many times do I have to explain it? I guess if you didn't get it in elementary school you won't get it now...

Augustinian Successor said...

Xan,

You just can't get away from the fact that you're belittling the Word of God. No spin can get away from the fact you ridiculed the idea that there is water under the continents.

Heck, you even quoted from the First Commandment! How ironic! And you complained about the LCMS pastor who refused your membership???

So, aren't you the JOKE? YES!

L P said...

Xan,

Once again you keep on doing hand waving but none of you could offer a rebuttal of my exegesis of Ex 20:11 for a 24 hour day creation. Show me from the text where I erred.

And let us put this water business to rest.

Ancient people know there is water down there because they have been constructing and been building wells!!!

Long before our uncles did it.


LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

Touche, Kuya Lito!

LOL, Xan, you are a joker!

Augustinian Successor said...

"Molten" does not mean "water"! How many times do I have to explain it? I guess if you didn't get it in elementary school you won't get it now...

NEVER said it was. Prove it.

Augustinian Successor said...

But there's your problem, Xan. You have not quoted anything to show that there are no WATER down there. All the articles agree that there is.

Categorical confusion, Xan. Categorical confusion ...

"A seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis has made the first 3-D model of seismic wave damping — diminishing — deep in the Earth's mantle and has revealed the existence of an underground water RESEVOIR at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean. It is the first evidence for water existing in the Earth's deep mantle."

If you not understand the term, RESERVOIR, go and look up in the dictionary.

Augustinian Successor said...

"Inner Earth May Hold More Water Than the Seas"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0307_0307_waterworld.html

Read the above, Xan.

And you are quick to find fault with a lot of things the Bible says. My, my ... and you want to join a LCMS church. It doesn't make sense, but hey, YOUR thinking doesn't make sense anyway!

Augustinian Successor said...

"Molten rocks deep in the earths interior may be surprisingly wet, Japanese researchers say. From lab experiments, they have concluded there may be more H2O deep underground than in all oceans, lakes, and rivers combined."

This is what the article says ...

Now, 'molten-ness' occurs because of the heat. But according to the above, the molten rocks are also WET. NOT moist, but WET. Fancy that, Xan.

Augustinian Successor said...

The scientists first heated "mineral cocktails" to a white-hot 1600 degrees Celsius (2900 degrees Fahrenheit) and squeezed them until the pressure reached more than three million pounds per square inch (200,000 kilograms per square centimeter). Then they cooked the samples for an hour.

The experiments replicated the environment and conditions deep in the Earth.

Based on what they witnessed in their lab, the researchers concluded that more water probably exists deep within the Earth than is present on Earth's surface—as much as five times more.

"Our results suggest that the lower mantle can potentially store considerable amounts of water," said Motohiko Murakami of the Tokyo Institute of Technology, where the experiments were conducted.

"The presence of water in the crystal structure of [deep-Earth] minerals would be expected to soften the minerals and change their flow behavior," he added. That, in turn, could affect how the innards of the planet mix and shift over time, and could indirectly affect conditions and forces near the surface, such as plate tectonics.

Notice, The experiments replicated the environment and conditions deep IN the Earth. So, there is plenty of water not only IN the minerals but IN the earth too.

Notice, the mention of plate tectonics.

Science for you, Xan is only science if it 'debunks' the Bible. What a terrible attitude to have, you know ...

Augustinian Successor said...

In other words, Xan, there is plenty of water IN the minerals, and plenty of water UNDERNEATH the minerals, near the core. Remember, it gets HOTTER as you get NEARER to the CORE.

This is scientific logic, Xan, something you lack miserably. This is why you're so keen to prove the Bible wrong. Well, Moses was NO fool.

Xan said...

Lito,

I don't think great-grandfather's ropes were that long. You can dip a bucket into a crack in the ground 100 feet deep and drag rainwater out, but that doesn't mean you've reached below the continent to the water it floats on!

AS, you're undermining your own point. By claiming that water molecules embedded into rock (and zero liquid water) are the water referred to in Scripture, you set up Scripture to fail. But of course, that's what 144-hour Creation is too.

Deuteronomy 4:16-18 - Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image ... the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth

This doesn't describe trace levels of water inside rock. It describes oceans on which the continents float, with fish and everything!

Genesis 1:6-9 - And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.

Again, that's describing waters, not rock. If you were to fairly apply the same reasoning which leads you to 144-hour Creation, you would suggest that we could drill straight down from North America and end up in the ocean. That's what is clearly being described here.

Psalms 136:6 - to him who spread out the earth upon the waters

Yes, that's poetry, but it does illustrate ancient Hebrew cosmology, and is corroborated by the other quotes.


Lito, if you're in the mood to assign homework to people, are you up for some yourself? Could you do some exegesis on Deuteronomy 28:64, Deuteronomy 33:17, 1 Samuel 2:10, Job 28:24, Isaiah 41:9, Jeremiah 51:16, Mark 13:27? (The common thread is "the ends of the earth".) Then explain why the earth isn't flat. Remember, metaphors aren't allowed!

Xan said...

Me: "Molten" does not mean "water"!AS: NEVER said it was. Prove it.Okay...

AS: Besides that, there is water too... This is why lava is 'MOLTEN.'AS: WATER UNDERNEATH the continents. This EXPLAINS the flow of these materials in the first place, their molten state...

Augustinian Successor said...

Augustinian Successor said...
Xan, There is WATER = WATER UNDERNEATH the continents. Not just sediments, minerals and other elements.

This EXPLAINS the flow of these materials in the first place, their molten state, the tectonic shifts, etc. etc.

NO water, no rheology in the inner earth.

7:14 PM

Xan, should I call you LIAR?

L P said...

Xan,

The point is not the length of a rope. The point is that they know there is water down there for why will they dig wells and history and even today show that this is true.

I assume that your throwing these verses to me shows Ex 20:11 has not other explanation.

Why is not metaphor allowed and for that matter hyperbole?

I never denied that Scripture contains figures of speech. The point is the proper detection of when such forms or figures of speech is being used.

You are taking "days" in Gen 1-3 as a blah, I say no, it is narrative it is not being poetic, this is where we differ. To prove that I cited Ex 20:11.

Here is how I see you and PE's position to be.

I assert days in Gen 1-3 as 24.

You guys reply : No (or at least you), PE replies may be.

I ask you then what is "day" in Gen 1-3, your reply "We don't know but we are sure it is not 24".

That position is absurd. You deny that it is 24 but you are not certain as to what it is. If you are not certain as to what it is, how can you deny it to be 24?

So you guys are not really in this debate.

Your position is God created that is it, finish. Just believe he created and you will be happy and gay. Don't worry about days and stuff, they are not essential here. So I ask, do you have anything else that are non essential here?

If that is all that God wanted to say, I wonder why he told Moses to write those 3 chapters?.


You and PE are being fideistic on this account and I have a problem with fideism because it ignores meaningful revelation.

Actually if we substitute the word "blob" for the word "day" in Gen 1-3, your reading of it will not be affected by it. It will not trouble you but it will trouble me. Why? Because for me the letters in the Bible are not mere scribbles that I can assign anything I want it to mean or understand.

In this regard I am not mathematical in my approach to the Bible.

At any rate, there has been many words said here and I believe we are already sinning.

I will invite AS to give you and PE the courtesy to have the last say. But note, by no means are we conceding to your errors and positions. I believe we have demonstrated the absurdity, inconsistency of the non-committed position. Besides, no rebuttal for Ex 20:11 as an explanation or clarification of Gen 1-3.

Therefore, out of Christian charity I am happy for you to give your best arguments to a close. This is a blog and just like radio, people are reading but are not saying anything. So give your best shot.


LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

Xan,

Read my statement again. There are water UNDERNEATH the rock and minerals and IN and BESIDE the minerals as NOT in zero-liquid but LIQUID. This is why there are WET.

WET means WATER.

Hope this sinks into your head.

Augustinian Successor said...

Yes, go ahead and have the last say. Xan, not that you have any ARGUMENTS at all. On top of the fact that you are a LIAR. You have CONFIRMED what we have been saying all along. Your arguments twisted because your mind's twisted. You hate the truth, and you have the Word of God.

Xan said...

Lito, I think you're right to draw things to a close. Nobody's convincing anybody around here. :-)

And your observation about us already sinning is spot-on as well. AS, I apologize for the places where I've insulted you personally rather than engaging in useful debate. There's much on which I agree with you, and I hope that our disagreement here does not make us enemies.

To close I'll simply say that I believe the Bible assumes ancient Hebrew cosmology, and talks to us in those terms rather than bothering with the (relative) minutia of correcting us on those points.

I'm not trying to bind anyone's conscience to my view of the age of the earth etc, but I do believe it to be right, and compatible with the Lutheran faith.

Lito, AS, it's been an illuminating discussion, and it can certainly be fun to get riled up and hit the keyboard from time to time. Again, I did take it too far on occasion, for which I'm sorry.

Fortunately, our salvation depends only on Christ, not on being right. Which is something I rely on daily!

Past Elder said...

Surely you did not miss, speaking of Exodus, where Israel was called out to recieve the Law, that it was precisely for this that they were called out and apart from which they may as well have remained slaves in Egypt.

The Law is a covenant between God and Israel, not between God and Man. Gentiles are not and never have been under the Law, which is precisely why the Apostles, the Law having been fulfilled, saw no reason to bring Gentile converts first under the Law but rather retained what has been since Noah incumbent on all Man and now is all that in incumbent on Jew and Gentile alike, the Noahide covenant -- which you do not need to suppose a rainbow is literally the bow of God to understand btw.

The lex, in Judaism, does not semper accusat. It delivers. This has always been the single biggest barrier to Jewish conversion; forgiveness of sin is not good news, it is old news, already there in Law, and Messiah has nothing whatever to do with that.

The entire world wants a religion of works. The peoples have come up with all sorts of versions of that. And God says, if you want a religion of works, here it is -- in fact I will call a people out from the nations for no other purpose that to receive it and live by it as a sign and model of what the religion of works God wants really is.

So much so that Zachariah prophecies the entire world in the Messianic era drawn to Jerusalem for Tabernacles.

But that did not happen. How much greater of a condemnation of Man could there be, that even a people specially called apart for that purpose could not keep the works specifically laid out by God. Which is why Jesus was a Jew, not a Gentile. It reverses the condemnation of Man, and now, where from among fallen Man a people was called to the covenant of the Law and even then could not keep it, God became Man under the Law and fulfilled it for them, so that now Christ is both the glory of Israel and the light to the Gentiles, they being saved no different than the Jews, not in their fulfillment of the Law, but his, and Jew and Gentile alike by faith in that.

As to Exodus 20:11, again, no-one has said your explanation of a 24 hour day is wrong, rather, that is is neither exclusive nor necessary.

As to a joke, there is no better one than citing what is "always false" (science) in defence of what is "always true". Perhaps you missed the words "potentially store" in Dr Murakami's text. Here is the conclusion of the abstract to his work in 8 Mar 2002 Science: Earth's lower mantle may store about five times more H2O than the oceans.

Apparently neither the Bible nor Dr Murakami are exempt from your having them say what you have determined they say.

Augustinian Successor said...

"The Law is a covenant between God and Israel, not between God and Man. Gentiles are not and never have been under the Law, which is precisely why the Apostles, the Law having been fulfilled, saw no reason to bring Gentile converts first under the Law but rather retained what has been since Noah incumbent on all Man and now is all that in incumbent on Jew and Gentile alike, the Noahide covenant -- which you do not need to suppose a rainbow is literally the bow of God to understand btw."

Leaving aside the rainbow, the Law is NOT between God and man???

The Law is not even a covenant in the first place, according to Luther's understanding. The Law signifies the broken relationship between God and man. The Law is simply God's MODE of relating to (i.e. confronting) man. Directly, it was through the republication of the Law in the 10 Commandments. Indirectly, it is through natural law in every man.

The *Reformed* of the "Mosaic Law" as a covenant or *agreement* between God and Israel is utterly wrong. It's nonsense. Moses was the law-GIVER, not announcer. Israel was under the Law, just the rest of the nations were. More than that, Israel was under the ceremonial and civil law, whether they like or not.

Ceremonial and civil law is STILL Law, alright. The only difference is in the APPLICATION.

Xan said...

I think we're into material for another thread, gents. Let's let this one die.

L P said...

Xan,

Thank you, It has been fun, iron sharpens iron and what better way to learn but to debate.

Will see you in other post then.

God's peace.

LPC

L P said...

PE,

Gentiles are not and never have been under the Law, which is precisely why the Apostles, the Law having been fulfilled, saw no reason to bring Gentile converts first under the Law but rather retained what has been since Noah incumbent on all Man and now is all that in incumbent on Jew and Gentile alike, I just quoted the text of Rom 2:14-15. It was water off duck's back.

The above again is a muddled spin. The Law was fulfilled by Christ, therefore they saw no reason to impose it on the Gentiles and in fact neither on themselves!!! So much so that Peter in Acts was allowed to eat what was unclean! They were also allowed to eat with the Gentiles.

The Apostles did not bring the Gentiles to the Law because it has been fulfilled not that they were NOT under the Law. In fact the early Christians of Jewish heritage got this wrong in imposing circumcision after the Gentiles came to Christ!!! Meaning to say they still thought that their job was to bring all under the law, that was their mission. The Galatian judaisers got this wrong. They would not get this wrong if it were true that they never intended to bring them under the Law in the first place, wherefore the rebuke of Paul?

The point is that the Law has been fulfilled not that they (Gentiles) were exempted from the Law which is what you are trying to drive at.



So which Judaism are you talking about again?


As to Exodus 20:11, again, no-one has said your explanation of a 24 hour day is wrong, rather, that is is neither exclusive nor necessary.I hope people catch this.

If my interpretation is not wrong then it is right, and therefore necessary.

So you are going to imply modal logicians are stupid again?

What is true is necessarily true. What is right is necessarily right.


That was exactly what you needed to show - why it is not necessary and why it is not exclusive. Declaring it with out evidence is not so.

So, try again, bring it to a close, but please avoid the spin.

LPC

Past Elder said...

There is no spin in simple facts. Gentiles are not under the Law. Judaism does not seek converts, and in fact, given the historical record of faithfulness in converts, discourages it. Those not under the Law need not be under the Law, but rather follow that part of the Law, the Seven Noahide Commandments, which apply to them -- which is the normative Jewish view, and why Gentiles who acknowledge the god of Israel as the true god even so do not and may not undertake the full observance of the Law -- and still apply now the Apostles say, now to Jews and Gentiles alike.

The Law is a covenant. In the "Ten Commandments", which is not the whole Law, there are two tablets, with five commandments each. The first states the duties of the covenant people to God, with the duty and promise of God to them re each one, the second states the duties of the covenant people to each other, period, no promise.

This is why the Fifth Commandment -- when it is not called the fourth and put ar the head of the second table with half of it left out -- is not "Honour thy father and thy mother". It is, honour thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long in the land I am giving you. A covenant, with the parts of both parties spelled out.

Which is why the Apostle did not say, let us not lay on them a burden that has been fulfilled, but, let us not lay on them a burden which neither we nor our father could bear. "We and our fathers" had been called out, set apart, to follow God's religion of works, which in turn would be a light to the Gentiles, and we could not do it; rather then, God became a man under the Law who did it for us, he the glory of Israel and the light to the Gentiles, and now we are saved in the same manner as they, through faith in the one God has sent.

As to the rest, exegesis, interpretation is not truth. It is theory. That has been the consistent mistake in this thread -- treating theory, scientific or otherwise, as if it were religious truth and had its properties. Theories are not true or false, let alone necessarily true or false; one does not "commit" to a theory, one finds it useful or not within a given range of phenomena until one finds phenomena which it does not cover, falsified as some call it.

The problem is the same, whether it is religious people elevating their exegetical theories to religious truth or scientific people elevating their scientific theories to religious truth, which serves neither religion nor science and departs from the nature of either and both.

Lucian said...

God was not really speaking of HOW, God was speaking of THATExactly: same as with the Eucharist.

Lucian said...

God was not really speaking of HOW, God was speaking of THATExactly: same as with the Eucharist.

Lucian said...

God was not really speaking of HOW, God was speaking of THAT.

Exactly: same as with the Eucharist.

L P said...

PE,

I now realize the difference between the Judaism which you know and that which I studied.

Yours is Rabbinic Judaism but what I am speaking about is Early Judaism.

There are two religions that came from Early Judaism, the pre-Jesus and pre-temple destruction Judaism that I am speaking about.

One is Christianity, the other is Rabbinic Judaism, which revised its presentation of beliefs since the Temple disappeared.

Hence, I regret then that all of your comments are irrelevant to my points because we are not talking about the same thing.

As to your take that exegesis being theory, well, I leave that to the reader to evaluate. I for one do not consider the doctrines of the Christian faith which came from exegesis of Scripture, theories just like scientific theories. To me that stance is disastrous as it wrecks all certainty in the Christian faith.


LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

Gentiles are not under the Law.

Of course Gentiles are under the Law. This is why even the laws pertaining to marriage and divorce relates to them. Read Matthew 19.

There are no Jews and Gentiles alike with respect to the DEMAND and CURSE of the Law. This is why Jews and Gentiles need the GOSPEL.

Law and Gospel.

Augustinian Successor said...

"The Law is a covenant."

The Law is NOT a covenant, not according to Lutheranism. The Law is the ACCUSING VOICE of God in the heart of man. The Law is the set of demands and rules in society. The Law is not a covenant. The Law ALWAYS accuses.

Augustinian Successor said...

"As to the rest, exegesis, interpretation is not truth. It is theory. That has been the consistent mistake in this thread -- treating theory, scientific or otherwise, as if it were religious truth and had its properties. Theories are not true or false, let alone necessarily true or false; one does not "commit" to a theory, one finds it useful or not within a given range of phenomena until one finds phenomena which it does not cover, falsified as some call it."

Exegesis, to be distinguished from eisegesis which is what you are known for, is allowing Scripture to speak for itself. Scripture interpreting Scripture. When Scripture speaks, it speaks the truth. For it is the living voice of God.

What you are saying then and now is theory, opinions, but don't lump that with the truth.

The truth stands out clearly from error.

L P said...

Touche A.S.!

PE is indeed becoming Reformed when he describes the Law as a Covenant. He is really being Calvinistic.

Funny how what one hates, one eventually becomes.

In fact in this regard, he is being a Dispensationalist too!

Even if he thinks Judaism sees the Law as covenant, it is besides the point, because that is not how God intended the Law to be used rather it is supposed to be a tutor as St. Paul says,

For real, I have never seen so many blunders made in this series.

LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

Dear Kuya Lito,

PE is no Lutheran. And he knows nothing about the philosophy of science which is a branch of philosophy! He knows nothing about what e.g. Karl Popper said about the limitations of science, or even Einstein for that matter. And he is equally bad on history! Trent is orthodox but Vatican 2 is not. Well, Trent is only orthodox if you are Roman Traditionalist. But it's neither orthodox either from the Catholic or Lutheran point of view. Wondering who's side is he on? Don't even know that excommunication and anathema are two sides of the same coin.

It's truly the classic case of insisting that 2+2=5 when it is 4.

Xan said...

AS, have you read PE's first comment to the "Antinoms" thread? If that's not Lutheran, I don't know what is. It is possible to be Lutheran without agreeing with you on every jot and tittle.

If I read the Noahide laws in the same way that Lutherans read the Ten Commandments, I find them to be just as unfulfillable, so the Gospel still is necessary, whichever set of Laws might apply.

Now, I've only ever heard Lutherans talk about being under Mosaic law, so I'm not sure who's right here, but I'm willing to hear more.

L P said...

Xan,

The BoC of course defines your Lutheraness. Contrary to some belief, Lutheranism is not a denomination but a confession.


Also Lutherans are not into covenants. They are into testaments, such as last will and testament. I will try and post on this.

This stems from a translation emphasis also. Anyway, more on this later.

Oh btw, if you have not done it yet, you should read on philosophy of science, I say this only because most writers on this subject happened to have Lutheran heritage, Popper, Oppenheimer, Nagel etc.

LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

Xan,

Yes, he contradicts himself all the time.

Past Elder said...

"Who's" is a contraction for "who is". The possessive adjective is "whose". "Don't even know" apparently refers to me, in which case, if you elide the pronoun, it would be "doesn't". Apparently even the language itself is a barrier for you as well as thoughts that may be communicated in it.

You have routinely insisted that Xan as well as myself say things we have not said, then when confronted with that, said we are now changing our tunes because we have not said what you think. Similarly, you have also routinely insisted that Catholicism, various branches of science, science itself, Judaism, and Lutheranism say things they do not say but rather what you have decided they say. I don't think, apart from the Fundamentalist who once told me Catholics believe in a Trinity that is God, Mary, and the Pope, I have seen such a massive confusion of ignorance even of the terms of discussion let alone the discussion itself. Which, if you want to sum it up in an English word of Greek derivation to make it sound better, eisegesis will do just fine.

As to a distinction between "Early Judaism" and anything else, that too only serves to justify what you already believe is there. The only substantial change in Jewish belief, as distinct from culture, consequent to the destruction of the Temple with the priesthood and sacrifices, is this: that until such time as they are restored, our acts of loving-kindness take the place of the Temple sacrifices.

As to Jewish belief re Gentiles and the observance of the Law, the Law itself forbids Gentile observance of the Law, and you may read the Book of Jonah -- whose point I hope you do not confuse with whether he was in the belly of a whale. The idea that Gentiles are under the Law of Moses is as unnecesary to the revelation of the Gospel as the idea that Creation must have been a 6 24-hour day event for either the Law or the Gospel to stand. But I suppose if you do not get the covenant between God and Israel that is the Law, or even that it is a covenant at all, you will not get the implications of the failure, not on God's part, of the covenant and must locate them somewhere of your own invention.

You may also wish to recall that the Noahide Law is not a separate Law, but part of the Mosaic Law, given to the Gentile Noah, as there were no Jews yet, Abraham being the first. This is also why they tried to draw Jesus from his general reference from Genesis to the later specifics applicable to Israel. Maybe right after you get that excommunication and anathema are not two sides of the same coin or equivalent expressions.

L P said...

PE.

the idea that Gentiles are under the Law of Moses is as unnecesary(sic) to the revelation of the Gospel I don't believe you.

And to follow your dictum that exegesis is theory - I'd just say, it is a matter of (your) interpretation.

Over and out.

LPC

L P said...

Xan,

Now, I've only ever heard Lutherans talk about being under Mosaic law, so I'm not sure who's right here, but I'm willing to hear more.You heard it right the first time, there is no doubts about this.

I'd rather that you do not hear more because you will hear a spin and the more you do the more you will have a barrier for your future confirmation. I am having second thoughts on that LCMS pastor, for rather than leave him, perhaps you can learn from him.

What you heard the second will confuse you because to say that Gentiles are not under the Law but it is exclusive only for the Jews is to be a dispensationalist. Lutherans are not dispensationalists.

The situation is not complex nor intricate nor sophisticated. Put it this way-- Law/Gospel is the paradigm of Lutheranism, how can they do Law/Gospel on the Gentile if the Law is not for them?


Further, if you want to learn about covenants, you cannot go better than the Reformed, for this is their core paradigm/hermeneutic. Learn it from them.

Lutherans do not believe in two covenants etc. rather they are into testaments. A testament is a gift as in last will and testament.


If Judaism and the Reformed believe in dual covenants call it that but do not confuse that as Lutheranism, and since I believe the Lutheran Confessions are correct interpretation of Scripture, that is the lens to be used.

To say that exegesis is just theory is to cast doubt on the Confessions because it is believed by Lutherans that it is founded on correct exegesis!

My advice if you want to study Lutheran core theology, read the BoC, then read Luther and Chemnitz.

For the BoC I recommend you read the Apology of Augsburg - Article IV. Start there first.

LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

"Lutherans do not believe in two covenants etc. rather they are into testaments. A testament is a gift as in last will and testament."

I'll second that!

Augustinian Successor said...

Apart from your incoherent babbling, you also display massive ignorance of the English language.

Law means law. Law=Law. Hence, both Jew and Gentile are under the Law. It is that simple. In case you didn't catch it in your twenty years of Orthodox Judaism, the understanding of the role of Law actually differ within 2nd Temple Judaism or Rabbinic Judaism. This is why some scholars termed such diversity 'variegated nomism' which discusses amongst other things whether there were Jews who believed that not only entry into the Covenant was by grace, but perseverance was by grace too, among other things. The Dead Sea Scrolls have shed light on the beliefs of e.g. the Essenes. There is thus the tension between the secular outlook and eschatological/apocalyptic expectations which the former finding expression in the Macabbean revolt and the latter in the insolated sects, alongside the tension between predestination and free-will.

Now, again, it is clear to all BUT you that your understanding of the Law is completely off tangent. Aside from the lack of clarity in your expression which reflects on your confused state of mind, your understanding of the relationship between the Law and Gentile is just downright theologically ridiculous. It is risible. To say that you are Lutheran and to say that Gentiles are not under the Law is way way off the mark. You're no Lutheran, that's one thing for sure.

Mosaic Law is in essence Natural Law. The same Law for all mankind. The 10 Commandments apply equally to Jew and non-Jew including the 'preamble.' I am the LORD Thy God, except Who brought you out of the Land of Egypt part. In other words, the difference lies in the scope and application of the Law in HISTORY. The Law is the concrete expression of God's will in TIME and SPACE.

The 10 Commandments are simply the republication of Natural Law, in codified form. That leaves the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Law as the expression of God's relationship to Israel. God dealt with Israel as a special nation. Read Deuteronomy 7. Hence, the Law was 'amplified' or 'enlarged' to encompass the civil and ceremonial aspects.

The distinction therefore is NOT between Jew and Gentile but FORM and CONTENT. The content remains the SAME; the form CHANGES in time and space. This is why the civil and ceremonial aspects can be abrogated whilst the abiding validity of the Law remains unaffected. This is why in Matthew 19, Jesus recalls the NOMOS, the CREATION *ordinance* of marriage ... ONE man, ONE woman. Not so, He replied to the Pharisees on the law of Moses concerning the provision for divorce. NOT so.

The wilfully ignorant JOKER that you are, PE. It's written all over your posts. Excommunication and anathema are simply two aspects of treating the same subject matter. I have provided copious documentary evidence ...

Augustinian Successor said...

So you don't believe that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish, perhaps a whale? It's impossible, you say, because it contradicts *your* experience? How would you know in the first place? Have you read, heard or seen documentaries about carcasses or bodies found inside the belly of a whale??? Have you?

So, now you don't believe in MIRACLES? You don't believe that God can do these things?
You only believe in miracles if they are not, in your estimation, ridiculous???

Past Elder said...

So, from a statement that I hope you do not confuse the point of the Book of Jonah with whether he was in the belly of a whale, you find a statement that I do not believe Jonah was in the belly of a whale, that it is impossible, and that I do not believe in miracles at all.

Amazing. Not surprising, but amazing. Your inability to read a text precludes discussion altogether, let alone exegesis.

There is no "except the part". Why do you suppose God said I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt? Precisely because he was addressing not Man but the people he brought out of the land of Egypt, Israel, and identifying himself as the God who did that. The Ten Words, to use their more proper term, are not codified natural law whatever, but a summation of the Law given to Israel, for exactly which purpose they were brought out from Egypt.

Similarly excepting oneself from the promise of the fifth commandment, that thy days may be long in the land I am giving thee, which concludes the tablet of God's side of the covenant.

It is good that many find the Ten Words helpful as a summary of the Law given to Israel, but of the 613 commandments in Torah, only 7 of them, given to Noah, are incumbent on Man.

As to alleged various different Judaisms pre and post Temple, the loss of the sacrifices, the priesthood, the Temple and the land itself was an incredible devastation to Israel, and its continuance at all after this loss was primarily the work of a contemporary of Jesus, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, at the Council of Jamnia. His proclamation that the works of loving-kindness actually take the place of the sacrifices is the key to the whole transition, none of it having to do with whether one may now understand "day" in something other than a 24-hour sense or any such matters, and was based on Hosea 6:6. You may read about it in Rabbi Nathan, Abot 4.

Your position is that of the Judaisers: that the Law was fulfilled was neither the question nor the answer, but rather, since the Gentiles are not under the Law, how can the fulfillment of the Law mean anything to them unless they are first brought under the Law. Israel is a type of Christ. Which is why the Apostle said, how can we lay on them (who are not under the Law) a burden which neither we nor our fathers were able to keep. The answer was, not that one must first become Jewish in order to be Christian, but that now, the Jewish covenant being fulfilled inChrist, Jews and Gentiles alike are under no more than the Noahide Law, and it is not that they, the Gentiles, must become as we, the Jews, but that we, the Jews, are saved in the same way as they, the Gentiles.

Which is also the precise connexion between Passover and Pentecost, the counting of the Omer, which God himself counted between the transformation of the Passover of Israel to the Lamb of God Christ the passover for all Man, to the transformation from the celebration of the giving of the Law to Israel to the giving of the Spirit to all Man.

Perhaps you may take these closing days of the counting of the Omer to understand something of the many terms you manifestly do not understand and draw unwarranted inferences therefrom.

Augustinian Successor said...

Apart from your incoherent babbling, you also display massive ignorance of the English language.

Law means law. Law=Law. Hence, both Jew and Gentile are under the Law. It is that simple. In case you didn't catch it in your twenty years of Orthodox Judaism, the understanding of the role of Law actually differ within 2nd Temple Judaism or Rabbinic Judaism. This is why some scholars termed such diversity 'variegated nomism' which discusses amongst other things whether there were Jews who believed that not only entry into the Covenant was by grace, but perseverance was by grace too, among other things. The Dead Sea Scrolls have shed light on the beliefs of e.g. the Essenes. There is thus the tension between the secular outlook and eschatological/apocalyptic expectations which the former finding expression in the Macabbean revolt and the latter in the insolated sects, alongside the tension between predestination and free-will.

Now, again, it is clear to all BUT you that your understanding of the Law is completely off tangent. Aside from the lack of clarity in your expression which reflects on your confused state of mind, your understanding of the relationship between the Law and Gentile is just downright theologically ridiculous. It is risible. To say that you are Lutheran and to say that Gentiles are not under the Law is way way off the mark. You're no Lutheran, that's one thing for sure.

Mosaic Law is in essence Natural Law. The same Law for all mankind. The 10 Commandments apply equally to Jew and non-Jew including the 'preamble.' I am the LORD Thy God, except Who brought you out of the Land of Egypt part. In other words, the difference lies in the scope and application of the Law in HISTORY. The Law is the concrete expression of God's will in TIME and SPACE.

The 10 Commandments are simply the republication of Natural Law, in codified form. That leaves the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Law as the expression of God's relationship to Israel. God dealt with Israel as a special nation. Read Deuteronomy 7. Hence, the Law was 'amplified' or 'enlarged' to encompass the civil and ceremonial aspects.

The distinction therefore is NOT between Jew and Gentile but FORM and CONTENT. The content remains the SAME; the form CHANGES in time and space. This is why the civil and ceremonial aspects can be abrogated whilst the abiding validity of the Law remains unaffected. This is why in Matthew 19, Jesus recalls the NOMOS, the CREATION *ordinance* of marriage ... ONE man, ONE woman. Not so, He replied to the Pharisees on the law of Moses concerning the provision for divorce. NOT so.

The wilfully ignorant JOKER that you are, PE. It's written all over your posts. Excommunication and anathema are simply two aspects of treating the same subject matter. I have provided copious documentary evidence ...

Truly amazing ... one who is so clearly BLIND refuswes to admit his own blindness and persist in ERRORS.

Augustinian Successor said...

So you don't believe that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish, perhaps a whale? It's impossible, you say, because it contradicts *your* experience? How would you know in the first place? Have you read, heard or seen documentaries about carcasses or bodies found inside the belly of a whale??? Have you?

So, now you don't believe in MIRACLES? You don't believe that God can do these things?
You only believe in miracles if they are not, in your estimation, ridiculous???

Cherry-picking, eh? Who are you, to decide whether to believe in this or not? Is it not part of the very Word of God?

Augustinian Successor said...

NOAHIDE (sic) Law, my foot! The Noahic covenant was cosmological; the PROMISE was universal. Anyway to say that is it a LAW which relates only to Noah and family is MISLEADING. Read this:

But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

This is NATURAL LAW for you. There is nothing distinctive about these rules. The promise was PARTICULAR, but the Law remains UNIVERSAL.

Past Elder said...

You are repeating yourself. Perhaps you did not notice.

Among the many other things you do not notice:
1) I did not say I do not believe that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish;
2) I did not say it was impossible;
3) I did not say I do not believe in miracles;
4) Noahide is indeed "thus", it is the standard proper adjective for the Seven Laws of Noah;
5) I did not say it was a law that relates to only Noah and his family, though it is certainly in line with your demonstrated abilities to derive that from "incumbent on Man".

L P said...

PE.

You should have said them in the first place.

As you can see, nothing is being achieved in your favor by being convoluted.

It is not working for you so I suggest you give that style up.

LPC

Past Elder said...

Re points 1-3, what I said was, I hope the point of the Book of Jonah is not confused with whether he was in the belly of a whale. Convoluted would be finding in that a statement that he was not in the belly of a whale, that it is impossible for him to have been in the belly of a whale, or that miracles do not exist. Re point 4, Noahide is the standard adjective; if one does not know it, there's Google and Wiki. Re point 5, to have to explain that "incumbent on Man" does not mean relating to Noah and his family, well, as the kids say, OMG.

Augustinian Successor said...

You expressly said it was NOT necessary. That is tantamount to saying the miracle of Jonah being swallowed up by a big fish may or may not have been a fact. So, this belies your U-turn in now professing to believe in that occurence.

If it happened, then it is NECESSARY, the denial of which is attributing a LIE to the writer of the book of Jonah!

You're cornered. It's no point spinning around, because you're getting nowhere.

Augustinian Successor said...

Incumbent Man??? What kind of English is that?? Try saying that to your English teacher.

As I have said, you're the joke and the joker, Mr. Incumbent Man, whatever that means!

Augustinian Successor said...

It's intriguing, it's fascinating, it's risible to read all your posts, and each them you blab, you spew out NONSENSE. Pure and unadulterated nonsense. Where did you learn how to do that? I'm sure you were not born to be so. But somewhere down the line, you must have been mixing with the wrong crowd and travelling in very limited circles.

You're confused, your ideas, articulation, on nearly every subject-matter displays massive ignorance that is borders on intellectual idiocy. And you persist in that.

It's amazing, truly amazing.

Augustinian Successor said...

"The promise was PARTICULAR, but the Law remains UNIVERSAL."

My error. The promise was UNIVERSAL *and* the Law which accompanied the promise remains UNIVERSAL.

Past Elder said...

I am not "now professing to believe in that occurence" any more than I professed to not believe in it. What I said was, I hope the point of the Book of Jonah is not confused with whether he was in the belly of a whale.

That is always how you proceed -- first misunderstand something entirely, then when that is pointed out, say the person has now shifted position, when in fact they never took what you read into their position at all.

I did not say "Incumbent Man". I said "incumbent on Man" re the Noahide Law. "Incumbent" comes from the present participle of incumbere in Latin, meaning "to lean upon"; as an adjective, it is used to describe leaning on something, geological strata for example, or an obligation, as something which leans or rests on a person or persons, or the current one upon whom the obligation of an office leans or rests. If "on" or "Man" are not understandable to you, look them up.

You simply cannot read a text.