No, despite keeping an eye out and hoping for a glimpse, haven't met them.
Nobody seems to know what I should actually be looking for.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Irony of Creationist belief
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
Nobody seems to know what I should actually be looking for.
Sounds more like the Ghost Busters, or maybe you might give them a call.
I believe the academic analysis dates this after 600 BCE based on the linguistic, cultural and vocabulary used.
Dating Deborah
The Song of Deborah (Judges 5) is often seen as an ancient text, perhaps one of the oldest in the Tanach, but analysis of its language and contents suggests that it is a later Deuteronomistic composition.
https://www.thetorah.com/author/serge-frolov
Deborah, Gustave Dore, 1885. 123rf
Biblical Literature: Late or Early?
Modern scholarly study of the Tanach began in the seventeenth century when several critically inclined thinkers, including the famous Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza, argued that contrary to the tradition shared by Jews and Christians, Moses could not possibly have written the Torah. Instead, they tentatively suggested that not only the Torah but also its sequel, the Former Prophets, was compiled almost a thousand years later, in the fifth century B.C.E., by Ezra (who probably used earlier sources).Over the last few decades, the tendency to place biblical texts, including the Torah and the Former Prophets, closer (often much closer) to our own time than suggested by traditional authorities has been stronger than ever. Today, few scholars would argue that much of the grand historical narrative stretching from Genesis through Kings came into being more than a century or two before the Babylonian exile (sixth century BCE), and not a few would contend, returning to Spinoza and even going beyond him, that the entire corpus was created after the exile if not in the Hellenistic period that started with Alexander’s conquests in the late-fourth century B.C.E.
Nevertheless, one relatively small but well-known and liturgically important piece of the Former Prophets seems to have largely escaped the overall trend – Deborah’s Song in Judges 5.[1] Serving as the haftarah for Parashat Beshalach (as a twin of the Song of Moses/Miriam in Exodus 15), it recapitulates, in poetic form, the events covered by the previous chapter – Israel’s oppression by King Jabin of Hazor and especially by his general Sisera, the uprising against them led by Deborah and Barak, Sisera’s defeat, and his subsequent assassination by Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite. Although there are, as usual, some dissenters (biblical scholars are famous for never agreeing 100% on anything), the prevailing consensus is that this text dates as far back as the 11th or even 12th century BCE.
That would not only make Deborah’s Song one of the most ancient fragments of the Tanach (in fact, this is precisely how it is routinely described in popular literature and textbooks), but also place it, in an unparalleled way, earlier than the traditional date or at least close to it: according to the Talmud, Judges was written by Samuel who purportedly lived in the latter part of the 11th century.
Such an ancient text would offer us an important glimpse into the Tanach’s historical background and its composition. But is the Song really that old?
“Deborahspeak”: Linguistic Considerations
All languages change over time. Today’s English is very different from that of Dickens and Milton, to say nothing of Shakespeare and Chaucer. And as any secular Israeli would readily confirm, being a native speaker of Modern Hebrew is no guarantee that you will understand the Hebrew of the Tanach in all its nuances. For that reason, vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of a text often come handy in determining its date, especially if other texts in the same language, belonging to different periods, are available for comparison. Where does Deborah’s Song stand in this respect?The Hebrew text of Judges 5 is very different from that of the surrounding chapters, indeed, from almost everything in the Torah and the Former Prophets. Even to an experienced Biblical Hebrew reader, some of its diction may be barely recognizable or even completely unrecognizable, and some of its grammatical forms are very difficult. When we encounter such difficulties in English, our first instinct is to brand the text archaic. Yet, the case is not so simple with the Song of Deborah.
Vocabulary
Several words in the Song are demonstrably late:רֹמַח (romah) Judg 5:8. Out of 14 other occurrences of this term for “spear,” nine are in Chronicles (e.g., 2 Chr 11:12) and Nehemiah (e.g., 4:10), clearly post-exilic books, and another two are in Jeremiah (46:4) and Ezekiel (39:9) whose content makes it impossible to date them before the exile. Works that may be earlier, such as Joshua (8:18, 26) and 1 Samuel (17:6, 45), usually refer to the same weapon using the word כּידון (kidon) – as in Modern Hebrew.
רִקְמָה (riqmah) “fabric” (twice in Judg 5:30) appears mainly in Ezekiel (eight occurrences out of twelve) and again in Chronicles (1 Chron 29:2).
צָחֹר (tsachor) “light-colored,” is only attested in Judg 5:10 and Ezek 27:18.
בְּהִתְנַדֵּב, the Hithpael of the verb נדב (Judg 5:2, 9), is only used elsewhere in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles; moreover, Judg 5:2, 9, Neh 11:2, and 2 Chr 17:16 are the only places where this form means “to offer oneself,” in other words, “to volunteer.”
Thus, the distinctive vocabulary of Deborah’s Song turns out to be late rather than early. The most striking display of this trend is found in Judg 5:7, which twice employs the inseparable relative pronoun שׁ־ (she). In Modern Hebrew, it is used just as widely, perhaps even more so, as the self-standing relative pronoun אֲשֶׁר, but in Biblical Hebrew that is decidedly not the case: in the entire Tanach, שׁ־ is employed just 136 times and אֲשֶׁר more than 5,500. Even more significantly, 96 occurrences (70%) of שׁ־ are in Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, books that are widely recognized as written centuries after the exile; both employ Persian loanwords, and the word אַפִּרְיון (apiryon), “palanquin,” in Song 3:9 may even be a loanword from Greek, suggesting Hellenistic provenance.
More in the reference . . .
Dimi95
Χριστός ἀνέστη
The Song of Deborah is fairly straightforward and pretty much is what it seems to be.But what does that have to do with academic versus fundamentalist readings of the ancient Hebrew scriptures?
Perhaps you believe that one historically accurate (more or less) fragment of the text, dating to the 13th century BCE, somehow indicates the historical accuracy of the entire compiled scripture?
The arguments have largely to do with the Song being a poem. There is a prose account of Deborah’s role in this incident, but scholars deem the song or poem to be more ancient (and perhaps different in its intent as compared to the prose account).Furthermore, experts in ancient near eastern languages - scholars like William Foxwell Albright and Frank Cross—focus on style, structure, vocabulary and especially Hebrew orthography (that is, spelling) in drawing their conclusions and date the piece at about 1100 BCE.
Similarities between the Song of Deborah and the Song of Miriam (found in Exodus and which is about the Hebrews escape out of Egypt and the events at the Red or Reed Sea) also reinforce arguments for the poem’s antiquity.
Using English translations of the Bible it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the uniform English we read represents a uniform Hebrew beneath it.
What’s actually the case is that different phases of the development of the Hebrew language are represented in different places in the Hebrew Bible. If we could flip the situation on its head we’d have a modern Hebrew book translated from modern English texts. The modern Hebrew would 'hide' the variation seen across the various original English texts. That’s kinda what’s going on in our English translations, just in reverse.
There are a number of isolated archaic forms such as ša-qamtî (Jud. 5:7), a second person feminine singular; or a possible infixed-t form in Deut. 33:3.
The most striking feature of the morphology of the noun is the frequent preservation of old case endings. The survival of the case endings is due in almost every case to clear-cut metrical requirements.
The persistence of archaic forms of the pronominal suffixes is another feature of the old poetry. The regular use of -mô -mû < -himmū̆) in Ex. 15 is a parade example.The survival of the longer forms of the pronominal suffixes (e.g., -kā̆ // -k; -kī̆ // -k; hēmmâ // hēm) was due in part at least to metrical considerations.
The old poems preserve a number of particles which exhibit archaic features. Thus there is the use of the preposition b in the sense 'from' (= min) as in Ugaritic.
Early Biblical Hebrew is distinguished from Standard and Late Biblical Hebrew by its ancient spelling, grammar, and similarities with Ugaritic literature.
firedragon
Veteran Member
If there is a video, you would think it's CGI.
It would have to be authenticated
firedragon
Veteran Member
Still you would think it's tampered with. No matter what you say, you would always think it's unauthentic. It's impossible.
That's why this request in the OP is just an epistemically invalid apologetic.
Banach-Tarski Paradox
Active Member
‘God … Promptly Vanishes in a Puff of Logic’
There are some things that suddenly vanish: balloons, single socks and, perhaps, chesterfields. But, at least in the Hitchhiker’s universe, nothing truly disappears. Things just get moved through some sort of time singularity and pop up again somewhere else....
gnostic
The Lost One
Genesis 1:20-22 say that birds and marine life (eg fishes, octopuses, etc) were created in the same time.
but how is that earliest fossils of birds (class Aves) of the late Cretaceous around 72 million years ago, don’t come anywhere near the earliest fossils of bony fish (superclass Osteichthyes) of the late Silurian period, about 425 million years ago.
plus, there were earlier marine life than the fishes of the Osteichthyes, primitive arthropods (phylum), like the Cambrian class Trilobita - the trilobites (the earliest about 521 million years ago) that existed in early Cambrian, that only became extinct around 251 million years ago. but there are older invertebrates than the trilobites, like primitive sponges (phylum Porifera) in the Ediacaran, about 650 million years ago. We currently don’t know what the oldest marine animals, but the sponges have been around lot longer than the birds.
Plus, it say in Genesis 1:24-25 say land animals were created AFTER the creation of birds, and that’s also not true. Land animals, aside from early and primitive amphibians, were two different clades of the amniotes (clade Amniota of superclass Tetrapoda):
- clade Sauropsida
- clade Synapsida
All sauropsids lay their eggs on dry lands, like all reptiles, extinct and extant, and the birds.
With the exceptions of extant echidnas and platypuses that lay their eggs on dry lands, the rest of the synapsids that included the majority of extinct and extant mammals, keep their eggs and fetus in the womb before giving live birth.
The early sauropsids and early synapsids diverged some times around 312 million years ago or the late Carboniferous period, so these pre-reptiles and pre-mammals predated the earliest true birds by some 240 years ago.
And I haven’t even included the terrestrial invertebrates that also predated the birds, like arthropods that were ancestors to the modern spiders, insects, scorpions, etc, or the terrestrial molluscs like snails. The earliest insects have around as early as the Carboniferous, though when precisely, I don’t know, because I have not shown that great interest in insects.
The point is that Genesis were about when the birds occurred.
And these are not the only problems.
Land plants or green plants, all fit in the clade of Plantae, called Embryophyte. The things are, that plants were created all together in a single moment of time, like Genesis 1:11-12. The problems are multiple.
For instance, when land plants started to appear in the fossil records, there were evidence that early plants did produce seeds; instead reproduction occurred from spores, and spore-reproducing plants existed among the earlier families of non-vascular plants (bryophytes) and families of vascular plants (tracheophytes).
Seed-reproducing plants (spermatophytes) came later, evolving from the older vascular plants, very late Devonian period. Flowering plants (clade Angiospermae) came later still, around the Late Cretaceous period. And there were no fruit-bearing plants, later still.
While seed plants may have around early than the earliest tetrapod animals, not so with the flowering plants. So earlier reptiles, which included the archosaurs (early Triassic, ancestors to the crocodiles, pterosaurs and dinosaurs) and the later non-avian dinosaurs (as early as the middle Triassic period) have been around long before the earliest flowering plants (late Cretaceous).
All these revealed the flaws of the order of creation.
I go by the dating in this reference I cited It must be Canaanit/Phoenician text if something is dared from the Pentateuch
There is no such thing and a 13th century fragment of Hebrew test of the Pentateuch. I see a great deal of speculation on the origin of Hebrew test before 800-6OO BCE. I provided my references. I need specific academic references you are citing.
The scholars referenced DID NOT rely on English translations,
This is because Hebrew originated form Canaanite/Phoenician text
Why would I think that? You are assuming without any justification that I would not believe if the video has been shown to be authentic. How do you know what I will or will not do??!!
firedragon
Veteran Member
Inevitable.
I do not believe this is what the academic scientists, historians and and archaeologists are requesting of the Creationists to do. They request is for objective scientific, historical and archaeological evidence to justify the accounts pf Creation and Noah's Flood as described in the Bible,
Ir is historically accepted that the authors of the Pentateuch, the NT and the Church Fathers believed in a literal Genesis and historical Pentateuch.
I believe a plain reading of the text it describes God doing it and not based on Natural Laws and processes.
You are presenting a selective citation to justify a natural history of life, earth and our universe based on an idealistic misleading understanding of Genesis. It is best to say you believe in a symbolic allegorical understanding of the Genesis account
The problem with Creationists is simply they believe as the authors believed that the authors believe that they wrote a literal accurate of Creationand history direstly inspired by God,
Last edited:
Inevitably wrong
firedragon
Veteran Member
gnostic
The Lost One
That’s the story, some bunch of claims…you need to present evidence that each of the claims are true.
you have presented no such evidence.
you are using the Bible to prove your own beliefs without the evidence to support them, so you’re merely relying on circular reasoning and confirmation bias to support your claims.
btw, Adam. Genesis 2‘s order of timeline differs from Genesis 1, having Adam created BEFORE creating plants, and BEFORE creating animals.
That tell me they are two completely different creation myths…otherwise these 2 chapters contradict each other with the inconsistencies of the timeline.
gnostic
The Lost One
I see that you are still using same faulty casino gambling analogy. It has nothing to do with evolutionary processes.
Repeatedly using the False Analogy (fallacy) only demonstrates you don’t understand biology…it certainly doesn’t help your argument.
And btw. You are like every creationists I have known in these forums.
It is bad enough you don’t understand biology, wellwisher.
But like every other other creationists, you have butchered the 2nd law of thermodynamics & entropy, when you are trying to apply it to Evolution, or worse to Abiogenesis.
You are misusing entropy. The biology of living organisms, whether it be tiniest of bacteria or gigantic as a blue whale, never violate entropy of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because entropy violation only applied to closed and isolated systems…but the punchline is that every single living organisms are never isolated systems, as it always take energy from outside sources.
While the Earth appeared to be a closed or isolated system, it really isn’t. All sorts of radiations continuously streamed through the atmosphere, some of radiation may be deflected by geomagnetic fields, but not all. For instance, ultraviolet radiation are deflected by Earth’s magnetic fields but not all. Sunlight and heat from still reach the Earth’s surface. Neutrinos actually penetrate & stream through the Earth, and leave the Earth, and headed out into space. And then there are gases lost, particularly hydrogen escaping from the Earth’s atmosphere. So earth isn’t isolated systems, hence no violation of thermodynamics law.
Every individual living organisms are not isolated systems, so evolution doesn’t violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
but not only you are science-illiterate in physics and biology, you are also not good at chemistry. Water does play a big role for life, however water is still inorganic molecule.
For instance, humans require water to keep the body hydrated, because all the organs and tissues do a fair bit of works, so water regulate the body temperature. Without sufficient hydration, will lead to organ failure from overheating, cells in tissues will breakdown.
Plants require water too, to keep from drying up, but water played another important role. Drawing water from the soil, via its root, and drawing carbon dioxide and sunlight through their leaves, chlorophyll of each cells use the energy from sunlight to cause a chemical reaction between CO2 & H2O, converting that into oxygen (O2) and starch (carbohydrate or sugar). Starch are source of energy (nutrients) for every plants, that keep them alive as well as allow for growth.
All it demonstrates are your incompetence in grasping science, and you lack of intellectual honesty.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Btw, @wellwisher . This:
What do you mean by “cellular water”?
I’ve never heard of that.
There is the obvious water molecule. There are also heavy water, salt water (seas, oceans), fresh water, brackish water, and so on.
And then there are cells, which there are many types of cells, but it can be broadly divided into 2 types:
So. What is “cellular water”?
What do you mean by “cellular water”?
I’ve never heard of that.
There is the obvious water molecule. There are also heavy water, salt water (seas, oceans), fresh water, brackish water, and so on.
And then there are cells, which there are many types of cells, but it can be broadly divided into 2 types:
- prokaryotic cell - a cell that have no membrane-covered nucleus and no organelles (which are found among the prokaryotes in domain Bacteria and domain archaea)
- eukaryotic cell - a cell that do have nucleus and at least one organelle (eukaryotes that are divided into the following kingdoms - Protista, Plantae, Fungi & Animalia).
So. What is “cellular water”?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Your cells are thirsty. This is the idea behind the Cellular Water Principle®, a revolutionary concept developed by world-renowned dermatologist Dr. Howard Murad(yep, he’s also the founder of Murad® skin care). The gist: Hydration doesn’t just happen at a surface level, but rather inside the very building blocks of your body—and this affects the way your skin looks on the outside. In this edition of our Doctor's Office series, Dr. Murad breaks down the science behind his theory and shares how you can apply it for healthier, plumper skin.
The Science of Cellular Water - Dr. Howard Murad
Dr. Murad Explains How Healthy, Hydrated Cells Form the Foundation of Beautiful Skin
www.dermstore.com
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is water that you get from a series of towers. One usually pays a monthly fee for it. Some popular plans: O,H,&H, Straight Water, T Stream, Mint Creek and others.