Creationism and Evolution. Conflict or reconciliation.

[Aupmanyav]

Sure, and the graphic is cool. But early earth was an oceanic world before the continents appeared.

It is a false belief just like belief in God, soul, heaven or hell. Get some general knowledge (now that there is easy access to it). Don't be a frog in the well). There is only this much water on earth (How Much Water is There on Earth?):

 

[Valjean]

Sure, and the graphic is cool. But early earth was an oceanic world before the continents appeared.

Where do you get these bizarre ideas? Links. please.

 

[PruePhillip]

This boils down to two possibilities ─ one is clearly God [him]self, the Savior and Redeemer of the Jews; and an exalted human who will be a great leader and ensure the Jews have their liberty. Jesus was neither.
I was talking about the morality of the bet that God and Satan make in the bar at the start of Job, which leaves our eponym with a murdered family and household, destitution and outcast status. So much for a God of justice. As I said, morally repulsive.

You might find the idea of God's judgment offensive. You might even say that the story of Job, Noah,
Moses etc mythic. But as shown in the historic situation of the Jew since Jesus, you cannot deny it.
The bible states the Jew will be few in number, a blessing to the world, exiled from his country and
persecuted - but one day he will return to that nation, having been driven out of over 100 nations and
suffered terrible persecutions. God said he would do this.

 

[PruePhillip]

Where do you get these bizarre ideas? Links. please.

It is a false belief just like belief in God, soul, heaven or hell. Get some general knowledge (now that there is easy access to it). Don't be a frog in the well). There is only this much water on earth (How Much Water is There on Earth?):

Here's just one when I Googled 'early earth ocean'

Early Earth was covered in a global ocean and had no mountains | New Scientist

Geologists determine early Earth was a 'water world' by studying exposed ocean crust -- ScienceDaily

Scientists determine early Earth was a ‘water world’ by studying exposed ocean crust | NSF - National Science Foundation

 

[firedragon]

It is a false belief just like belief in God, soul, heaven or hell.

Can you prove your claim?

 

[blü 2]

He had this to say, "And Jerusalem shall be trampled down of the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled."

Luke 21:24, Luke is written in the mid 80s CE, so the Roman sack of Jerusalem is a memory from a decade and a half ago. The author of Luke sets out to enhance his hero by attributing 'prophecy' to him.

That year was 1967 - in the midst of the moral and cultural ferment of theWest the Jews returned to Jerusalem.

I assume you mean 1947? There wasn't much moral ferment ─ everyone was too busy tidying up after WW2.

I like how various ways of translating give different pictures

Don't let me interrupt your enjoyment, but Jesus is mentioned nowhere, predicted nowhere in the Tanakh. On the other hand you can see the gospel authors (Luke, above, is just one example) choosing passages of the Tanakh they like to think are 'messianic prophecies' and creating scenarios accordingly for Jesus to walk through. Mary being a virgin, and the unhistorical tax census to get her to Bethlehem and the unhistorical 'Massacre of the Innocents' to get Jesus into Egypt so he can 'come out of Egypt' are some of the grosser examples.

 

[blü 2]

You might find the idea of God's judgment offensive. You might even say that the story of Job, Noah, Moses etc mythic. But as shown in the historic situation of the Jew since Jesus, you cannot deny it.

I don't find the idea of God's judgment nearly as offensive as I find God's judgments as record in the bible.

Of course I deny it. The modern state of Israel is a political triumph for the Zionists, who no doubt were happy to assert a purported historical entitlement based on the bible and do their own retrofitting for the story (which certainly didn't include Luke). It has nothing to do with prophecy, for the simple reason that when it comes to supernatural foreknowledge, there's no such thing.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Can you prove your claim?

Absence of proof take care of 99% of it.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't find the idea of God's judgment nearly as offensive as I find God's judgments as record in the bible.

Of course I deny it. The modern state of Israel is a political triumph for the Zionists, who no doubt were happy to assert a purported historical entitlement based on the bible and do their own retrofitting for the story (which certainly didn't include Luke). It has nothing to do with prophecy, for the simple reason that when it comes to supernatural foreknowledge, there's no such thing.

It's fascinating to realize that in the Old Testament the authors spoke of TWO returns to Israel.
Isaiah or Ezekiel, or both, mentioned that there would be "a second time" return of the Jews
to their homeland. That was as crazy to the Jews in captivity in Babylon as Noah is to us.
But for nearly two millennium the dream of this prophecy coming true animated much Jewish
thought, "Next year in Jerusalem." 18th Century liberals mocked the idea of Zionism.
Take the time to read about the 1948 and 1967 wars and you get a feeling that not everything
which happened was coincidental.

 

[PruePhillip]

Luke 21:24, Luke is written in the mid 80s CE, so the Roman sack of Jerusalem is a memory from a decade and a half ago. The author of Luke sets out to enhance his hero by attributing 'prophecy' to him.
I assume you mean 1947? There wasn't much moral ferment ─ everyone was too busy tidying up after WW2.
Don't let me interrupt your enjoyment, but Jesus is mentioned nowhere, predicted nowhere in the Tanakh. On the other hand you can see the gospel authors (Luke, above, is just one example) choosing passages of the Tanakh they like to think are 'messianic prophecies' and creating scenarios accordingly for Jesus to walk through. Mary being a virgin, and the unhistorical tax census to get her to Bethlehem and the unhistorical 'Massacre of the Innocents' to get Jesus into Egypt so he can 'come out of Egypt' are some of the grosser examples.

Luke died in Rome ca AD66. He probably wrote his Gospel account in the '50's.
Jerusalem fell AD70 but the Jews [as a nation] were not sent into captivity until
after the third revolt ca 135 AD.
"They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations.
Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles
are fulfilled." Luke 21:24

Jerusalem returned to Jewish hands in 1967.

You can't say something is 'unhistoric' if there exists no evidence, can you?
Saying the Gospel writers collated Messianic prophecies are crafted a story
around them is a bit rich - these people were writing to citizens who lived
through these events in all probability. And the Messianic accounts mention
more than just the betrayal, trial and crucifixion of the Messiah - they speak
of the destruction of Israel and the temple. Hard to craft a bogus account
around those events.

 

[blü 2]

Luke died in Rome ca AD66.

I didn't say Luke. I said, the author of Luke.

You can't say something is 'unhistoric' if there exists no evidence, can you?

That sounds like an excellent reason to say it's unhistoric. That's how I know Donald Duck didn't succeed Louis XIV, for instance. There is no record of any such census and no record of any census that would require everyone in the Roman Empire to go back to their town of birth to be counted, and that's a huge amount of no evidence, since it was a huge empire. The author wants Jesus there to pretend to "fulfill" Micah 5:3.

Likewise it's unthinkable that if Herod had actually ordered the 'Massacre of the Innocents', no one would have left a comment somewhere ─ it's outrageous. Again the author uses it to get Jesus "into Egypt" so he can "fulfill" Hosea 11.1.

And Mary has to be a virgin for Matthew and Luke but no one else because the author take Isaiah 7:14 to be a 'messianic prophecy' ─ which it very plainly isn't ─ and whereas the Hebrew says 'almah = 'young woman', the Septuagint renders that into Greek as 'parthenos' meaning 'virgin'.

And on. And on.

Saying the Gospel writers collated Messianic prophecies are crafted a story
around them is a bit rich - these people were writing to citizens who lived through these events in all probability.

Assuming a real historical Jesus, who was crucified c. 30 CE, the closest we get is Paul, who never met an historical Jesus and wrote between 51 CE and at the latest 58 CE. The author of Mark gets his trial scene from the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem aka Jesus son of Ananias / Ananus in Josephus' Wars, which was not published till 75 CE. The authors of Matthew and of Luke a decade use Mark as a template and adjust to taste. The author of John a further decade on uses it too, but much more broadly.
​

 

[PruePhillip]

I didn't say Luke. I said, the author of Luke.
That sounds like an excellent reason to say it's unhistoric. That's how I know Donald Duck didn't succeed Louis XIV, for instance. There is no record of any such census and no record of any census that would require everyone in the Roman Empire to go back to their town of birth to be counted, and that's a huge amount of no evidence, since it was a huge empire. The author wants Jesus there to pretend to "fulfill" Micah 5:3.

Likewise it's unthinkable that if Herod had actually ordered the 'Massacre of the Innocents', no one would have left a comment somewhere ─ it's outrageous. Again the author uses it to get Jesus "into Egypt" so he can "fulfill" Hosea 11.1.

And Mary has to be a virgin for Matthew and Luke but no one else because the author take Isaiah 7:14 to be a 'messianic prophecy' ─ which it very plainly isn't ─ and whereas the Hebrew says 'almah = 'young woman', the Septuagint renders that into Greek as 'parthenos' meaning 'virgin'.

And on. And on.
Assuming a real historical Jesus, who was crucified c. 30 CE, the closest we get is Paul, who never met an historical Jesus and wrote between 51 CE and at the latest 58 CE. The author of Mark gets his trial scene from the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem aka Jesus son of Ananias / Ananus in Josephus' Wars, which was not published till 75 CE. The authors of Matthew and of Luke a decade use Mark as a template and adjust to taste. The author of John a further decade on uses it too, but much more broadly.
​

Yes, the 'author of Luke.'
Correct.
This book was the Gospel, compiled from Matt, Mark and various first or second
hand accounts of Jesus.
He then wrote The Acts but ended it rather suddenly. This author was on the boat
with Paul on his final journey to Rome. I presume that both men, as Christian
preachers, met the same end.
ca AD 66.

The book was attributed to 'Luke' in the First Century, presumably by people
with first or second hand knowledge of the author.

Here's an example:

According to Kenneth Atkinson, no "archaeological evidence that Masada's defenders
committed mass suicide" exists. Wiki.
It needs unpacking. This comes across as an attempt to sound academic, profound,
revisionist and contrarian. Most people don't expect to find the remains of the last Masada
defenders, still with their knife wounds. In fact there's no 'archaeological evidence' for
Caesar's assassination, Alexander's final day or the remains of Nelson, compete with the
bullet still in his back, bathed in brandy. It's enough to get the gist of what happened from
historians. Saying 'there's no evidence' is often meant as a sly way of saying 'it never
happened' or 'look how clever I am.' And that's an abuse.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, the 'author of Luke.'

Since we don't know who actually wrote Luke ─ or Mark, or Matthew, or John ─ we don't know when they died.

The book was attributed to 'Luke' in the First Century, presumably by people
with first or second hand knowledge of the author.

No, our earliest fragments of what we call Luke are from the late 2nd century at best, and no full text earlier than the 4th century.

 

[PruePhillip]

Since we don't know who actually wrote Luke ─ or Mark, or Matthew, or John ─ we don't know when they died.
No, our earliest fragments of what we call Luke are from the late 2nd century at best, and no full text earlier than the 4th century.

Doesn't matter when we find the 'earliest fragments' - that doesn't tell you about the first document.
The author of Luke's Gospel and Acts was an eye witness to the early formation of the Apostolic
Church. He was with Paul in AD 66. This suggests the date for Matt and Mark could have been no
later than the 50's AD.

 

[blü 2]

Doesn't matter when we find the 'earliest fragments' - that doesn't tell you about the first document.
The author of Luke's Gospel and Acts was an eye witness to the early formation of the Apostolic Church. He was with Paul in AD 66. This suggests the date for Matt and Mark could have been no later than the 50's AD.

Plain as day Mark is the first gospel, the template for the others.

And it can't have been written before 75 CE, because it uses material not available before then.

 

[firedragon]

Absence of proof take care of 99% of it.

According to which method of science is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

 

[PruePhillip]

Plain as day Mark is the first gospel, the template for the others.

And it can't have been written before 75 CE, because it uses material not available before then.

Not sure what you mean.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to which method of science is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

If an event would have had clear consequences and those consequences are not to be found that is evidence of absence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

According to which method of science is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

Did I say that? I said the absolute absence of evidence makes it nearly impossible to accept something.

 

[firedragon]

Did I say that? I said the absolute absence of evidence makes it nearly impossible to accept something.

The question was nothing about acceptance. If you read again, maybe it will be clearer.