Creationism vs Evolution

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Is 167 + 188 + 600 involved?

Gee, I don’t think so, but I bet I am about to be educated![/quote]

Darn. I probably won’t offer much education, but I was curious about the 3 numbers you posted, since I had no idea what they referenced.

After searching for a bit, I found a text mentioning that the dates of birth and age of Lamech and Noah are different in the Hebrew source (vs. the Greek Septuagint that is the source for the Bible). Using the Hebrew source, the Flood happens when Mathuselah is 955. Since he died at 969, 14 years later, and was not on the Ark, how did he survive?

Source: Genesis 1-11 - Google Books

I was wondering if this type of discrepancy was what you were aiming at; trying to illustrate to push that Biblical allegories aren’t meant to be taken as literal accounts, but as moral lessons.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Well? Give up? Remember, your answer must be in the form of a question.[/quote]

[i]The name Methuselah comes from two roots: muth, a root that means “death”; and from shalach, which means “to bring,” or “to send forth.” Thus, the name Methuselah signifies, “his death shall bring.”

And, indeed, in the year that Methuselah died, the flood came. Methuselah was 187 when he had Lamech, and lived 782 years more. Lamech had Noah when he was 182. The Flood came in Noah’s 600th year. 187 + 182 + 600 = 969, Methuselah’s age when he died.

Methuselah’s life was, in effect, a symbol of God’s mercy in forestalling the coming judgment of the flood. It is therefore fitting that his lifetime is the oldest in the Bible, symbolizing the extreme extensiveness of God’s mercy.[/i]

Is this getting closer?

[quote]pookie wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Is 167 + 188 + 600 involved?

Gee, I don’t think so, but I bet I am about to be educated!

Darn. I probably won’t offer much education, but I was curious about the 3 numbers you posted, since I had no idea what they referenced.

After searching for a bit, I found a text mentioning that the dates of birth and age of Lamech and Noah are different in the Hebrew source (vs. the Greek Septuagint that is the source for the Bible). Using the Hebrew source, the Flood happens when Mathuselah is 955. Since he died at 969, 14 years later, and was not on the Ark, how did he survive?

Source: Genesis 1-11 - Google Books

I was wondering if this type of discrepancy was what you were aiming at; trying to illustrate to push that Biblical allegories aren’t meant to be taken as literal accounts, but as moral lessons.
[/quote]

A true scholar! Ah! If only I could read Alexandrian Greek!!! Perhaps the Septuagint calculations are carried into the Vulgate and later translations, too. But in the Masoretic text, Genesis 5:21 ff, Methuseleh fathered Lamech at 187, Lamech fathered Noah at 182 and the Flood occurred in Noah’s 600th year.
And Methuseleh died at 969.

So…

[quote]pookie wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Well? Give up? Remember, your answer must be in the form of a question.

[i]The name Methuselah comes from two roots: muth, a root that means “death”; and from shalach, which means “to bring,” or “to send forth.” Thus, the name Methuselah signifies, “his death shall bring.”

And, indeed, in the year that Methuselah died, the flood came. Methuselah was 187 when he had Lamech, and lived 782 years more. Lamech had Noah when he was 182. The Flood came in Noah’s 600th year. 187 + 182 + 600 = 969, Methuselah’s age when he died.

Methuselah’s life was, in effect, a symbol of God’s mercy in forestalling the coming judgment of the flood. It is therefore fitting that his lifetime is the oldest in the Bible, symbolizing the extreme extensiveness of God’s mercy.[/i]

Is this getting closer?
[/quote]

A winner!!! Pookie achieves status as the TN Biblical Scholar!

(And I thought I had originated this thought!)

I will offer my impoverished explanation, and Scholar Pookie may just hate this.

The text of the Noah story is rife with puns and palindromes based on his name, N"h, which is derived from “to console” or “to comfort.” Perhaps the story should be read from what (I consider) the first such pun, the name of his great-grandfather Enoch, who after the birth of his son Methuseleh, “walked with God,” but who, unlike any of the other antediluvian personages, did not “die.” At the end of his life, he “was not.” This is a unique distinction among the righteous, perhaps shared only by Elijah, in that Samuel story of the two she-bears which Pookie hates so much.

Well, then, God resolves to do away with all the evil humans; but it is Enoch’s progeny who are righteous and are spared. After all, it is Noah, “unblemished in his generations,” who gets the nod, however qualified the endorsement.

Unlike Pookie, the Bronze Age listener of this tale would not have held the character God as malicious for wiping out humanity. They would not have doubted God’s mercy. But where is mercy and consolation in this act? Well, Methuseleh, Noah’s grandfather, dies precisely in the 600th year of Noah’s life, the Year of The Flood. It is no accident that the Redactors of Genesis asserts this: all of Noah’s antecedents, presumed righteous, are gone, and God does not plan to wipe out humanity until the last righteous man, Methuseleh, has died…save Noah. God does not allow the righteous to die in the Flood.

(Now, hidden in the text are the other acts of mercy; God could have provided a box, but he commands Noah to build an ark, during the building of which evil men could have repented. The cosmic spigots are not opened all at once; it “rained,” and men could have accepted the decree and repented.)

Where is the consolation? The puns end with the “pleasant smell” of Noah’s sacrifice, whereupon God offers the Noahic covenant: follow these rules and you are blessed.

It is the first of the 4 Old Testament covenants, but it is the only one that is made with all Mankind. By this Noahic covenant, not only will humanity be forever saved, but every person–regardless of tribe, station, or race–who follows The Rules can be saved, and can once again “walk with God,” as did Enoch, and as did Adam in Eden.

And that is why the Flood story, Friend Push, is not a text recording the biologic evolution of the species, but a revelation of the spiritual evolution of the human species.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
So theoretically, since we know there is another judgment coming, lovable ol’ Push just might conceivably be the next Methusaleh…who preaches and preaches and preaches to Pookie the Buddhist Priest until ol’ Flushy finally dies? Is there a T-Nation allegory in the works of the Doctor of Skepticism?[/quote]

Oh, you are just sore because Pookie gets to advance to the next round!

[quote]pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pookie wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
… why the story is not BOTH literal and allegorical. You seem to have a divine calling of some sort that allows you discern that God was just joking around with all the physical stuff.


[/quote]

As long as you asked, once one understands the incorporeality of God, the interpretation of the Story depends on God-given reason and human experience.
That is, not literalism, but science.

Well, it may very well be the Scholars’ Holiday, but study hall is closed for the night over here at the monastery.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
A winner!!! Pookie achieves status as the TN Biblical Scholar![/quote]

I must humbly decline the honor; I came at the question from the angle of a puzzle needing solving. Googling and cut-and-pasting does not a scholar make. If only that’s all it took.

[quote](And I thought I had originated this thought!)

I will offer my impoverished explanation, and Scholar Pookie may just hate this. [/quote]

Actually, I think it redeems the flood story immensely. I had never before heard any interpretation that actually made a good case for God’s mercy.

Do you have a similar interpretation for that story? One in which the children have a chance to repent before being mauled?

While we’re at it, what about Job? If there’s one book of the Bible where God looks bad, in my opinion of course, it’s that one.

The “it rained” part might be stretching it a bit. At the rate at which the water would’ve climbed, repenting on the first or second day didn’t give you a chance to put together a boat, or get to the Ark. Or am I being too literal?

[quote]Where is the consolation? The puns end with the “pleasant smell” of Noah’s sacrifice, whereupon God offers the Noahic covenant: follow these rules and you are blessed.

It is the first of the 4 Old Testament covenants, but it is the only one that is made with all Mankind.[/quote]

All 8 of them? Is DrSkeptix also a spin doctor? God enters into a covenant with the only surviving human family. Putting it as “God makes a convenant with all manknd.” sounds like a press release from God’s excellent PR department.

Extremely interesting; thanks for sharing that. After that interpretation, it seems to me that those who concern themselves with animal tonnage and waste removal procedures on the Ark are completely missing the boat, so to speak…

Anyone notice that push is not as present as he was a few pages ago? I think I know why: He’s moonlighting for The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/oh_no_its_making_well_reasoned

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Lot going on around here. Daughter is graduating from high school this weekend. Lots of folks here from out of town.[/quote]

Please tell me she’s not learning flood geology at school.

No thanks, I’m good. You keep’em; I’m sure you can use them to teach cranial anatomy or somesuch.

[quote]pookie wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
A winner!!! Pookie achieves status as the TN Biblical Scholar!

I must humbly decline the honor; I came at the question from the angle of a puzzle needing solving. Googling and cut-and-pasting does not a scholar make. If only that’s all it took.
[/quote]

I amend: First translation, then meaning, then cut-and-paste, then understanding.

You didn’t like it so much. In that chapter of II Kings, God does not appear or act. Elisha calls down a curse “in God’s name” but the Editor did not say, “and God sent two she-bears…” No, it is Elisha who is performing a miracle, again proving that he is a powerful profit worthy of inheriting Elijah’s mantle. But mercy does not seem to be one of Elisha’s divine traits, unfortunately for the rapscallions.

And also unfortunately, the kids do not repent. (No time? They were “mauled” or “torn.” The text does not say “killed.” Maybe they repented afterwards in the Oursine Recovery Suite.)

Parenthetically, how does this story tie in with the Flood story?
“It is clear” that these are magical bears; their behavior is not natural. It is tradition that the supernatural creatures of the OT–these bears, the ravens that fed Elijah, the “Great Fish” that swallowed Jonah–must have been created at The Beginning, along with all the “ordinary” animals. But somehow they survived the Flood with Noah. (Note that Noah saved a male and female of each species–then did God save the 2 she-bears? Was this a sanctioned domestic partnership?)

Too difficult for me; Job departs from the rest of the canon, in so many ways. Nephorm probably understands this better, from a different angle.

I offer only I B Singer’s answer to the question of whether there is “free will.” “Free will?” he pondered. “Yes, there is free will–because we have no other choice!”

Nope. I am the last to judge.

Yep. It is explicit that in each contract, the terms are forever, and are intended not just for those alive and present, but for all the progeny, forever.
Eight will do quite nicely. A contract is a contract!

My understanding is inadequate; but Pushharder had invited a re-reading which was revelatory for me.
As for the pun, you might admit that mine was pretty good, when Push suggested a day of Final Judgment, and I promoted you to “the next round.”

Just avoid making waves…

[quote]pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pookie wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Well? Give up? Remember, your answer must be in the form of a question.

Good to know you have it all figured out as allegorical. Dumb people everywhere should flock to you for instruction on the Bible. Maybe you can elaborate and tell us why the story is not BOTH literal and allegorical. You seem to have a divine calling of some sort that allows you discern that God was just joking around with all the physical stuff.

[/quote]

Nope.
Deut 30:12-16.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

Just avoid making waves…

Clever, clever. I missed that in the first reading. :wink:

Vous etes un biscuit elegant.

(Sure hope you interpreted that as “smart cookie” and not “elegant biscuit”) [/quote]

Merci! Better a biscuit than a souffle:
“You can’t make a souffle rise twice.” (Alice Longworth Roosevelt)

[quote]pookie wrote:

The “it rained” part might be stretching it a bit. At the rate at which the water would’ve climbed, repenting on the first or second day didn’t give you a chance to put together a boat, or get to the Ark. Or am I being too literal? [/quote]

Too literal IMHO. More as a group, as the Bible tends to tell stories of both individual and group salvation–family clans, nations, kings, courts, etc. So basically what happens is there’s a revelation that God’s gonna wipe people out if they don’t repent. The people laugh. He tells Noah to build an ark, and for 500 years or so Noah builds it and has the opportunity to tell the people to repent. They laugh. So the prophecy finally comes true, and the people have an opportunity to repent as a group and say “we’re sorry for fucking up God, and we’re sorry for laughing at your man Noah” and they don’t. You’re not going to build a boat in a day or two. It was more of a societal thing as I understand it.

Where is the consolation? The puns end with the “pleasant smell” of Noah’s sacrifice, whereupon God offers the Noahic covenant: follow these rules and you are blessed.

[quote]It is the first of the 4 Old Testament covenants, but it is the only one that is made with all Mankind.

All 8 of them? Is DrSkeptix also a spin doctor? God enters into a covenant with the only surviving human family. Putting it as “God makes a convenant with all manknd.” sounds like a press release from God’s excellent PR department.[/quote]

You could definitely see it that way. But then they’re all that’s left of humanity, so they’re the sole ambassodors so to speak. And in any case I believe God says that the covenant will endure with all of his descendants on the earth as well, so that basically covers everyone else.