Melding Evolution and Creationism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

Haney: Mars is an interesting example, the geology can be described to indicate wind or water erosion / deposition. In this case we don?t have a great number of facts to make a firm statement on the landforms? origination ? at least not untill we get some geologists on the ground there. W do have a lot of theories tho.

Why would I trust something that changes? ? as each new fact is unearthed, we adjust the theories to fit the facts, not the other way around.
You said ?If this were a trial would you trust the witness who always says the same thing or would you trust the one that keeps changing his story??
How about I put to you ? if this was a trial ? would you trust the scientist who has put together all the evidence to create a ?flowchart? of events, backed by current scientific methodologies (CSI-type analysis), or the person who says, ?Joe told Fred, who told my Mum, who told me this is what happened, I don?t care what the evidence says, I?m sticking with the story I?ve been given.?? Ever played the game Chinese Whispers?

To get back to the Evo vs Cre. argument, instead of wondering at the survival of a church, how about marvelling at the little mammal critters that survived and flourished post asteroidal impact (and if you want to argue that one) :

but again, all good theories need someone to challenge them:

On a personal note I have no faith in an ?All Knowing Super-Other? ? and why should anyone? ? from all acounts we are told that this particular super-entity is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient ? meaning it is all knowing, as it is all things at all times. According to such a definition you and I and the desk I?m sitting at are ?god?. As is the bitumen road and the tweeting birds and the sky they are under.
Why should I have faith in a desk (except to hold the ?puter up) ?

Now if we were to be arguing about the Jedi Force ? that?s a different matter??(it closely matches the concept of the Tao)
From Yoda of dagobah : ?It is the energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us. It binds the universe together. The Force is this and more. It cannot be fully described with words. You must feel the Force to understand it. ?
http://www.quantumlight.com/theforce/writings/force/the_force.htm

From the Tao te Ching
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

http://users.senet.com.au/~presence/SitePages/SecretsOnWheel/CelestialWheel/StructureAtHub/taogate/tao.html

The last pert of this paragraph is telling:
Basic propositions of Eastern philosophy show that there is an Ultimate Reality. Hindis would call this Brahman; Buddhists name it Buddha. Taoists would call it Tao, and Star Wars fans would see it as the Force. Whatever its name, it is from this Ultimate Reality that all things flow, and ultimately originate. According to Fritjof Capra, the ?essential nature of all things? is described by the term Dharmakaya ( 98). ?It pervades all material things in the universe? (Capra 98). Dharmakaya, or Dharma, is a Sanskrit word meaning ?one? (Pirsig 386). Interestingly, as Phaedrus discovered, ar?te and dharma both describe a ?duty toward self?, the pre-Socratic Greek description of ?excellence?. This is almost the exact description of the Tao. ?The Tao is infinite, eternal?the great Tao flows everywhere./All things are born from it? (Mitchell 7, 34).

http://athena.english.vt.edu/~exlibris/essays02/lewis.html

242

[quote]ShaunW wrote:
Haney: Mars is an interesting example, the geology can be described to indicate wind or water erosion / deposition. In this case we don?t have a great number of facts to make a firm statement on the landforms? origination ? at least not untill we get some geologists on the ground there. W do have a lot of theories tho.

[/quote]

my point is that it is possible at this point for it to have happened. I doubt many geologist have even considered a global flood. At best they will concede to a local mesopotamia flood. There is however a possibility. You would have to see all of the evidence in the entire geological world to rule it out. You can’t try a case in bits and pieces. The evidence must be looked at as a whole.

Well by that statement you have said that you understand ancient oral traditions and that many oral traditions where very well preserved.

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html

and once again the theory keeps changing, and everytime we are told we know exactly how it happened.

One sometimes has to question how far have we really come compared to those who lived before us?

I would agree it is still not proven. So it is nothing more than speculation, which is passed on as fact.

Well lets be clear. Omnipresent does not mean He is all things. It means he is in all things. For instance the breath of life that I breath is not a part of me, but it is in me. Without it I cease to live. So if our entire universe is held together by a force as you put it. Then God could be that force and He would be everywhere, but He would not be everything. So this is an area where I think you are taking a word and giving it a different meaning than what the Christian uses it as.

Well the difference is I relate that force to the creator. Your belief relates it to something that is just part of it. It is our view of what is there that is different.

243

[It keeps going and going and going and…]

haney,

     You should read Moses Maimonides's "The Guide of the Perplexed."
     It contains what is without a doubt the most intelligent defense of the various 'attributes' and actions of God I have read.
     Don't be misled into thinking that the obsolescence of the science it deals with makes it irrelevant.

Ross Hunt

244

[quote]haney wrote:
ToShinDo wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ToShinDo wrote:

haney: The East Indian redwood, or sapanwood (Caesalpinia sappan), was called “bresel wood” when it was first imported to Europe in the Middle Ages; Portuguese explorers used this name for a similar South American tree (C. echinata), from which the name Brazil for its native country purportedly derives.[/quote]

I would also like to point out that if the story of noah is true, then it would not be out of the question to assume the ark was built. We would then have to question how was the wood held together? It is not unreasonable to think that some metal tool would of been used.

It should also be pointed out that the timing of the books of moses would have been Early - Late Bronze. Still before the Iron age. Which intrigues me that much more. How would anyone have known about iron tools during the Bronze age The time when that was written.

245

[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:
[It keeps going and going and going and…]

haney,

     You should read Moses Maimonides's "The Guide of the Perplexed."
     It contains what is without a doubt the most intelligent defense of the various 'attributes' and actions of God I have read.
     Don't be misled into thinking that the obsolescence of the science it deals with makes it irrelevant.

Ross Hunt[/quote]

Great, as if I didn’t already have enough to read! I would PM you, but this is no option on your posts for me to. So Why don’t you turn your PM on and send me a message telling me little more about the book.

I will be honest at this point since I believe the Bible is the word of God I do not put much stock in what anyone man has to say about God. Instead I let the Bible interpret the Bible.

246

Well for me evolution and creation have never been in conflict. Science tells you How, Religion tells you Why …its that simple. I agree that 6 days in Genesis is just as likely the estimated 6.something billion years the earth is estimated to be by some scientists. God made everything and set things into motion … things took off on there own from there. To me there were many homonids but then God decided to make him in his image … and it was not physical, it was spiritual. Adam and Eve were the first homonids with a soul … homo sapiens. Modern man is not in Gods physical image but in his spiritual image… our soul. The Soul is what allowed Adam and Eve and their children to rise to dominance. There were other folks around though. The point is clear in the aftermath of Cain and Abel … after his crime Cain said “that every one that findeth me shall slay me”. If Adam and Eve their progeney was all that was around who is this everyone else?!? Then it goes further … And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod …And Cain knew his wife." The land of Nod … those other folks … other primitive hominds. Simply put the Soul in Gods image is what allowed us to take our place at the top of the order (well that and opposable thumbs aka nature’s superweapons). Again no conflict … religion and science always work out well together.

247

I don’t know if this hit the discussion board yet but it all depends on what was meant by the term evolution.

I believe, from what I recall, are two types of evolution, the normal monkey-to-man one. This one I find absolutely ridiculous but don’t jump on my case about it because I won’t get into why I believe this monkey-to-man is in error.

Two there is something called super evolution. It is more like an adoptation of living organisms to differing environments. If someone was talking about super evolution and creationism, this would be acceptable to me. I think this would certainly explain if the entire human race came from two people why they’re differences. But in reality, the actual differing features between humans across the globe is under 1%. There were never fresh water dolphins until saltwater dolphins were trapped in Brazil and forced to survive. Bees for example cannot live through a sudden drop in temparture. However if gradual, they can go into a mode of hibernation. This is also a reason why the idea of Noah’s Ark, though perhaps far fetched for some, is plausible. It wouldn’t be required to have the budweiser horses and zebras and mini horses. They could have been two general horses that would later polluted the entire world of all the different types of horses we have now. Not only this, not all animal would have to be on the ark. Animals like cockroaches and ants and other bugs are surviors. Boiled down, someone calculated that instead of millions of animals on a boat, it could have been closer to 10,000 range

Realistically articles have been covered supporting ideas such as evolution from monkeys, to big bang, but also include creationism. I say this only because don’t say science doesn’t prove the Genesis beginning. I recall reading an article starting that one of the lowest common building blocks in man is clay. Another article stating that its probable that all the decents of the world today came from one father and one mother.

So a better way of saying super evolution may be adaptation. However for the idea that something came from nothing. That fish turned into our cats or humans came from monkeys. Get real. That theory has so many holes you could slice it up and serve it as swiss cheese on a sandwich. IMO.

248

[quote]lothos wrote:

There were other folks around though. The point is clear in the aftermath of Cain and Abel … after his crime Cain said “that every one that findeth me shall slay me”. If Adam and Eve their progeney was all that was around who is this everyone else?!? Then it goes further … And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod …And Cain knew his wife." [/quote]

I disagree with this whole heartedly. I don’t have the passages in front of me but they do allude to Cain fearing others. But remember these were the oldest of Adam and Eve and it is rather ridiculous to think A & E stopped having children after them. In fact, its very probable Cain had brothers and sisters too not mentioned. The actual killing of Able could have happened in their late teens. A & E hopefully had more children because it was the command of God to them. It would only make sense for Cain to be afraid of kin because who else in the world would have cared what he had done? Only family would. Only they would be vengeful and angry with Cain and seek his head on a platter.

Second, since there were only two in the beginning all decents needed to help populate the world. ITs suggested that Cain actually was married before the incident happened with Able and left with her to the foreign land. There he knew his wife. So it wasn’t like he had gone there to find one, he already had one. You can read the verses and see if that makes sense.

There’s more to be said about it but I will stop there.

249

[quote]Tank53 wrote:
lothos wrote:

There were other folks around though. The point is clear in the aftermath of Cain and Abel … after his crime Cain said “that every one that findeth me shall slay me”. If Adam and Eve their progeney was all that was around who is this everyone else?!? Then it goes further … And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod …And Cain knew his wife."

I disagree with this whole heartedly. I don’t have the passages in front of me but they do allude to Cain fearing others. But remember these were the oldest of Adam and Eve and it is rather ridiculous to think A & E stopped having children after them. In fact, its very probable Cain had brothers and sisters too not mentioned. The actual killing of Able could have happened in their late teens. A & E hopefully had more children because it was the command of God to them. It would only make sense for Cain to be afraid of kin because who else in the world would have cared what he had done? Only family would. Only they would be vengeful and angry with Cain and seek his head on a platter.

Second, since there were only two in the beginning all decents needed to help populate the world. ITs suggested that Cain actually was married before the incident happened with Able and left with her to the foreign land. There he knew his wife. So it wasn’t like he had gone there to find one, he already had one. You can read the verses and see if that makes sense.

There’s more to be said about it but I will stop there. [/quote]

Here is a little insight nod is not a place. Translated back to the hebrew it means wandering or wanderer. So why think of it as an exact place?

I would also agree with tank on this issue. He had other brothers and sisters that are recorded in the Bible so it would most likely be them wanting to avenge Abels death.

250

[quote]Tank53 wrote:
I recall reading an article starting that one of the lowest common building blocks in man is clay. [/quote]

I recall reading an article that aliens were advising President Bush on the war in Iraq and that Bat Boy was getting plastic surgery. It must have been the same magazine as yours! Clay is not a “building block”, atoms and molecules are (unless you’re building an adobe house). Clay is mostly Al2O3, Si02 and some Mg and Fe. Only oxygen is in any abundance in our bodies. Aluminum, silicon, iron and magnesium combined total less than 1%. We are not made of clay.

251

I’ve spent the last hour reading this thread, and it’s time for me to add to it.

I think the reason why there are such strong differences in the way people view Creation and Evolution is in the way people choose to view the world. The way people choose to describe or explain events is based upon their beliefs, and as such, they are bound to differ. For example, those who believe in God will explain the existence of humans on earth with a Creationist view, and those who are scientific, will use Evolution. The debate of what is right and what is wrong is based purely on an individuals beleifs. For those who believe in God, they explain events as “God’s will, or fate”, whereas scientists will look at things like biology, physiology or biochemistry as the explanation. For each group, they are right in their own mind based upon their beliefs.

Every religion or culture has a creation myth or story, and evolution is how scientists tell their story. The fact that things cannot be proven on either side is not evidence to the contrary, but is just proving that the level of technology is insufficient to explain the complex nature of the universe. How each individual chooses to describe the nature of the universe is one of the strongest tenants of free will. I choose to describe it based on science, others do not. Even those who are religious differ in opinion, and the key argument, is not who is wrong, but why we do it. We like to have an explanation for things, and when ancient people could not explain something, they would often create a myth or a story to do so. Now, as we have advanced in our technological abilities, we use things like the Hubble telescope, electron microscopes and partical colliders to generate these explanations, based upon a shift to a more secular approach to the world.

Religion is based upon faith, so it would be pointless to ask someone who believes strongly in the Bible “Where is the proof of Jesus, of the Ark, of God?”, as they do not require evidence to believe. The whole point of religion is to provide a common morality, and the Bible is the guide to how Men are supposed to live. Other religions also have this tenant, and some have no mention of a deity, but the end results is the same - a moral code. For myself, and other scientists, our moral code is hypothesis testing: develop a question and experimentally prove or disprove it, and then develop another question, ad infinitum. In this fashion, things are continuously questioned, not because they are wrong, but because they are incomplete. The level of information available to humans is increasing exponentially, and very little of it is “new” knowledge, but further explainations or revisions of a current theory.

To that end, I find it interesting that individuals are using “evidence” to support Creation, when the very nature of adopting that dogma, is faith.

I would like to say that this post is excellent and thought-provoking, and I applaude everyone for keeping it civil. Religious discussions are notorious for turning ugly.

Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion.

252

[quote]Kent Lorenz wrote:

To that end, I find it interesting that individuals are using “evidence” to support Creation, when the very nature of adopting that dogma, is faith.

[/quote]

I find this to be a very interesting point. I’ve heard many arguments that try to persuade one to take the Bible at a fundamental level(specifically genesis) that claim to be scientifically sound. I’ve heard that carbon dating techniques are flawed, and even a false argument that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. I’m certain any good scientist would love to clarify these issues with the supporters. In general they are wrong, short shighted and spoken without proof. Science operates on emperical evidence, and anything outside this realm is not science. So if the fundamentalists have discovered some new scientific fact, scientist would love to hear about it.
Science at its best (as I see it) has no agenda, other than to observe and intepret the world. One can not perform science when he already knows what the world is like. This is where I see a conflict between religion and science. Many religious people fanactically believe that they know what the world and universe are and even how it was created. That is faith, not science. To some extent scientists are guilty of the same, but to a much lesser degree. As I see it science doesn’t prove anything true, it is instead a sucession of things that we are unable to prove false. So scientists live with degrees of doubt. There is always a chance a new theory will come along and prove theirs false.
My point is that religion demands the removal of doubt,well good science demands the presence of doubt.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not out to bash religion on all fronts. I was raised a Christian, and from a methaphorical standpoint I think it helps us to be better humans to one another, but I do not take it literaly especially in the are of creation. Our scientific inquiry has yeilded us the theory of evolution, and it is not infalluable, but we are certain of it to a good degree. Physics and cosmology also agree with a model that supports the idea that at one time the universe was confined to the size of a softball. These theories are still theories they describe with a certain probability how events occur over time. They also don’t really describe the origin of anything, I mean certainly the big bang describes how the universe unfolded over the last couple of billion years, but it says nothing about what existed before. That is an area science is not capable of probing. I mean its entirely possible the universe goes in cyclic pattern of expansion and contraction an infinite number of times, but we really can’t say cause we don’t have any way of testing this theory. It also is entirely possible that some being created the universe and intended for it to unfold into galxies, solar systems, and a planet with life that is intelligent like him. Again we really don’t know. I do find the latter situation interesting, I mean who created this being, and again I am left to say we don’t know. Personally I try not believe in things I have no way of knowing, perhaps I am wrong by not having faith in God and the bible and creationism, I mean there probably is a .0001% chance of this, but I think there is a better probability we may be on a little blue planet circling a bright star through the vacuum of space in a galaxy that is is expanding from momentum imparted by a big bang. It may be that life on this planet is nothing more than a pocket of resistance to entropy, not much different to an eddy in a stream fighting the current.
Anways enough of my ranting, I just wanted to try to express why I won’t believe in creationism, and why I think we need to learn to live with a little doubt and uncertainty. Flame away.

253

[quote]roamer82 wrote:
Personally I try not believe in things I have no way of knowing, perhaps I am wrong by not having faith in God and the bible and creationism, I mean there probably is a .0001% chance of this, but I think there is a better probability we may be on a little blue planet circling a bright star through the vacuum of space in a galaxy that is is expanding from momentum imparted by a big bang.[/quote]

It would appear that more faith would be needed to believe that a “bang” (which apparently is another word for life suddenly appearing along with the entire universe for absolutely no reason other than there being a huge cosmic orgasm that created the force of life and confined it to one form on one planet) created life than to believe that a higher entity instigated life as a “gift”. Bangs don’t create life. Like was mentioned above, for that much order to come from complete chaos, you would have to believe that if a car wreck occured enough times, that it would eventually transform this chaotic moment into a brand new car, complete with chromed out bumpers, a new sound system/dvd console and new tires with spinners. .0001% chance that there is a god but a greater chance that this will happen? I don’t understand your statistical knowledge.

254

[quote] “I mean there probably is a .0001% chance of this.” [quote/]

I guess in rereading my post things did not come out exactly as I intended. By .0001% chance I was refferring to the fundamentalists notion that the universe was created in 7 days 5000 years ago and that evolutuion is false. I really don’t think the evidence points in that direction.

[quote]"It would appear that more faith would be needed to believe that a “bang” (which apparently is another word for life suddenly appearing along with the entire universe for absolutely no reason other than there being a huge cosmic orgasm that created the force of life and confined it to one form on one planet) created life than to believe that a higher entity instigated life as a “gift”. Bangs don’t create life. Like was mentioned above, for that much order to come from complete chaos, you would have to believe that if a car wreck occured enough times, that it would eventually transform this chaotic moment into a brand new car, complete with chromed out bumpers, a new sound system/dvd console and new tires with spinners. .0001% chance that there is a god but a greater chance that this will happen? I don’t understand your statistical knowledge.
[/quote]

Professor X, You may be right, the idea that life rolled out of a series of impossibly random and chaotic events seems to be absolutely proposterous. I think most scientists involved in actually computing the odds that some pool of amino acids could form a sort of order and resitance to entropy, say the odds are astronomical. In that respect I’m inclined to agree with you that it seems as if something or someone of unknowable intelligence designed a universe to unfold as amazing as it has, but my whole point was I just don’t see a way to know if this is so.
Even if I were to accept the idea that a God is responsible for the universe and our existence, I would be left to question who created God?? So in my apparently warped mind, religion wouldn’t really give me any answers just another question.

As I side note I realized that this whole thing does boil down to the notion of faith. Ultimately the real issues in life do appear to be unkowable (at least in sciences sense of the word), so it seems we must rely on faith for the big questions (ie life death, creation). We all do it, atheists, have faith there is no god, a good agnostic has faith he can’t know one way or another if there is a God, and religous follower has faith there is a God. Is there actually a faithless option? I think even a scientist has to realize he operates on a little bit of faith. I mean he doesn’t expect that nature will all the sudden decide gravity should be a repulsive force and planets will push themselves out of orbit. So my question from all this is what should we have faith in and why??

255

[quote]roamer82 wrote:

Even if I were to accept the idea that a God is responsible for the universe and our existence, I would be left to question who created God?? So in my apparently warped mind, religion wouldn’t really give me any answers just another question. [/quote]

The Bible states that God is the beginning and the end. It implies that he lives outside of our concept of time. The only reason we think of things as needing a beginning, middle and end is because of how we view time. In our reality, something can’t come from nothing. It has to have a start. If something were powerful enough to transcend the boundaries of time, they would have no beginning. They would have no concept of age or time. That would seem to answer your question. The problem seems to stem from many trying to relate God to our own bland understanding of the universe. That is what that whole discussion of black holes was about. There are things that we can see in our universe that go against our concept of time and space. That would seem to give more foundation to the belief that there could be an entity that could also react the same. That means you question was answered thousands of years ago…if you believe in the Bible.

[quote]
As I side note I realized that this whole thing does boil down to the notion of faith. Ultimately the real issues in life do appear to be unkowable (at least in sciences sense of the word), so it seems we must rely on faith for the big questions (ie life death, creation). [/quote]

Actually, faith is even required for many small questions. We still don’t understand many of the complexities of our own bodies. The process of muscle growth is largely still a theory. Logically, this universe is too complex to believe that it happened all by accident and that there is no purpose or order to it all. Common coincidences in my life lead me to believe in destiny and a reason for every occurance. Those who don’t want to believe think it is all by chance. I believe we have choices to make and that God does not step in and make those decisions for us. However, when we follow the right path, our purpose is realized. I choose to believe because I don’t see chaos when I look at the world aside from what we create between ourselves. There seems to be much order considering some actually believe that chaos simply abounds until it accidentally finds order every once in a while. We live in a universe of cause and effect. That seems to be the purpose of its existance. Maybe we are just an experiment, but to believe that life just happened once and then never again just doesn’t make any sense. Even evolutionists can’t account for that. They simply skip over it.

256

Professor X,
I have to admit you’re point about God living outside our concept of time and beyond our small perception of the universe, would explain alot. So if this is how it is, how is it we are even able to relate to a being that is so different than anything we know (or think we know)?

257

[quote]roamer82 wrote:
Professor X,
I have to admit you’re point about God living outside our concept of time and beyond our small perception of the universe, would explain alot. So if this is how it is, how is it we are even able to relate to a being that is so different than anything we know (or think we know)?[/quote]

Wasn’t that the purpose of his conveyance of the Bible? Wasn’t this given to us so that we would have SOME understanding of his intentions and goals? The entire book of Revelations was a look into the future. Our future. The beings described have been thought by many to be machines that we see everyday now (from airplanes to cars) only described by someone who had no clue what they were viewing aside from relating it to what they knew. I just don’t see how people who haven’t even read the Bible (except for a few who have read it only to look for things they could complain about?like the poster above who thought there were two different creation stories only because he misread it) could dismiss what is in it.

258

Professor X,
I am not unfamilar with the Bible, when I was younger, every Sunday I read it and had a very literal Pastor enforce it verbatim. Even if many of the disciples did write it through contact with God I would never intepret it literally. It has been translated and re-translated many times. Some its original meaning may have been lost in translation. Just go to a foreign web page and have google translate it. Usually the translation does not make perfect sense and fails to convey the original message. Furthermore it was written two thousand years ago, language as we know it did not exist back then. language has changed. Our intepretation is not going to be accurate.

259

[quote]roamer82 wrote:
Professor X,
I am not unfamilar with the Bible, when I was younger, every Sunday I read it and had a very literal Pastor enforce it verbatim. Even if many of the disciples did write it through contact with God I would never intepret it literally. It has been translated and re-translated many times. Some its original meaning may have been lost in translation. Just go to a foreign web page and have google translate it. Usually the translation does not make perfect sense and fails to convey the original message. Furthermore it was written two thousand years ago, language as we know it did not exist back then. language has changed. Our intepretation is not going to be accurate.[/quote]

Well lucky for us we have some copies from the first century of the OT in Hebrew, and some second century copies of the NT, in greek. So we can be certain that we have the exact same Bible today that we had back then. I never hear anyone say how certain are we that we translated Aristotle, or Homer. Why because we are pretty good at translating other languages. While it is not an exact science the rule of them is that the message is clearly explained in the translation. I only hear people who really don’t understand the proccess of ancient literature use arguments. As it was pointed out in an earlier post from t-doff. This is a strawman argument.

No scholar still questions “have tranlated it correctly?”

260

haney,
Last history of science course I took addressed the very issue of translation of ancient works. Its somewhat ironic you mention Aristotle, our Proffesor claimed there is much speculation that Aristotle distorted the work of his predessecors. Unfortunately it is primarily through Aristotle that we get this information. Libraries and literacy were very rare in those days. Unfortunately raids and wars that destroyed literature weren’t uncommon Anyways my point is it is hard is hell to determine what a lot of ancient text means, since so often there was distortion from one specefic source. Also it is the job of the scholar who is fluent in this test to translate it, much as you like to think this is not a clear cut case, especially when an agenda motivates it.