I have now met a real life creationist.

[funinspace]

Yes, I spent about a dozen adult years as an evangelic type Christian, after growing up in a mainstream Protestant church.

That is precisely why you do not know. You'll never learn it there.

It? There? Pronouns are not your friend on a chat board....

Actually, I would call them Iron age nomads, but who am I to fuss...

Would you agree that those "bronze -age nomads" were wise beyond your wildest imaginations?

Tis funny...uhm, an emphatic no.

Let's check it out:
How did those "bronze-age nomads" know the shape of the earth:
“There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth.”(Isaiah 40:22)

Yep, I was right…funny. You didn’t bother quoting the whole verse for some odd reason. Here, let me help you:
Isaiah 40:22 “It is He who sits above the [t]circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.”
Now how do you stretch out a tent over a spheroid? Yeah, it sounds just like it reads, a circle (yah know like a pancake). And in Isaiah 22:18, it appears that the writer(s) knew what a “ball” is as compared to a circle. Never mind that there are dozens of verses strongly suggesting a flat earth mentality. But, go ahead and cling to this portion of one verse and play verbal gymnastics.

and that it is "hanging on nothing?"
“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7)

First of all, Job is largely poetic and a morality play. So hanging an argument about solar descriptions upon Job’s language is laughable. Secondly, later in Job (38:4-6) makes quite a compelling counter statement with “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you [a]have understanding, Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? “On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,” Which verse to stick one’s neck out upon…

WHO provided them with an accurate description of the earth's water cycle?:
“All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.” (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Not very funny - eh?

Wow, that is pretty dang vague. But let’s not forget that Yahweh puts the sun in his garage for the night in Ecclesiastes 1:5 “Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And [e]hastening to its place it rises there again”. I’d have to say that this is probably your better one of the 3, but still funny.

However, you are the one believing that your holy book is God-breathed. So the whole enchilada kind of needs to work. So grabbing bits and pieces and going “see here and here” doesn’t really cut it when there are dozens of verses propping up the flat earth society. You also have major problems with reality contradicting the Deluge fable and Joshua’s solar object demands, among others.

 

[bilby]

Or, indeed, any basis at all other than the fevered imaginations of a bunch of bronze age nomads filtered through more than a thousand years of Byzantine power politics.

Have you really tested their points of view? Would you agree that those "bronze -age nomads" were wise beyond your wildest imaginations?
If your answer is "no," then I have a few really unique puzzles for you.

I learnt a new word today.

"Omniblivious", which means knowing nothing at all about absolutely everything.

Will I ever have a use for this word?

 

[wilson]

Ehe... what? Have you bothered to even look it up? Here you go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity
The definition is simple and straight forward. Anybody can intuitively understand complexity. You don't even need to know any maths. It's really simple

Seems to me like you didn't read it yourself. Or, if you did, you didn't understand it. Let me quote from your source that proves what I said:
"Complexity describes the behaviour of a system or model whose components interact in multiple ways and follow local rules, meaning there is no reasonable higher instruction to define the various possible interactions.[1]......Complexity is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways, culminating in a higher order of emergence greater than the sum of its parts. Just like there is no absolute definition of "intelligence", there is no absolute definition of "complexity"; the only consensus among researchers is that there is no agreement about the specific definition of complexity."

That's like saying you don't need an engine in a car - IF your intention is to let it sit in one place like an exhibit. Design is inextricably linked to intention. You make these sweeping statements without any way of confirming them. Give me an example of your "creating" something complex without design.

There's a problem here. Whatever example I give you'll just say "god did it".

You misunderstand. I said "Give me an example of YOUR 'creating' something complex without design." "GODDIDIT" could not be my response if YOU did it.

If you posit a omnipotent agent in a system whatever happens in the system can be attributed to the omnipotent agent. That doesn't prove the omnipotent agent did it or even exists.

YOU called it a "system." That is an organized scheme or method. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define+system&*
Same as an arrangement. YOU are putting an omnipotent agent into that "system" or arrangement - not me. And then you deny it.

But it does make this conversation somewhat futile.

I see; you hit a rock and you want to run.

But I'll play along. The weather is complex. The physics involved is extremely simple and straight forward. No design. Still the weather is incredibly complex. The orbits of the planets, same deal. No design. Still complex.

Is that your example of "'creating' something complex without design?" How did YOU manage to create weather? And if weather is "simple, straightforward, no design," why do people spend years studying its complexity before becoming competent enough to describe it?

Complexity is never based on a supposition.

That makes no sense. Why not?

You mean you don't understand? I'll explain: When something is identified as complex, there is no "IF." Do you agree?

Them slowing down effects whether you continue or stop walking.

The task is still simple. All you have to do is wait.

That's not the point.

It IS your point! YOU introduced complexity based on whether or not the person can walk or wait.

The point is that you can't walk while cars are coming.

Not according to YOUR definition:
"Complexity is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways, culminating in a higher order of emergence greater than the sum of its parts." (Wiki)

You contradict yourself. How on earth can you describe complexity as simple? The two are unalterably opposed to each other.

The basic mechanics behind complexity is simple. I still think you're talking about things that are "complicated".

No! It has become quite plain that you do not know what you're talking about.

It can create bizarre and wonderous patterns. But no evidence of intelligence.

Designs and patterns are evidences of intelligence. Those patterns are evidences of physical laws that could not have installed nor enforced themselves.

That makes no sense. When it rains all the rain falls downward.

You think the rain decided on that method?

That's a pattern.

No - it isn't! Check your definitions.

Evidence of intelligence? Or evidence of that when vapour travels far enough away from Earth it will at some point get cold and it'll condense.

It operates according to laws that it did not invent.

But the creation of the solar system was a godawful mess.

You know of a better one? Show me one that's done the "right" way according to your standards.

I could invent one in my head that doesn't involve 13.7 billion years of rocks being mercilessly flung toward each other and make massive explosions. It hasn't stopped yet. Any day now a big fucker will pop out of the sky and ruin the day for everybody. Perhaps wipe out the human race. You know, one of those that killed the dinosaurs.

Now you have been reduced to indulging in fantasy.

Sooner or later it would have sorted itself and reached equilibrium.

Equilibrium with what? Based on what precedent? Hope?

Second law of thermodynamics.

The source of that law is an intelligent one.

Which is what we always get with everything.

But that is so false!!! Is there reason to believe that there is some balancing or qualifying agent at work here?

We've studied this scientifically for quite a while now. I think we can be pretty confident this one works out.

That's a response that does not answer the question. Try again.

It's simply physics. No intelligence required.

It takes intelligence to make laws - including the laws of physics.

he he... yes. But nature didn't make these laws.

Neither did humans. We can barely understand them.

The laws of nature are just laws we've created to help us understand it.

When you appeal to the laws of nature you are appealing to a very successful arrangement that has an intelligent source. It is successful because it reaches a goal. Humans did not create the laws of nature because they existed long before the advent of men.

There's no intelligence to be found anywhere.

You can only speak for yourself.

 

[wilson]

Have you really tested their points of view? Would you agree that those "bronze -age nomads" were wise beyond your wildest imaginations?
If your answer is "no," then I have a few really unique puzzles for you.

I learnt a new word today.

"Omniblivious", which means knowing nothing at all about absolutely everything.

Will I ever have a use for this word?

That's a description of a person in a coma - or dead.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Seems to me like you didn't read it yourself. Or, if you did, you didn't understand it. Let me quote from your source that proves what I said:
"Complexity describes the behaviour of a system or model whose components interact in multiple ways and follow local rules, meaning there is no reasonable higher instruction to define the various possible interactions.[1]......Complexity is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways, culminating in a higher order of emergence greater than the sum of its parts. Just like there is no absolute definition of "intelligence", there is no absolute definition of "complexity"; the only consensus among researchers is that there is no agreement about the specific definition of complexity."

I'm not sure what it is you're having trouble with understanding? It's such a simple concept.

Same as an arrangement. YOU are putting an omnipotent agent into that "system" or arrangement - not me. And then you deny it.

Because it's obvious that you're assuming and arguing for an omnipotent agent. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.

But it does make this conversation somewhat futile.

I see; you hit a rock and you want to run.

If you and I compare... let's say test results and each time you tell me a result I reply with "I got the same result times ten". That's all Christian theology is. It just starts with a baseless assertion. Which BTW is absurd. We know that omnipotent is impossible since it's a logical paradox. So we know right from the get go that Christian theology is wrong. But that doesn't seem to slow down Christian apologists one iota.

But I'll play along. The weather is complex. The physics involved is extremely simple and straight forward. No design. Still the weather is incredibly complex. The orbits of the planets, same deal. No design. Still complex.

Is that your example of "'creating' something complex without design?" How did YOU manage to create weather? And if weather is "simple, straightforward, no design," why do people spend years studying its complexity before becoming competent enough to describe it?

That's the whole point about complexity. There's no human who can accurately calculate how the weather will be. We can make approximations a couple of days ahead. But that's all. There's so many moving parts that are dependent on one another. Nobody can do the maths.

But we still know all the moving parts in the equation. The input is no mystery. The complexity is no mystery. We know all this well. We still can't make accurate calculations. That's all complexity is. Like I said, I still don't understand what you don't understand. There must be a maths teacher you can ask who can explain this? I don't seem to be able to. And you don't even need to aim high. You can go for a maths teacher at any level. Even in the teachers of the earliest grades they should have firm handle on complexity. Because that seems to be my problem. Pedagogy.

Complexity is never based on a supposition.

That makes no sense. Why not?

You mean you don't understand? I'll explain: When something is identified as complex, there is no "IF." Do you agree?

What? There are plenty of complex systems which we can do the maths for and do understand fully, and can work out every eventuality. And example is the nematode C Elegans. It's a living multicellular organism, but also very simple. So we've studied it extensively and now we know how all the parts work. We can calculate everything in the life of C Elegans is we also know it's environment.

I can easily design a complex system that is fully understood. I work with software development. Making predictable complex systems is all we do all day. There's no mystery here. Millions of people do it. I'm certainly no genius. I think anybody can do it.

Not according to YOUR definition:
"Complexity is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways, culminating in a higher order of emergence greater than the sum of its parts." (Wiki)

[...]

You contradict yourself. How on earth can you describe complexity as simple? The two are unalterably opposed to each other.

I still don't understand what you don't understand. It's so simple and straightforward.

A description of something complicated can be simple. It's not a contradiction in terms. If it was nobody would ever learn anything in school

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm not sure what it is you're having trouble with understanding? It's such a simple concept.

But it doesn't lead to his desired conclusions, so he has to rejected it.

 

[wilson]

That is precisely why you do not know. You'll never learn it there.

It? There? Pronouns are not your friend on a chat board....

Actually, I would call them Iron age nomads, but who am I to fuss...

Dunno.

Would you agree that those "bronze -age nomads" were wise beyond your wildest imaginations?

Tis funny...uhm, an emphatic no.

Let's check it out:
How did those "bronze-age nomads" know the shape of the earth:
“There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth.”(Isaiah 40:22)

You didn’t bother quoting the whole verse for some odd reason.

Enough to make my point.

Here, let me help you:

I think you need it more than I do.

Isaiah 40:22 “It is He who sits above the [t]circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.”
Now how do you stretch out a tent over a spheroid?

You missed the point completely.
The first statement is fact; the second is a simile. You can't tell one from the other.

Yeah, it sounds just like it reads, a circle (yah know like a pancake).

Nope! That is a very bad analogy.
A few facts: A disk, a flat circle, looked at from any angle, does not remain a circle. Sometimes it takes the shape of an oblong and at other times like a vertical line. OTOH, from God's point of view, a sphere, looked at from any angle, remains a circle.

And in Isaiah 22:18, it appears that the writer(s) knew what a “ball” is as compared to a circle.

Most fruits and vegetables, viewed head-on, appears circular. Even the object that you call a "football." Everything circular cannot be compared to a ball. Otherwise you would have to start playing "catch" with your food.
Now you know different (or at least you should).

Never mind that there are dozens of verses strongly suggesting a flat earth mentality.

I say, without fear of contradiction, that there isn't a single one!

But, go ahead and cling to this portion of one verse and play verbal gymnastics.

Unlike you, I haven't taken a single out of context nor have I viewed the symbolic as literal.

and that it is "hanging on nothing?"
“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7)

First of all, Job is largely poetic and a morality play.

Based on what facts? Let's see you explain that.

So hanging an argument about solar descriptions upon Job’s language is laughable.

As a child, the first time I heard two people speaking Chinese, I laughed. I didn't know I was the one who misunderstood. You wouldn't be laughing if you understood it.

Secondly, later in Job (38:4-6) makes quite a compelling counter statement with “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you [a]have understanding, Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? “On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,” Which verse to stick one’s neck out upon…

What is it that you don't understand?
Job gets his reply from God, the Master Builder, out of a windstorm. The earth rests on nothing; yet, it has durable foundations - unchangeable natural laws that keeps the entire universe firmly in place, and God's purpose toward the earth remains unchanged.(Job 26:7; 38:33; Ps 104:5; Mal 3:6)

WHO provided them with an accurate description of the earth's water cycle?:
“All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.” (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Not very funny - eh?

Wow, that is pretty dang vague.

Vague? Do you want the whole quote?

But let’s not forget that Yahweh puts the sun in his garage for the night in Ecclesiastes 1:5 “Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And [e]hastening to its place it rises there again”. I’d have to say that this is probably your better one of the 3,

Yes - that is because it appears that way TO US here on earth and we could understand what he is referring to. From HIS point of view, there is no such thing. If you think that is wrong then you should not speak of "sun-rise or sun-set" in your everyday speech.

but still funny.

Yeah! And you still don't understand Chinese. Or, do you?

However, you are the one believing that your holy book is God-breathed.

Sure, I do! There are things in there that humans could not know nor introduce. There is wisdom there that humans cannot match and you would do well not to challenge that.

So the whole enchilada kind of needs to work.

The whole thing does work. You are welcome to try and debunk any of it.

So grabbing bits and pieces and going “see here and here” doesn’t really cut it when there are dozens of verses propping up the flat earth society. You also have major problems with reality contradicting the Deluge fable and Joshua’s solar object demands, among others.

Did you really expect me to showcase the entire book here, all at once?
You are welcome to try something else.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think you need it more than I do.

It's cute how wilson sends people to Coventry for mocking him, while he feels free to mock everyone else.

Isaiah 40:22 “It is He who sits above the [t]circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.”
Now how do you stretch out a tent over a spheroid?

You missed the point completely.
The first statement is fact; the second is a simile. You can't tell one from the other.

THat's not as good a defense as you might think. Similes are used to compare similar things. SO even if it's saying the sky is LIKE a tent, that's still saying that the sky reaches down to touch the ground, just like a tent does.

Also, no one's ever really shown how to tell exactly when the authors write in fact vs. when they write poetic, metaphor or simile. Except if they use current scientific understanding to choose which verses to filter in their arguments to show that scripture is superior to current scientific understanding....
Hilarious.

 

[funinspace]

It? There? Pronouns are not your friend on a chat board....

Actually, I would call them Iron age nomads, but who am I to fuss...

Dunno.

Interesting that you don't understand your own use of pronouns...

There is a difference between ramrodding verses to fit into your religious dogma and wowing those who don't find your faith reasonable with fake Bible science as if it were 'wise'.

Well, I think I'll take the advise of Proverbs 29:9 and dust off my feet to boot...

 

[funinspace]

Decided to toss out a comment on one detail...

and that it is "hanging on nothing?"
“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7)

First of all, Job is largely poetic and a morality play. So hanging an argument about solar descriptions upon Job’s language is laughable.

Based on what facts? Let's see you explain that.

Take it up with the large group of theogians that developed The ‘New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition; 4th Edition 1994.
From Pg 460

The origins of the book

We cannot put a date on the composition of the book of Job, except for the outer limits, perhaps the seventh and the second centuries BC. A folk tale of a righteous sufferer probably existed long before the present poem came into being.

<snip>
Among modern students of the Bible, the book of Job is reckoned ot belong to the group known as ‘Wisdom Literature”.

 

[funinspace]

Yes, I spent about a dozen adult years as an evangelic type Christian, after growing up in a mainstream Protestant church.

That is precisely why you do not know. You'll never learn it there.

Hah...I figured out your cryptic and cagey meaning accidentally, as I was curious as to which Bible version you were quoting. You are of the Jehovah Witness flavor or leaning, as the below is the JW New World Translation (NWT). Maybe the NWT also redacted out the part about being forthright....

“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7)

Does splain a lot...

 

[WAB]

. And that was that. I have now learned, based on statistical analysis of all the creationists I have met (ie 1) that they are very sexy, have big bouncy boobs and look great in hot pants and don't sleep with people who don't validate all their silly beliefs.

Hey Dr. Z. I don't know if you remember me, but we've had a few encounters on TFT. I self-banned in 2015, because I was spending too much time here and was getting stressed out. My good friend Kharakov asked Ray if I could have the ban lifted, and Ray graciously obliged. I have promised myself to keep things very light-hearted, and I promise not to get angry or stupid with anyone. If I am coming off like a self-righteous douchebag, I apologize. I spend a lot of time on bulletin boards and I seem to irritate the living daylights out of just about everyone. After 16 years online, I have finally learned that the problem has to be me, and not everyone else. So bear with me:

I've read your OP over and over since my ban was lifted a few days ago.

I know you were mainly just being funny about the bit that I quoted. I also know that it's ripped out of context, but anyone reading here can consult the OP to get the whole drift. Anyone reading here also probably knows that you're a decent person who's been posting here for years. What I'm getting at is: I do not for one moment think that you are a creepy guy or an immoral person. I've read enough of your posts and have interacted with you before.

I am being sincere.

All that being said, and to be absolutely objective about it, it looks to me like you were just disappointed because you wanted to have sex with this young lady and that didn't happen. The disagreement over beliefs seems like a side issue. It also appears to me that this young lady has certain values, however derived, and is able to make decisions based on those values as to whom she's going to have sex with, even while intoxicated. I say good for her. If I was her father I'd be damned proud of her. I don't know how old you are, but I'd be willing to bet that if you have daughters you'd want them to discriminate and be selective about whom they have sex with.

I don't know about writing fan fiction and making atheists the evil characters. That seems puerile; but let's stand in this girl's shoes for a sec. You describe her as being very attractive, so no doubt she spends a good deal of time fending off guys who are just trying to get laid. You describe her as having a conservative religious worldview, but she's also willing to go to this sort of event you mention, and hang out with free-thinking atheists and do drugs, so it doesn't appear at all that she's some kind of straight-laced goody-two-shoes, or sheltered shrinking violet. Seems to me that she's pretty confident in her ability to navigate that kind of potentially threatening environment, that she's self-aware, strong, and puts a premium on what's in the hot pants, and those 'big bouncy boobs' you mention.

Ergo: I don't understand you taking the high moral ground here and targeting her for ridicule. Regardless of whether God exists or not, it's just a little social narrative about two people who didn't quite gel enough to hop into the sack, or sleeping bag, or hammock. Or wherever it is people bump uglies at those events.

 

[DrZoidberg]

. And that was that. I have now learned, based on statistical analysis of all the creationists I have met (ie 1) that they are very sexy, have big bouncy boobs and look great in hot pants and don't sleep with people who don't validate all their silly beliefs.

I know you were mainly just being funny about the bit that I quoted. I also know that it's ripped out of context, but anyone reading here can consult the OP to get the whole drift. Anyone reading here also probably knows that you're a decent person who's been posting here for years. What I'm getting at is: I do not for one moment think that you are a creepy guy or an immoral person. I've read enough of your posts and have interacted with you before.

If I was a creepy guy, wouldn't I just have lied to her in order to get to sleep with her? I'm not saying I'm not creepy. I have a feeling that creepy people don't realise they are, or they would stop being creepy.

All that being said, and to be absolutely objective about it, it looks to me like you were just disappointed because you wanted to have sex with this young lady and that didn't happen. The disagreement over beliefs seems like a side issue. It also appears to me that this young lady has certain values, however derived, and is able to make decisions based on those values as to whom she's going to have sex with, even while intoxicated. I say good for her. If I was her father I'd be damned proud of her. I don't know how old you are, but I'd be willing to bet that if you have daughters you'd want them to discriminate and be selective about whom they have sex with.

We are very different. Sex is just sex. I have no problems having sex with someone I disagree with. I have no problems being friends with people I disagree with. A couple of years ago I met a very militant feminist girl who was politically active in the Swedish feminist party (FI). There was mutual attraction and quite quickly we started having sex. We met every week for about two years. She was way off the crazy end spectrum of feminism. We had loads of discussions. I learned lots of things about her brand of militant feminism. I even went with her to meetings and feminist functions. All very interesting. But she was pretty self-centred and liked talking. It took her about two years before asking me what I thought about anything. When she learned I was a liberal she was in shock and decided that it went against her political beliefs to have sex with a liberal. I had at no point tried to conceal my beliefs. She just hadn't asked. So that was the end of that.

I found her political views reprehensible. Just as I find conservative Christian moral values reprehensible. Doesn't stop me from enjoying their company or having sex with them. I like to pick the brains of people. I'm always fascinated by people who I don't share beliefs with. I always strive to learn how they've reached the conclusions they have. I'm a curious guy. It's unnecessarily limiting to stick to "your own kind".

I don't know about writing fan fiction and making atheists the evil characters. That seems puerile; but let's stand in this girl's shoes for a sec. You describe her as being very attractive, so no doubt she spends a good deal of time fending off guys who are just trying to get laid. You describe her as having a conservative religious worldview, but she's also willing to go to this sort of event you mention, and hang out with free-thinking atheists and do drugs, so it doesn't appear at all that she's some kind of straight-laced goody-two-shoes, or sheltered shrinking violet. Seems to me that she's pretty confident in her ability to navigate that kind of potentially threatening environment, that she's self-aware, strong, and puts a premium on what's in the hot pants, and those 'big bouncy boobs' you mention.

This is Sweden. If you stick to only going to conservative Christian events you will not have any friends and you will stay home all the time. If you want to have any kind of social life, you're "forced to" socialise with atheists.

I got the impression that she enjoyed getting reactions from expressing extreme opinions. I could be wrong. But just a feeling I had.

Ergo: I don't understand you taking the high moral ground here and targeting her for ridicule. Regardless of whether God exists or not, it's just a little social narrative about two people who didn't quite gel enough to hop into the sack, or sleeping bag, or hammock. Or wherever it is people bump uglies at those events.

They have sex in tents, which truly is horrible and certainly evidence of low standards and a corrupt soul. You spend the evening chatting up a girl and when you both decide to retire for some sex both realise that there's nowhere decent to go. Afterwards, you got to do a walk of shame to the showers. Why do people even bother at these events? Sometimes my penis is my enemy. Horrific.

 

[wilson]

Decided to toss out a comment on one detail...

First of all, Job is largely poetic and a morality play. So hanging an argument about solar descriptions upon Job’s language is laughable.

Based on what facts? Let's see you explain that.

Take it up with the large group of theogians that developed The ‘New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition; 4th Edition 1994.
From Pg 460

The origins of the book

We cannot put a date on the composition of the book of Job, except for the outer limits, perhaps the seventh and the second centuries BC. A folk tale of a righteous sufferer probably existed long before the present poem came into being.

<snip>
Among modern students of the Bible, the book of Job is reckoned ot belong to the group known as ‘Wisdom Literature”.

I repeat - based on what facts? They have no details about arriving at a time-line. They're actually admitting that they know next to nothing about the book.
Let's see YOU explain that.

 

[wilson]

That is precisely why you do not know. You'll never learn it there.

Hah...I figured out your cryptic and cagey meaning accidentally, as I was curious as to which Bible version you were quoting. You are of the Jehovah Witness flavor or leaning, as the below is the JW New World Translation (NWT). Maybe the NWT also redacted out the part about being forthright....

“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7)

Does splain a lot...

Is there something inaccurate about the translation? If you think so, please let us know what it is.

 

[wilson]

Wilson must be serious .. there is a better term 'natural guided design' without intention definition. And the invisible mysterious just like magic laws of nature/physics guides the universe , and in it the solar sytem.

The question from this is; is the laws of nature itself also the design? We simply propose it is out of the two choices.

The laws of nature is a successful arrangement and ANY arrangement is evidence of design.

 

[blastula]

Because?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wilson must be serious .. there is a better term 'natural guided design' without intention definition. And the invisible mysterious just like magic laws of nature/physics guides the universe , and in it the solar sytem.

The question from this is; is the laws of nature itself also the design? We simply propose it is out of the two choices.

The laws of nature is a successful arrangement and ANY arrangement is evidence of design.

No it isn't.

Things have to arrange themselves in some manner. The fact that they ended up arranged some way is evidence that there was an end point, not evidence that someone planned for it to reach that end point.

It's like if you drop five dice and they arrange themselves as 6, 4, 6, 2, 3 and then you say that this end result is meaningful and must be because someone planned for them to have that arrangement.

 

[funinspace]

Hah...I figured out your cryptic and cagey meaning accidentally, as I was curious as to which Bible version you were quoting. You are of the Jehovah Witness flavor or leaning, as the below is the JW New World Translation (NWT). Maybe the NWT also redacted out the part about being forthright....

“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7)

Does splain a lot...

Is there something inaccurate about the translation? If you think so, please let us know what it is.

It's probably as good as any other modern translation, I was simply noting that I figured out your cagey responses and funny use of pronouns (and your refusal to explain them). I don't care if you are a JW...it's not like I was outing you for being gay.

 

[funinspace]

Decided to toss out a comment on one detail...

First of all, Job is largely poetic and a morality play. So hanging an argument about solar descriptions upon Job’s language is laughable.

Based on what facts? Let's see you explain that.

Take it up with the large group of theogians that developed The ‘New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition; 4th Edition 1994.
From Pg 460

The origins of the book

We cannot put a date on the composition of the book of Job, except for the outer limits, perhaps the seventh and the second centuries BC. A folk tale of a righteous sufferer probably existed long before the present poem came into being.

<snip>
Among modern students of the Bible, the book of Job is reckoned ot belong to the group known as ‘Wisdom Literature”.

I repeat - based on what facts? They have no details about arriving at a time-line. They're actually admitting that they know next to nothing about the book.
Let's see YOU explain that.

Tis funnier and funnier. Ok, so you want Job to be a document to wow us heathen with it's amazing and accurate descriptions of the cosmos, but dodge and weave when its pointed out that your argument is not well founded. I don't care that you can ramrod all the odd parts of the Bible into your religious dogma, not my concern. But there is no 'wow' factor of 'wiseness' here. You declaring that a circle is actually a sphere is not exactly 'wow' material. Renowned Christian theologians say Job is a poetic folk tail; what is your argument showing that they are factually wrong? You also seem to suggest that Job's background is virtually unknowable, but at the same time YOU KNOW THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION. Lets see you explain that.