Tryharder62
Keep Believing
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Posts
- 12,751
These kind of stories make my heart hurt. Words by me are so inadequate.
How To Get To Heaven When You Die
- Thread starter xfrodobagginsx
- Start date
- Status
These kind of stories make my heart hurt. Words by me are so inadequate.
xfrodobagginsx
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Posts
- 1,724
xfrodobagginsx
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Posts
- 1,724
xfrodobagginsx
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Posts
- 1,724
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Uncredited and not credible.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...ting-that-carbon-14-is-found-in-materials-dat
Now go find a James O'Keefe video.
xfrodobagginsx
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Posts
- 1,724
"Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens
Really a Million Years Old?"
by Keith Swenson
Radioisotope dating conveys an aura of reliability both to the general public and professional scientists. The best "proof" for millions of years of earth history in most people's minds is radioisotope dating. But is the method all it's cracked up to be? Can we really trust it? The lava dome at Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity for putting radioisotope dating to the test.
In August of 1993, I had the exciting privilege of accompanying geologist Dr. Steven Austin and others from the Institute for Creation Research on a climb into the crater of Mount St. Helens to view the lava dome. It was one of those experiences that was well worth every exhausting moment! The dome (Figure 1) sits like a small mountain (roughly 3/4 mile in length and 1000 feet high) directly over the volcanic vent, which is at the south end of the huge horseshoe-shaped crater blasted out of the mountain by the May 18, 1980 eruption. It is composed of a volcanic rock called dacite and appears to an observer in the crater as a huge steaming mound of dark, blocky rubble.
Actually the present lava dome at Mount St. Helens is the third dome to form since the 1980 eruption, the first two having been blasted away by subsequent eruptions. The current dome started to form after the volcano's last explosive eruption on October 17, 1980. During 17 so-called dome-building eruptions, from October 18, 1980 to October 26, 1986, thick pasty lava oozed out of the volcanic vent much like toothpaste from a tube. Dacite lava is too thick to flow very far, so it simply piled up around the vent forming the mountain-like dome, which now sits as a plug over the volcanic orifice.
Why does the lava dome provide an opportunity to test the accuracy of radioisotope dating? There are two reasons. First, radioisotope dating methods can be used mainly on volcanic (igneous) rock, such as dacite. (Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock cannot be directly dated radioisotopically.) Second, the date of formation of the dacite is known. (This is one of the rare instances in which, to the question, "Were you there?", we can answer-"Yes, we were!") It is widely assumed that the radioisotope clock is set at zero and starts ticking when igneous rock solidifies from a molten state.
The concept of radioisotopic dating is fairly simple. The method used at Mount St. Helens is called potassium-argon dating. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or "variety" of the element potassium) spontaneously "decays", becoming argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon). This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years. In other words, 1.0 gram of potassium-40, in 1.3 billion years, would decay to the point that only 0.5 gm was left. Theoretically, given certain assumptions, one could measure the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample and calculate how old the rock is. When this is done, the age is usually very great, often millions of years.
In June of 1992, Dr. Austin collected a 15 lb. block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed, sieved, and processed into a whole rock powder as well as four mineral concentrates. These were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, a high quality, professional radioisotope dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that "low argon" should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St. Helens and was only 10 years old. The results of this analysis, shown in Figure 2 (below), were recently published.1
Sample (Mt.St.Helens' new dome) "Age" (in millions of years)
1. "Whole Rock" 0.35 ± 0.05
2. Feldspar, etc. 0.34 ± 0.06
3. Amphibole, etc. 0.9 ± 0.2
4. Pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ± 0.3
5. Pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6
-------------------------------------------
Figure 2. Potassium-argon "ages" for "whole rock" and mineral concentrate samples from lava dome at Mount St. Helens.
What can one observe about these results? First and foremost is simply that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been "zero argon" indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 0.35-2.8 million years! Why is this? A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero. Probably some argon-40 is incorporated from the start into newly formed minerals giving the "appearance" of great age. It should also be noted that there is poor correspondence between the different samples, each taken from the same rock.
Is this the only example where radioisotope dating has failed to give correct dates for rocks of known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple2 gives the following potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows (Figure 3):
Historic Lava Flow Potassium-Argon "age" (in millions of years)
Hualalai basalt (Hawaii, AD 1800-1801) 1.6 ± 0.16
Mt. Etna basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) 1.41 ± 0.08
Mt. Lassen plagioclase (California, AD 1915) 0.11 ± 0.3
Sunset Crater basalt (Arizona, AD 1064-1065) 0.27 ± 0.09 0.25 ± 0.15
Figure 3. Potassium-argon "ages" in millions of years for historic lava flows.
Another example is found at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The bottom layers of the canyon are widely held to be about one billion years old, according to evolutionary chronology. One of these layers is the Cardenas Basalt, an igneous rock amenable to radioisotope technology. When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method the Cardenas Basalt yielded an "age" of 1.07 billion years, which is in agreement with the evolutionary chronology.3
However, volcanoes of much more recent origin exist on Grand Canyon's north rim. Geologists agree that these volcanoes erupted only thousands of years ago, spilling lava into an already eroded Grand Canyon, even temporarily damming the Colorado River. Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method used to date the Cardenas Basalt, giving an "age" of 1.34 billion years.4 This result indicates that the top of the canyon is actually older than the bottom! Such an obviously incorrect and ridiculous "age" speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating. (Numerous other radioisotope "ages" are also given.)
Radioisotope dating is widely perceived to be the "gold standard" of dating methods and the "proof" for millions of years of earth history. But when the method is tested on rocks of known age it fails miserably. (The lava dome at Mount St. Helens is really not a million years old! We were there! We know!) By what twisted logic then are we compelled to accept radiometric dating results performed on rocks of unknown age? I would submit we are not so compelled, but rather called to question and challenge those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating.
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geologic stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological `clock'."6
William D. Stansfield, Ph.D
1 Austin, S.A., 1996. Excess Argon Within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano. CEN Tech.J., 10(3):335-343.
2 Dalrymple, G.B., 1969. 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6:47-55.
3 Austin, S.A.,(edit),1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, pp 111-131.
4 Austin, Ref. 3
5 Austin, Ref. 3 [not used in on-line version, at this time]
6 Stansfield, W.D., 1977. The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, p 84.
"Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million
Years Old?" is Copyright 1998, by Keith Swenson
<http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm>
Go to the Introduction of: www.creationism.org
Really a Million Years Old?"
by Keith Swenson
Radioisotope dating conveys an aura of reliability both to the general public and professional scientists. The best "proof" for millions of years of earth history in most people's minds is radioisotope dating. But is the method all it's cracked up to be? Can we really trust it? The lava dome at Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity for putting radioisotope dating to the test.
In August of 1993, I had the exciting privilege of accompanying geologist Dr. Steven Austin and others from the Institute for Creation Research on a climb into the crater of Mount St. Helens to view the lava dome. It was one of those experiences that was well worth every exhausting moment! The dome (Figure 1) sits like a small mountain (roughly 3/4 mile in length and 1000 feet high) directly over the volcanic vent, which is at the south end of the huge horseshoe-shaped crater blasted out of the mountain by the May 18, 1980 eruption. It is composed of a volcanic rock called dacite and appears to an observer in the crater as a huge steaming mound of dark, blocky rubble.
Actually the present lava dome at Mount St. Helens is the third dome to form since the 1980 eruption, the first two having been blasted away by subsequent eruptions. The current dome started to form after the volcano's last explosive eruption on October 17, 1980. During 17 so-called dome-building eruptions, from October 18, 1980 to October 26, 1986, thick pasty lava oozed out of the volcanic vent much like toothpaste from a tube. Dacite lava is too thick to flow very far, so it simply piled up around the vent forming the mountain-like dome, which now sits as a plug over the volcanic orifice.
Why does the lava dome provide an opportunity to test the accuracy of radioisotope dating? There are two reasons. First, radioisotope dating methods can be used mainly on volcanic (igneous) rock, such as dacite. (Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock cannot be directly dated radioisotopically.) Second, the date of formation of the dacite is known. (This is one of the rare instances in which, to the question, "Were you there?", we can answer-"Yes, we were!") It is widely assumed that the radioisotope clock is set at zero and starts ticking when igneous rock solidifies from a molten state.
The concept of radioisotopic dating is fairly simple. The method used at Mount St. Helens is called potassium-argon dating. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or "variety" of the element potassium) spontaneously "decays", becoming argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon). This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years. In other words, 1.0 gram of potassium-40, in 1.3 billion years, would decay to the point that only 0.5 gm was left. Theoretically, given certain assumptions, one could measure the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample and calculate how old the rock is. When this is done, the age is usually very great, often millions of years.
In June of 1992, Dr. Austin collected a 15 lb. block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed, sieved, and processed into a whole rock powder as well as four mineral concentrates. These were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, a high quality, professional radioisotope dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that "low argon" should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St. Helens and was only 10 years old. The results of this analysis, shown in Figure 2 (below), were recently published.1
Sample (Mt.St.Helens' new dome) "Age" (in millions of years)
1. "Whole Rock" 0.35 ± 0.05
2. Feldspar, etc. 0.34 ± 0.06
3. Amphibole, etc. 0.9 ± 0.2
4. Pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ± 0.3
5. Pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6
-------------------------------------------
Figure 2. Potassium-argon "ages" for "whole rock" and mineral concentrate samples from lava dome at Mount St. Helens.
What can one observe about these results? First and foremost is simply that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been "zero argon" indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 0.35-2.8 million years! Why is this? A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero. Probably some argon-40 is incorporated from the start into newly formed minerals giving the "appearance" of great age. It should also be noted that there is poor correspondence between the different samples, each taken from the same rock.
Is this the only example where radioisotope dating has failed to give correct dates for rocks of known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple2 gives the following potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows (Figure 3):
Historic Lava Flow Potassium-Argon "age" (in millions of years)
Hualalai basalt (Hawaii, AD 1800-1801) 1.6 ± 0.16
Mt. Etna basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) 1.41 ± 0.08
Mt. Lassen plagioclase (California, AD 1915) 0.11 ± 0.3
Sunset Crater basalt (Arizona, AD 1064-1065) 0.27 ± 0.09 0.25 ± 0.15
Figure 3. Potassium-argon "ages" in millions of years for historic lava flows.
Another example is found at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The bottom layers of the canyon are widely held to be about one billion years old, according to evolutionary chronology. One of these layers is the Cardenas Basalt, an igneous rock amenable to radioisotope technology. When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method the Cardenas Basalt yielded an "age" of 1.07 billion years, which is in agreement with the evolutionary chronology.3
However, volcanoes of much more recent origin exist on Grand Canyon's north rim. Geologists agree that these volcanoes erupted only thousands of years ago, spilling lava into an already eroded Grand Canyon, even temporarily damming the Colorado River. Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method used to date the Cardenas Basalt, giving an "age" of 1.34 billion years.4 This result indicates that the top of the canyon is actually older than the bottom! Such an obviously incorrect and ridiculous "age" speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating. (Numerous other radioisotope "ages" are also given.)
Radioisotope dating is widely perceived to be the "gold standard" of dating methods and the "proof" for millions of years of earth history. But when the method is tested on rocks of known age it fails miserably. (The lava dome at Mount St. Helens is really not a million years old! We were there! We know!) By what twisted logic then are we compelled to accept radiometric dating results performed on rocks of unknown age? I would submit we are not so compelled, but rather called to question and challenge those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating.
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geologic stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological `clock'."6
William D. Stansfield, Ph.D
1 Austin, S.A., 1996. Excess Argon Within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano. CEN Tech.J., 10(3):335-343.
2 Dalrymple, G.B., 1969. 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6:47-55.
3 Austin, S.A.,(edit),1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, pp 111-131.
4 Austin, Ref. 3
5 Austin, Ref. 3 [not used in on-line version, at this time]
6 Stansfield, W.D., 1977. The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, p 84.
"Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million
Years Old?" is Copyright 1998, by Keith Swenson
<http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm>
Go to the Introduction of: www.creationism.org
xfrodobagginsx
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Posts
- 1,724
The key word is 'Translation'. I never said that the translations were perfect. The originals were perfect. You have to compare the translations to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Everett: Well, I guess hard times flush the chumps. Everybody's lookin' for answers... Where the hell's he goin'?
[Delmar runs out to be baptized]
Pete: Well I'll be a sonofabitch. Delmar's been saved.
Delmar: Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transmissions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward.
Everett: Delmar, what are you talking about? We've got bigger fish to fry.
Delmar: The preacher says all my sins is warshed away, including that Piggly Wiggly I knocked over in Yazoo.
Everett: I thought you said you was innocent of those charges?
Delmar: Well I was lyin'. And the preacher says that that sin's been warshed away too. Neither God nor man's got nothin' on me now. C'mon in boys, the water is fine.
[Delmar runs out to be baptized]
Pete: Well I'll be a sonofabitch. Delmar's been saved.
Delmar: Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transmissions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward.
Everett: Delmar, what are you talking about? We've got bigger fish to fry.
Delmar: The preacher says all my sins is warshed away, including that Piggly Wiggly I knocked over in Yazoo.
Everett: I thought you said you was innocent of those charges?
Delmar: Well I was lyin'. And the preacher says that that sin's been warshed away too. Neither God nor man's got nothin' on me now. C'mon in boys, the water is fine.
xfrodobagginsx
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Posts
- 1,724
????? 
?????
?????
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
And then what? Make a new translation?
If God wanted people to understand what He says, He wouldn't have done what He did at Babel.
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Posts
- 28,080
Sloppy divine instruction: Have guys write contradictory shit about their locale (but no further) for a few centuries, with much ambiguity and just plain unreality. Don't mention sanitation, zero, or how to repair eye damage. Only post moral laws for people to ignore.
Definitive divine instruction: Burn texts message into the face of Luna in several old and new languages. Be dynamic, not subtle. Subtle is for gamesters, tricksters, manipulators.
_____
Various Native American peoples had a much more intimate relationship with their spirit world. Coming-of-age ceremonies featured a dose of Datura aka Toloache aka Jimson Weed, loaded with scopolamine and hyoscamine, supplemented with atropine and other 'hallucinogenic' alkaloids. These chemicals interfere with neural transmission. Failing to receive input, the brain invents its own. The resultant "alternate reality" as liar Carlos Casteneda called it is indistinguishable from "real reality."
A youth on the verge of adulthood drinks the brew. It's physically debilitating; muscle control flops. One mostly lies in place or staggers around bumping into stuff. But then the faceless ones come and go, crowds disappearing into the void. Spirits come and transport you around the world. You talk to the spirits, and the gods and demons, and the animals and plants, and your ancestors and descendants, and they talk back -- and it's all REAL.
No god-behind-a-curtain. No abstractions or canonical texts or divine mysteries. No interpretation. It's all there in front of you, as solid as a boulder, as told in the tales. The tales are real because you've lived them.
Definitive divine instruction: Burn texts message into the face of Luna in several old and new languages. Be dynamic, not subtle. Subtle is for gamesters, tricksters, manipulators.
_____
Various Native American peoples had a much more intimate relationship with their spirit world. Coming-of-age ceremonies featured a dose of Datura aka Toloache aka Jimson Weed, loaded with scopolamine and hyoscamine, supplemented with atropine and other 'hallucinogenic' alkaloids. These chemicals interfere with neural transmission. Failing to receive input, the brain invents its own. The resultant "alternate reality" as liar Carlos Casteneda called it is indistinguishable from "real reality."
A youth on the verge of adulthood drinks the brew. It's physically debilitating; muscle control flops. One mostly lies in place or staggers around bumping into stuff. But then the faceless ones come and go, crowds disappearing into the void. Spirits come and transport you around the world. You talk to the spirits, and the gods and demons, and the animals and plants, and your ancestors and descendants, and they talk back -- and it's all REAL.
No god-behind-a-curtain. No abstractions or canonical texts or divine mysteries. No interpretation. It's all there in front of you, as solid as a boulder, as told in the tales. The tales are real because you've lived them.
xfrodobagginsx
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Posts
- 1,724
No, you just make sure that the translated words are accurate. Most of the time they are, but every once in a while, you come across a word that should have been rendered differently. That last sentence is completely false.
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Posts
- 28,080
Different languages embody different mindsets. You can't translate words into a tongue lacking concepts for them. I've noted biblical translation into a Mexican Indian tongue where the closest rendering of 'prayer' was "to wag one's tail before the big man". Like many ethnic cultures around the world, they had no concepts of deities or worship. Typically, such concepts are beaten into reluctant conversos.
Many Hebrew words rendered as 'witch' in Western translations gloss-over their usual meanings: jugglers, herb doctors, barbers, gamblers, minstrels, etc. One prominent phrase should be rendered, "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." Meaning, anyone dumping toxic wastes or selling rotten foods or drugs shall be put to death.
'Virginal' Miryam (Mother Mary) was unmarried, not unpenetrated. Genesis begins saying gods (plural) created everything. 'Testimony' means grabbing one's testicles to affirm truth; thus women cannot testify. I don't keep a list of other word tricks but they're there.
Accurately translating myths does not legitimize them.
ishtat
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Posts
- 5,746
Xfrodo. Some of the inadequacies of the KJV were explained to you at post 2588 by me and with a specific example at post 2604 by Colddiesel, but you continue to use this as though it was totally authoritative. You made no response to either post.
Not one of the top Divinity schools in the USA uses the KJV as a source, all preferring the much more accurate RSV or NRSV. As a young student I had to learn Greek and can assure you that the KJV has significant weaknesses - and it is not just the occasional word 'once in a while.'
Now to that article on Radioisotope dating. It does not help your argument at all, There is no independent peer review whatsoever. The journal it was published in is the pawn of a religious /creationist foundation; it has zero credibility in any authoritative academic context. I researched the first 20 articles credited to Austin. Every single one was sponsored by the Institute of Creation research - not one by an independent journal. The man and his associates are academic charlatans and there is a stack of analysis on the internet to prove that.
And if you would prefer a more 'bite sized' problem, can you explain why there are 3 different endings to the book of Mark. One ends at Ch16 verse 8 (RSV), the KJV continues to Verse 19 and the Oxford Annotated NRSV includes all 3 endings plus notes of other minor differences . These are derived from different "ancient authorities." The Good News Bible also prints the 3 different endings. The New English Bible gives all 3 versions plus very brief explanation
So which ending is correct and the word of God? Comparing the annotated NRSV with the other 4 is particularly helpful because it is the only one which goes some way to explaining the conundrum. Most academic opinion seems to prefer ending at verse 8 as that seems to be the most ancient authority.
xfrodobagginsx
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Posts
- 1,724
My response is in bold above
xfrodobagginsx
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Posts
- 1,724
It depends on the translation. The way of salvation is pretty clear in most translations. One of the main ones I would NEVER trust is the Jehovah's Witness Bible. He didn't even speak fluent Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and he purposely twisted it to fit what he wanted people to believe. He denies the deity of Christ.
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Posts
- 28,080
The two disparate creation myths in Gen.1 and 2 can be traced to earlier Mesopotamian and Egyptian myths, as the Yeshua myth is traceable to many earlier sacrificed-savior myths. Virgin-birth and son-o-gawd tropes were thrown in so Yeshua could compete with other imperial deities. These are pastiches of many belief systems and storytelling traditions.
Again, as a way of imparting divine guidance, equivocal holy texts are a pretty sloppy approach. Messages burnt deep into terrestrial or lunar geology would be rather more emphatic and unambiguous. Distant mumbling deities aren't very useful.
Tryharder62
Keep Believing
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Posts
- 12,751
The point that people forget is that Satan is a bad dude. I don't chose to dwell on him but he loves chaos and confusion. Just sayin'
Some people know Jesus without ever reading the bible. I told you, not in this thread, but in another of a missionary that spoke at church. They were talking to this old man about Jesus and he said "I know him. I just didn't know that was his name."
It is in the quiet...in the personal moments when you feel the presence of someone greater than yourself. A hope that goes beyond all hope. A higher power that I call Jesus. (I call him that because.....well it's Jesus
)
Some people know Jesus without ever reading the bible. I told you, not in this thread, but in another of a missionary that spoke at church. They were talking to this old man about Jesus and he said "I know him. I just didn't know that was his name."
It is in the quiet...in the personal moments when you feel the presence of someone greater than yourself. A hope that goes beyond all hope. A higher power that I call Jesus. (I call him that because.....well it's Jesus
)xfrodobagginsx
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Posts
- 1,724
They aren't myths. They don't contradict. One is an overview and the other one zooms in more on certain details. It's also not traced back to eqyptian myths. That's easily debunked. Horus? That's a joke. None of those bold faced lies are even in the writings of Horus. Produce the writings instead of claiming that they are in there when they aren't. The Holy Scriptures are an amazing work of God. They couldn't fit together the way that they do without God because there were 40 authors who lived at different times over a 1600 year period, in different parts of the world who many times didn't have access to the others writings who's writings fit together as one book. Hundreds of fulfilled prophecies of Jesus first coming including when He would be born, His death, His betrayal and many, many other things. It's God's word.
xfrodobagginsx
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Posts
- 1,724
ishtat
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Posts
- 5,746
Documentary Hypothesis
Do you guys have any opinions on Reuss and Wellhausen's "Documentary Hypothesis" as an explanation of the writing of The Torah. Any additional opinion on the subsequent "Supplementary" and "Fragmentary Hypotheses" would also be interesting.
Do you guys have any opinions on Reuss and Wellhausen's "Documentary Hypothesis" as an explanation of the writing of The Torah. Any additional opinion on the subsequent "Supplementary" and "Fragmentary Hypotheses" would also be interesting.
Tryharder62
Keep Believing
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Posts
- 12,751
Do you guys have any opinions on Reuss and Wellhausen's "Documentary Hypothesis" as an explanation of the writing of The Torah. Any additional opinion on the subsequent "Supplementary" and "Fragmentary Hypotheses" would also be interesting.
I think they are hypothesis because.......welll......they are hypothesis! They have never been provven.
ishtat
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Posts
- 5,746
I agree, but the problem with that is less than 1% of the Torah can be proven. Archeology has proved the existence of King David in the 10th century, it has proved the exile around 587BC. There is proof that the Jews worshiped other gods in Northern Israel in the 8th/9th centuries and at Elephantine in the 5th BC.
The traditional hypothesis is that Moses wrote the first five books, that is beyond being proved too; indeed his very existence has no proof at all. Most remarkable of all is that there is no proof at all that the Jews lived in exile in Egypt for 400 years - the country which has preserved more artefacts than anywhere else due to its aridity.
We do know(proof) for example that some parts of the Torah are very ancient, because of the primitive Hebrew used. On this basis most scholars agree that 'Miriams Song of Victory' at the crossing of the Red sea and the 'Ode to Deborah' are the oldest writing in the Bible.
We cannot prove the original Genesis or Flood stories but there is convincing written evidence of Sumerian origins for both
I think that the original Documentary hypothesis is too simplistic but it does make sense as a way the Torah was developed over a very long period. It makes a lot more sense if the subsequent 'Fragmentary' and 'Supplementary Hypotheses' are considered.
I think that the Documentary hypothesis and its later amendments provide a workable and logical analysis which give a far better understanding of the Torah. No-one is ever going to 'prove' this idea, but it does have a much stronger basis than the totally unfounded notion of Moses authorship.
PS Just as an aside Try have you ever wondered why the two most ancient writings in the Bible which are referred to above are respectfully, by a woman and about a woman. Was ancient Israel more matriarchal?
Deborah in particular was clearly a great leader which even a 1000 years of priestly writers and editors (men) could not diminish.- Status
Similar threads
