Non-sequitur in five parts

Mark,

Excellent review! Covers the main issues very nicely.

As we have seen from the comments of some "anti-naturalism" posters on other threads, the war against "naturalism" is primarily emotional and irrational. Members of these religious sects seem to have a very strong psychological need for an alternative justification to accept the Christian bible as the foundation of all knowledge and, hence, the primary perspective from which all else is to be interpreted. It is simply the old bi-polar view of the world (Light versus Darkness, Right versus Wrong, Good versus Evil.) expressed in a new language, with terror in Hell versus security and happiness in Heaven as its ultimate outcome.

Not even the fact of thousands of warring sects within the monotheist religions raises questions about the reliability of their "supernatural insights".

I suspect that fear is at the root of this. It's the Pascal's Wager phenomenon at work, but with the negative connotation that says in effect, "If I turn out to be wrong about doubting the truth of the bible, I will be damned for eternity." We see this as a common theme coming from the leaders of these religious sects. Recently there has been a very big upsurge in demonizing liberal thinking, science, objective reporting, and critical analysis; in other words, any form of questioning mind that would raise doubts about the absoluteness of their sectarian world view.

Along with these come the misconceptions and misrepresentations of science and scientific evidence that become entrenched because these allow the prior commitment to the sectarian view to continue and comfort. Furthermore, it justifies the rightness of their cause in their minds, and it justifies their preemptive war on any world view that doesn't agree with theirs.

This is just the kind of soil opportunistic politicians love to cultivate.

thanks, Mark. this one is being saved to my archives. I'm sure I will be sending the reference to more than a few people.

I want one a them atom emitting masers!

hmm...

Atomic Maser

Taser?

no wait, that one's already taken.

Historical evidence is clear about a simple fact: the story told in the four Gospels cannot be true. The Sanhedrin, which was the supreme court of the ancient Israeli state, did not deal with petty crimes like hooliganism in the Temple's outlying courts. The Sanhedrin would never conduct any business on Friday evening, when the Shabbat already started, and even more so after the holiday of Passover started. Furthermore, Jewish law strictly forbids transferring a Jew to Gentiles for trial, regardless of what crime a Jew could have committed.

Historical evidence is clear about a simple fact: the story told in the four Gospels cannot be true. The Sanhedrin, which was the supreme court of the ancient Israeli state, did not deal with petty crimes like hooliganism in the Temple's outlying courts. The Sanhedrin would never conduct any business on Friday evening, when the Shabbat already started, and even more so after the holiday of Passover started. Furthermore, Jewish law strictly forbids transferring a Jew to Gentiles for trial, regardless of what crime a Jew could have committed.

Historical evidence is clear about a simple fact: the story told in the four Gospels cannot be true. The Sanhedrin, which was the supreme court of the ancient Israeli state, did not deal with petty crimes like hooliganism in the Temple's outlying courts. The Sanhedrin would never conduct any business on Friday evening, when the Shabbat already started, and even more so after the holiday of Passover started. Furthermore, Jewish law strictly forbids transferring a Jew to Gentiles for trial, regardless of what crime a Jew could have committed.

Lemme get this straight: Jewish law predates Jesus?

You're grasping at straws.

grrr. "...postdates Jesus?"

actually, I think RO is trying to say that this interpretation of jewish law postdates Jesus.

However, who the fuck knows, as RO NEVER bothers to actually followup his drivebys with any coherent explanations.

The source Perakh is citing here postdates Jesus by almost two centuries; you cannot extrapolate those strictures back that far.

Yeah right. Canonical law 2 centuries old or new is just a baby in those terms. I believe the ten commandments have enjoyed several millenia and are still going strong. You OTOH, are extrapolating a mythology written by nomads barely out of the stone age 5,000 years ago to make more sense than 2000 years of science.

Lemme get this straight: Jewish law [postdates] Jesus? You're grasping at straws.

No. You cannot argue that rules governing the Sanhedrin from circa 200 C.E. were in force 170 years prior.

No. You cannot argue that rules governing the Sanhedrin from circa 200 C.E. were in force 170 years prior.

Oh really? Why not? Laws especially religious laws change very slowly. Examples: 1. The US constitution is still the law of the land. It is over 200 years old. 2. The ten commandments are 4,000 years old. Still in effect as far as I know. 3. A lot of the laws in the Roman Catholic church are centuries and even millenia old. Church laws tend to change very slowly as witness the Catholic church. 4. Don't know too much about the Talmud and Torah laws but some of them date back long before JC. Things like clean and unclean animals and so on. Try feeding an orthodox a ham sandwich and see where that gets you.

I think it is entirely possible that the rules from 200 C.E. were written in light of the Gospels

Mark Perakh seems to be bragging here about all the science-bible compatibility gladiators he has slain. He seems to be smirking between the lines as he declares, "Bring 'em on. Next case." And on one level he is justified in doing so since he performs a superb job of organized analytical dissection of many of the spurious claims out there.

Except for one huge hole in his record. Perakh is for some reason very reticent to take on the substance of Judah Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF (other than a few silly comments about the transliteration style) in which Landa very convincingly demonstrated that science and the original Hebrew bible are compatible even if the bible is interpreted literally, so long as the ordinary rules of ancient Hebrew contextual and grammatical analysis is followed.

Stating this otherwise, ALL the so called conflicts between science and a literal reading of the Bible are entirely based on sloppy and incorrect Christian (and others) misunderstandings of the original Hebrew and on deliberate distortions.

Why is Perakh afraid of Landa? Does he fear that the feathers of his anti-bible mindset will be ruffled? Go for it, Mark, what have you got to lose but your own misconceptions, not about science (which Landa meticulously supports) but about the Bible?

This is an outrageous assertion. AFAIK, Talmudic scholars do not, as a rule, think much about what amount to heretical texts when they make their interpretations of canonical ones. Cite your source for this. I mean a single scholar of either the gospels or Jewish law who thinks this would make any sense.

Folks,

Perakh is absolutely correct about the Sanhedrin and its procedures. Not only are these recorded by Josephus who was virtually a contemporary of Jesus, even the Talmud which was completed centuries later contains the opinions and statements of individuals who lived much earlier and who unanimously confirm these procedures.

Long before Jesus, Jews would not even engage in battle with their mortal enemies with whom they were at war, on the sabbath, unless their lives were immediately at stake.

The big wrinkle in this, is that Jesus lived at a time when the Roman occupiers had corrupted the leadership of Israel, from the king to high priest to the Sanhedrin and all other institutions.

Robert O'Brien is well known to the visitors to PT. His newest comments in this thread show that his understanding and knowlegde of the stuff in this thread rival his understanding and knowledge of Kantorovich metrics which he promised to explain, I believe, a couple of years ago. We're still waiting, Robert.

Re: Carol's comment179979. Dear Carol Clouser: Are you back to serve as a shill for Landa's drivel? Can't you finally understand that PT denizens have no interest whatsoever in his opus? PT administration seems to have an unlimited patience and tolerance, but still it may come to an end some day.

Carol: why should any of us bother criticizing Landa's book, when your statements in support of his thesis have already been punk'd, junk'd, debunk'd and defunk'd many times over? You've stated Landa's thesis in general, but have been unable honestly to deal with the many specific counter-examples offered in response, without fudging on those exact "literal" meanings on which your thesis is based. Every time you shill for Landa, you come out looking like a loon. (Tell us again what "day" really means in Genesis?)

Also, we still remember how silly you looked after trying to tell us that polytheists didn't do any real science;* so your statements kinda lack credibility.

*(See the PT post titled "Egnor Responds, Falls Flat on His Face," if it's still available through the Archives. The Farce was strong with her that day.)

Perakh is absolutely correct about the Sanhedrin and its procedures. Not only are these recorded by Josephus who was virtually a contemporary of Jesus...

Here's the link to Carol's last meltdown:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/02/egnor_responds.html

The fun begins at Comment #163100.

I had forgotten that Carol not only made that completely idiotic and unsupportable assertion, but had to lie about it later when several of us nailed her to it.

I have removed a comment by Robert O'Brien because he had the gall to use obscenity addressing a comment by some other commenter. There was nothing in the deleted comment besides that obscenity. Such offensive and contents-empty comments will not be tolerated. Although O'Brien has most brazenly overstepped the boundary of the tolerable behavior, there are other comments, albeit not as offensive as that by O'Brien, still using ad-hominems. Ladies and gentlemen, please behave as ladies and gentlemen. Ad hominems only weaken your arguments. Thank you.

Cite your source for this and the date of your source.

— Robert O'Brien, in #179919

In fact, I think it is entirely possible that the rules from 200 C.E. were written in light of the Gospels.

— Robert O'Brien in #179961

While we're reviewing books (and I found this review quite nice indeed!) are there any plans afoot to handle Behe's latest offering, The Edge of Evolution?

Carol Clauser claimed: ALL the so called conflicts between science and a literal reading of the Bible are entirely based on sloppy and incorrect Christian (and others) misunderstandings of the original Hebrew and on deliberate distortions.

Science Avenger wrote:

"So what are the misunderstandings and/or distortions that clear up this apparent conflict with science? How should the English text read?"

That is obviously a long story beyond the scope of a quickie post in this thread. But there are some good books on the subject such as the one I alluded to above.

for those of you wondering...

I'm not EVEN going to go at the Clouserbot again.

it's simply too boring to go over the same ground from square one over and over and over again.

I just hope now that she's made her sales pitch, that she'll feel satisfied and go back to her batcave.

Science Avenger, you may be entertained by a trip down Clouser Memory Lane, to her very first appearance at PT, June 2005 in another Dr. Perakh thread.

Among the various other hilarities there (besides the discovery, as she makes sales for Landa's book, that she works for its publisher, Landa's company), she says:
"all the medieval commentators, some of whom lived about 900 years ago, translate those words [yom] to mean 'era'. I personally checked these references and they indeed are there."
Then she praises the medieval interpreter Rashi "one of the greatest, if not the greatest, expert on ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. He lived about 900 years ago... Yet he translates 'yom' there [in Hosea, Psalms, Genesis 2] as 'era'."

A few seconds on the 'net reveal Rashi's commentary on Genesis 1 refers to 'yom' there as meaning 'day' -- not the slightest implication it means 'era'.
Clouser, completely unfazed, acknowledges that's correct. So!? The Great Insightful Authority Rashi, everywhere else correct and cited correctly as she has personally checked, is completely wrong about Gen 1. Which she either inexplicably neglected to check or neglected to tell us what her check revealed. Prai$e Landa, now and forever!

Regarding Barr's assertion that the Big Bang "vindicates" Jewish and Christian thought:

Mark, I think there are two even more fundamental ways to dispute that. First, the theist view does not imply that the universe had a beginning, as he suggests. If "the universe" = "all that exists", and God exists, then God is part of the universe, and to that extent the universe predated the creation event. All the theist has done is to give a different name to the bit that existed beforehand. This is disanalogous to a scientific view that treats the Big Bang as the beginning.

Second, even if it were analogous, so what? Vague thematic similarities between myth and cosmic history abound. If Genesis or its apologists had mentioned the order in which force symmetries would be broken, or the final ratio of matter to antimatter, I'd be impressed.

Mark,

Thank you for trying to keep this thread family-friendly. It would help, however, if you were more even-handed in your disposal of obscene comments. I don't know what Robert O'Brien said, but I find comment #179924 pretty offensive, as well.

The Sanhedrin would never conduct any business on Friday evening, when the Shabbat already started...

— Mark Perakh

JKC: I agree that comment 179924 contains unnecessary rude parts. I had to draw the line somewhere. O'Brien's comment which I deleted contained nothing but a very rude, snide remark of a personal kind, and nothing more. However rude the language used in 179924 is, at least it also expresses some opinion about some other comment and the obcsene word there is not addressing anybody personally. In fact, when writing about other comments also using inappropriate wording, I had in mind in particular 179924. It is counterproductive, but we at PT are trying to stop short of cencoring comments even when some of them are offensive. O'Brien's deleted comment was just too far beyond the pale.

JohnK,

Just for the record and to correct your blatantly false statement which can only be based on your inability to read Rashi in the original, Rashi does NOT interpret YOM in Genesis to mean 'day'. His commentary just cites and uses the word yom without elaboration.

I would advise you not to imitate the standard practice on PT of establishing an inverse relationship between one's knowledge of a subject and the quantity of verbiage dispensed about it.

What does Judah Landa think of Hyena's?

[ ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3758 :] Aims: The planetary system around the M star Gliese 581 consists of a hot Neptune (Gl 581b) and two super-Earths (Gl 581c and Gl 581d). The habitability of this system with respect to the super-Earths is investigated following a concept that studies the long-term possibility of photosynthetic biomass production on a dynamically active planet. Methods: A thermal evolution model for a super-Earth is used to calculate the sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The habitable zone is determined by the limits of biological productivity on the planetary surface. Models with different ratios of land / ocean coverage are investigated. Results: The super-Earth Gl 581c is clearly outside the habitable zone, since it is too close to the star. In contrast, Gl 581d is a tidally locked habitable super-Earth near the outer edge of the habitable zone. Despite the adverse conditions on this planet, at least some primitive forms of life may be able to exist on its surface.

In conclusion, one may expect that life may have originated on Gl 581 d. The appearance of complex life, however, is unlikely due to rather adverse environmental conditions.

The Farce was strong

And now I have to nitpick my own comment:

- The red giant stage would blaze away the remaining Earth atmosphere of course, bad wording.
- The CO2 pressure would be expected to be higher on the giant and probably water loaded planet. And other gases would help block enough IR to support a gaseous atmosphere. In any case, AFAIK the paper seems to believe atmospheric collapse isn't a problem on these types of planets.

Re: Comment 180092 by jkc.

Indeed the point you argue about is not about science. I mentioned it in passing as a remark to what I perceived as a matter of comparison between Barr's vigorously arguing against "materialism" while not providing any arguments favoring his faith (although I admit he was not under obligation to do so).

Regarding your specific comment about the Gospel's story, first of all it is not about Sanhedrin breaking its own rules. It is about Jewish law which was not established by the Sanhedrin but was obligatory for that body. The Sanhedrin's judges had no authority to either obey the law or to break it. They had to obey it under any circumstances. The law in question unequivocally forbids transferring a Jew to Gentiles for trial and punishment.

There is in the Talmud a tractate about Sanhedrin (I have no access to the Talmud at this time so I can't provide a precise reference) which clearly states that Sanhedrin was supposed to interpret the Law, but could not change it.

You state that Jesus was arrested on Thursday. Unfortunately I can't verify it at this time because the fire in my house has destroyed most of my books (including the New Testament), so I had to rely on my memory. As far as I recall, in the same Gospel of Luke you refer to, is clearly mentioned that the holiday of Passover had already started when all those events occurred. Indeed, the Gospels tell us that before Jesus's arrest, he and his disciples had the Last Supper. This ritual ("Seder") always takes place on the first evening of the Passover. Obviously all the subsequent events, including Jesus's appearance before the Sanhedrin, could only take place during the holiday. It is implausible that Sanhedrin would have a hearing during the holiday.

Anyway, I appreciate your comment, and if according to the Gospels Jesus was indeed arrested on Thursday, I'll readily admit this particular error. It can't though rebut my overall statement about the implausibility of the Gospel's story which contains a number of assertions contrary to the historical evidence.

Carol Clouser dodged thusly: That [the OT story of Jacob causing sheep to have spotted offspring by having them look at spots when they mated] is obviously a long story beyond the scope of a quickie post in this thread.

Mark,

Thanks for your response. Sorry to hear about your fire. You are correct that the Seder supper was on Thursday night, which means that the trial would have happened after Passover had already begun. I was objecting only to your point about Sabbath having already started. Perhaps the Passover argument trumps the Sabbath argument, I don't know.

I am not a Jewish law or Sanhedrin expert, so I cannot argue the details of the laws or their application. I don't really understand how any law could be truly obligatory (that is, it has the power to compel someone to obey it, rather than to simply punish disobedience). It just seems kind of idealistic to assume that the Sanhedrin always perfectly obeyed Jewish law. As pointed out in another post, the influence of the Romans, the corruption of Herod's kingdom, etc. could have resulted in a less-than-perfect application of Jewish law. Someone with way more resources at their disposal than I would have to confirm or deny that possibility.

The law in question unequivocally forbids transferring a Jew to Gentiles for trial and punishment.

When the "Gentiles" in question were a Roman Empire looking to keep an already-troublesome province from going up in flames, all bets would have been off. The Roman officials had bigger worries with Jesus, didn't have a lot of respect for Jewish traditions, and probably would not have listened to any such time-wasting waffling or excuses. Besides, Judea was a part of the Empire, so (in the Romans' eyes at least) Imperial law would have superceded provincial law; and the local authorities would have had to respect that, or risk losing what little "independence" they had.

Sacrificing to the emperor at "Herod's Temple" was also forbidden by Jewish law, but quite famously they (one should probably identify "they" as primarily the Sadducees) did it. When they ceased to do so, the "Jewish wars" ensued, and all hell broke loose (obviously the sacrifices weren't the only issue).

The great (if sort of sad) thing about religion is that it isn't really based on anything but a string of interpretations, which is why many religions are able to interpret new matters to "fit" with themselves. It's also why one can't really say that "a religion" is not compatible with science, for who is to say what a religion is supposed to espouse?

Deciding to follow Jewish law strictly after previously having not done so served some segments of Judean Jewish society, not others. It is impossible to say who were the "best Jews," those who staved off the disastrous wars that followed, or the ones who were opposed to accommodating the Romans.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

To Mark Perakh,
Could you please explain why mass/weight not being the same would be a good argument?

I realise that they are not the same but surely mass and weight are linked. ie Whatever something weighs is entirely due to it's mass and the mass of the environment it is in.

For example if we took two objects on Earth where object 1 weighs twice as much as object 2 and moved them to the same place elsewhere wouldn't object 1 still weigh twice as much (although a different weight) as object 2?

I reckon I am saying that although weight and mass are different I don't see how confusing them would destroy an argument. Then again, I do not know what context that mistake was made in. Would you be willing to expand?

Since most of the comments here are actually about religious and textual issues, I won't feel bad about quibbling that Genesis Rabbah isn't part of the Babylonian Talmud. It is one section of Midrash Rabbah, a varigated collection of sermons and other material organised according to the weekly (sic) Torah readings. Material preserved in Midrash Rabbah includes some legal material, but mostly very clever commentary of a specific type. Comments such as the one Mark quotes are effectively one rabbi's theory, take it or leave it. Later Jewish authorities had a saying, "You'd be fool to believe everything you read in the Midrash, and you'd be a fool to believe nothing, also!"

On the dating of the Jewish law, quoting 200 CE as the date of its composition is absurd. The laws in question are either from the written Torah, which is hundreds of years older, or from the oral Torah, which is also vastly older but was only (begun to be) written down in 200 CE. It's like saying English Common Law didn't exist until Blackstone.

mg = ma can be used to prove that space-time is curved. That mass measured by acceleration is the the same mass used in gravitational attraction

I am glad folks here have picked up on my suggestion above that all calculations pertaining to religious law and the conduct of the Sanhedrin at the time of Jesus are divorced from the reality of heavy Roman rule that corrupted all Jewish institutions, from the king to the high priest and on down the line.

Mark,

I respectfully point out that you are wrong about the Sanhedrin being bound by some superior body of Jewish law. The dictum recorded in the Talmud is that "yesh ko-ach bi-yad chachamim la-akor davar min ha-torah" - the sages (of the Sanhedrin) can uproot a law in the Torah, and there is no higher authority than the Torah. There are very many examples of this - the elimination of sounding the Shofar on Rosh Hashana when it falls on the Sabbath and even the very fact that the Talmud was recorded in violation of the law that the oral law remain oral. Indeed, the Torah itself mandates that the Sanhedrin be obeyed under all circumstances.

Science Avenger,

I was referring to creation in Genesis, a narrative that is some eleven chapters long. The story of Jacob is in the same category as the talking donkey, the rod that turned into a snake, and many others. These are violations of the laws of nature but science makes no comment on whether such violations have occur ed in the past (or whether they will occur in the future).

Stephen Elliott,

Schroeder merely is sloppy with the use of words, such as mass and weight. He certainly does not state they are identical. For Perakh to insinuate that this PhD.D. in Physics from MIT does not know the difference is preposterous. The average high school physics student knows to distinguish between them. I say this despite the fact that I have absolutely no sympathy for Schroeder views.

The story of Jacob is in the same category as the talking donkey, the rod that turned into a snake, and many others. These are violations of the laws of nature but science makes no comment on whether such violations have occur ed in the past (or whether they will occur in the future).

Um..."science" says that such "violations of the laws of nature" are, by definition, physically impossible, and therefore the overwhelming evidence says they didn't really happen; and allegations to the contrary are unproven and therefore unreliable.

So much for the theory that a literal reading of the Bible -- in any language -- does not contradict science. Congratulations, Carol, you just flushed your own thesis down the toilet (again). I guess Landa needs to get himself a better shill now...

Stephen Elliott:

Mass is a body's property measuring its inertia (i.e. its resistance to an accelerating force). In Newtonian approximation mass is a constant for a given body. In a relativistic interpretation mass depends on the frame of reference because it is a function of velocity. It does not depend on body's location. Weight is a completely different quantity. First, unlike mass, weight is a force. While mass is measured in kg, weight is measured in Newtons (in the system of units commonly used in physics). It does not depend on velocity but depends on body's location relative to other bodies (usually a planet). It is a function of a number of quantities: the body's mass, the masses of other bodies in the vicinity, and the relative locations of those bodies. In the simplest case weight is the force of gravitational attraction between the body in question and the planet (e.g. earth) where it is measured.

I am sorry that it turned out necessary to provide this explanation which is found in every introductory textbook of physics.

Schroeder's confusion about mass vs. weight is not a specific argument against any of his particular assertions, but just one of many indicators of the overall dismal level of his knowledge of physics which makes him a very dubious source for discussing the topics of his books.

David vun Kannon:

Thank you for your comment. I have no desire to argue about Genesis Rabba being a part or not a part of the Talmud. The boundaries of the Talmud are not strictly defined, so Midrash Rabba may be viewed as a separate body or a part of the Talmud where the term Talmud is used in a broad sense. Regarding the quotation being just a view of a single rabbi, the same can be said about most of the contents of the Talmud where opinions of various rabbinical authorities, often contradicting each other, are gathered. Barr asserted that the idea of the universe having a beginning was part of Jewish faith. My example shows that it is an exaggeration --- among various views on that subject, we find such opinions as the quotation I provided illustrates, having been expressed by some rabbinical sources. Anyway, it has only a remote connection to Barr's book, and as such probably is of little interest to the visitors to this thread,

In addition to Raging Bee's fine takedown, I note that I chose the Jacob story with the spotted lambs rather than the staff-to-serpent type stories specifically to avoid the "it's a miracle" defense. There is nothing in the text that I have in front of me to suggest that Jacob's novel form of selective breeding (by our current knowledgeable standards) involved any miracle. It is mentioned with no more significance than "Jacob wanted to get to the other side of town, so he walked." It is presented as decidedly UNmiraculous.

So either the text I have in front of me is missing the text that says "...and then a miracle occurred", in which case I repeat my request for the accurate English translation (which is far shorter than this exchange), or the Bible is in error. It is not reasonable to assume any scientific error in the Bible is a miracle. That would make the claim of Biblical perfection in these matters provisional in a rather absurd way, amounting to:

The Bible is accurate in all scientific matters, except when it isn't."

Mark, it was a great read. And, I learned some new things. Thanks.

Comment #179979 Posted by carol clouser on May 29, 2007 7:24 PM (e) Mark Perakh seems to be bragging here about all the science-bible compatibility gladiators he has slain. He seems to be smirking between the lines as he declares, "Bring 'em on. Next case." And on one level he is justified in doing so since he performs a superb job of organized analytical dissection of many of the spurious claims out there. Except for one huge hole in his record. Perakh is for some reason very reticent to take on the substance of Judah Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF (other than a few silly comments about the transliteration style) in which Landa very convincingly demonstrated that science and the original Hebrew bible are compatible even if the bible is interpreted literally, so long as the ordinary rules of ancient Hebrew contextual and grammatical analysis is followed. Stating this otherwise, ALL the so called conflicts between science and a literal reading of the Bible are entirely based on sloppy and incorrect Christian (and others) misunderstandings of the original Hebrew and on deliberate distortions. Why is Perakh afraid of Landa? Does he fear that the feathers of his anti-bible mindset will be ruffled? Go for it, Mark, what have you got to lose but your own misconceptions, not about science (which Landa meticulously supports) but about the Bible?

Science Avenger,

First, check Genesis 31:11-13 in which God appears to Jacob and specifically takes resposibility for what has occured with the sheep.

Second, the phrase you would like to see, "a miracle occured," appears extremely rarely in the Hebrew Bible. Miracles are usually presented without any introduction such as this.

Third, If you think that science "says" that miracles are impossible, I am afraid you are ill informed. Science, as our departed colleague Lenny Flank was so fond of saying and correctly so, is a method. Science does not "say" anything beyond what the data suppport and there are no data indicating that violations of the laws of nature have not, do not, cannot or will not occur. To claim otherwise in the name of science is to be highly unscientific.

Fourth, the issues between science and the bible revolve around certain facts. How old is the earth and universe? Did life evolve over eons of time or appear suddenly? Did a global flood occur? And a few others.

Fifth, if you think (incorrectly in my opinion) that miracles are contradicted by science, you may as well claim that the existence of God is contradicted by science, and I make no claim to resolve conflicts such as these. But I know that the perceived conflicts pertaining to the facts really do not exist.

Carol Clauser --- Wrong again.

Checking the definition of science in Wikipedia one finds several parts, two of these being

(1) scientific method
(2) shared knowledge

I see Goedels theorem has come up again. I do not know much about maths, but from what I have read about Geodels theorem, it applies to certain mathematical operations/ formulae, but I do not think it is univeral in application.
Is this impression correct?

If it is, how come people run around applying Goedels theorem to everything they can, including the universe, without demonstrating that the universe can be mathematically described by the maths that Goedels theorem encompasses?

Carol blithered thusly:

Science does not "say" anything beyond what the data suppport and there are no data indicating that violations of the laws of nature have not, do not, cannot or will not occur.

That's the best you can do?!

There are no data even remotely implying that such violations of physical law have ever occured, and no reliable sources that say definitively that they have ever occured. This is why we tend to agree that such things don't occur: we've never seen it happen; we've never been able to make it happen; we understand why we can't make it happen; and all assertions that it has happened have been, at best, unverifiable, if not just plain provably false.

Your/Landis' original thesis was that the Hebrew Bible, when "correctly" interpreted, did not contradict science. Then, when questioned on a particular case, you flatly admitted that violations of physical laws did indeed occur in the Bible. Therefore, by your own admission, there are indeed conflicts between the Bible and science, and your/Landis' thesis is just plain wrong. QED. (That's Latin for "DUH.")

Game over.

no, ya see, RB, so long as it's GOD violating all observable laws, it's OK, cause then we just call it "miracle", see?

no circularity at all.

no siree.

There are no data even remotely implying that such violations of physical law have ever occured,...

Carol Clauser said: First, check Genesis 31:11-13 in which God appears to Jacob and specifically takes resposibility for what has occured with the sheep.

[T]he phrase you would like to see, "a miracle occured," appears extremely rarely in the Hebrew Bible.

If you think that science "says" that miracles are impossible, I am afraid you are ill informed.

[T]he issues between science and the bible revolve around certain facts. How old is the earth and universe? Did life evolve over eons of time or appear suddenly? Did a global flood occur? And a few others.

[I]f you think (incorrectly in my opinion) that miracles are contradicted by science, you may as well claim that the existence of God is contradicted by science, and I make no claim to resolve conflicts such as these.

But I know that the perceived conflicts pertaining to the facts really do not exist.

I see Goedels theorem has come up again. I do not know much about maths, but from what I have read about Geodels theorem, it applies to certain mathematical operations/ formulae, but I do not think it is univeral in application. Is this impression correct? If it is, how come people run around applying Goedels theorem to everything they can, including the universe, without demonstrating that the universe can be mathematically described by the maths that Goedels theorem encompasses?

— guthrie

Mark,

I agree there is no need to pursue my point on Genesis Rabbah. I'm actually quite surprised that most of the comments have veered so entertainingly into the field of uninformed exegesis.

I'm a bit tempted to find Barr's book just to read his material on Godel's Theorem, given your review. Is his argument anything like:
The world appears to follow an axiomatic system. (And indeed, science assumes it does.)
Godel proved that an axiomatic system strong enough to support arithmetic must contain an infinite number of true but unprovable statements.
Therefore the world contains an infinite number of (spiritual) truths which must be taken on faith.

I know that's not a syllogism, just asking if that is where Barr is taking his dicussion of Godel.

Carol,
(I know I'm trollfeeding but as I've stated,I've missed her)
following your reasoning but not on your people's holy book,rather on my people's ,
one may rightfully assume that science can't contradict the miracle
of GalactoGenesis.
That is the formation of our galaxy after Herakles went rough on Hera's nipple.
Come to think of it,I don't object to this scientific interpretation.
It's funny ,kinky and sexy.

Re "Can a tree be so tall that you can see the entire world from its top?"

Hmmm. I almost said maybe if it was growing on the moon or a space station - but even then half the world would be unviewable from it.

Henry

I can't help wondering if it's a coincidence that Mark P titles a post "Non-sequitur in five parts", and then poof! Carol Clouser reappears after a lengthy abscence. Freaky, isn't it?

look out!

It's Carol Clousergeuse!

Science Avenger wrote:

"Thank you. That is, frankly, a more substantive response than I was anticipating."

Excuse me, as long as you are civil and seemingly sincere (unlike some of the creatures that prowl the corridors of PT) I am willing to dispense as much substance as time permits.

"A lot of others. Do rabbits chew their cud? No, they do not. Are bats birds? No, they are not. Do rock badgers chew their cud? No, they do not. Can a tree be so tall that you can see the entire world from its top? No, it cannot. And so forth."

I hope you don't think you have discovered the wheel here. Why not bring up the camel's split hooves while you are at it? These issues have been addressed by the Jewish sages thousands of years ago.

First, while we are quite certain that GAMAL refers to the camel and CHAZIR refers to the swine, it is not all that certain that ARNEVET refers to the rabbit or badger. Many other Hebrew names of species in Leviticus are in dispute to this day, leading to opposing customs in the observant Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities regarding what may or may not be eaten. Keep in mind we are looking at ancient Hebrew here and there is a paucity of sources to ascertain the meanings of rarely used words.

Second, The hebrew does not speak of "cud" or of "chewing". Instead, it speaks of "bringing up (or forth) its food" (MAALOAT GAIRA). Rabbits do eat (some of) their own excrement and this may qualify.

As far as bats are concerned, you don't really expect the Hebrew bible to be bound by the latest, most popular classification system adopted by modern biologists. The bible has its own system based on readily observed function, and bats do fly.

I have no idea what you are referring to with that tree stuff.

willing to dispense as much substance

Mark Perakh,

Two issues pertaining to your essay.

(1)It seems to me that your use of the quote from Genesis Rabbah to show that some Jewish sources considered the notion of "no beginning" to be theologically acceptable borders on the disingenuous. Not only does that statement by a single sage not negate the fact that the overwhelmingly dominant view in Judaism always was that Genesis describes the beginning of the universe, the statement itself does not imply an infinite process of worlds coming and going, but a process that may very well have had a beginning.

(2) Your translation of BERAISHI as "first of all" seems to me to be entirely untenable. Where is the "all" here? "First of all" would be BERASHIT KOL, would it not? And how could you favor "first of all" and "no beginning"? Are you not contradicting yourself? If creation had a "first OF ALL" does that not imply that no creation existed prior to that? And how does "first of all connect to the next word BARA, which means "created". After all, there is a text here to make sense of.

Why not go with Rashi and translate BERAISHIT as "in the beginning of" followed by BARA "God's creating" ET HASHAMYIM "the heaven", VI-ET HA-ARETZ " and the earth", an introductary sentence that continues with the next two verses?

just finished reading a story on King Herod, they evidently found his tomb. Records indicate he died 76 years before the date claimed that Jesus was born. So maybe there were 2 resurrections. Remember, miracled happen in the bible.

Hmmmm Riff-Raff wielding a "laser capable of emitting a beam of pure anti-matter", not just a scene from the Rocky Horror Picture Show?

Rustopher.

"Science, as our departed colleague Lenny Flank was so fond of saying and correctly so, is a method. Science does not "say" anything beyond what the data suppport and there are no data indicating that violations of the laws of nature have not, do not, cannot or will not occur. To claim otherwise in the name of science is to be highly unscientific."

Are you saying it is possible for violations of the laws of nature can occur?

"Keep in mind we are looking at ancient Hebrew here and there is a paucity of sources to ascertain the meanings of rarely used words."

Then how can you claim that science doesn't contradict your translation of the Bible?

Carol Clouser:

I am still waiting for you to provide a citation from Josephus that supports your (and Mark Perakh's) assertion regarding the Sanhedrin.

On the dating of the Jewish law, quoting 200 CE as the date of its composition is absurd. The laws in question are either from the written Torah, which is hundreds of years older, or from the oral Torah, which is also vastly older but was only (begun to be) written down in 200 CE. It's like saying English Common Law didn't exist until Blackstone.

HI TJ from the deepest darkest depths of PNG and carol sorry Carol raspberries cya all over at the the BAR.

More, and ever sorrier, dodges from Carol:

...there are no data indicating that violations of the laws of nature have not, do not, cannot or will not occur.

Keep in mind we are looking at ancient Hebrew here and there is a paucity of sources to ascertain the meanings of rarely used words.

Rabbits do eat (some of) their own excrement and this may qualify.

...you don't really expect the Hebrew bible to be bound by the latest, most popular classification system adopted by modern biologists.

No, of course we don't expect that; and that's why we're so skeptical of your claims that a "literal" reading of the original Hebrew Bible does not conflict with science. And as your latest dodges above indicate, you're caving and admitting you can't defend that thesis.

Really, Carol, your performance reminds me of a boxer who gets KO'd by a single punch less than a minute into round one. Your opponents are disappointed; even those who respected you the least are disappointed; and any fans you may have here must surely be shaking their heads in disappointment and wondering whatever posessed them to root for you.

You're totally out of your league here. Your league isn't even in visual range from here. You really need to re-examine your career choices. To paraphrase a popular song: "If you ain't got no knowledge, take your dumb @$$ home!"

PS: after making those silly-assed remarks about polytheists not doing science, then lying about what you said, then lying about what others said, you're really not in a position to complain about bad manners on PT.

RO - you are free to speculate that exactly those phrases which support your case are early or late as you choose. Point me to scholarly source that agrees with you. I've read Mishnah Sanhedrin in the original Hebrew, so don't be shy.

Re: comment 180506 by RO. Please don't try presenting me as being in any way in agreement with Ms. Clouser. It was only she but not me who referred to Josephus Flavius. Her assertion that Yoseph ben Mattatiahu (usually referred to as Flavius Josephus or Josephus Flavius in non-Hebrew sources) was a "virtual contemporary of Jesus" was rather imprecise (as often are other statements of Ms. Clouser). Yoseph was born in the year of 37 which was several years after the supposed crucifixion of Yeshu (in English usually referred to as Jesus).

From her multiple apearances on PT, wherein she often disdainfully denigrates other commenters and contributors, Ms. Clouser appears to be an arrogant person convinced of being superior in her knoweldge to other participants of debates. This was one of the reasons I wrote about two years ago that I'd not engage in debates with her. She continues trying to provoke me into debates, but I have no interest in falling for her bait. (Another reason was her stubborn attempts to promote Landa's book of which she was an editor but pretended on Amazon site to be just a reader).

My assertion about the Sanhedrin was based on the contents of the Sanhedrin tractate in the Talmud. Unfortunately I have no access to the Talmud at this time and therefore can't provide an exact reference. My apology. I have to rely on my memory (which of course may deceive me).

Anyway, this is a minor point as far as Barr's book is under discussion. Please do not veer too far from the topic. Thanks.

Carol Clouser said: The hebrew does not speak of "cud" or of "chewing". Instead, it speaks of "bringing up (or forth) its food" (MAALOAT GAIRA). Rabbits do eat (some of) their own excrement and this may qualify.

As far as bats are concerned, you don't really expect the Hebrew bible to be bound by the latest, most popular classification system adopted by modern biologists. The bible has its own system based on readily observed function, and bats do fly.

I have no idea what you are referring to with that tree stuff.

(Another reason was her stubborn attempts to promote Landa's book of which she was an editor but pretended on Amazon site to be just a reader).

Further proof of her basic dishonesty, and the utter pointlessness of trying to debate her. Thanks for the tip.

(Also, it seems like this Landa guy is the only human on Earth who wants to advertize on the Internet, but hasn't discovered automated spam. Having Carol do all his spamming by hand is almost as ass-backwards as pretending the ancient Hebrew Bible is perfectly consonant with modern science. Does he still ask Carol to take shorthand for him too?)

Just for the record and to correct your blatantly false statement which can only be based on your inability to read Rashi in the original, Rashi does NOT interpret YOM in Genesis to mean 'day'. His commentary just cites and uses the word yom without elaboration.

— Clouser

Carol Clouser on June 24, 2005 05:44 PM: Rashi does interpret yom in Genesis to mean day, he had no reason to suspect otherwise! But since yom can definately also mean era, that (era) could easily have been the Bible's real intent in Genesis.

From her multiple apearances on PT, wherein she often disdainfully denigrates other commenters and contributors, Ms. Clouser appears to be an arrogant person convinced of being superior in her knoweldge to other participants of debates.

Science avenger wrote:

"As for the ubiquitous claims of mistranslation, the Bible in front of me, and every one I've ever read, says "chews their cud", or something similar. If this is wrong, then why did the translators all write it this way? Why hasn't anyone written a correctly translated English Bible? Is the Bible somehow impervous to correct translation? It's not like there has been a lack of interest, or time, to get the job done."

And this:

" And again, the damned book says that bats ARE birds, not that they merely fly. If the author meant to say "flying creatures" instead of "birds", then why the hell didn't he?"

The answer to the last question is - He did!

Let me explain something to you about translation and original intent. Listen carefully. (I AM in the business, as you may know.) The Hebrew bible in Leviticus uses the word OHF preceding a list of names of species, the last of which is ATALEF which is sometimes translated as "the bat". Aside from the issue of whether that translation is correct, and it is most difficult to verify that since ATALEF appears nowhere else in the Hebrew bible (to my knowledge, and the same applies to ARNEVET as "rabbit"), the Hebrew OHF does really mean "flying creature" and not "bird" despite the fact that it is sometimes translated that way (as "bird"). We know this for a fact since OHF is the root of OHFAIF and YIOHFAIF, verbs that mean "to fly" and "will fly" and so appear numerously, including in Genesis. Is "bird" wrong? Not really, it is just an oversimplified and inaccurate translation. A bird does constitute a "flying creature" and it is much simpler for translators and editors to reach for "bird" than "flying creature".

You see, the translators of the bible are not generally concerned about the issues you raise and those that concern us here. They seek simplicity as long as it is not false. The same applies to "chewing cud" and many other phrases. The translators are so not interested in precision that they frequently put in whole groups of words not in the original to improve "the flow". This appears often in the KJV. To achieve precision with ancient Hebrew is particularly difficult since it is not spoken these days and there is a dearth of ancient sources to serve as points of departure for analysis. One needs to be a real scholar to achieve the requisite level of precision.

Believe me, I might not be thrilled about it, but there would be some level of relief and satisfaction if the Hebrew bible would convincingly be exposed to be in error. It would resolve a long standing debate and bring some clarity to the scene. I have searched far and wide. I haven't found the smoking gun yet.

The world appears to follow an axiomatic system. (And indeed, science assumes it does.) Godel proved that an axiomatic system strong enough to support arithmetic must contain an infinite number of true but unprovable statements. Therefore the world contains an infinite number of (spiritual) truths which must be taken on faith.

Believe me, I might not be thrilled about it, but there would be some level of relief and satisfaction if the Hebrew bible would convincingly be exposed to be in error.

(I AM in the business, as you may know.)

Mark Perakh wrote:

"From her multiple apearances on PT, wherein she often disdainfully denigrates other commenters and contributors, Ms. Clouser appears to be an arrogant person convinced of being superior in her knoweldge to other participants of debates. This was one of the reasons I wrote about two years ago that I'd not engage in debates with her. She continues trying to provoke me into debates, but I have no interest in falling for her bait."

That is a shame indeed since we both lose as a result, you more than me. But you must be blind as a biblical bat to accuse ME of denigrating OTHERS here. That is turning the facts on their head. Do you not see what goes on here? So I conclude quite logically that there is another motive behind your reluctance. Perhaps the same reason that renders you reluctant to engage Landa.

we both lose as a result, you more than me.

Perhaps the same reason that renders you reluctant to engage Landa.

by the way, for any noobs, carol's entire "thesis" has been thoroughly rebutted here, and everywhere, MANY times over the last 3 years.

which is exactly why many of us no longer bother and just prefer to snipe.

and on that note, while fun for a while, even the snipes get repetitive after all this time.

so I yawn at myself and say adieu to Carol.

(I AM in the business, as you may know.)

And people in "business" never lie or fudge the facts to further their business objectives, do they?

But you must be blind as a biblical bat to accuse ME of denigrating OTHERS here.

So to STJ's list of offences we need to add phony crybaby victimhood. Not to mention flat-out lying about what she had previously said, as I proved via the link to the Egnor thread.

And on top of all that, Carol's offenses are committed for a cause that is even more pointless than ID. She's gotta be the saddest bot ever to jump a track.

This is confusing two different situations by similarity. ...etc... In summary: Gödel's theorems has nothing to say on how nature is. But they have plenty to say on how powerful our formal theories are.

— Torbjörn Larsson

hhmm, ok thanks Thanatos, I shall have to go back and re-read stuff.

Carol Clouser wrote: Is "bird" wrong? Not really, it is just an oversimplified and inaccurate translation.

hhmm, ok thanks Thanatos, I shall have to go back and re-read stuff.

— guthrie