The Canon

elaine · 10-06-09 12:50 pm

Esther is the only book of the Tanak not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Wikipedia has lots of information on Esther. Written ca.300-200 B.C. It is the first time "Jews" is used.

elaine · 10-06-09 12:57 pm

statements made in opposition to "tradition" are made with such "dogmatic" enthusiasm." Is this the manner in which you teach? Retaining and believing old traditions would have us believing that the sun revolves around the earth, that all of the scientific discoveries in the past 200-300 years are against all past traditions? What is the place of education if not to keep us abreast of newer discoveries and findings even though they may have the affect of destroying our previously held beliefs? Doesn't this happen daily in the classroom endeavoring to replace childish beliefs with accurate knoweldge? And that knowledge and information is never static but always changing?

don · 10-06-09 5:23 pm

Esther is the only book of the Tanak not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some scholars disagree, it seems:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies Old Testament: Dead Sea Scrolls ... The Lucianic (L) text of Esther is found in manuscripts 19, 93,108, 319, and part of 392. The Lucian Text is a seen as a revision of the Old Greek text (OG). Some scholars call the Lucian text A and the LXX text B. Here in the Lucian text, it looks like the book of Esther has been rewritten. The Lucian text of Esther is very different from the MT. It has omissions, additions, and content changes. The LXX also has large deviations from the MT. The L reflects midrash exegesis of Esther similar to the Targums... <a href="http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/sources/deadseascrolls.htm" target=_top>http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/sources/deads eascrolls.htm</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>What is the place of education if not to keep us abreast of newer discoveries and findings even though they may have the affect of destroying our previously held beliefs? I am not so much concerned with indisputable discoveries as with conjecture and speculation. For the latter I say that it is unwise for statements made in opposition to "tradition" to be made with "dogmatic" enthusiasm. And, yes, I teach my students to be careful not to accept speculation as fact. .

elaine · 10-06-09 6:17 pm

I agree that we should not teach opposition to tradition unless and until it can be replaced with verifiable information; i.e., we no longer teach that the sun revolves around the earth (why?) nor that all natural disasters are caused by God. Why do we not teach just as those 400-500 years ago? How long is it necessary to reject new discoveries? Five years, 25 years, 100 or more? When do we accept new information that replaces the old? What is necessary for that change to be made?

elaine · 10-06-09 6:19 pm

What are some of the things you consider "conjecture" and "speculation"? Should we be dogmatic about tradition?

don · 10-06-09 8:41 pm

Should we be dogmatic about tradition? No. When do we accept new information that replaces the old? When it is clearly demonstrated by science. Copernicus and Galileo illustrate the issues. They showed clearly that, for example, the sun did not revolve around the earth. It may be considered an "old" idea that Jesus rose from the dead. One can even show that raising from the dead is contrary to science. This "new" information does not rule out the resurrection of Jesus as a "miracle". Another area where people think they know when they really don't: The dates of manuscripts; or authorship; etc. Some observations prove a forgery like those of the Pseudo-isodorian decretals others "pretend" to know that an author, such as Matthew, didn't really write the Gospel named for him. This cannot be "known". As you know, many of the deliberations regarding authorship and date of manuscripts will remain matters of speculation. .

elaine · 10-06-09 9:42 pm

Remember how long it took for the church to validate Galileo's findings? How long might it take for the SDA church to accept the overwhelming evidence of an old earth? Four hundred years? How long to recognize radiometric dating that shows the age of ancient skeletons and other discoveries?

bob_2 · 10-07-09 12:20 am

Elaine, what is your vested interest in an Old Earth or Deep Time when the dating mechanisms have been shown to be flawed and inconsistent. You do not understand the dating mechanism nor are you able to demonstrate how they work, but vouch for them anyway. Uniformitarianism is your god. Current rates of movement and decay breakdown when catastophic events are factored in, when ancient trees are found and dated lying through various dated geological layers of earth, using the same dating techniques: Critical Response to 'Polystrate Trees' ,,, Keep in mind that fossils in the geological column date the layers. If we shorten the time frame that these trees are buried, we also must shorten the ages of the fossils found in the layers. The crux of the argument is that the layers represent hundreds of thousands of years and up to millions of years depending on the fossils found. The trees growing through the layers disrupts the neat package that evolutionist are trying to present. ,,, <a href="http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/rebut/poly_rebut.shtml" target=_top>http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/rebut/poly_r ebut.shtml</a>

don · 10-07-09 3:10 am

How long might it take for the SDA church to accept the overwhelming evidence of an old earth? There seems to be a significant difference between looking in a telescope; watching moons encircle a planet; repeating the math proving the movement of the sun AND the science necessary to attempt to date fossils, etc. I don't think that the dating mechanisms for the age of fossils, etc. is quite so convincing, nor available. The ancient past is far less accessible than a rocket to the moon or a space probe to mars or the sun. Also, the distant past has some seriously unresolved problems; one in particular: the creation of life from nonlife. Scientists try in vain to recreate what they believe to be how life came about. Science does takes us into areas once considered impossible. I recall before man landed on the moon, some people felt that God would not allow "sinful" humans to "desecrate" a place unmarred by "sin". When the evidence for a scientific assertion becomes overwhelming, people of faith modify their assertions, too. Ellen White stressed that the church moves forward as a body. An individual may have "new light" but the body needs to be convinced before it becomes "new light" for the church. This very process puts the church behind the individuals proclaiming the "new light." .

john8verse32 · 10-07-09 12:23 pm

"They won't give up," he said. "Those who believe in it will continue to believe." speaking about religious forgeries!!!! ..."lying for Jesus" and the church.... <a href="http://news.aol.com/article/italian-group-claims-shroud-of-turin-is/703528?icid=main" target=_top>http://news.aol.com/article/italian-group-claims-s hroud-of-turin-is/703528?icid=main</a>|main|dl3|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticl e%2Fitalian-group-claims-shroud-of-turin-is%2F7035 28 ROME (Oct. 5) - Scientists have reproduced the Shroud of Turin — revered as the cloth that covered Jesus in the tomb — and say the experiment proves the relic was man-made, a group of Italian debunkers claimed Monday. The shroud bears the figure of a crucified man, complete with blood seeping out of nailed hands and feet, and believers say Christ's image was recorded on the linen fibers at the time of his resurrection. Scientists have reproduced the shroud using materials and methods that were available in the 14th century, the Italian Committee for Checking Claims on the Paranormal said. Attempting to prove once and for all that the Shroud of Turin is a forgery, researchers in Italy have replicated the markings on the original shroud, above, using techniques available in the 14th century. Carbon dating has placed the origin of the cloth to medieval times, but experts had previously failed to understand how the facial markings were made. The group said in a statement this is further evidence the shroud is a medieval forgery. In 1988, scientists used radiocarbon dating to determine it was made in the 13th or 14th century. But the dispute continued because experts couldn't explain how the faint brown discoloration was produced, imprinting on the cloth a negative image centuries before the invention of photography. Many still believe that the shroud "has unexplainable characteristics that cannot be reproduced by human means," lead scientist Luigi Garlaschelli said in the statement. "The result obtained clearly indicates that this could be done with the use of inexpensive materials and with a quite simple procedure." The research was funded by the debunking group and by an Italian organization of atheists and agnostics, he said. Garlaschelli, a professor of chemistry at the University of Pavia, said in an interview with La Repubblica daily that his team used a linen woven with the same technique as the shroud and artificially aged by heating it in an oven and washing it with water. The cloth was then placed on a student, who wore a mask to reproduce the face, and rubbed with red ochre, a well known pigment at the time. The entire process took a week, Republica said. The shroud is first recorded in history around 1360 in the hands of a French knight — a late appearance that is one of the reasons why some scientists are skeptical of its authenticity. Measuring 13 feet (4 meters) long and three feet (one meter) wide, it has suffered severe damage during the centuries, including from fires. Owned by the Vatican, it is kept locked in a special protective chamber in Turin's cathedral and is rarely shown. The last public display was in 2000, when more than 1 million people turned up to see it, and the next is scheduled for 2010. The Catholic Church makes no claims about the relic's authenticity, but says it is a powerful symbol of Christ's suffering. The shroud has been strongly debated within the scientific community. Some researchers claim that patches used in the Middle Ages to repair the cloth after a fire altered the carbon-dating results. Another study, by the Hebrew University, concluded that pollen and plant images on the shroud showed it originated in the area around Jerusalem sometime before the eighth century. Garlaschelli told Repubblica he didn't think his research would convince those who have faith in the shroud's authenticity. "They won't give up," he said. "Those who believe in it will continue to believe."

elaine · 10-07-09 1:12 pm

We’re so motivated to get rid of that feeling that we look for meaning and coherence elsewhere,” said Travis Proulx, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and lead author of the paper appearing in the journal Psychological Science. “We channel the feeling into some other project, and it appears to improve some kinds of learning.” Researchers have long known that people cling to their personal biases more tightly when feeling threatened.

bob_2 · 10-07-09 5:33 pm

Elaine, is that speaking from your experience, you seem to be clinging pretty hard. I'm open with the right proof, not assumptions and speculation, and extrapolation. You want that Ardi skelton accepted on what you have given as proof???

elaine · 10-07-09 7:16 pm

What amount of proof do you require? If they are speculations, that would apply to all things that we cannot absolutely verify. What are you able to verify completely? It is not simply the Ardi skeleton, but the 3+ pages explaining it, such as: "What would be evidence against evolution, and very strong evidence at that, would be the discovery of even a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum, such as : fossil rabbits in the Precambrian. No such rabbits, no authentically anachronistic fossils of any kind, have ever been found. All the fossils that we have, and there are very many indeed, occur, without a single authenticated exception, in the right temporal sequence....Not a single solitary fossil has ever been found before it could have been evolved. "The platyheleminthes worm when first seen was already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear was not in the Cambrian but today. Creationists believe that flatworms were created in the same week as all other creatures. They have therefore had exactly the same time in which to fossilize as all other animals. There is not a single fossilized remains of the platyhelminthes, which first appeared yesterday (realtively) in comparison of long ages or even since Creation of a few thousand years ago. "The silliest of all these 'missing link' challenges are the following two: 'If people came from monkey via frogs and fish, then why does the fossil record not contain a 'fronkey'? This makes the the same mistake as all the others, plus the additional one of thinking that major evolutionary change happens overnight. Of course, monkeys are not descended from frogs. No sane evolutionist ever said they were, or that ducks are descended from crocodiles or vice versa. Monkeys and frogs share an ancestor, which certainly looked nothing like a frog and nothing like a monkey. Every one of the millions of species of animals shares an ancestor with every other one. If your understanding of evolution is so warped that you think we should expect to see a fronkey and a crocoduck, you should also wax sarcastic about the absence of a doggypotamos and an elephanzee. Humans are not descended from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys. Even thoug humans evolved from an ancestor that we could sensibly call a monkey, no animal gives birth to an instant new species; that isn't what evolution is about. Evolution not only is a gradual process as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual if it is to do any explanatory work. It would be so nice if those who oppose evolution would take a tiny bit of trouble to learn the merest rudiments of what it is that they are opposing. Ignorance is something that can be remedied by education."

bob_2 · 10-08-09 1:33 am

Elaine, Elaine, Elaine, I give up on you. See where this stuff gets you, death and dust!!

don · 10-08-09 1:58 am

It is not simply the Ardi skeleton, but the 3+ pages explaining it, such as: "What would be evidence against evolution, and very strong evidence at that, would be the discovery of even a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum, such as..." Elaine, it would be helpful if you provided sources for your quotes. If online, the link helps. If not, just the source, i.e. Newsweek, date, page. Your quote can be found at: Newsweek Excerpt: Richard Dawkins's New Book on Evolution <a href="http://mobile.newsweek.com/detail.jsp?key=72787&rc=top&p=0&all=1" target=_top>http://mobile.newsweek.com/detail.jsp?key=72787&rc =top&p=0&all=1</a> Except the last sentence which is also from Richard Dawkins but can be found at a different Newsweek link: <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/216206" target=_top>http://www.newsweek.com/id/216206</a> .

elaine · 10-08-09 10:04 am

Don, I clearly said (see my original post above) that it was from Time, Oct. 12. I read it from the hard copy, and it should not be so difficult to find it online. The later and lengthy post about radiometric dating I had no link, but it was found rather quickly by "Google." Also, the article on Richard Dawkins, as well as the Q&A following, was from Newsweek, which you linked. I read it in the hard copy, so thanks for supplying the link. As for some of what each person posts, it is not always directly from another's but the combined reading and experience that contributes to all our knowledge. Do you not agree? Must we always give credit when there are multiple sources that we simply recall from out chest of memory? The real question: what are the answers to radiometric dating and the evidence thus far presented?

don · 10-08-09 11:59 am

Must we always give credit when there are multiple sources that we simply recall from out chest of memory? This question faces teachers and students, as well. If a student gives two or three sentences verbatim from an uncited source, we don't consider it their work. How you choose to discuss is up to you, of course. If you are typing from a source in front of you, it is a courtesy to cite your source and, if it is from an online source, including a link is helpful. I don't think providing references for where all your ideas have been gleaned is necessary. Though providing such helps further the discussion. .

elaine · 10-08-09 3:29 pm

Don, the article on another Thread: "Long-lost Relative" I clearly said that it was from Time Oct. 12. I did neglect to give the link for radiometric dating, as I explained, I googled and it did not show a link after I had printed it out, as usually is shown. When articles are lengthy, rather than cutting and pasting, I attempt to summarize pertinent facts. Where does one's level of competence in a subject have any validity, and where are citations necessary? Since these are not the usual scholastic writings for class credit, I prefer to rely on the native intelligence of those writing, unless there is reason not to. As an informal forum, opinions are the usual modus.

bob_2 · 10-11-09 6:53 pm

Elaine, if you use the internet, it always has an address if you have an address space at the top of your page, unless you don't have it enabled. If you are going to quote other sources cite them. EGW learned from many sources and is accused of plagiarism for blending others' thoughts without credit. You seem to be endanger of following in her footsteps. Not too many people care what you, John Alfke, Don Sands or Bob Sands feels in his/her heart from years of study. You certainly don't respect mine, why would you assume your collection of thought would be better respected than ours???<img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/proud.gif" border=0>

jag · 10-11-09 10:46 pm

Bob, So far Elaine has been able to prove her point by using only reputable and reliable sources. On the other hand, your position appears to me to be impossible to maintain - first you cling to a very peculiarly particular interpretation of the Bible - and take it dogmatically, and then asked for proof you can only quote fundamentalist, conservative apologetic sources. Unfortunately, to me this is totally unconvincing.

elaine · 10-11-09 11:11 pm

I have tried numerous times to copy the site but have never been successful. Perhaps you can tell me how to do so. Each time I attempt to copy and paste it, it disappears, unlike a page copied. As Jag explains, some of us have long memories that cannot be easily cited. You also have a memory just as each person does. The more information you've learned through reading and studying, it becomes part of you and impossible to cite each source when there are many. For example: can you cite exactly the link for the history you learned in college and where we could read it again? Or, is it something you learned and have retained? Good memory is worth a thousand books, especially if they are unread. I read at least a dozen, usually more each year.

bob_2 · 10-12-09 1:36 am

I will say it again, no one is usually interested in undocumented opinions from folks like Bob Sands, JAG ore Elaine. That is why as we quote sources it is so important. JAG, I am unimpressed with undocumented pleasant memories of the past. The discussion is one that should be documented with sources, be they liberal or conservative. But we can't discount every conservative source by calling it Apologetic, and dismiss every Liberal source as secular and evolutionary. We have to have discernment as documented sources are presented. Too much, salvation in fact, is at stake to have it hinge on a hunch or a feeling or a source that one can't remember, usually those sort of questionable ways of gaining knowledge are dismissed by most discerning truth seekers.

don · 10-12-09 2:44 am

I have tried numerous times to copy the site but have never been successful. Perhaps you can tell me how to do so. Each time I attempt to copy and paste it, it disappears, unlike a page copied. Elaine, do you use keys to copy and paste, i.e. Control+C (copy) and Control+P (paste)? Highlight the URL line usually by simply clicking on it. While it is highlighted do Control+C. Go to the message box and do Control+P. This should paste into the message box the URL. Not too many people care what you, John Alfke, Don Sands or Bob Sands feels in his/her heart from years of study. Bob, and all, I look for a combination of input. Each of us have experienced life uniquely. When I read someone's post, I want to catch a sense of the poster's viewpoint and experience. This is what makes for a "rich" community experience. I often view this forum as a "debating club". Thanks to my sparring partners here at atomorrow, my debating skills have become more refined and my presentation of ideas more carefully thought out. Others may not agree, but I am getting better at thinking because of this forum. This, in turn, helps me present material to my students or in a Sabbath School discussion. Also, because the Internet is such a wealth of information, sharing sources allows each of us to dig further into what others are saying. There are people who can present ideas and opinions in a far more informed and reasoned manner than I can. Our forum can be compared to a table. Each person posting here sits at the table. When we present an idea we found on the Internet, we present that person's "paper" to those of us at the table. To do justice to the "paper" we need to read the whole thing. Thus links are helpful and essential to a robust discussion. (Message edited by Don on October 12, 2009)

elaine · 10-12-09 12:38 pm

Thanks, Don. I will try your suggestion. Like you, I find that constantly reading others' opinions helps me to improve mine. Also, when any new subject comes up, I immediately search the internet to become better informed. This gives the opportunity for learning, as none of us will ever learn all there is to be known.

jag · 10-12-09 9:58 pm

Bob, I am surprised that you refer to my sources as undocumented - and yours, presumably, as documented. Until you start using sources of historical/scientific merit rather than just apologetic sources whose agenda is not to further knowledge, I will have to beg to disagree. If you ever consider anything I say as "undocumented", please specify and I will correct my oversight.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#76 10-06-09 12:50 pm

Re: The Canon

#77 10-06-09 12:57 pm

Re: The Canon

#78 10-06-09 5:23 pm

Re: The Canon

#79 10-06-09 6:17 pm

Re: The Canon

#80 10-06-09 6:19 pm

Re: The Canon

#81 10-06-09 8:41 pm

Re: The Canon

#82 10-06-09 9:42 pm

Re: The Canon

#83 10-07-09 12:20 am

Re: The Canon

#84 10-07-09 3:10 am

Re: The Canon

#85 10-07-09 12:23 pm

Re: The Canon

#86 10-07-09 1:12 pm

Re: The Canon

#87 10-07-09 5:33 pm

Re: The Canon

#88 10-07-09 7:16 pm

Re: The Canon

#89 10-08-09 1:33 am

Re: The Canon

#90 10-08-09 1:58 am

Re: The Canon

#91 10-08-09 10:04 am

Re: The Canon

#92 10-08-09 11:59 am

Re: The Canon

#93 10-08-09 3:29 pm

Re: The Canon

#94 10-11-09 6:53 pm

Re: The Canon

#95 10-11-09 10:46 pm

Re: The Canon

#96 10-11-09 11:11 pm

Re: The Canon

#97 10-12-09 1:36 am

Re: The Canon

#98 10-12-09 2:44 am

Re: The Canon

#99 10-12-09 12:38 pm

Re: The Canon

#100 10-12-09 9:58 pm

Re: The Canon

Board footer