[b-hebrew] 4 rivers of Eden

Karl Randolph kwrandolph at email.com
Thu May 12 22:00:23 EDT 2005


Walter:

You are now crossing the boundary dividing describing a belief and showing how it fits into a discussion of Biblical Hebrew, and proselytizing for your beliefs. I know I often skirt that same boundary, but my interest has always been to describe where beliefs dovetail with observed Biblical Hebrew data, but you are always free to disagree with those conclusions. But you are at the very least implying, if not directly stating, that your interpretation is the only correct way to look at the data.

First of all, science can deal only with the present. According to the definition of science given in all the science textbooks I read that gave a definition (not all science texts give a definition for science), science can deal only with that which is observable where the observation is repeatable. The past, even that which was observable, is no longer observable, therefore its study is in the realm of history, not science.

As a result, evolution, the big bang theory, and so forth, describing what some believe to have happened in the past, are no more than religious beliefs. No less religious and no more scientific than the belief that a God created the universe in six days roughly six millennia ago. Those who defend these beliefs as just as closed minded, dogmatic, self-righteous proselytizers as the most zealous of any other so-called “religious” belief. This is where I see you proselytizing your (religious) beliefs.

On this list, I don’t need to proselytize. I expect that everyone here is educated and has heard my beliefs already. Therefore I see no need to repeat it.

I will back up what Dave stated, namely that while archeology indicated that there was a local flood, it is a leap of faith to connect it to the Biblical teaching that there was a world-wide flood. Dr. Ballard is trying to make the same connection with his findings in the Black Sea. Who is correct? Both can’t be. Both can be wrong. I believe neither you nor Dr. Ballard are correct, but you are free to reject my belief.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter R. Mattfeld" <mattfeld12 at charter.net>
> 
....
> 
> Dave wrote:
> "Archaeology has established that there was A flood at
> Shuruppak that was local.  Archaeology can never establish whether that
> particular flood had anything at all to do with the biblical flood story.
> That connection is a leap of faith on your part, nothing more.  Please be
> careful to separate actual archaeological facts from interpretive
> speculations."
> 
> Dear Dave,
> Everything is "speculation" including whether or not the Bible is 
> the word of God. Scientific inquiry works on the assumption that 
> all theories are falsifiable and open to attack in a search for the 
> truth. The Bible on the other hand tends to be seen by some as NOT 
> falsifiable, and any findings from the world of archaeology or 
> geology that disagree are automatically rejected as "pure 
> speculation."
> 
> As you may recall one of our list members, Rolf Furuli a few years 
> back mentioned some research he had done on the Mesopotamian Flood 
> myths and the parallels he found with the biblical account. Others 
> have noted the parallels too. Some have _speculated_  that the 
> "same" event is being recalled by the Hebrews and the 
> Mesopotamians, but in a somewhat different manner by a monotheistic 
> and a polytheistic culture, hence the differences in details.
> 
> The Mesopotamian event took place at Shuruppak according to the 
> myths. It has been excavated, and a flood layer found of silt laid 
> down by the Euphrates circa 2900 BCE. The Biblical Flood dates a 
> few hundred years later according to the biblical chronology worked 
> out by some.
> 
> Geologists tell us the earth is millions of years old, the Bible 
> suggests only 6,000 years for some scholars. I realize that for 
> those believing the bible is God's word, the day will never come 
> that they will accept the findings of science on anything 
> contradicting the Bible- such findings will always be dismissed as 
> pure speculation.
> 
> It would appear we have two camps, one "seeking truth" via 
> scientific inquiry and speculation and another camp that believes 
> it already has "the truth" and sees its mission as "defending this 
> truth." I doubt the twain will ever meet.
> 
> Regards, Walter
> Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre, M.A. Ed.
> mattfeld12 at charter.net

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list