tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83848919011092978772024-03-05T07:29:54.514-08:00Genesis in the Ancient WorldThe Jews integrated into Greek culture around 300 BC. Notably, much of the modern Biblical literature is actually Greek. Enlightened Greek thought becomes apparent in the opening of Genesis. "One of the first evolutionary theories was proposed by Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) in the province of Ionia on the coast near Greece followed by Anaximander (550 B.C.) who speculated that life evolved from the water; lower forms of life, in a very primitive precursor to evolutionary theory."Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384891901109297877.post-54696053377164030232016-02-08T11:46:00.001-08:002016-04-07T05:21:22.199-07:00 Scala Naturae of the Bible, Charles Darwin and Ancient Greek Philosophy<p>Genesis speaks of "sunlight" before herbs. But this was NOT an "Egyptian myth". Light is described as being created <i>twice</i> _before_ vegetation and _after_ vegetation.<br>
The Hellenistic Jews and societies around them WORSHIPED agriculture so they wouldn't be so ignorant as to underestimate the value of light, would they? They were more knowledgeable about agriculture than any 10 young earth creation organizations combined and tripled, with their flawed attempts to interpret Genesis.<br>
The whole ancient near east, worshiped cultivation and success of crops (yes, even the Hebrews with upholding the "Olive" as sacred).<br>
Egyptians didn't separate science and religion -- everything, in their daily life was of the divine, and explained by the "gods" and to be revered. The Greeks on the other hand were the first who attempted to make distinctions between material reality (naturalism) and the supernatural.<br>
The Hellenistic Jewish author of Genesis was far more pragmatic than the Egyptians and would not have been so "stupid"... so agriculturally illiterate, and fail to recognize the importance of light's effect on crops.</p>
<p>TWO SOURCES OF LIGHT in the Greek.<br>
Two sources of light, in Genesis.</p>
<p>The ancient people believed "light" was sent by Apollo. Light was a separate entity from the sun itself. Though, yes, the sun gives light, but also, a fire gives light, <a href="http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/magazine/150213-ngm-glowing-mushrooms?source=relatedvideo" target="_blank">even mushrooms can emit light</a>... volcanoes emit light, fireflies give light. Therefore, light is a separate entity from the sun.</p>
<p>Helios, was the minor god who drove the fiery chariot across the sky (the sun), which all should be familiar with, the term, "<i>Heliocentrism</i>" [the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the center of the Solar System. The word comes from the Greek (ἥλιος <i>helios</i> "sun" and κέντρον <i>kentron</i> "center")].</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtZtWL_ArALicpwtFULeETKDkeGSO-onuD4yk2o48uxt7AFGYfqWKhBGU8kLQkYjVUZnFDZA0nAKFBtOzJZRHLES1ZvN-w2dkdjYeO8RcUznfoNQUeyu1Hb7q0qQ9WkpwpUlcguF07_-8/s1600/two-sources-of-light.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtZtWL_ArALicpwtFULeETKDkeGSO-onuD4yk2o48uxt7AFGYfqWKhBGU8kLQkYjVUZnFDZA0nAKFBtOzJZRHLES1ZvN-w2dkdjYeO8RcUznfoNQUeyu1Hb7q0qQ9WkpwpUlcguF07_-8/s640/two-sources-of-light.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Source: <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=ImI1-JH7LhoC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=ancient+greek+belief+light+separate+from+sun&source=bl&ots=TBmuN21rs1&sig=SLAruCw68IxDDU7dnsKZ4eDuvRE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGnOmYvefKAhWCQSYKHRtiBokQ6AEISjAI#v=onepage&q=ancient%20greek%20belief%20light%20separate%20from%20sun&f=false" target="_blank">Ancient Greece and Rome: Myths and Beliefs</a><br>
By Tony Allan, Sara Maitland<br>
The Rosen Publishing Group</p>
<p>The reason theologians (and scholarly types) always... ALWAYS want to cling to the blanket argument, "Genesis was an Egyptian myth" hypothesis analysis, is simple:</p>
<blockquote>1) Moses, it was written, was described as coming from Egypt,<br>
2) therefore, Moses "wrote" Egyptian myths.</blockquote>
<p>Right?<br>
<b>Wrong</b>.</p>
<p>The stories of Moses were passed down through oral tradition... and come after,<br>
The Genesis account which wasn't written down or compiled into the "Book of Genesis" (using a GREEK... and Latinized title. Moses did not write Latin or Greek) therefore, not written until around the time of the Hellenistic Jews (300-600 BC)... no archaeological evidence exists of biblical Hebrew beyond tiny fragments such as a burnt bit from... Leviticus, (but not Genesis... where are the Genesis accounts older than 600 BC from archaeology?).</p>
<p><a href="http://biblehub.com/library/gladden/who_wrote_the_bible/chapter_ii_what_did_moses.htm" target="_blank">This article mentions the other Hebrew books "Of Moses" being attributed to "Moses," all of them, EXCEPT the book of Genesis</a> (which are divided differently in the Hebrew vs. the English bibles).<br>
Jewish editors under influence of Hellenism, compiled the book called "Genesis".</p>
<p>The Greeks were quite obsessive and intentional in their <a href="http://genesis-ancient-world.blogspot.com/2016/02/greek-hellenistic-influence-on-judean.html">aims to spread Greek culture far and wide, and "convert" the Jews to Hellenism</a>, and its not that this isn't known. The book of Genesis contains "Naturalistic" (Thales/Anaximander's concepts of origins such as "Let the waters bring forth the moving creature") notably, "God" doesn't hand-design life, he merely commands for the waters and earth to "bring forth" life, in successive stages, "...the Bible-based concept of the so-called "ladder of life" or <i>Scala Naturae</i>..." (<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714937" target="_blank"><i>From the scala naturae to the symbiogenetic and dynamic tree of life.</i></a>)</p>
<p>Ancient Greek early pre-scientific philosophies are strewn among other, more common understandings of the natural world, which were often explained in terms of the supernatural, i.e., "Light" in itself is separate from the sun, a separate entity altogether. Technically, if you light a match at midnight, you will see evidence for "Apollo's Light".</p>
<blockquote><b>THE OLDEST BIBLICAL TEXT</b> (<i>And its not Genesis</i>)<br>
"...Biblical text older than the Dead Sea Scrolls has been discovered only in two silver scroll-shaped amulets containing portions of the Priestly Blessing from the Book of Numbers, excavated in Jerusalem at Ketef Hinnom and dated c. 600 BCE. A burnt piece of Leviticus dating from the 6th century CE analyzed in 2015 was found to be the fourth-oldest piece of the Torah known to exist."<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls" target="_blank">The Dead Sea Scrolls</a>, Wikipedia</blockquote>
<h3>THE SCALA NATURAE OF THE BIBLE, AND CHARLES DARWIN... AND ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHY.</h3>
<blockquote>"...The great chain of being (Latin: scala naturae, literally "ladder/stair-way of nature") is a concept derived from Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and Proclus. Further developed during the Middle Ages, it reached full expression in early modern Neoplatonism..."<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being" target="_blank">The Great Chain of Being</a>, Wikipedia</blockquote>
<p>It's not as if scientists and presumed theologians didn't know this already, but some theologian, --<i>a clown with a degree</i>, thinks <i>"Moses was Egyptian. Therefore, the Bible is Egyptian myths".</i><br>
What an absolute stroke of *<i>genius</i>* that rationale required. (yes, <i>sarcasm</i> strongly denoted).</p>
<blockquote><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714937" target="_blank">From the scala naturae to the symbiogenetic and dynamic tree of life.</a><br>
"...All living beings on Earth, from bacteria to humans, are connected through descent from common ancestors and represent the summation of their corresponding, ca. 3500 million year long evolutionary history. However, the evolution of phenotypic features is not predictable, and biologists no longer use terms such as "primitive" or "perfect organisms". Despite these insights, the <u>Bible-based concept of the so-called "ladder of life" or <i>Scala Naturae</i>, i.e., the idea that all living beings can be viewed as representing various degrees of "perfection", with humans at the very top of this biological hierarchy, was popular among naturalists until ca. 1850 (Charles Bonnet, Jean Lamarck and others)</u>. Charles Darwin is usually credited with the establishment of a branched evolutionary "Tree of Life". This insight of 1859 was based on his now firmly corroborated proposals of common ancestry and natural selection. In this article I argue that <u>Darwin was still influenced by "ladder thinking", a theological view that prevailed throughout the 19th century</u> and is also part of Ernst Haeckel's famous Oak tree (of Life) of 1866, which is, like Darwin's scheme, static."</blockquote>
<p><i>Scala naturae</i>, The Biblical Creation account vs. the contemporary "Creationist" understanding due to <b>misinterpretation</b> of Creation (which is still quite different from the ancient author of Genesis' vision)... and Charles Darwin.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjirOxh_utYALYPp7wHXpHPG-MET2k34lt3ASTXsyCy4pmg4782fqvgm1JFtoN369TY5Tax-b6A4DAt54ju4ygMWHiobaMDxYfdYvcL9rn5SgaJdJqMMQ_9i79SLE30SyhOIVIsY29PCi4/s1600/scala-naturae.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjirOxh_utYALYPp7wHXpHPG-MET2k34lt3ASTXsyCy4pmg4782fqvgm1JFtoN369TY5Tax-b6A4DAt54ju4ygMWHiobaMDxYfdYvcL9rn5SgaJdJqMMQ_9i79SLE30SyhOIVIsY29PCi4/s1600/scala-naturae.jpg" /></a></div>
<p><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=rtCvNsfqfoMC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=%22god+saw+that+it+was+good%22+scala+naturae&source=bl&ots=Tj3bFZPv9m&sig=iPIzLxL6ZzqvxGD-d-cXrGop5t8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi43KSnwOjKAhVK5SYKHUdvDZgQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22god%20saw%20that%20it%20was%20good%22%20scala%20naturae&f=false" target="_blank">The Evolution of Psychological Theory</a><br>
Richard Lowry, Transaction Publishers, 1982</p>
<p>Don't the pseudo-Darwinists (Atheists) make the claim it was "Christianity" who was the enemy to scientific progress? According to this document, it was the Greek prevailing philosophy of "Essentialism".</p>
<blockquote><p>Plato (427 – 347 B.C.E.)<br>
Plato believed that the world is a mirage, that the only things that really exist are immutable Forms or Ideas, and that objects in the real world are just evanescent shadows of these Forms.<br>
In Book 7 of The Republic Plato explains this concept using the allegory of a cave with prisoners watching shadows on a wall producing by firelight shining over the real objects.</p>
<p>Essentialism, based on Plato’s concept of Forms, dominated Western thought for over 2000 years and impeded progress in biology. There was an ideal form of each animal and plant; individuals varied a little from the ideal form because they were imperfect copies, but the ideal form was “divine, deathless, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble, always the same as itself.” (Plato’s Phaedo)<br>
This concept was antithetical to the concept of evolution.</p>
<p>Aristotle and the Scala Naturae<br>
Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.E.) did believe in reality, and developed a “natural philosophy” that included many of today’s sciences, particularly physics and biology.<br>
He visualized nature as a ladder (the scala naturae) with earth at the bottom, then plants, then animals, then humans.
Plato and Aristotle in Raphael’s The School of Athens</p>
<p>Scala Naturae<br>
The Great Chain of Being<br>
Christianity added angels and God to the ladder, the “great chain of being,” with earth and minerals at the bottom, then plants, animals, humans, angels, and God in progressively higher levels.<br>
Some levels were subdivided into higher and lower animals, higher and lower humans (peasants, aristocrats, kings), and so forth."</p>
Source: <a href="http://www.public.iastate.edu/~lhodges/PPT%20-%202%20-%20Biologists%20before%20Darwin.ppt" target="-blank">Biologists before Darwin</a> - Iowa State University</blockquote>
<p><i>More on "Design" in Nature.</i> In spite of the fact pseudo-Darwinists fail to realize, Greek thought which gave rise to the precious science of evolution, was also akin to myths of ancient Greece and appear in the Genesis account of creation... likewise, they would like to ignore "historical documents"... so that the world is turned to the worship of the precious "Atheism". Teach Atheism in math, replace Science with Atheism, substitute Atheism for Social Studies, and Atheism is to thank for everything under the sun, including ... the science of "Biological Evolution"?</p>
<blockquote><blockquote><i>Really?</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>No.</blockquote></blockquote>
<p>Just because some young earth creation come-lately groups <b>misinterpreted</b> the Genesis account (which is written in an agricultural setting in the ancient near east) -- and the young earth creationist can't possibly interpret, or much less, speak the truth -- does not mean Genesis is the "enemy of Science," nor does it mean, Genesis should be placed in the trash can and discarded as "mere Egyptian mythology."</p>
<blockquote><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/finding-design-in-nature.html" target="_blank">SCIENTIFIC DEFENDERS OF THE FAITH</a> (via Robert Schwartz):<br>
Finding Design in Nature (CHRISTOPH SCHÖNBORN, 7/07/05, NY Times)<br>
EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.<br>
But this is not true.</blockquote>
<p>Somebody out there must enjoy prolonging the supposed "battle between Science and Religion."<br>
Somebody out there wants to claim a monopoly on Science <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=vi7MCCNs9-sC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/babinski/flood_geology.html+science+religion+is+atheism+the+problem&source=bl&ots=Z96RuRpeAU&sig=6bFvxChZndnkLF2DkCZQ8HswacI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw06CB8ejKAhWEbiYKHaMYDaQQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=www.edwardtbabinski.us%2Fbabinski%2Fbabinski%2Fflood_geology.html%20science%20religion%20is%20atheism%20the%20problem&f=false" target="_blank">to promote Atheism</a>.</p>
<blockquote>"The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.<br>
Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science. [...]<br>
In the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."<br>
Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the "death of God" that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.<br>
Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence."</blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><i>"...Please note that the now common phrase “the Great Chain of Being” (made even more popular and ubiquitous in no small part thanks to Arthur Lovejoy’s seminal work on the history of the idea) was “largely an invention of eighteenth century writers”</i> (Bucholz 393).</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>A WORTHWHILE CRITICISM from Harvard University<br>
<a href="https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/13064927/Grossman_gsas.harvard.inactive_0084L_11744.pdf?sequence=1" target="_blank">Shakespeare Grounded: Ecocritical Approaches to Shakespearean Drama</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Speciesism and Hierarchy<br>
In recent years, a number of literary scholars have argued that Shakespeare’s depictions of animal behavior reveal humanism’s rediscovery of classical skepticism towards human exceptionalism (e.g., Montaigne’s writings) – a skepticism that would be severely undermined in short order by Descartes’ work.(8)<br>
Though animals may present the most obvious objects of inquiry when considering Shakespeare’s debt to classical and humanist skepticism, similar but broader observations have been made concerning the philosophical outlooks depicted in Shakespearean drama. For instance, in discussing Hamlet’s metaphysical preoccupations, one critic writes that Shakespeare dramatizes the “philosophical disquietudes taken up by Descartes, but ultimately he will remain closer to the secular skepticism of Michel de Montaigne than to the essentialist individualism of Descartes” (Drew 51).</p></blockquote>
<p><i>(*8) See Erica Fudge’s Brutal Reasoning: Animals, Rationality, and Humanity in Early Modern England, Bruce Boehrer’s Shakespeare among the Animals: Nature and Society in the Drama of Early Modern England, Andreas Höfele’s Stage, Stake, and Scaffold: Humans and Animals in Shakespeare’s Theatre, Keith Thomas’s Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England, and Laurie Shannon’s The Accommodated Animal: Cosmopolity in Shakespearean Locales.</i></p>
<blockquote><p>It is no overstatement to say that many of the findings described in the previous section represent the polar opposite of Descartes’ belief that animals are “so devoid of feelings that one could vivisect them without compunction, taking their cries as purely ‘reflex’ reactions of a quasi-mechanical kind” (Sacks).<br>
But though most individuals living in the twenty-first century would likely cringe at some of the experiments Descartes conducted in the seventeenth century, the conclusions he reached were far-reaching, with echoes from this line of thinking reverberating well into the modern era.<br>
Descartes’ emphasis on stimulus-response reflexes and bodies as machines can be seen, for example, in the radical behaviorism of the twentieth century – a framework that denied “reality to what was not objectively demonstrable” and denied in particular the “inner processes between stimulus and response, deeming these as irrelevant...or beyond the reach of scientific study” (Sacks). But <u>if scientific advances throughout history have taught us nothing else, it is that we are consistently wrong in our assumptions and that we should not be arrogant in assuming we have mastered (or have mastery over) the complexity of life forms</u>.<br>
When Jeremy Bentham claimed that the relevant question about animals was simply whether or not they can suffer, he touched upon a fundamental truth concerning the shared nature of primitive and advanced animals. As Romanes observed in the late nineteenth century, “wherever [nerve tissue] does occur its fundamental structure is very much the same, so that whether we meet with nerve tissue in a jellyfish, an oyster, an insect, a bird, or a man, we have no difficulty in recognizing its structural units as everywhere more or less similar” (Romanes 24).<br>
Granted, Bentham and Romanes are exclusively discussing the animal kingdom and I confess there is no easy way to transition to plants. As I have indicated, we can plausibly say that plants may indeed suffer, but that observation alone is more likely to create rather than resolve any ethical dilemmas. Does that then mean it is no longer moral to own furniture made of wood? Or does this simply mean that we as a species need to be more vigilant about resource management, and recognize that if we do destroy plant life (e.g., clearing forests), we have an obligation to replant and ensure that vegetation continues to thrive? There are no easy answers given that our mere existence accompanies the death of both plants and animals. Yet this does not mean we should resign ourselves to destruction and refuse to contemplate such questions, or search for ways to minimize our impacts on all living beings."</p>
<p><b>a) The Great Chain of Being</b><br>
What I do believe provides a useful transition in terms of making the leap from animal to plant is the very concept of “lower life forms.” When it comes to the food chain or any taxonomic scheme, certain organisms are invariably grouped together. <u>Simply put, we are not going to regard a dolphin the same way we view a centipede scurrying on the ground. In Western philosophy, the notion of a universal <i>scala naturae</i> (chain or ladder of being) that ranked existences from the divine to the mundane held tremendous sway.</u> (9)<br>
<u>Rocks were at the bottom, then plants, then animals (and so on), but divisions and hierarchies existed within each category (Bucholz 23)</u>. <u>For instance, although insects were at the bottom of the animals, useful and attractive insects such as bees and ladybugs were at the top of the insect heap (Medieval Natural World 23). As for plants – firmly positioned underneath the animals – the hierarchy went from tallest (trees) to shortest (Bucholz 24).</u><br>
Even stones had to be ordered with precious jewels like diamonds at one end and drab sediment like granite at the other (Bucholz 24).</p></blockquote>
<p><i>(*9) Please note that the now common phrase “the Great Chain of Being” (made even more popular and ubiquitous in no small part thanks to Arthur Lovejoy’s seminal work on the history of the idea) was “largely an invention of eighteenth century writers” (Bucholz 393).)</i></p>
<blockquote><p>I shall discuss the propensity for creating subdivisions in greater detail in chapters two and four, but I want to lay some of the groundwork here for the discussions that follow. <u>While the idea of weighing the relative merits between a beetle and a grasshopper for the sake of ordering them might seem comical, this is how human culture has long operated</u>. <u>The elements that contributed to a sweeping conception of ranking organisms can be traced to ancient Greek philosophy and to Aristotle in particular who “conceived that zoological forms could be arranged on a hierarchical scale, reflecting degrees of perfection”</u> (Bynum 4). (10)</p>
<p>Aristotle regarded plants as “defective animals” and, indeed,since antiquity “plants have mostly been considered in terms of lack or privation: they lack eyes, reason, speech, history, desires, etc.” (Pettman).<br>
But even when plants are used in positive sense, the results are frequently metaphors that a) pertain to human behavior and b) get the nature of plants all wrong. Consider what Plato – Aristotle’s teacher – says in his Timaeus: “We are a plant not of an earthly but of a heavenly growth...for the divine power suspend[s] the head and root of us from that place where the generation of the soul first began” (Jowett 777).<br>
In other words, Plato is encouraging his readers to visualize humans as creatures with “aerial roots extending into the sky” (Pettman). Marder persuasively argues that Western metaphysics commences “with the inversion of the earthly perspective of the plant, a deracination of human beings from their material foundations” (Vegetal 471). For Plato, Aristotle, and many who followed, it mattered not that dirt is a nourishing substance; the idea that the further our distance from the ground, the better, became firmly entrenched.<br>
Although <u>we typically associate the Great Chain of Being with Christian theology and European medieval and Renaissance society, its influence on later scientific endeavors is a</u></p></blockquote>
<p><i>(*10) The scala naturae derives in large part from Aristotle’s History of Animals where he is concerned with studying creatures, classification, and hierarchical orderings.)</i></p>
<blockquote><p><u>testament to the scheme’s staying power in the collective consciousness.</u> In <i>Elements of Geology</i> (1851), Charles Lyell uses the <i>scala naturae</i> as a “metaphor to describe elements absent from the layers of a geological column, and in the process unwittingly initiates the mythic evolutionary quest for the ‘missing link’” (Lightman 2).<br>
From a broader perspective (i.e., the concern with ordering life), biologists are still working on classifying animals, with some arguing for x kingdom and others claiming x should not be treated as such (and some preferring to abandon the “kingdom” label altogether). Granted, scientists today are not couching these sorts of discussions in terms of simplistic “better than or worse than” rhetoric; taxonomy, of course, concerns shared characteristics and evolutionary relationships.</p>
<b>b) Speciesism’s link to the scala naturae</b><br>
But while the idea of rankings organisms no longer seems like an overt or salient feature of modern society, the consequences of a hierarchical worldview persist in subtle ways, namely the promotion and propagation of speciesism – i.e., <u>the assumption of mankind’s superiority coupled with discrimination against other organisms based purely on the fact that they do not belong to one’s own species</u>. Building upon Bentham’s arguments in favor of the equal consideration of interests, Peter Singer did much to popularize the concept of speciesism in Animal Liberation (1975).
(11)<br>
Revisiting the subject in his next book, <i>Practical Ethics</i> (and again in subsequent editions of <i>Animal Liberation</i>), he writes: “Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favouring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of</p></blockquote>
<i>(*11) The term was coined a few years earlier by Richard Ryder, a member of the Oxford Group, which consisted of intellectuals interested in the emerging concept of animal rights. In Animal Liberation, see in particular chapters five and six: “Man’s Dominion: A Short History of Speciesism” and “Speciesism Today.”)</i>
<blockquote><p>their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is identical in each case” (Practical Ethics 58; Animal Liberation 9). More recently, Marc Bekoff has done an admirable job highlighting the link between speciesism and the <i>scala naturae</i>: <blockquote>“Speciesism results in animals being classified hierarchically as ‘lower’ and ‘higher’, with humans on the top rung of the ladder. This anthropocentric view...leads humans to ignore the welfare of animals” (Bekoff 26).</blockquote> Terry Tempest Williams put the matter perhaps most eloquently: <blockquote>“To regard any animal as something lesser than we are, not equal to our own vitality and adaptation as a species, is to begin a deadly descent into the dark abyss of arrogance where cruelty is nurtured in the corners of certitude. Daily acts of destruction and brutality are committed because we fail to see the dignity of [the] Other”</blockquote> (Williams 127). Singer (philosopher), Bekoff (evolutionary biologist), and Williams (writer/conservationist) are not merely dealing with abstract ideas, but rather are trying to explain the largely hidden (but fundamental) motivation behind the harms that humanity inflicts upon other creatures. For instance, in detailing a fraction of the horrors that animals in factory farms and laboratories endure, Matthew Scully astutely observes that <blockquote>“it is as if every animal, in our day, is falling a level in the order of creation – wildlife to the level of farm animals to be raised for slaughter, farm animals to the level of plants to be ‘grown’, and laboratory animals to the level of microbes or cell cultures one need not even treat as living, feeling beings at all” (Scully 381).</blockquote> The problem with hierarchies is that they foster the assumption that these structures are correct and unchanging – as if they were part of some natural law handed down from above. The reality is that we can (knowingly or unknowingly) shift the pieces around and that we devalue the beings we have placed on (or relegated to, rather) certain rungs."<br>
<a href="https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/13064927/Grossman_gsas.harvard.inactive_0084L_11744.pdf?sequence=1" target="_blank">Shakespeare Grounded: Ecocritical Approaches to Shakespearean Drama</a>, harvard.edu</blockquote>
<p>"<i>Scala Naturae</i>" influencing Scientific Thinking... just as it influenced the opening of Genesis, in the Creation account... and that, in regard to the so-called <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=vi7MCCNs9-sC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/babinski/flood_geology.html+science+religion+is+atheism+the+problem&source=bl&ots=Z96RuRpeAU&sig=6bFvxChZndnkLF2DkCZQ8HswacI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw06CB8ejKAhWEbiYKHaMYDaQQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=www.edwardtbabinski.us%2Fbabinski%2Fbabinski%2Fflood_geology.html%20science%20religion%20is%20atheism%20the%20problem&f=false" target="_blank">battle between Science and Religion</a>, is truly the epitome of dark irony.</p>
<blockquote><p>"...Over the decades, this procedure produced the worldwide “geological column,” an imaginary pile of strata that covers the span from the oldest discovered sedimentary rocks to those formed most recently.</p>
<p>The height of this column—that is, the thickness of all known strata added together—is estimated to be about 60 miles (over 100 kilometers). This does not mean that one can start digging at any place on the Earth and go through 60 miles of strata. This impressive height is based on adding up all the different strata in the various places where they occur. How long did it take for all these strata to form? No one in the early nineteenth century knew, but geologists realized that it must have been a very long time, because silt washes into inland seas very slowly.</p>
<p>Continued studies established that each major group of strata contains its own unique kinds of organisms. The famous French naturalist Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) interpreted these data as evidence that at various times in the past drastic catastrophes had destroyed all life, and subsequently there had been new creations of quite different species. <u>While Cuvier’s theory, called catastrophism, held on to the idea of a divine creator for every single species, it significantly modified the creation process outlined in Genesis.</u> Instead of taking just one week, creation in Cuvier’s theory stretched throughout the entire history of life. And instead of recognizing just one great catastrophic flood, Cuvier suggested that life-destroying catastrophes had occurred over and over again.</p>
<p>An alternative explanation to catastrophism was evolution—the gradual change of species into other species over time. <u>Darwin was not the first person to think of evolution; the concept had been around for centuries. Even the classical Greeks had speculated along these lines but then abandoned the idea when no data could be offered in support.</u>
The new observations and speculations of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, however, slowly laid the path toward a workable evolutionary theory.</p>
<p><u>One concept that helped pave the way was the <i>scala naturae</i>, or scale of nature—the suggestion that all animals could be arranged in a linear series based on increasing complexity, with no appreciable gaps in the series—from amoeba to humans</u>. Where gaps seemed to exist, there were presumably intermediate forms yet to be discovered. Thus the great apes seemed to link human beings with other mammals, seals and whales linked fishes with land-living vertebrates, and bats were considered intermediate between birds and mammals. <u>The roots of this concept could be traced back through medieval times to the Greeks, and it was still widely accepted in Darwin’s day</u>.</p>
<p>A further observation that prepared the way for evolution was that species of animals and plants are not randomly different from one another but seem to fall into naturally hierarchical groups. Similar individuals can be classified as the same species, similar species can be included in the same genus, similar genera in the same family, similar families in the same order, similar orders in the same class, similar classes in the same phylum, and similar phyla in the same kingdom.</p>
<p>The first systematic attempt to classify living nature in this manner was made by the Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus in the eighteenth century. In time, both the scale of nature and hierarchical classification were understood in terms of evolution—similar groups, such as species within a genus, are alike because they descended from a common ancestor. At the next level in the hierarchy, all the species of a genus of birds and indeed all species of birds, are descended from a very ancient common ancestor.</p>
<p>The person who first tried to bring ideas about evolution together into a coherent theory was the Frenchman Jean Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who in his <i>Philosophie zoologique</i> (1809) maintained that one species evolves into another species in order to better adapt to its environment. Observing fossils in France, Lamarck noted that one geological stratum might have an abundance of one species of mollusk with little variation. The next higher stratum might contain species that were similar, but none would be exactly like those in the lower stratum. As he studied progressively higher strata, Lamarck observed that species became steadily different over time, stratum by stratum.
Since fossils in a lower stratum were known to be geologically older than those in a higher stratum, it stood to reason that though a fossil in a higher stratum could not be the ancestor of one in a lower stratum—descendants cannot live before ancestors—a species in the lower stratum just might be the ancestor of a species higher up in the column.
Lamarck concluded that what he was seeing in the fossils of progressively higher strata was change in a lineage over time. This hypothesis was markedly different from Cuvier’s view that as the species in one stratum became extinct, closely similar ones were created anew and preserved in the next higher stratum.</p>
<p>Lamarck postulated a changing environment as the mechanism for the evolutionary change he observed. Species evolved in order to adapt, he believed. His classic example was the giraffe’s remarkably long neck. The ancestors of today’s giraffes, he said, had short necks and grazed on grasses and low shrubs, as do most other herbivorous mammals. Lamarck suggested that some ancestors of modern giraffes attempted to exploit a new and abundant food source—the higher leaves of trees. To reach the leaves they had to stretch their necks, which gradually lengthened with so much stretching. Lamarck thought that traits that came about through repeated use could be passed along to offspring. Thus giraffes would inherit the long necks of their parents and then stretch their own necks even further; over many generations, giraffe necks would become longer and longer until they reached the length of giraffe necks we see today. Conversely, characteristics that were not used would eventually wither away, as happened to eyesight in moles and bats.</p>
<p>This hypothesis of evolutionary change through “the inheritance of acquired characters” (meaning “characteristics”) was not widely accepted in the early nineteenth century, since it was contrary to the ([<b>my note: common interpretations OR SHOULD I SAY _MISINTERPRETATIONS_ of the</b>]) Bible and was <u>based on too much speculation and too few data</u>. Other people besides Lamarck, including Charles Darwin’s own grandfather Erasmus Darwin (1731–1802) had suggested that evolution might occur, but no one had yet argued the case well enough to convince the scientific community. Thus, in the first half of the nineteenth century the dominant scientific position was that species are “fixed,” that is, they do not evolve. Although questions about the accuracy of the Genesis account of creation were being asked by scientists as well as biblical scholars, and alternative scientific as well as theological interpretations were being offered, in Charles Darwin’s day none of these theories was taken seriously enough to undermine the traditional Judeo-Christian teaching. Evolution was out of favor; divine creation was still in vogue."</p></blockquote>
<p>"<a href="http://www.ksrbiotech.com/uploads/From%20Genesis%20to%20Genetics.pdf" target="_blank">From Genesis to Genetics<br>
The Case of Evolution and Creationism</a>"<br>
John A. Moore</p>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384891901109297877.post-75108281032719653422016-02-06T21:14:00.000-08:002016-03-31T22:35:15.205-07:00Herbs, Fruit-Bearing Trees and Grass Before Sunlight in Genesis, the Hellenistic Jews and Ancient Greece<p>Here's the likely explanation, between Genesis and Ancient Greek Philosophy, which explains <i>why</i> the author believes "herbs" came before sunlight. <b>LIGHT A MATCH... OR FLICK A BIC LIGHTER</b> and when you see the flame, you will know that the light exists independent from the sun.</p>
<blockquote>"...However, in spite of their <b>syncretism</b> (<i>the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought/the merging of different inflectional varieties of a word during the development of a language</i>) they were also often viewed as two distinct gods/titan (Helios was a Titan, whereas Apollo was an Olympian)."</blockquote>
<p>1) APOLLO (the god of "Light")</p>
<blockquote>Genesis 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."<br>
Genesis 1:4 "God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness."<br>
Genesis 1:5 "God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day."</blockquote>
<p>It remains impossible for me to believe or accept ancient agricultural societies in the near east, who worshiped agriculture would not know that "light" is a requirement for crops to grow. <i><u>Unless... the purpose of the sun was believed to be something other than the "sole source" of light for photosynthesis</u>.</i> This light was the same "light" that would have had to had been believed to give life to fruit bearing trees, grass, and herbs). Therefore, the author may claim, "fruit trees" came before the sun.</p>
<p>* Apollo is the god of light, music, poetry, healing and divination (prophecy).<br>
* Helios is the god who drives the "fiery chariot" across the sky.</p>
<p>2) HELIOS (the god who drove the 'Sun' chariot)</p>
<blockquote><p>Genesis 1:14 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:<br>
Genesis 1:15 "And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so."<br>
Genesis 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."<br>
Genesis 1:17 "And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,"<br>
Genesis 1:18 "And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good."</blockquote>
<p><b>TWO SOURCES OF LIGHT</b>
<blockquote>"...Helios was described as a handsome titan crowned with the shining aureole of the Sun, who drove the chariot of the sun across the sky each day to earth-circling Oceanus and through the world-ocean returned to the East at night. In the Homeric hymn to Helios, Helios is said to drive a golden chariot drawn by steeds (HH 31.14–15); and Pindar speaks of Helios's "fire-darting steeds" (Olympian Ode 7.71). Still later, the horses were given fiery names: Pyrois, Aeos, Aethon, and Phlegon.<br>
As time passed, Helios was increasingly identified with the god of light, Apollo. However, in spite of their syncretism, they were also often viewed as two distinct gods/titan (Helios was a Titan, whereas Apollo was an Olympian). The equivalent of Helios in Roman mythology was Sol, specifically Sol Invictus."<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios" target="_blank">Helios</a>, Wikipedia</blockquote>
<p>To the ancient mind light was somehow independent of the sun.</p>
<p>TWO separate sources of Light.</p>
<blockquote><p>"...Apollo was never actually described by the Greek poets driving the chariot of the sun, although it was common practice among Latin poets. Therefore, Helios is still known as the 'sun god' – the one who drives the sun chariot across the sky each day."<br>
-Wikipedia</p></blockquote>
<p>Apollo's light is separate from the Fiery "Chariot" which Helios drove across the sky.</p>
<p>Apollo gave the light when the "sun chariot" emerged on the horizon, just as Apollo was the god behind light of the candle in the dark of night.</p>
<p>The ancient Hellenistic Jews, therefore did not err in saying "Light" came before the herbs, fruit-bearing trees and grass.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkJ6j-R-l67TEO9loPdru-XRvgHFn96vwJs7qQQ8nvNXWr7vGO4gA1M7TSRezLDGaPwgz6sTGOTx4SDb7Dw5mxuVGB-a_eLNcQ9z3FOE5fIu5e50mUe85mF3Q9l3IIi_r-qw-w56xMjFY/s1600/two-sources-of-light.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkJ6j-R-l67TEO9loPdru-XRvgHFn96vwJs7qQQ8nvNXWr7vGO4gA1M7TSRezLDGaPwgz6sTGOTx4SDb7Dw5mxuVGB-a_eLNcQ9z3FOE5fIu5e50mUe85mF3Q9l3IIi_r-qw-w56xMjFY/s1600/two-sources-of-light.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Source: <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=ImI1-JH7LhoC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=ancient+greek+belief+light+separate+from+sun&source=bl&ots=TBmuN21rs1&sig=SLAruCw68IxDDU7dnsKZ4eDuvRE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGnOmYvefKAhWCQSYKHRtiBokQ6AEISjAI#v=onepage&q=ancient%20greek%20belief%20light%20separate%20from%20sun&f=false" target="_blank">Ancient Greece and Rome: Myths and Beliefs</a><br>
By Tony Allan, Sara Maitland<br>
The Rosen Publishing Group, 2011 - Juvenile Nonfiction</p>
<blockquote><i>"The synthesis of two myths lead to some confusion.</i> [...] <i>This stands as an example of how the Greeks, in particular, could happily accept contradictions within their mythology."</i></blockquote>
<p>And that's precisely why "God creates Light" (Genesis 1:3-5), then God commands the earth to bring forth herbs, grasses and fruit bearing trees, (Genesis 1:11-13) THEN... creates the sun, Genesis 1:14-18.</p>
<p>I KNEW the Hellenistic Jewish author of Genesis wasn't so agriculturally illiterate, to not know crops can not grow without light!</p>
<p>It's all Greek to you,</p>
<blockquote>"...Newton chose the number seven as this reflected the Ancient Greek belief that seven is a mystical number, due to the fact that there are seven 'wandering stars' and seven days in a week, a quarter of the time between two full Moons."<br>
<a href="http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/Newtons-theory-of-light.html" target="_blank">Newton's theory of Light</a></blockquote>
<hr style="height: 20px; border: 0; box-shadow: 0 10px 10px -10px #56a9ff inset;" />
<p><a href="http://genesis-ancient-world.blogspot.com/p/the-false-doctrines-of-inerrancy-and.html">The False Doctrines of Inerrancy and Infallibility</a> (Part One)<br>
<b>CRIME AND MOTIVE</b>. Extensive evidence for unsound doctrine espoused among Church leaders, weighed against a strange and "mysterious verse" which scholars suspect to be forgery... but, attributed to Paul, who is innocent of the charge!</p>
<p><a href="http://genesis-ancient-world.blogspot.com/p/the-false-doctrines-of-infallibility.html" target="_blank">The False Doctrines of Inerrancy and Infallibility</a> (Part Two)<br>
The evidence continues. Moses did not write the opening of Genesis.</p>
<h3>"Herbs" and *other vegetation before Sunlight</h3>
<p>(* <i>"Plants of the field" and "Plants of the field before it," are not described in Genesis 1:11-12</i>)</p>
<blockquote>"...Having seen the illustrious history of herbs, and knowing their potential for healing to humans and generally improving the quality of life, it is a wonder that they are not promoted more into modern life. This is of course, in part due to the rise of international pharmaceutical companies. The gradual proliferation of readily available medication over the counter has led to a decline in the knowledge of the plants that surround us."<br>
<a href="http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/herblore.htm" target="_blank">Herb-Lore (Herbalism)</a>, ancient-wisdom.com</blockquote>
<p>Consider the verses,</p>
<blockquote>Genesis 1:11 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, <u>the herb yielding seed</u>, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth”; and it was so.<br>
Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and <u>herb yielding seed</u> after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good.<br>
Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.</blockquote>
<p>Herbs... include mushrooms.. and other forms of fungi. The ancient Greeks observed these organisms, that seemingly appeared "overnight". Does it help account for the strange order given in Genesis, with "herbs" appearing before sunlight?</p>
<p>To understand the full meaning of the author of Genesis, one must travel back to the time of the Hellenistic Jews, who were part of an Agricultural Society and under the heavy influence of Ancient Greek philosophy.</p>
<table border="0" width="600" height="196" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff"><center><img height="200" width="200" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIOi4q-QlRWBhjyZQr_nVsWezgfZ15cuBhvD7PxSTbK98JQ4fgFx3rTcn7Kt6oAtPxcq6-eZaPsK0btWQcRNcxvR_-bpKa48GB27HSeM9mVNwwfR5Jj6AVkQCL5EtKc-aEApmeLHJM7es/s1600/mushroom.png" /></center></td>
<td width="200"><h3 align="center"><i><b><font color="#ccccccc">Before?</font></b></i></h3></td>
<td valign="top"><center><img width="200" height="200" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJq5Z0ID1lm9K4zRX_-vmpEg20Z-eS6JGoJKqfYyxtvZ97mqQ31YNEMmthSdVIshTqDz18A9DtMxk0oNsnFfiAdgwDqrnXbuGtwbg0ryqDRXTCYisP5vX6q8x2-oWO82cLem_m_QJnnO8/s1600/sunlight.jpg" /></center></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p><i>What</i> were the Greeks thinking?</p>
<h3>The Non-Photosynthetic Properties of Mushrooms</h3>
<blockquote><a href="http://en.agaricus.ru/agaricus" target="_blank">Agaricus in the world of mushrooms</a><br>
"...Today, there are more than 100,000 types of mushrooms in the world. They differ in appearance, habitat and physiological functions.<br>
To this most interesting group belong the little known microscopic mushrooms and the common forest mushrooms – which are the target of a «quiet hunt». They are all alike in their structural features, which are characteristic to almost all types. <u>Mushrooms don’t contain chlorophyll, hence they are unable synthesize organic substances from the inorganic matter on their own; therefore they need a ready organic substance for their nutrition (it’s called heterotrophic)</u>. The basis of a mushroom’s vegetative body is mycelium or spawn which is composed of branching fibers – the hyphae. The mycelium is on the surface of the substrate, where the mushroom develops, or inside it. The mycelium absorbs nutrients from the substrate in an osmotic way. When the conditions are favorable, fruit bodies form on the mycelium, and the mushrooms propagate with spores.<br>
<u>People’s aspiration for learning about these wonderful organisms has led to the formation of a whole new science – mycology.</u> --> Mycology is a science that studies mushrooms, <u>it got its name from a Greek word «mycos» - that’s how ancient Greeks called agaricus. Agaricus and some other mushrooms were mentioned in the transactions of Theophrastus who lived in the 3rd century B.C.</u> <--<br>
According to the systematization of all known mushrooms – agaricus belongs to Basidiomycetes species, the higher fungi with multi-cellular mycelium. The spores of these mushrooms form on particular offshoots called basidium."<br>
/EXCERPT</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoT8TV1Qo6uW7uASUef-g3VcKmFfyqZRK_5fDUhgBKXebvpBKADxmHf9zUBeftqQ4uckiH7PHziCTeGngbK5BZmIpIIddopnQ3GWaW9hXbRPAcFgqxVaNM4vPrzqWgNRPvlTqbwWG7LcU/s1600/fungi-ancient-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoT8TV1Qo6uW7uASUef-g3VcKmFfyqZRK_5fDUhgBKXebvpBKADxmHf9zUBeftqQ4uckiH7PHziCTeGngbK5BZmIpIIddopnQ3GWaW9hXbRPAcFgqxVaNM4vPrzqWgNRPvlTqbwWG7LcU/s1600/fungi-ancient-01.jpg" /></a></div>
<p><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=TO5O0eBfFUQC&pg=PA382&lpg=PA382&dq=ancient+greek+cultivation+mushrooms&source=bl&ots=hWeBMkvk2y&sig=aGj_R3BsCSPe527ISO3j87Colk4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-u9KfpeTKAhUDSyYKHVmaCgc4ChDoAQhIMAk#v=onepage&q=ancient%20greek%20cultivation%20mushrooms&f=false" target="_blank">Fungal Biotechnology in Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Applications</a><br>
edited by Dilip K. Arora</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3iP6Bc1vsZ0igtsFfUOO4rE9nkKdHaOtQ6UWNcO2WZ7UAP81CP6t9GV7wyoC_iQ_O6_Luhu9SI8gaJbSYvXjB9Uf8HK1RpbMb4ypXfKb_xWwzj80WLAm5OpylkNzuKCdV1aMLqHSHWpY/s1600/fungi-ancient-02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3iP6Bc1vsZ0igtsFfUOO4rE9nkKdHaOtQ6UWNcO2WZ7UAP81CP6t9GV7wyoC_iQ_O6_Luhu9SI8gaJbSYvXjB9Uf8HK1RpbMb4ypXfKb_xWwzj80WLAm5OpylkNzuKCdV1aMLqHSHWpY/s1600/fungi-ancient-02.jpg" /></a></div>
<p><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=H7i8QJw8BJsC&pg=PA439&lpg=PA439&dq=ancient+greek+cultivation+mushrooms&source=bl&ots=IieG6hiGQw&sig=5w2KpAB6wGFLTEv87ZGdRB1RU40&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-u9KfpeTKAhUDSyYKHVmaCgc4ChDoAQg0MAU#v=onepage&q=ancient%20greek%20cultivation%20mushrooms&f=false" target="_blank">Vegetable Production</a><br>
Ib Libner Nonnecke<br>
Springer Science & Business Media, 1989</p>
<p>Some mushrooms (fungi) can have underground systems which span up to 2 miles. ("<a href="http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141114-the-biggest-organism-in-the-world" target="_blank">More precisely, a specific honey fungus measuring 2.4 miles (3.8 km) across in the Blue Mountains in Oregon is thought to be the largest living organism on Earth</a>.")</p>
<p>Theophrastus (the father of botany) knew mushrooms, grew underground (in darkness), and the only reference he makes to the sun, is "...<i>mushrooms grow by the sea which are turned into stone by the action of the sun</i>."
<blockquote><p>"And Theophrastus, in the History of Plants, writes: "<u>Such plants grow in some cases underground, in other cases on the ground</u>; among the latter are what some call peziae ('puff-balls'), which occur among mushrooms. For they also, as it happens, have no roots; but the mushroom has a lengthy stalk like an adherescent growth, and roots extend from it." He also says that in the region of the sea round the Pillars of Heracles, whenever it rains copiously, mushrooms grow by the sea which are turned into stone by the action of the sun. And Phaenias, also, in Book I of his Plants, says: "Other plants, again, produce not even so much as a blossom, nor is there any trace of a club-like bud containing a seed, or any seed process whatever; such are the mushroom, truffle, fern and helix-ivy." The same author speaks of "the fern, which some call blachnum." Theophrastus in the Plants, again: "Smooth-skinned flora, like the truffle, mushroom, puff-ball, and crane-truffle."</p>
<p>Truffles. — These also grow spontaneously in the ground, chiefly in sandy places. And Theophrastus says of them: "The truffle (which some call crane-truffle) <u>and any other underground plant</u>." And again: "This is also the mode of growth and the physical habit of these underground plants, such as the truffle, and the fungus which grows in Cyrene and is called misy. This is regarded as very good, and it has the odour of meat, like the oiton which grows in Thrace.<br>
Concerning these a singular fact is mentioned; it is said, namely, that they grow when the autumn rains come with severe thunderstorms; the more thundering there is, the more they grow, the presumption being that this is the more important cause. They are not perennial, but come up every year, and the proper time to use them is in the spring, when they are at their height. <u>Nevertheless some suppose that they have a seed origin</u>. For on the coast of Mitylene, they say, truffles do not grow until a heavy rain comes and the seed is washed down from Tiarae. Now this is a place in which they grow plentifully. And they are more apt to occur on the seashore and wherever the ground is sandy, as it is in Tiarae. They also grow in the Abarnis district near Lampsacus, in Alopeconnesus, and in Elis."<br>
<a href="http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Athenaeus/2C*.html" target="_blank">The Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus</a>, published in Vol. I of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1927, uchicago.edu</p></blockquote>
<hr style="height: 20px; border: 0; box-shadow: 0 10px 10px -10px #56a9ff inset;" />
<p>Many years ago I prayed for God to reveal "the truth" (not the establishment's pseudo-version of truth) but God's truth about <i>Genesis</i>, how things came to be, --the truth of Truths. I really was still quite fresh out of fundamentalism, and through a series of coincidences and circumstances... I became acquainted with Agnostic Darwinists, avidly reading biology, geology, astronomy, theology and mythology, history-ology articles... and slowly... gaining knowledge...<br>
During that time, I know I was getting close to Agnosticism, if not an Agnostic. However the good Lord pulled me back to faith.<br>
So, today I spend my days wrestling with all the ideas/concepts I learned back then.</p>
<p>I could not ever bring myself to dismiss the book of Genesis as "mere mythology". There were some things in Genesis such as the sun not being described as a "god" ... but rather as a physical, material "source of light" (nothing divine about it). My reasoning facilities told me, "This is not Egyptian mythology," -- but if not Babylonian or Egyptian, then from where did "Moses" get his theory about the origins of the Cosmos and Earth?</p>
<p>The more I read to find that answer (for the good part of 16 years now) the more I began realizing, it aligns with Greece, in both philosophy and timeline.</p>
<p>I TRULY believe that if you want God to reveal any_thing to you, it is as easy as Jesus taught, "Ask and ye shall receive, Knock and the door will be opened to you." Jesus did not teach to trust or have faith in establishment religion to teach, the same evil clowns who murdered Jesus because he was speaking truth, and opposed their false teachings. Jesus was preaching about going through him, (his teachings of faith and reconciliation), to acquire audience with GOD, as personal teacher.</p>
<p>Many many times, I have read scriptures, and prayed to God for answers, to explain verses in scripture. I do not trust establishment theologians (unless their generalized teachings correlate with numerous other sources PLUS the written scripture). Truth becomes self-evident and speaks for itself... you know in your own good brain, whether its the truth or not when you see it. It is "you and God," just as its "me and God"... and I can't depend on "Tom, Sally and Sue" to guarantee my spiritual guidance (Salvation). There is only myself and God, and I am nothing without a little help from that supreme being who is the inspiration and source of the spirit of truth and guides the seeker of truth, in <i>all</i> truth.</p>
<p>So, I recall one instance, where I was trying to reconcile Science(Evolution) with Genesis... "trees before sunlight"... as the basis for the Church rejecting Evolution as legitimate, and saying that it contradicts scripture, specifically "fruit trees before sunlight" .<br>
I prayed long and hard about that question, how could such a riddle be solved?! FRUIT TREES, before sunlight.<br>
I BELIEVED in God (faith) that an answer could be provided to solve that puzzle, but by God, alone, because most certainly, "trees" in the modern sense depend on Photosynthesis.<br>
Well, yes, -- it can be --technically and quite emphatically too.<br>
I will attach the evidence.<br>
Sure, God would have known about "fruit bearing" <i>Prototaxites</i>. God can likewise bring a person to such knowledge, for sake of (if nothing else) proving God has the power to do so. Further, every reason to demonstrate why theologians are not fit to speak on matters of Science, any more than they're fit to teach the scriptures. Only God has the power, the knowledge, the wisdom to teach every person the scripture, if they seek truth that is.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnkSvJCzRJ3kSmBPvJpndCIiNuUkJF-AUPI4w6LUzmapzdiU1hSzRxtqbXihg7ZrT4EcLCgXlSNrW1-1sCi-Dc_ff-CI7GpehyMKxFafDe1bJmzSOWpEqVisswjwWTHhYX4wPBWZn61b8/s1600/fruiting_fungi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnkSvJCzRJ3kSmBPvJpndCIiNuUkJF-AUPI4w6LUzmapzdiU1hSzRxtqbXihg7ZrT4EcLCgXlSNrW1-1sCi-Dc_ff-CI7GpehyMKxFafDe1bJmzSOWpEqVisswjwWTHhYX4wPBWZn61b8/s640/fruiting_fungi.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>In the end, (long story that perhaps goes too in-depth for this post), I'm no longer so sure Genesis was ever meant for "literal interpretation," with all the false doctrine of "inerrancy" and "infallibility"?<br>
God exists without doubt (if people have seen personal prayer answered and personal evidence, its about faith).<br>
So we will find personal evidence for the Supreme Being, BEYOND that book, the Bible. Jesus taught it was about exercising faith, not evidence. God is "the Living God"... Bible or not, God exists and God existed long before man came into existence. God did not come into being with the advent of the Bible.</p>
<blockquote><p>[The Bible is a collection of books, written by men, about God. That's a fact, not a detraction from God's inspiration in many of the scriptures which speak of God (I quote from two commentaries below about how Paul's words were mistranslated ... God is omnipotent, omniscient... and if we turn to him, God is there and present and personal to TEACH every person. It is promised, <i>"They shall be taught of/by God"</i>. Well then? Yet, men wrote the Bible... <b>and men are not wholly good nor are they perfect.</b> Only God is good and perfect. God did not write the Bible.]</p>
<p>"Every Scripture, (inspired of God), is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, which is in righteousness." Every writing, inspired of God, is profitable reading.<br>
*But the book of Enoch proves not "all scripture" is inspired... and that includes those more than amply demonstrated verses which were subjected to inserted forgery/fraud and even confessed as such by the church*<br>
<b>PAUL WAS NOT DECEIVED.</b><br>
"Therefore, just as πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα (Matthew 2:3) means "all Jerusalem," not "every Jerusalem," so here πᾶσα γραφή means "all Scripture." What follows of the various uses of Holy Scripture is not true of "every Scripture."<br>
1) "<a href="http://biblehub.com/library/gladden/who_wrote_the_bible/chapter_ii_what_did_moses.htm" target="_blank">What Did Moses Write?</a>"<br>
2) <a href="http://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-16.htm" target="_blank">Commentary on II Timothy 3:16</a></blockquote>
<p>And what do you know, I just realized, finally thought to ask, <i>"Maybe the Greeks KNEW that Mushrooms were non-photosynthetic!"</i> Hence the reference of such "herbs" before sunlight. Perhaps they knew, about some forms of non-photosynthetic plants.</p>
<p>Here's a reference to just that:
<blockquote>"...I realized that I had not really touched on the Greek perspective on mushrooms, even though <u>their relationship with mushrooms was certainly an influence in Hellenic thinking and cultural expression</u>. There are significant differences between the Hellenes (Greeks) and the Romans, but in many ways the <u>Romans looked to the Greeks for ideas about science, philosophy, military strategy, and of course religion</u> (most of the primary Roman gods are basically ripped-off versions of older Greek deities). The Romans even thought that their society was descended from Aeneas, a Trojan hero who fought in that war after which certain computer viruses are named."<br>
...<u>The curious and clever Greeks of the Classical Period were among the first westerners to write about mushrooms and explore their origins and potential</u>. Given the lively cultural exchange between the Greeks and their eastern neighbors, it’s possible that mycophilia traveled across the Aegean from Asia Minor and Egypt, and the idea of mushroom spores traveling to earth on lightning bolts hurled by powerful gods was a common theme espoused by both Greeks and Egyptians.<br>
<u>Natural science was an area of inquiry that fascinated Greek philosopher-scholars, and mushrooms presented a baffling problem because they did not grow like other plants. Aristotle found mushrooms puzzling but he was determined to figure out what sort of creature they were</u> because, in his words, “In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous.”<br>
<a href="http://blog.crazyaboutmushrooms.com/mushrooms-history-greeks-egyptians/" target="_blank">Mushrooms In History – the Greeks and Egyptians</a></blockquote>
<p>The keyword here is "<i>Agrocybe aegerita</i>".</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTTAkiXxTpo35gO2JkgvJh2hA-7A0wcpWaSdqKSsSKQuWMgPPwh_yt5XDaub3kcik9248HrRs_UERkqqyqXWCMjqoUvS5eFaocMl4dKth5h7B9DxNOZ7Qp90gyiKMyr50mnU6YCXxqDgw/s1600/mushroom-species-ancient.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTTAkiXxTpo35gO2JkgvJh2hA-7A0wcpWaSdqKSsSKQuWMgPPwh_yt5XDaub3kcik9248HrRs_UERkqqyqXWCMjqoUvS5eFaocMl4dKth5h7B9DxNOZ7Qp90gyiKMyr50mnU6YCXxqDgw/s1600/mushroom-species-ancient.jpg" /></a><br>
<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=tka838efZvkC&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=ancient+greek+cultivation+mushrooms&source=bl&ots=DFuG6IVm9N&sig=dvhUHhNnlHUrAaGYWaUN5GWTAvk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA8Jzy8uPKAhWCOCYKHaVnCn0Q6AEIRjAK#v=onepage&q=ancient%20greek%20cultivation%20mushrooms&f=false" target="_blank">Mediterranean Vegetables</a>: A Cook's ABC of Vegetables and Their Preparation in Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, the Middle East, and North Africa with More Than 200 Authentic Recipes for the Home Cook<br>
Clifford A. Wright<br>
Harvard Common Press, 2001 - Cooking - 388 pages</div>
<blockquote><b>Growing Conditions for Mushrooms</b><br>
"...<u>Fungi grow very differently than plants. Plants have roots that grow in soil and require photosynthesis.
Fungi have fungal mycelium (comparable to plant roots) that grow in substrate. Unlike plants, fungi do not need sunlight to grow and do not require photosynthesis because they get all the nutrients they need from decomposing organic material</u>. For many culinary mushrooms, the substrate may be hardwood or softwood stumps, logs, wood chips, mulch, or straw. Many fungi are referred to as “wood-rotting” fungi, meaning the mycelium is responsible for the decomposition of organic materials like roots, stumps, and surface debris."<br>
"Pioppino: <b>Agrocybe aegerita</b><br>
Pioppino mushrooms are popular with home gardeners because they are relatively easy to grow. In the wild, this table-top shaped mushroom is often found growing in clumps at the base of hardwood stumps such as cottonwood, willow, and poplar. Cultivation outdoors is most successful in inoculated stumps or woodchip mulch from one of these tree species. Ideal temperatures are between 50-70 degrees F. Yields can potentially reach 1 pound of mushrooms per 5 pounds of substrate. Pioppino mushrooms often produce two flushes of mushrooms with two weeks of dormancy between flushes. In the kitchen, pioppino mushrooms are appreciated for their pork-like flavor. Popular in Italian cooking, pioppinos complement sauces, soups, and stews."<br>
Source: <a href="http://www.uwyo.edu/barnbackyard/_files/documents/magazine/2015/winter/012015bbmushrooms.pdf" target="_blank">Unraveling the Mystery of Mushrooms</a></blockquote>
<p>The Greeks "cultivated" this specific species of mushroom, it was non-photosynthetic as it is described as deriving nutrients from organic material, <i>"...often found growing in clumps at the base of hardwood stumps such as cottonwood, willow, and poplar. Cultivation outdoors is most successful in inoculated stumps or woodchip mulch from one of these tree species."</i></p>
<p>Hence, the Greeks would have observed sunlight was not necessary for the mushroom to grow.</p>
<blockquote>M.S. wrote: <i>sorry a bit off the subject but your mushroom line suddenly made me think of Paul Stamets and his belief/research on mushrooms being the miracle cure all for health and the environment!</i></blockquote>
<p>Thanks. I came across an article with that man.
<blockquote><a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2013/julyaug/13-mushrooms-clean-up-oil-spills-nuclear-meltdowns-and-human-health" target="_blank">How Mushrooms Can Save the World</a><br>
"Crusading mycologist Paul Stamets says fungi can clean up everything from oil spills to nuclear meltdowns."<br>
"...To ward off pathogens, fungi have developed an arsenal of antibacterial and antiviral compounds — a resource that traditional peoples harnessed in the form of mushroom teas and foodstuffs. Alexander Fleming exploited them in more modern fashion when he isolated penicillin from the Penicillium rubens mold in 1929. Fungi can also parasitize and kill insects, including those troublesome to us.<br>
For millennia, humans have exploited microfungi (molds and yeasts) to create edibles such as cheese, bread, beer and wine. But in Western culture, Stamets observes, the powers of macrofungi have been largely ignored, an attitude he refers to as “mycophobia” or “biological racism.” Mushrooms were relegated to the Campbell’s can, or outlawed when they blew too many minds. They were discounted, devalued, shunted aside."</blockquote>
<p><i>"...Pioppino mushrooms --> (Agrocybe aegerita) <-- induced tumor regression, reversing cancer in lab mice. The species also controlled blood sugar in diabetic mice."</i></p>
<p>They are referred to as "herbs" in Genesis, by the Greeks, and sent at the tip of Lightning bolts from the gods.</p>
<p>The Discover article touches on the "Ancient" history of Fungi, the KJV Genesis account does distinguish between "herbs" in Gen.1 from later Gen. 2:5 "plants of the field" or "plant of the field before it". The properties of "herbs" (fungi) were known at least as early as 450 B.C. as noted below,</p>
<blockquote>"...Although he’s obsessed with finding new uses for mushrooms, Stamets is also a passionate scholar of ancient mycotechnology. He often wears one example: a traditional Transylvanian hat made of amadou, the spongy inner layer of horse’s hoof fungus (Fomes fomentarius), which can be processed into a warm, feltlike fabric. Highly flammable, amadou has also served as tinder for flintlock guns and prehistoric campfires. (Ötzi, the 5,000-year-old “ice man” found in an Alpine glacier, was carrying the stuff in his pouch.) Its absorbent and antimicrobial properties made it ideal for dressing wounds and preserving foods. And <u>amadou was the first medicinal mushroom on record: “Hippocrates described it in 450 B.C. as an anti-inflammatory,”</u> Stamets notes."<br>
<a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2013/julyaug/13-mushrooms-clean-up-oil-spills-nuclear-meltdowns-and-human-health" target="_blank">Discovery, Mushrooms can Save the Planet</a>,</blockquote>
<p>Hippocrates of Kos, also known as Hippocrates II, was a Greek physician of the Age of Pericles, and is considered one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine. (Wikipedia)<br>
Born: 460 BC, Kos, Greece<br>
Died: 370 BC, Larissa, Greece</p>
<p>And then, we have "<a href="https://answersingenesis.org/biology/plants/planting-confusion/" target="_blank">Answers in Genesis</a>" non-answers in the mythical 24-hour, 7 day "creation".<br>
Planting Confusion<br>
Were plants created on Day Three or Day Six?</p>
<p>Funny. Since the sun wasn't even around until Day Four, how did God measure 24 hour days for Day #1, #2, #3 ?</p>
<p>--> <i>"...As a result of the Curse, Adam would no longer have it easy. Instead of eating the abundance of fruit from the trees in the garden, he would need to till the ground and grow crops for food.3 This would be hard work, because the ground was now going to produce thorns and thistles."</i> <--</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjODKlu06N3tgII0XFghGVRqS78B9glRlUne3znnPbXI2TrsBr_Co2N_5foCh-iuPKttNUWmYHjEOc9sYHB9Sw6TovZfe1v55MvQ4XNByDzzDA18dWpcH1T0GSXNsLhoeI3jFwtSDGTLxw/s1600/eden.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjODKlu06N3tgII0XFghGVRqS78B9glRlUne3znnPbXI2TrsBr_Co2N_5foCh-iuPKttNUWmYHjEOc9sYHB9Sw6TovZfe1v55MvQ4XNByDzzDA18dWpcH1T0GSXNsLhoeI3jFwtSDGTLxw/s1600/eden.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>No, <u>the correct answer is</u>, according to the story, Adam was put into a very small, but nice, manageable hand-designed little "garden" in the midst of Mesopotamia and instructed to attend to the little garden. Confined to a tiny, space on the planet...</p>
<p>When God drove Adam/Eve out, beyond the boundaries of this little garden, Adam would find "wild plants with thorns" (in their natural state as they had been for millions of years prior to, during, and after this "fall.")... because those things were ALREADY there.</p>
<blockquote>"...So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."</blockquote>
<p>Why put cherubims in Eden if "the WHOLE PLANET" was a plush orchard and garden of paradise, suddenly turned to thistles and thorns, worldwide? Because it wasn't about protecting the "plush garden" nor access to food. It was about preventing Adam from returning to pluck the fruit off the "Tree of Life" lest he live forever. The author doesn't describe the "whole earth" as a paradise. The boundaries of paradise were found ONLY WITHIN the little "garden" described in Mesopotamia. Beyond Eden's boundaries; death, thorns and thistles had always been. If the author of Genesis truly believed there were no thorns, thistles or death on the entire planet, then why did they confine "Paradise" to a tiny spot in Mesopotamia?</p>
<p>Let me reiterate... if the plush "Garden of Eden" were representative of "the whole earth" -- then why have any boundaries on this location in Eden?</p>
<blockquote>Genesis 2:8 "...The LORD God <b>planted a garden toward the east, in Eden</b>; and there He placed the man whom He had formed."</blockquote>
<p>According to scripture there never was a "worldwide paradise."<br>
Nor was Eden representative of the "whole earth".</p>
<p>Answers in Genesis has presented a YEC fairy tale about "death" and "thorns" and "thistles" never existing before Adam. They make this error, mainly because they are out of touch the author of Genesis who lived in an agricultural society. Agriculture was worshiped among ancient people. CULTIVATION was a form of science. Cultivation was not achieved "instantly," in a creation, rather, it was a long laborious process that occurred when Hunter-Gatherers began cultivating wild species enabling ancient people to establish agricultural settlements.</p>
<p>Adam is described as the first farmer, not the first human on Earth.</p>
<p>Answers in Genesis interpretation is misleading at best, because what they are inadvertently claiming is the same as saying, "Cultivated vegetables came before the man" in a "plush paradise garden"... and then came the thorns!!!</p>
<p>In reality, thorns came first.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvbEluNxkD8Li-YaLMgsz7JP7FajpplV_spgwEichLSFO0WaBdTwX8fFdzNLIcyx0-IU6u6TbVy1Ugz7AFWSNCRG4Xsdj864VPwsiT7-oScd0aoX-_yBeTWJ3Gne4W_dC6yr2nyjr4FfA/s1600/carrot-ancestor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvbEluNxkD8Li-YaLMgsz7JP7FajpplV_spgwEichLSFO0WaBdTwX8fFdzNLIcyx0-IU6u6TbVy1Ugz7AFWSNCRG4Xsdj864VPwsiT7-oScd0aoX-_yBeTWJ3Gne4W_dC6yr2nyjr4FfA/s400/carrot-ancestor.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>"Every carrot plant of the field BEFORE IT was in the earth, but no cultivated carrot grew. There was no man to till (cultivate) the ground.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUSU1JNDBuhFMBjk3sS3rbx0_vhOMfrqoy_IwWH5XyKNitaves1n3-vrlzjusXK8V1CcaZEy1SKJ0WiuGYknKc9ujjT38m_5qy6oc8hGL2v1MOA0Uqp7SzqlYTIZyClZnW8cOiG-YqCN4/s1600/carrot-cultivated.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUSU1JNDBuhFMBjk3sS3rbx0_vhOMfrqoy_IwWH5XyKNitaves1n3-vrlzjusXK8V1CcaZEy1SKJ0WiuGYknKc9ujjT38m_5qy6oc8hGL2v1MOA0Uqp7SzqlYTIZyClZnW8cOiG-YqCN4/s400/carrot-cultivated.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>The author of Genesis no where claims God provided Adam with thorn-free, Grocery-store quality modern vegetables... <i>"and then the thorns came."</i>.</p>
<p>On the contrary, the scripture states emphatically,</p>
<blockquote>"...no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and <u>no plant of the field had yet sprouted</u> .... there was no man to cultivate the ground."<br>
"...And <u>every plant of the field before it was in the earth</u>, and every herb of the field before it grew ....there was not a man to till the ground."</blockquote>
<p>The author of Genesis does not say, "...and God provided Adam with juicy, colorful, sweet fruits and vegetables..." they were absent. Man had to cultivate these foods. Man created them, from wild, and often thorny ancestors.</p>
<blockquote><a href="https://vifarms.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/wild-carrot-butternut-squash-soup/" target="_blank">Wild Carrot & Butternut Squash Soup</a><br>
Invasive Wild Carrots are delicious and are still waiting to be harvested. This wild plant (Daucus carota) is the ancestor of all our modern carrots. The root is light yellow, can be quite large, smells like carrot and is very nutritious. The leaves can be brewed into a nice-tasting relaxing tea and seeds have been used medicinally as a contraceptive for thousands of years.<br>
Like all carrots, the plant is biannual; in the first year it produces harvestable roots, in the second year it goes into seed. Watch out for poisonous look-alikes as Hemlock.</blockquote>
<p>Were toadstools and hemlock "created" after the fall, too?</p>
<p>Thorns, thistles and death, the wild ancestor of modern vegetables, the wild mustard plant and "every plant of the field <b>before it</b>". Thistles were around long before Adam, and were present right outside the boundaries of Eden. The author of Genesis could not be more emphatic: <b>"The LORD God <u>planted a garden toward the east, in Eden</u>"</b>.
<p>Answers in Genesis is denying... yes, <i>DENYING</i> what the author of Genesis is emphasizing, about "Every plant of the field before it," -- HAD THORNS.</p>
<blockquote><a href="http://blogs.nature.com/freeassociation/2014/10/how-we-built-a-better-tomato.html" target="_blank">HOW WE BUILT A BETTER TOMATO</a><br>
"...Most wild tomato species bear little resemblance to the large, red fruits you’re used to seeing in the supermarket. This is because humans have been molding the tomato to their own taste for thousands of years, by selecting for larger, tastier and (of course) redder fruits.<br>
As a consequence of this selective breeding, we have significantly altered the tomato genome. A new paper published online this week in Nature Genetics analyzed the genomes of 360 tomato accessions, including multiple wild species and cultivated varieties, to understand exactly how and where humans have left their mark on the tomato genome."</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1yg_RcQBz9umS2Ma_ayl9yUstGbB_k3yIQKQCSFZ3uhRHN7KnwIE4Sw3KVWeEjMyw6oHBLjwoO7JRlslFLym6RPs_TYEeexxSI-DmLie8tO7ywLsGguo6WlPtj31oCc7RjbZlFfIxrBo/s1600/tomato-ancestor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1yg_RcQBz9umS2Ma_ayl9yUstGbB_k3yIQKQCSFZ3uhRHN7KnwIE4Sw3KVWeEjMyw6oHBLjwoO7JRlslFLym6RPs_TYEeexxSI-DmLie8tO7ywLsGguo6WlPtj31oCc7RjbZlFfIxrBo/s1600/tomato-ancestor.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Answers in Genesis should try to explain exactly what those "plant of the field before it tomato style" looked like since the thistles, thorns and death weren't present... interesting claim indeed.<br>
Since all the vegetables God planted in Eden were in a "perfect state" from the beginning <img height="20" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyAxmaLSQqQme4aAjUZfW7y26VWKFnDEXKBvbiv_K7BdpQiUf_SBHDJ-JiywRAX5yi97a-oxzC3zu5gXSAp6aBkjXTONkzhnZDoBI0cNQdP-vC6xtacYn4f5kLko1pxltVdUutaUjeKFs/s1600/wink.png" /> then <em>WHY</em> "fix the wheel that's not broken"... and create a man who's purpose is to cultivate crops, and change the creation via a process called "Artificial Selection" and "Selective Breeding"?</p>
<p>Indeed, what were those "plants of the field before it," supposed to look like? Even Answers in Genesis mentions the significance of "Cultivation". Cultivation is "Evolution". Wild plant varieties are altered from their original wild forms to produce new, unique, edible, delectable varieties that have evolved through years, decades, centuries and millenia -- but this Young Earth Creationist organization conveniently omit the fact: the whole purpose for CULTIVATION is to root out "Thorns" and other "Undesirable traits", selectively bred, to produce juicier, less seedy varieties of sweeter and heartier fruits and vegetables.</p>
<p>So *why* create a farmer, since the "Garden Paradise" was perfect before Adam (a farmer).</p>
<p>Answer in Genesis denies thorns? They have denied Adam's "purpose".<br>
Therefore, they deny the entire message the author of Genesis has given.</p>
<p>Some interpret and translate scriptures according to their own preferred "myth".</p>
<h3>Beyond the garden</h3>
<p>Genesis does not speak of the "whole of the earth" being the "Garden of Eden," nor a "worldwide Garden Paradise." Eden is described as an isolated 'garden' in Mesopotamia) -- and since Adam would be driven out of Eden, NATURALLY, he would come upon thorns and thistles that lay beyond the boundaries, and would toil in his effort to 'till the ground'.</p>
<p>Likewise, the serpent was "cursed above the cattle," and as one Atheist aptly asked, "But what sin did the cattle commit?"</p>
<p>Cursed. Within an agricultural setting, as in "Livestock Slaughter." That too, is yet another example of "death" existing in the world, before the "fall". The farmers will provide delicious hay and feeds for their cattle, clean water, and the best care to fatten livestock for slaughter, but often when farmers see snakes, the first reaction is to run for a hoe and aim for the head.</p>
<p>WAS THE ENTIRE EARTH, "THE GARDEN OF EDEN"?<br>
... if the "whole earth" were plush, without thorns or death with wonderful ready-made fruits and vegetables and there was no death... then why, <b><i>WHY</i></b> did the author of Genesis bother designating "boundaries" for "the Garden of Eden" in that specific spot ... a tiny, isolated spot in the region of Mesopotamia?</p>
<p>Eden's plush comforts, were isolated. Not representative of the rest of the planet. If the whole, entire planet were free from death and thorns... then why, tell me why: WHY DID GOD BOTHER PLANTING A GARDEN, since the "whole earth" was already one big garden of Eden with no thorns and no death and no thistles?</p>
<p>Why bother planting a garden paradise, since there was no difference between Eden and the rest of the "(wild???)" planet... such as over in South America, or Australia, or North America or Asia?? It was "All Eden," says Answers in Genesis.</p>
<p>As I read this verse, it can be taken several ways,</p>
<blockquote><p>King James Version<br>
"...cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"</blockquote>
<p>In other words, "Because of your disobedience, --I will now drive you out of this garden. You will find the land beyond this garden paradise, a misery to till and cultivate. By the sweat of your brow you'll bring forth your harvest. No more comfortable garden paradise. You are consigned beyond the boundaries (which Adam had not yet laid eyes on)... thorns and thistles will be in your way, all the days of your life."
<p>Thorns and thistles were waiting beyond the boundaries of the Garden of Eden.</p>
<p>"for thy sake"<br>
"in thy work"<br>
"because of you"</p>
<p>Because of your error, the ground before you, where so ever you go, will be "cursed".</p>
<p>If Adam had obeyed, he would have remained in this comfortable garden paradise.</p>
<p>Douay-Rheims Bible<br>
"...cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life."</p>
<p>American Standard Version<br>
"...cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;</p>
<h3>Eden was "The Whole Earth"?</h3>
<blockquote><blockquote><a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-17.htm" target="_blank">Matthew Henry's Commentary</a>:<br>
"...His habitation is cursed. God gave <u>the earth</u> to the children of men, to be a <u>comfortable dwelling</u>; but it is now cursed for man's sin."<br>
-biblehub, Matthew Henry's Commentary</blockquote></blockquote>
<p>"The WHOLE of the EARTH... Planet Earth, <i>Comfortable?!</i>... then <i>WHY</i> plant a small garden in Eden?? perhaps within the boundaries of "Eden" it was described as a paradise, but the whole planet was never described as the "garden of eden".</p>
<p>Thorns and thistles, and poison little fangs, and carnivorous lions, tigers and bears roamed the planet in North America, Siberia and Africa. Preying on antelope and caribou and all the meaty yummies, as they have for millions of years.</p>
<p>Adam is described only occupying the space of a tiny "garden"... in Eden. This "garden" did not encompass the globe.</p>
<p>It is abundantly clear that Young Earth Creationists do not read the "creation story" with comprehension if they assumed the whole earth was Eden.</p>
<p>This tiny microcosm of a garden paradise did not represent what lay <i>beyond the boundaries of Eden</i>, which Adam was driven out to.</p>
<p>In other words, God, had to make no particular, or special effort to bring about this "curse".<br>
Wild thorns and thistles were already there, waiting to be "subdued".</p>
<h3>GLARING CONTRADICTION</h3>
<blockquote>Matthew Henry's Commentary:
"...His habitation is cursed. God gave the EARTH TO THE CHILDREN OF MEN TO BE A COMFORTABLE DWELLING; but it is now cursed for man's sin."</blockquote>
<p>The author of Genesis never states, "the Earth" was a "comfortable dwelling."</p>
<p>That "comfortable dwelling" is clearly confined to this specific spot on the Mesopotamian map:
<blockquote>Genesis 2:8 "...The LORD God <u>planted a garden toward the east, in Eden</u>; and there He placed the man whom He had formed."</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikc2pbSTpUS47yCGJyqs-inRDiPrzQp6-aKVvPxaQUzvvEK4VlpRBVomFSdiCQHJP9j7DBTrH957qz0QGM2_vYXoq6tBPcDIHHz0aCOLShYlmmJTY8OEXXvtFwnB4jL8vjRwxIds2DgSg/s1600/eden.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikc2pbSTpUS47yCGJyqs-inRDiPrzQp6-aKVvPxaQUzvvEK4VlpRBVomFSdiCQHJP9j7DBTrH957qz0QGM2_vYXoq6tBPcDIHHz0aCOLShYlmmJTY8OEXXvtFwnB4jL8vjRwxIds2DgSg/s1600/eden.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>The whole earth was not the "Garden of Eden."</p>
<p>Adam was driven out of that "garden paradise," into the realism of the rest of the planet... where awaited thorns, thistles, and bread by the sweat of the brow.</p>
<p>The preceding misinterpretations were also brought to us by the same men who interpreted the "<b>CURSE</b> on woman," to be both a "commandment" and a "blessing" that man would rule over her.<br>
Last I checked, a "curse" is not a good or pleasant thing, and a "curse" does not qualify a "commandment" even if false teachers claimed it was.</p>
<p>To fulfill the curse on thorns and thistles, God didn't have to lift a finger. Just kick Adam out of Eden... into the wild world, where awaited the thorns and death, that was <i>already there... waiting</i>.</p>
<p>How should the woman derive her food, now cut off from Eden? By the tilling of the man, that's how. Dependent on the man for the fruits of the field. "And he will rule over you." A curse was not a "blessing" and certainly no commandment to submit. What choice would a starving woman have, to feed herself and her children?</p>
<p>The author of Genesis never says that death wasn't already present in the world until "the fall". On the contrary, DEATH ALREADY EXISTED, and Genesis confirms this:</p>
<blockquote><p>Genesis 2:9 "Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; <u>the TREE OF LIFE</u> also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.<br>
Genesis 2: 16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "<u>From any tree of the garden you may eat freely</u>;</p>
<p>--</p>
<p>Genesis 2:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, <u>he might stretch out his hand</u>, and --> <u><b>take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever</b></u> " <--<br>
Genesis 2:23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.</p></blockquote>
<p>Why call it "The Tree of Life," if you were created with "eternal life" in your genes? Adam's immortality depended 100% on access to that tree.</p>
<p>To reiterate, the "Tree of Life" which Adam could freely eat of and, live forever... without access to that tree, Adam would "surely die."</p>
<p>For "Death to enter Adam's world" -- only required God forbidding access to that tree.</p>
<p>Therefore, "death" already existed.</p>
<p>"Every plant of the field <b><i>before it</i></b>, was in the earth."</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOAB7qU-Li73jdmtFRpCQoobPUtkD4ByZ9hDc_O__ua7S0nEsKSlcHDzKjIwus9-uiJ0G-z_Pl3ue5L88Du-q4vx36gc4NR9lpvKkq641lBdotWKnIM6n9pHr0jqEkOolkSaASQRZUVgI/s1600/genesis-kinds.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOAB7qU-Li73jdmtFRpCQoobPUtkD4ByZ9hDc_O__ua7S0nEsKSlcHDzKjIwus9-uiJ0G-z_Pl3ue5L88Du-q4vx36gc4NR9lpvKkq641lBdotWKnIM6n9pHr0jqEkOolkSaASQRZUVgI/s400/genesis-kinds.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>But Answers in Genesis wishes to deny the thorns, the thistles... the death that was guaranteed inevitably to Adam if cut off from the "Tree of Life". When God formed Adam from the dust of the ground, he was fated to die. -- and that's why the story includes God creating the "The Tree of Life," in the first place, that Adam could eat freely, and live forever (Genesis 2:22).</p>
<p>Death was written in Adam's genes (like all other animals on the planet) without access to "The Tree of Life". Let's not forget the polar bears in the North Pole or penguins in the South Pole, the Kangaroos in Australia, who couldn't partake in the "Tree of Life" and were dying).
<p>Anyway... if not thorns and thistles, then pray tell, what did those "plants of the field <b><i>before it</i></b>," look like exactly?</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRTvSkIBVTKKIjr_D0wIfrDegFcvF5eVGCtdHP3o2ksdAtrP6P82ORUq2BCxioaoXZWJCeuisBVXCmizkTnE5-xvL7LqGhH2iLDft8O6w7iByMaStcCfPAXr3hefzHu_oGQZOFaxoH0NQ/s1600/corn-and-teosinte_h1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRTvSkIBVTKKIjr_D0wIfrDegFcvF5eVGCtdHP3o2ksdAtrP6P82ORUq2BCxioaoXZWJCeuisBVXCmizkTnE5-xvL7LqGhH2iLDft8O6w7iByMaStcCfPAXr3hefzHu_oGQZOFaxoH0NQ/s400/corn-and-teosinte_h1.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>... according to Answers in Genesis, they had no thorns, no thistles, they were ready-made, grocery store variety... modern vegetables... <b>NO CULTIVATION NECESSARY!</b></p>
<p>So Answers in Genesis is wholesale denying the very things, strongly emphasized by the author of Genesis.</p>
<p>And if that were so, -- <b><i>NO THORNS</i></b> -- then *<i>why</i>* would God need a man to "till the ground (cultivate crops from the wild "plants of the field before it")"? Everything came "ready made," after all, or so they say.</p>
<h3>THORNS</h3>
<p>On this note, Answers in Genesis is saying that God LIED to Adam, because instead of bringing forth thorns, man has nearly eradicated thorns on his vegetables and fruit. Since there were no "thorns" before Eden, and God promised Adam THORNS... then why do modern orchards contain trees mostly with thorn-less varieties?</p>
<p>Well Ooops, perhaps those thorns were there, millions of years ago just as the author of Genesis suggested they were prior to human agriculture, when they wrote,</p>
<p>"Every plant of the field before it, ... <b>BEFORE IT</b>... was in the earth."</p>
<p>If any of the flawed interpretations of Answers in Genesis' YEC fundamentalists interpretations of Genesis were true, then God's promise of thorns is a "a failed curse."</p>
<p>A befuddled orchard owner inquires :<br>
<blockquote><a href="http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/edible/fruits/citrus/thorns-on-citrus-trees.htm" target="_blank">Thorns On Citrus Trees: Why Does My Citrus Plant Have Thorns?</a><br>
"...No, it’s not an anomaly; there are thorns on citrus trees. Although not well known, it is a fact that most, not all, citrus fruit trees have thorns. Let’s learn more about thorns on a citrus tree.
Over time, the popularity and cultivation of many oranges has led to THORNLESS varieties or those with small, blunt thorns found only at the base of the leaves. However, there are still plenty of orange varieties that have large thorns, generally those that are bitter and less often consumed.
Grapefruit trees have short, flexible thorns found only on the twigs with ‘Marsh’ the most sought after variety grown in the U.S. The little kumquat with its sweet, edible skin is primarily armed with thorns, like the ‘Hong Kong,” although others, such as ‘Meiwa,’ are THORN-LESS or have small minimally damaging spines."
</blockquote>
<p>A "curse" to man, is the plant's defense mechanism to shield itself from Predation.</p>
<p>According the fundamentalist Young Earth Creationists, "thorns" and "thistles" and "death" are missing for millions of years... and then a "curse" of "thorns" given upon man... only for man to turn right around, and zap the thorns through selective cultivation of their crops.</p>
Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384891901109297877.post-85713045343520232702016-02-02T13:43:00.001-08:002016-03-31T22:33:20.292-07:00Three Evidences for Greek "Evolutionary" Philosophical Thought in Genesis<p>Thales and Anaximander are da men!!!</p>
<p>THREE EVIDENCES:<br>
1) WATER<br>
2) THE SUN<br>
3) THE APEIRON</p>
<p>It occurs to me how little "Egyptian mythology" had to do with mainly, (Genesis 1, 2, parts of 3, 4, 5 and 6)... they are concepts which only Hellenistic Jews (Greeks) would be familiar with:</p>
<p>The Jews integrated within Greek culture around 300 BC around the time of the oldest known Biblical manuscript. Much modern Biblical literature is actually derived from Greek concepts. Enlightened Greek thought becomes apparent in the opening of Genesis:</p>
<p>One of the first evolutionary theories was proposed by Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) in the province of Ionia on the coast near Greece followed by Anaximander (550 B.C.) who speculated that life evolved from the water; lower forms of life, in a very primitive precursor to evolutionary theory.</p>
<p>(LIFE EVOLVED FROM WATER)<br>
<blockquote>"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." (Genesis 1:20)</blockquote>
<p>Also, the sun... <u>"IF" Genesis were based on ancient Egyptian mythology</u>... a God deity would not 'create' the sun as a material, naturalistic, heavenly "great light"... <u>the sun itself would have been a "god"</u> to the Egyptians. However, the author of Genesis describes the deity (an independent entity) creating a material heavenly source of light and not as a god.</p>
<blockquote><a href="http://classroom.synonym.com/ancient-egyptian-religion-affected-farming-10487.html" target="_blank">How Ancient Egyptian Religion Affected Farming</a>
--> "To the ancient Egyptians, religion was inseparable from everyday existence. They were a nation of farmers, who depended on the fertility of the land and its creatures for their livelihood. In trying to understand how the powers of nature could bring life and destroy it, the Egyptians personified these forces, worshipped them as gods and created myths about them. To retain the favor of the gods, they believed they should farm in accordance with god-given rules, offer sacrifice and continually give thanks." <--</blockquote>
<p>To the ancient Egyptians, "religion" and "science," were the same thing. Inseparable. However, by 600-300 B.C., Greek philosophy makes the first attempt at rational, naturalistic explanations for how things came into being, "Natural Law," began to spread... the opening of Genesis was written in that same vein.</p>
<p>...
<p>Besides the fact that the word "Genesis" itself is a Greek word,
<p>...
<p>Thales and Anaximander are the men credited for giving rise to the early "Presocratics" precursor of "Evolution" or "Modern Science" (the Old Testament's "mythical account") bear strong similarities to their beliefs:
<blockquote><a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html" target="_blank">Evolution and Paleontology in the Ancient World</a><br>
"...<u>For Anaximander, the world had arisen from an undifferentiated, indeterminate substance, the apeiron</u>. The Earth, which had coalesced out of the apeiron, had been covered in water at one stage, with plants and animals arising from mud. Humans were not present at the earliest stages; they arose from fish. This poem was quite influential on later thinkers, including Aristotle.<br>
Had Anaximander looked at fossils? Did he study comparative fish and human anatomy? Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what evidence Anaximander used to support his ideas. His theory bears some resemblance to evolutionary theory, but also seems to have been derived from various Greek myths, such as the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha, in which peoples or tribes are born from the Earth or from stones. His concept of the apeiron seems similar to the Tao of Chinese philosophy and religion, <u>and to the "formless and void" Earth of the Hebrew creation account</u> and other creation myths. However, even though Anaximander's ideas drew on the religious and mythical ideas of his time, he was still one of the first to attempt an explanation of the origin and evolution of the cosmos based on natural laws."
</blockquote>
<p>[<i>Sadly, what the site fails to mention is that the oldest known biblical manuscripts date no earlier than around 300 B.C., therefore, Anaximander (610-545 B.C.) could not have based any of his concepts on Biblical Hebrew. However it can be deduced, the Hebrew Genesis account was borrowed from mainstream Greek philosophy.</i>]
<p>Religion and Science were all the same, inseparable to the Egyptians, but by the time of 300 BC Greek influence over the Hellenistic Jews, philosophy was beginning to evolve, transform...branching and diversifying separately into "Religion" and "Science" thanks to Thales and Anaximander who lived about three centuries <b>BEFORE</b> the Jewish scribes jotted down any known manuscripts that remain today. As Norman Geisler argues, "no original autographa exist" before that 300 B.C. date. To presume there were any earlier manuscripts, is merely a speculative shot in the dark. Nonetheless, the author of Genesis was blatantly copying concepts invented by Thales and Anaximander, and not the other way around.</p>
<p>Therefore, with that understanding in mind it is quite amazing to realize that the supposed "battle between Science and Religion" --both evolved from the same original source: Greek Philosophy.
<p>That very topic is the discussion, located at <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=vi7MCCNs9-sC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/flood-geology.html&source=bl&ots=Z96RpQihwN&sig=r0Bg1NajvwnNH0gk_zKIcOO1u5Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt1uv869nKAhUF4iYKHTUEDP8Q6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q=edwardtbabinski.us%2Fbabinski%2Fflood-geology.html&f=false" target="_blank">this link</a> on the Battle between Science and Religion.</p>
<p>Evolution is described between the verses, and Biblical translators had a heck of a time trying to coherently translate what the author's meaning was. This is EVOLUTION (the precursor), in ancient Greek thought.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjq5uNY2A36ltzXMkBmlKQeJE7gbEXkWZLUeuOlsUBHlwLdNY7HUJuNnfwj0u5t9n1TdhI5kWH-bOxQz1AZxpaC4aKmYi56vRh4xragyoB7iWsm3W7W2N_FynUnpc1h1bhHnSyz_Z31nSk/s1600/mustard-selection.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjq5uNY2A36ltzXMkBmlKQeJE7gbEXkWZLUeuOlsUBHlwLdNY7HUJuNnfwj0u5t9n1TdhI5kWH-bOxQz1AZxpaC4aKmYi56vRh4xragyoB7iWsm3W7W2N_FynUnpc1h1bhHnSyz_Z31nSk/s400/mustard-selection.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Genesis contains a blatant wholesale borrowing of Greek concepts -- the Creationists, who are completely and thoroughly ignorant of the scientific processes involved in Agriculture can't read their own Bible, and understand what the author is describing, when writing, "Before its kind," and "After its kind," -- but ancient farmers would have known this process as Agriculture 101 :</p>
<blockquote>"...The Greeks had, it is true, no term exactly equivalent to "evolution"; but when Thales asserts that all things originated from water..."<br>
<a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/evolutio/" target="_blank">Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy</a>, iep.utm.edu</blockquote>
<p>The Ancient Greeks did not have a word, "Evolution". But allude to it, in their language.</p>
<blockquote><b>Genesis 2:5</b><br>
(Some translations emphasize the absence of cultivated plants i.e., broccoli, cauliflower ------ while other translations emphasize their precursor, the wild ancestor, mustard plant which man used ARTIFICIAL SELECTION to cultivate . . . man created these vegetables, God did not create them. The author of Genesis confirms this:</p>
<p>(1) CULTIVATED "PLANTS OF FIELD" DO NOT EXIST :</p>
<blockquote><p>English Standard Version<br>
"...no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up .... there was no man to work the ground..."</p>
<p>New American Standard Bible<br>
"...no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted .... there was no man to cultivate the ground."</blockquote>
<p>(2) ONLY WILD PLANTS (THEIR ANCESTORS) DO EXIST</p>
<blockquote><p>King James Bible<br>
"...And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew ....there was not a man to till the ground."
<p>Jubilee Bible 2000<br>
"...and every plant of the field before it was in the earth and all the grass of the field before it grew... neither was there a man to till the ground."</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>The Hellenistic Jewish author, is struggling to do his best to describe the process of "artificial selection" -- how wild plants ("before its kind") became "plants of the field" ("after its kind").</p>
<p>Creationists are out of touch with the Farming Culture that is responsible for the opening chapters of Genesis.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqqvAc3QB2o6nJoYmM5twYhtOxDLWvOwGkKH7nGfE3sQsLzK9GJSa4uwyPU-KlyN1-JOkwGD6hShCH2KvPBvHiXLzLIMEczWDqt1GtDCiEjHT7-S1tJCDRmkteANbusMAJZcAcAVcrfRk/s1600/pig-boar-evolution.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqqvAc3QB2o6nJoYmM5twYhtOxDLWvOwGkKH7nGfE3sQsLzK9GJSa4uwyPU-KlyN1-JOkwGD6hShCH2KvPBvHiXLzLIMEczWDqt1GtDCiEjHT7-S1tJCDRmkteANbusMAJZcAcAVcrfRk/s320/pig-boar-evolution.jpg" /></a></div>
<p align="center">"Before its kind."</p>
<p align="center">"After its kind."</p>
<p>Some time ago, I engaged a so-called "Theistic Evolutionist" holding a PhD, who didn't apparently have an original thought of his own and blanket copying other theistic evolutionists, eager to chunk "Genesis" into the wastebasket of "mythological rubbish" WITHOUT investing a smidgen of scholarly study, to actually understand the perspective of the author of Genesis or the Agricultural society in which the author lived. Like a blind obsession -- a machine of sort, "must destroy Genesis"... but that's not understanding.</p>
<p>The argument they made was that ancient people would not have directly observed changes in livestock or crops.
<p>Oh WRONG! yes they would...
<p>The author of Genesis was far more educated about "Artificial Selection" (cultivation of crops and livestock than the clowns graduating from Universities with PhD's in Theology), creationists and theistic evolutionists are out of touch with this book they call the Bible.</p>
<blockquote>"...If a farm pig escapes and joins a group of wild pigs, the newcomer <u>won't take years to start shedding</u> habits acquired over millennia of domestication. According to Pennsylvania Game Commission veterinarian Dr. Walt Cottrell, pigs <u>"take only 30 DAYS to become literally wild."</u> Appearance alone isn't a reliable way to identify a wild or feral hog -- <b>some grow thick fur and look boarlike</b>, others still look like farm pigs -- but <b>males grow razor-sharp tusks from upper and lower canines</b>. Unlike the typically placid pink porkers on the farm, wild pigs can be aggressive and dangerous."<br>
(<a href="http://animals.mom.me/did-wild-pigs-become-domestic-6081.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>At least Billy Graham was humble enough to confess they lack the ability to properly interpret the scriptures sometimes. Others are too arrogant for having the open-minded search for understanding, and too lazy for the study involved with it! Yes, too LAZY... <br>
Good men died to bring "Christians" that Bible that sits in every hotel room, and library shelf and on the pews of church sanctuaries... Bibles are mass manufactured in China and sent to the U.S. by the boatload and Christians rarely crack open the book and read it.</p>
<blockquote>Billy Graham on Evolution:
“I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that <u>we have MISINTERPRETED the Scriptures many times</u> and we’ve <u>tried to make the Scriptures say things they WEREN'T MEANT TO SAY</u>, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”<br>
- Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74</blockquote>
<hr style="height: 20px; border: 0; box-shadow: 0 10px 10px -10px #bbbbbb inset;" />
<h3>Who Wrote the Books of Moses?</h3>
<blockquote><i><p>M.S. wrote: "This is fascinating. It is amazing to me that I was just thinking about some of these things, timeline wise, and here you have done a lot of research and answered questions I hadn't yet asked!"</p>
<p>This truly makes me believe in thought connection (not necessarily psychic ability, but the connection between all humanity)</p>
<p>What a wonderful quote from Billy Graham. I have always liked him. He seems to be a truly deep thinking man, not just spouting Christian propaganda, or mass thinking like that phD you mentioned....</p>
<p>Thank you, I enjoyed reading this, and all your extras.</p></i>
</blockquote>
<p>Thanks... I love the opening chapters to the book of Genesis, because they're so much more than they seem on the surface. That period (600-300 BC) in history was a turning point, the precursor to what would become "modern science" --and sadly, the contribution of Greek thought has been avoided, missed or glossed over for centuries by theologians.</p>
<p>Edward T. Babinski has written numerous articles on the topic "Who wrote the books of Moses?" It's quite obvious what he's written about much of the books, written in the "Third Person" perspective like below:</p>
<p><a href="http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2015/01/israelites-and-canaanites-how-different.html" target="_blank">Israelites and Canaanites. How Different Were They?</a></p>
<blockquote><i>"...In short, the Pentateuch reads like a story "about" Moses, written in the third person, and from the point of view of later editors (as demonstrated by many little phrases scattered throughout the Pentateuch) rather than being a story written entirely by Moses. In fact, whomever wrote the Pentateuch, they did not make any great effort to disguise the fact that Moses "wrote" only select portions, not the whole books, just sections mentions within them."</i><br>
<a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/errancy/pentateuch.html" target="_blank">Who wrote the books of Moses?</a></blockquote>
<p>All of us know Moses didn't write this:</p>
<blockquote>Deuteronomy 34:1 And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the LORD shewed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan,<br>
4: And the LORD said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.<br>
5: So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.<br>
6: And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.<br>
7: And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.</blockquote>
<p>There are still tribes today who pass down "oral records" (this was shown in the movie "Roots" when Alex Haley traveled to the River people who were his ancestors) the record of their ancestors was recited orally). Ancient people would have used this method,</p>
<p>James Earl Jones as Alex Haley discovers his Roots (2/24/1979)
<center><iframe width="480" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PfcpxetTHr0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
<p>According to Alex Haley, the story was passed down through his family in English that Kunta Kinte was searching a tree to make a drum when he was abducted centuries earlier. The "Record" was also kept alive orally by these "ancient" people. (<a href="http://creation-vs-evolution.us/roots.mp4" target="_blank">Video clip</a> use for educational purposes.)</p>
<blockquote><i><p>ORAL TRADITIONS?<br>
<a href="http://www.letusreason.org/biblexp85.htm" target="_blank">Who wrote the first 5 books in the Bible?</a><br>
"...The books themselves claim to have been written by Moses, and there are portions of Genesis that Moses was a compiler of early documents or as some believe wrote down the memorized oral tradition (Gen.1-10)."</p></i></blockquote>
<p>Or, "oral traditions" which were passed down and finally added into books "written about Moses" and attributed to Moses... which is not saying a man named Moses never lived, there just aren't any such records, and I tried very hard to find manuscripts dating to the 1000+ BC era. There just aren't any, although the Egyptians created manuscripts (now located in Museums) which date to the 2000 BC era, and they are preserved just fine. So why didn't the Hebrews keep written records.<br>
Ed's articles show how the language was a Canaanite language, so anything earlier than 1000+ BC wouldn't likely have been in "Hebrew" anyway.</p>
<p>Funny. Language "evolves" so quickly, just give any Christian a 400 year old copy of the 1611 King James Bible and ask them to read it!</p>
<p>OLDEST KNOWN HEBREW SCROLLS (600-300 BC), which sets the known manuscripts within the era of the Greek Hellenistic Jews.</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls" target="_blank">Dead Sea Scrolls</a><br>
"...Biblical text older than the Dead Sea Scrolls has been discovered only in two silver scroll-shaped amulets containing portions of the Priestly Blessing from the Book of Numbers, excavated in Jerusalem at Ketef Hinnom and dated c. 600 BCE. A burnt piece of Leviticus dating from the 6th century CE analyzed in 2015 was found to be the fourth-oldest piece of the Torah known to exist.<br>
Most of the texts are written in Hebrew, with some in Aramaic (in different regional dialects, including Nabataean), and a few in Greek.[6] If discoveries from the Judean desert are included, Latin (from Masada) and Arabic (from Khirbet al-Mird) can be added.[7] Most texts are written on parchment, some on papyrus and one on copper."</p>
<p><a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/1500-year-old-scrap-of-bible-found-near-dead-sea-deciphered/" target="_blank">CT scan of charred scroll yields oldest Biblical remnant after Dead Sea Scrolls</a><br>
High-tech deciphering of parchment found in ancient Ein Gedi synagogue, excavated 45 years ago, yields text from Book of Leviticus<br>
"The document, found during the excavation of the synagogue in Ein Gedi 45 years ago, was burned 1,500 years ago while stored inside the ark in the ancient house of worship. Since then, however, the text has been unreadable."</p>
<p>"...<a href="http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html" target="_blank">The Isaiah Scroll</a>, found relatively intact, is 1000 years older than any previously known copy of Isaiah. In fact, the scrolls are the oldest group of Old Testament manuscripts ever found."</p>
<p><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/dead-sea-scrolls-worlds-oldest-copy-of-the-ten-commandments-to-go-on-display-in-israel-10229088.html" target="_blank">Dead Sea scrolls: world's oldest copy of the Ten Commandments to go on display in Israel</a><br>
2,000-year-old scroll will remain at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem for two weeks</p></blockquote>
<hr style="height: 20px; border: 0; box-shadow: 0 10px 10px -10px #bbbbbb inset;" />
<p>That's what is exciting about the article written by the "Secular Jew" on the history of Judea.<br>
The Greeks not only conquered Judea geographically, but were actively working to "Hellenize" the Jewish people in thought as well as other aspects in their culture, and yes "intellectual" Greek thought as well --especially their religious culture, which would include the opening chapters in the "book" of Genesis.<br>
This explains how Thales and Anaximander's naturalist "philosophical" explanation for the origins of life got tied with "God" in that book.<br>
It's clear the author of Genesis does not perceive the sun to be a god (like the Egyptians' mythology) but instead, attributes the material "great light" to be an act of creation by an independent deity that created it.<br>
It was a defining moment in history... the Egyptians had no separation between their gods and science (even their scientists were deified as gods, i.e. Imhotep, the great mathematician). In contrast, the Greeks introduced naturalistic philosophy (precursor to modern science) - the Hellenistic Jews were willing to accept natural phenomena but attempt to explain it, as an "act of a God" -- a compromise with Greek philosophy :</p>
<blockquote><a href="http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/a-great-miracle-occurred-here" target="_blank">The Jewish Culture under Greek Hellenism</a><br>
<p>Geographic and Cultural Factors<br>
...the return of the Jews to their native homeland after the Babylonian captivity, circa sixth century B.C.,<br>
... In 332 B.C. the Greeks conquered Judea, and while being conquered was nothing new to the Jews (having faced this before by Assyria, Babylon, and Media-Persia), this conquest presented a unique challenge.<br>
...This victory presented the small nation with a challenge that it had not faced under its previous conquers, the Persians. Under Persian control the Jews were actually encouraged to rebuild their religious and indigenous institutions and traditions. All the Persians wanted was political loyalty, and taxes. Whatever humiliations and problems the occupation presented, religious freedom generally remained secure.<br>
Under the Greeks things were different. Never suffering from a lack of hubris, the Greeks weren’t satisfied with a mere military conquest. Believing in a kind of “manifest destiny” to spread their culture, institutions, ideas, and way of life to “barbarians” (anyone not Greek), they worked very hard, and quite successfully, to do just that. Now, having conquered more “barbarians,” this time in Judea, the Greeks were determined to continue their process of Hellenization, even in the land that God promised the descendants of Abraham many centuries earlier (Genesis 12:7).</p>
<p>Hellenized Jews<br>
"...It was working, too. Though scholars debate how far Hellenization went, it took a certain hold. Within a century after the conquest of Alexander, Greek cities (each known as a polis), which became centers for promulgating Greek ideas and culture, were founded in various parts of Judea.<br>
The problem was exacerbated by corruption in the priesthood, which served as the de facto political leadership in Jerusalem at that time. Two corrupt priests, Jason and then Menelaus, both passionate Hellenizers, helped make Jerusalem look more and more like a Greek polis than the capital of God’s covenant people and the chosen site of the sacred Temple. During their rule the first gymnasium—a Greek center for both intellectual and physical education—was built in Jerusalem. According to 2 Maccabees 4 (the book of Maccabees being a key source for this period), Jason did away with Jewish law and introduced Greek customs into the city: “With great enthusiasm he built a stadium near the Temple hill and led our finest young men to adopt the Greek custom of participating in athletic events.”
Internecine fighting between the followers of Jason (who weren’t seen as Hellenistic enough) and those of Menelaus led to the violent intervention of the Seleucid overlord, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, in 169-168 B.C."</p></blockquote>
<hr style="height: 20px; border: 0; box-shadow: 0 10px 10px -10px #bbbbbb inset;" />
<h3>Preserving "Moses" through Oral Tradition</h3>
<p>The same is known about Jesus -- Christian theologians and scholars embrace the fact, stories about Jesus circulated far and wide for 30 years after his death before "witness accounts" were written down. So why is it so difficult for people to accept an "oral tradition" regarding Moses? Were the Gospels any less attributable to the authorship of Jesus, because they were derived from oral tradition?</p>
<p>Some want to believe <i>"Moses wrote the first five books,"</i> just like some want to believe, <i>"God wrote the Bible,"</i> while others want to believe <i>"Jesus read the King James Version of the Bible"</i>.</p>
<blockquote><a href="http://www.brunswickcounty.com/On_Oral_Tradition_and_the_reliability_of_the_formation_of_the_Pentateuch-a-1156.html" target="_blank">On Oral Tradition and the reliability of the formation of the Pentateuch</a><br>
By: Jay Antonic<br>
"...The question is, "How did the story get into the book of Genesis?".<br>
Much of human history that we know of was transferred orally*<br>
/EXCERPT</blockquote>
<blockquote><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/oral.html" target="_blank">Importance of the Oral Tradition</a><br>
Before the gospels were composed, Jesus' first followers sustained his memory by sharing stories of his life, death and teachings.<br>
"...It's rather clear from the way that the stories develop in the gospels that the Christians who are writing the gospels a generation after the death of Jesus are doing so from a stock of oral memory, that is, stories that had been passed down to probably by followers. But if we think about the death of Jesus and remember a group of people who would have still been attached to him and to his memory after his death, it must have been a rather stark and traumatic period of time."<br>
/EXCERPT</blockquote>
<blockquote><a href="http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/culture/oral-traditions.html" target="_blank">Oral Traditions</a><br>
"The Elders would serve as mnemonic pegs to each other. They will be speaking individually uninterrupted in a circle one after another. When each Elder spoke they were conscious that other Elders would serve as ‘peer reviewer’ [and so] they did not delve into subject matter that would be questionable. They did joke with each other and they told stories, some true and some a bit exaggerated but in the end the result was a collective memory. This is the part which is exciting because when each Elder arrived they brought with them a piece of the knowledge puzzle. They had to reach back to the teachings of their parents, grandparents and even great-grandparents. These teachings were shared in the circle and these constituted a reconnaissance of collective memory and knowledge. In the end the Elders left with a knowledge that was built by the collectivity."<br>
Stephen J. Augustine,<br>
Hereditary Chief and Keptin of the Mi’kmaq Grand Council 1<br>
"...Throughout history, Aboriginal societies in North America have relied on the oral transmission of stories, histories, lessons and other knowledge to maintain a historical record and sustain their cultures and identities. According to scholars Renée Hulan and Renate Eigenbrod, oral traditions are “the means by which knowledge is reproduced, preserved and conveyed from generation to generation. Oral traditions form the foundation of Aboriginal societies, connecting speaker and listener in communal experience and uniting past and present in memory."2
Western discourse has come to prioritize the written word as the dominant form of record keeping and until recently, Westerners have generally considered oral societies to be peoples without history. This could not be further from the truth. Oral societies record and document their histories in complex and sophisticated ways, including performative practices such as dancing and drumming. Although most oral societies, Aboriginal or otherwise, have now adopted the written word as a tool for documentation, expression and communication, many still depend on oral traditions and greatly value the oral transmission of knowledge as an intrinsic aspect of their cultures and societies."<br>
/EXCERPT</p></blockquote>
<p>On the reliability of "Oral Tradition"</p>
<p><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=zKbGbwzpCHsC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=how+reliable+were+oral+tradition?&source=bl&ots=-WUoAJrJDH&sig=0wnxHkKdZ8SwyV4HVA_1HlKWnU8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX8rTUrdzKAhVLQyYKHUiKCoY4ChDoAQgoMAI#v=onepage&q=how%20reliable%20were%20oral%20tradition%3F&f=false" target="_blank">Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology</a><br>
Jan Vansina, Transaction Publishers, 1972 - Africa</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKe3O-xKXWw0tVAb4E_fukH9ycj0YMHo7xDXKVcynyM5nX1WNBScgNTB1N2nIY3XHlRLAOty1JEswsxyH9POrGWwfQnGKDynW9oFev17vHvfi_iVADRwSwRXQuKIfyzUSMPeB3maBc4Ls/s1600/oral-traditions.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKe3O-xKXWw0tVAb4E_fukH9ycj0YMHo7xDXKVcynyM5nX1WNBScgNTB1N2nIY3XHlRLAOty1JEswsxyH9POrGWwfQnGKDynW9oFev17vHvfi_iVADRwSwRXQuKIfyzUSMPeB3maBc4Ls/s1600/oral-traditions.jpg" /></a></div>
Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384891901109297877.post-63957834270954501422016-02-01T21:49:00.002-08:002016-03-31T22:31:26.622-07:00Greek Hellenistic Influence on Judean Culture<p>Hey.. the Greeks "...had no influence over the Greek '<i>Genesis</i>'" account? (yes, the word "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis" target="_blank">Genesis</a>" is Greek : <i>The Book of Genesis (from the Latin Vulgate, in turn borrowed or transliterated from Greek</i> <b>γένεσις</b>, <i>meaning "origin"</i>)...
*keeping in mind, the oldest known Hebrew manuscript dates somewhere in the range of 300 B.C.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuzFi38U6VLMNtHqM6N2G9CWltAPnNi4jG11PyXvvMy7g50QV6-bJmpVguowHLtCvhZ67Tw93aK8P9oREMKTu7Cd67ubGOz6BBS8l0y8UMegdrufX30VY1nWDSVqGrXpZyS1Pd2vr3oa0/s1600/mustard-selection.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuzFi38U6VLMNtHqM6N2G9CWltAPnNi4jG11PyXvvMy7g50QV6-bJmpVguowHLtCvhZ67Tw93aK8P9oREMKTu7Cd67ubGOz6BBS8l0y8UMegdrufX30VY1nWDSVqGrXpZyS1Pd2vr3oa0/s1600/mustard-selection.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Oh my!</p>
<p>The author of Genesis 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... was under heavy influence of Greek culture... and ha! a Secular magazine article!!</p>
<blockquote><i>"...Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.). In 332 B.C. the Greeks conquered Judea..."</i></blockquote>
<p>Look at that timeline. <img width="20" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvV7D9pOquOhCm_gx1p93f_5Xj23owKPuWPmnt29x028H090cDIj1ORe6o_1kUETNtu8PRPz_uoshyphenhyphenBeJuLtbzUghhE0U8dk5tPdF7rDjYjUw0uN-TG42Ptge8KPSOIjmZI94ghkQp0N4/s1600/surprise.png" /></p>
<blockquote>"...Under the Greeks things were different. Never suffering from a lack of hubris, the Greeks weren’t satisfied with a mere military conquest. <u>Believing in a kind of “manifest destiny” to spread their culture, institutions, ideas, and way of life</u> to “barbarians” (anyone not Greek), they worked very hard, and quite successfully, to do just that. Now, having conquered more “barbarians,” this time in Judea, the <u>Greeks were determined to continue their process of Hellenization</u>..."</blockquote>
<p>Goodness! <img width="20" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvV7D9pOquOhCm_gx1p93f_5Xj23owKPuWPmnt29x028H090cDIj1ORe6o_1kUETNtu8PRPz_uoshyphenhyphenBeJuLtbzUghhE0U8dk5tPdF7rDjYjUw0uN-TG42Ptge8KPSOIjmZI94ghkQp0N4/s1600/surprise.png" /></p>
<blockquote>Hellenized Jews<br>
"...It was working, too. Though <u>scholars debate how far Hellenization went, it took a certain hold</u>. Within a century after the conquest of Alexander, <u>Greek cities (each known as a polis), which became centers for promulgating Greek ideas and culture</u>, were founded in various parts of Judea..."</blockquote>
<p><img width="20" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvV7D9pOquOhCm_gx1p93f_5Xj23owKPuWPmnt29x028H090cDIj1ORe6o_1kUETNtu8PRPz_uoshyphenhyphenBeJuLtbzUghhE0U8dk5tPdF7rDjYjUw0uN-TG42Ptge8KPSOIjmZI94ghkQp0N4/s1600/surprise.png" /> Dear me, could it be?!!</p>
<blockquote>"...The problem was exacerbated by <u>corruption in the priesthood, which served as the de facto political leadership in Jerusalem at that time</u>. Two corrupt priests, Jason and then Menelaus, both <u>passionate Hellenizers, helped make Jerusalem look more and more like a Greek polis</u> than the capital of God’s covenant people and the chosen site of the sacred Temple. During their rule the first gymnasium—<u>a Greek center for both intellectual</u> and physical education—was <u>built in Jerusalem</u>."</blockquote>
<p>Goodness!!!!!!!</p>
<p>Now we know <i>who</i> it was who slipped in that "After their kind" (how ancient farmers had seen domesticated pigs escape into the wild and evolve)... "before their kind" and "after their kind".<br>
(<a href="http://blog.mlive.com/flintjournal/outdoors/2007/11/domestic_pigs_quickly_revert_t.html" target="_blank">Domestic pigs quickly revert to wild roots</a>).</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje3ic_GNleQMUbp_ysv85r6dYURLpjJ8BD58E71v8m8sV9Q8zOoM5xSWDViJxi9KKhFzRsy5D9dIGvpdi8kjuflB7C2IHZNGxbSM2q99tHv3sAbAZLvyiq949WRlZFbhILu6NyEf7PXFg/s1600/pig-boar-evolution.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje3ic_GNleQMUbp_ysv85r6dYURLpjJ8BD58E71v8m8sV9Q8zOoM5xSWDViJxi9KKhFzRsy5D9dIGvpdi8kjuflB7C2IHZNGxbSM2q99tHv3sAbAZLvyiq949WRlZFbhILu6NyEf7PXFg/s1600/pig-boar-evolution.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>And, ancient farmers skilled in ancient agriculture knew that a wild plant could be cultivated into garden vegetables through "Artificial Selection".</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9lrWEfF1qRa4o9HXoxau3EqSIsWuuCzo1ycQWxxtjJt-SW3sB4GtJvUF7l8JE6Xm-BeMIcdygpOy2oTICSzRHlcH27Lw74tvIsFNOWfYqMLkjBEzlxhuWtqd2Sqjzs29kBtRE8BjAV8I/s1600/corn_looks_very__c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img width="450" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9lrWEfF1qRa4o9HXoxau3EqSIsWuuCzo1ycQWxxtjJt-SW3sB4GtJvUF7l8JE6Xm-BeMIcdygpOy2oTICSzRHlcH27Lw74tvIsFNOWfYqMLkjBEzlxhuWtqd2Sqjzs29kBtRE8BjAV8I/s1600/corn_looks_very__c.jpg" /></a></div>
<p><img width="20" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQGG-S_gdJ_YJAzML7q5BS2ifxxa2Vzy8PEn8PKmg7n1Iw1l6zl34xZ8zHHrYzYLr-BeC-nSowUnRoeowmUXxVLoJGNzIgr8eDma6xs1WNjngxztyOEKbGjBoZb28qWmF3nt2vfTNudxQ/s1600/wink.png" /></p>
<p>Those Greeks were ahead of their time... Creationists have A LOT of catching up to do. LOL</p>
<p>P.S., as I said, <b>SECULAR</b>: The <a href="http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/a-great-miracle-occurred-here" target="_blank">author starts out</a> by saying, <i>"...Having been raised in an exceedingly secular Jewish home, I have few memories of Jewish holidays, for the simple reason that we didn’t observe them."</i></p>
<blockquote><p><b>Geographic and Cultural Factors</b><br>
Putting aside its apocalyptic prophecy, the Old Testament narrative begins with the creation of the world and ends with the return of the Jews to their native homeland after the Babylonian captivity, circa sixth century B.C. This return from exile occurred under the Persians, who—by the fifth century B.C.—were facing the onslaught of the Greeks, whose hegemony climaxed under <u>Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.). In 332 B.C. the Greeks conquered Judea</u>, and while being conquered was nothing new to the Jews (having faced this before by Assyria, Babylon, and Media-Persia), this conquest presented a unique challenge.<br>
“In previous conquests,” writes Lee Levine, an historian at Hebrew University, “Israel had invariably remained at the periphery of world empires, far from the seats of power and authority. Its marginal geographic location assured the Jews a measure of stability and insulation.” However, with the breakup of the Greek Empire after the death of Alexander, the small Hebrew nation found itself sandwiched between the battling forces of the Seleucids (based in Syria) and the Ptolemies (based in Egypt). For the next century the two kingdoms warred with each other on Judean soil. Finally, in 198 B.C. the Seleucids beat their rival there, and Judea was incorporated into the Seleucid kingdom.<br>
This victory presented the small nation with a challenge that it had not faced under its previous conquers, the Persians. Under Persian control the Jews were actually encouraged to rebuild their religious and indigenous institutions and traditions. All the Persians wanted was political loyalty, and taxes. Whatever humiliations and problems the occupation presented, religious freedom generally remained secure.<br>
<u>Under the Greeks things were different. Never suffering from a lack of hubris, the Greeks weren’t satisfied with a mere military conquest. Believing in a kind of “manifest destiny” to spread their culture, institutions, ideas, and way of life to “barbarians” (anyone not Greek), they worked very hard, and quite successfully, to do just that</u>. Now, having conquered more “barbarians,” <u>this time in Judea, the Greeks were determined to continue their process of Hellenization</u>, even in the land that God promised the descendants of Abraham many centuries earlier (Genesis 12:7).</p>
<p><b>Hellenized Jews</b><br>
"<u>It was working, too. Though scholars debate how far Hellenization went, it took a certain hold. Within a century after the conquest of Alexander, Greek cities (each known as a polis), which became centers for promulgating Greek ideas and culture, were founded in various parts of Judea</u>.<br>
The problem was exacerbated by corruption in the priesthood, which served as the de facto political leadership in Jerusalem at that time. Two corrupt priests, Jason and then Menelaus, both <u>passionate Hellenizers, helped make Jerusalem look more and more like a Greek polis</u> than the capital of God’s covenant people and the chosen site of the sacred Temple. During their rule the first gymnasium—a Greek center for both intellectual and physical education—was built in Jerusalem. According to 2 Maccabees 4 (the book of Maccabees being a key source for this period), Jason did away with Jewish law and introduced Greek customs into the city: “With great enthusiasm he built a stadium near the Temple hill and led our finest young men to adopt the Greek custom of participating in athletic events.”<br>
Internecine fighting between the followers of Jason (who weren’t seen as Hellenistic enough) and those of Menelaus led to the violent intervention of the Seleucid overlord, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, in 169-168 B.C."</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/a-great-miracle-occurred-here" target="_blank">Liberty Magazine</a></p></blockquote>
<p>And <i>"Every plant of the field before it was in the Earth,"</i> but other translations say, <i>"No plant of the field yet grew,"</i>... but all agree, because <i>"There was no man to *till the ground."</i></p>
<p>*<i>till</i> (cultivate). <img width="20" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdQKESxavGivJPY_WDuEvE0z12_u_lLf55lnoUTZ_v6bEj9-ODOw-ObA_d-dQgRgfn0Z-_Td-OLlQe3SzNTVpP3Gn9cMyUFWG96vtftqZzOej6ScPRDkkf9l4nc-a5IuPvJsye0-dge7c/s1600/tongue.png" /></p>
<p>Artificial Selection.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjptGJ9V05_xISIbGmGRl6Xi-mBgJaKOHmTUyBTvRVmrDapRd6KsElRfU9h-uxqI3SlY9Mly1jJ9Whz7kfjLxZUiDALdt5r-oGLuMlgqHF_pB8KrTXMX4k69P4ZYCtx8ig7PWPeA2MYN9g/s1600/corn-and-teosinte_h1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img width="450" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjptGJ9V05_xISIbGmGRl6Xi-mBgJaKOHmTUyBTvRVmrDapRd6KsElRfU9h-uxqI3SlY9Mly1jJ9Whz7kfjLxZUiDALdt5r-oGLuMlgqHF_pB8KrTXMX4k69P4ZYCtx8ig7PWPeA2MYN9g/s1600/corn-and-teosinte_h1.jpg" /></a></div>
<p align="center">The Burning Question about Evolution: If modern corn evolved from Teosinte...<br>
Then <i>why</i> does Teosinte still exist?</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEpX3F5G9OJJVIqrXgAFb4d4nY1VQvdDwkTYfDTXZU8eblN9MuxwN-iwiyxU0XzHxWDSJVJsW192hCRgL_yWGZJf1PJGvlbKneihaFnVNlektJQUgGie8DkvEAVbRCXUCmcbhXdrBkm_w/s1600/slide_3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEpX3F5G9OJJVIqrXgAFb4d4nY1VQvdDwkTYfDTXZU8eblN9MuxwN-iwiyxU0XzHxWDSJVJsW192hCRgL_yWGZJf1PJGvlbKneihaFnVNlektJQUgGie8DkvEAVbRCXUCmcbhXdrBkm_w/s400/slide_3.jpg" /></a></div>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384891901109297877.post-57038505223883523292015-12-11T18:41:00.005-08:002016-03-31T22:30:11.950-07:00On the Claim that Atheism Lead to Scientific Advancements<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFjPT_a4nDwx8MqClL5Q6B1ynH2hzWBuZFFaMMAurYy_9eLfipQZTPZ79gX3_6d4tvKuBylTJCeGLJW-E0g3UdI2XqaEeBW6SPI0vFYg5QBGxT62qILcvO0OZK_UgaoHtgf10idwiDPug/s1600/pre-evolution.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img width="425" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFjPT_a4nDwx8MqClL5Q6B1ynH2hzWBuZFFaMMAurYy_9eLfipQZTPZ79gX3_6d4tvKuBylTJCeGLJW-E0g3UdI2XqaEeBW6SPI0vFYg5QBGxT62qILcvO0OZK_UgaoHtgf10idwiDPug/s1600/pre-evolution.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Superstitions were not the sole invention of "Christianity". Superstitions existed independently and predated "Christianity". In fact, that was one of the means which Christians went about spreading the general religion which soon became "religious denominations" --adopting pagan customs and superstitions, absorbing them into "religions" as Christianity as a whole spread throughout the world. and the belief in such things were around long before Christianity, just as scientific progress was.</p>
<p>Did Christians, not the general "religion" itself, contribute to scientific progress? Yes. Did some Christians believe in education? Yes. Did some build schools? Yes. Was education/progress potential inhibited by ancient customs / cultural beliefs that had been around, long before Christianity (i.e., belief in demons)? Yes.</p>
<p>All cultures/religions/people in general did contribute in some manner throughout history. It is a human achievement, not the result of theisms or atheism.</p>
<p>The precursor to modern science, began with religious thought and attempts to explain the unknown. Just as the ancient people WORSHIPED agriculture, they made a practical religion of everything that affected their livelihood from the sun and moon, to the tides, the seasons, the harvest -- at one point in history you could not separate science and religious thought, because it was all the same thing:</p>
<blockquote>How Ancient Egyptian Religion Affected Farming<br>
"<i>To the ancient Egyptians, religion was inseparable from everyday existence. They were a nation of farmers, who depended on the fertility of the land and its creatures for their livelihood. In trying to understand how the powers of nature could bring life and destroy it, the Egyptians personified these forces, worshipped them as gods and created myths about them. To retain the favor of the gods, they believed they should farm in accordance with god-given rules, offer sacrifice and continually give thanks.</i>"<br>
(<a href="http://classroom.synonym.com/ancient-egyptian-religion-affected-farming-10487.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjycPZwFfDeTyxGp6ettC_69CPIg3X20Xd773UJqlD7pMCW9h6lp50_oM0j8nVALbi1JkAjWMJf7wYKshJoTQZwYkSK2LSokH1-HI8z-c9LA-mwWr5v0S5Ht-6x7VggnfUYR-tkxxzPZLA/s1600/ancient-agriculture-worship.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img width="425" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjycPZwFfDeTyxGp6ettC_69CPIg3X20Xd773UJqlD7pMCW9h6lp50_oM0j8nVALbi1JkAjWMJf7wYKshJoTQZwYkSK2LSokH1-HI8z-c9LA-mwWr5v0S5Ht-6x7VggnfUYR-tkxxzPZLA/s1600/ancient-agriculture-worship.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Even the man who is credited for giving rise to the early precursor of "Evolution" (the Old Testament's "mythical account") bears similarities to his beliefs:
<blockquote>Evolution and Paleontology in the Ancient World<br>
"...For Anaximander, the world had arisen from an undifferentiated, indeterminate substance, the apeiron. The Earth, which had coalesced out of the apeiron, had been covered in water at one stage, with plants and animals arising from mud. Humans were not present at the earliest stages; they arose from fish. This poem was quite influential on later thinkers, including Aristotle.<br>
Had Anaximander looked at fossils? Did he study comparative fish and human anatomy? Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what evidence Anaximander used to support his ideas. <u>His theory bears some resemblance to evolutionary theory, but also seems to have been derived from various Greek myths, such as the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha, in which peoples or tribes are born from the Earth or from stones. His concept of the apeiron seems similar to the Tao of Chinese philosophy and religion, and to the "formless and void" Earth of the Hebrew creation account and other creation myths. However, even though Anaximander's ideas drew on the religious and mythical ideas of his time</u>, he was still one of the first to attempt an explanation of the origin and evolution of the cosmos based on natural laws."<br>
(<a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>The Oldest Medical Books in the World<br>
"...Long ago, when writing was a secret science, the Egyptian scribe was not a simple copyist. He had the combined <u>training of a calligrapher, a philosopher, a scholar and a scientist. Many physicians prided themselves on bearing the title of scribe among their others, and like Hesyreh, had themselves portrayed with the palette and reeds, the sesh, symbol of that learned class. The actual copying was probably performed in the pir-ankh or Houses of Life that were attached to the temples and where the scholars, physicians, philosophers and scientists of the time used to meet</u>. We know of nine principal medical papyri. They are called after their original owners (Edwin Smith, Chester Beatty, Carlsberg), the site of their discovery (Kahoun, Ramesseum), the towns were they are kept (Leyden, London, Berlin) or their editor (Ebers).<br>
The Kahoun Papyrus is the most ancient scroll and was discovered at Fayoum and was called by mistake the Kahoun Papyrus. It dates from 1950 B.C. And has on its back an account from the time of Amenemhat III (1840-1792 B.C.). Not only is this the oldest known papyrus, but the original from which it was copied seems also more antique than the originals of the other papyri."<br>
"...The Ramesseum IV and V papyri were probably written about 1900 B.C., i.e. At about the same epoch as the Kahoun Papyrus."<br>
"...The Ebers Papyrus is the longest of all the known papyri and the most important, considering the physiological and medical knowledge it reveals. It is complete in 108 pages and bears the date of the 9th year of the reign of Amenophis I (1550 B.C.)."<br>
(<a href="http://www.wrf.org/ancient-medicine/oldest-medical-books.php" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Christianity is not responsible for Scientific Progress, nor is it to blame for inhibiting it. In spite of YEC (a cultural thing among some) scientific progress is continuing, and there are many Christians on board with scientific achievements. To cast blame or credit on all of "Christianity" is a sweeping generalization fallacy.</p>
<blockquote>". . . Reverse copying: A strong case can be made that <u>wholesale copying of beliefs and rituals by various religions has occurred in the past. However, as noted above, some Christian beliefs and practices may have stolen by the followers of Mithra from their Christian rivals rather than vice versa</u>. This theory might have some validity with respect to Mithraism. However, it cannot explain the stories of the life of Horus which proceeded Jesus' ministry in the first century CE by a few thousand years."<br>
(<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Should we blame the Greeks for "corrupting" Christianity? Or that Christianity itself is a product of Greek thought? Where history is concerned, you've got to take the good with the bad. At one time, Science and "Religion" were the same thing. It emerged as man began trying to explain how things came to be. The best any of them could offer were baby steps.<br>
Even Thomas Jefferson, one of the world's most progressive and intelligent thinkers... that thanks to him, and men like him, that secured your right, to freedom of speech and to even question religions -- owned slaves.</p>
<p>Should you thank a slave owner for your liberty?</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV8MNJHJGkBrnkL2YTFT2Rz-_FVsuQEqU0wugtMAYaZV9SRacqu-FG9kQxccjSnQRr_5xYk9l4XIoAlJtW9JJeJ2jJvUBrOXnArDBvXA8AEqno0g-pxtsyIij85Pu1ql_ejrtD5_KeGFY/s1600/sphinx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV8MNJHJGkBrnkL2YTFT2Rz-_FVsuQEqU0wugtMAYaZV9SRacqu-FG9kQxccjSnQRr_5xYk9l4XIoAlJtW9JJeJ2jJvUBrOXnArDBvXA8AEqno0g-pxtsyIij85Pu1ql_ejrtD5_KeGFY/s1600/sphinx.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Revelation 9:8-10 "...<i>They had hair like the hair of women, and their teeth were like the teeth of lions.</i> [...] <i>And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months</i>."</p>
<p>Greek Thought.</p>
<blockquote>". . .<i> Sphinx... THE SPHINX (or Phix) was a female monster with the body of a lion, the breast and head of a woman, eagle's wings and, according to some, a serpent-headed tail. She was sent by the gods to plague the town of Thebes as punishment for some ancient crime. There she preyed on the youths of the land, devouring all those who failed to solve her riddle.</i>"
(<a href="https://www.pinterest.com/pin/149252175121139833/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Do we gather up every ancient Greek writing and toss it into the trash bin with the Bible which was yet, another product of Greek thought?</p>
<p>THOMAS JEFFERSON ON "GREEK THOUGHT" :</p>
<blockquote><p>Thomas Jefferson<br>
TO GENERAL ALEXANDER SMYTH MONTICELLO<br>
January 17 1825</p>
<p>DEAR SIR,<br>
I have duly received four proof sheets of your explanation of the Apocalypse with your letters of December 29th and January 8th; in the last of which you request that so soon as I shall be of opinion that the explanation you have given is correct I would express it in a letter to you. From this you must be so good as to excuse me because I make it an invariable rule to decline ever giving opinions on new publications in any case whatever. No man on earth has less taste or talent for criticism than myself and least and last of all should I undertake to criticise works on the Apocalypse. It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it and I then considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. I was therefore well pleased to see in your first proof sheet that it was said to be not the production of St John but of Cerinthus a century after the death of that apostle. Yet the change of the author's name does not lessen the extravagances of the composition and come they from whomsoever they may I cannot so far respect them as to consider them as an allegorical narrative of events past or subsequent. There is not coherence enough in them to countenance any suite of rational ideas. You will judge therefore from this how impossible I think it that either your explanation or that of any man in the heavens above or on the earth beneath can be a correct one. What has no meaning admits no explanation and pardon me if I say with the candor of friendship that I think your time too valuable and your understanding of too high an order to be wasted on these paralogisms. You will perceive I hope also that I do not consider them as revelations of the Supreme Being whom I would not so far blaspheme as to impute to Him a pretension of revelation couched at the same time in terms which He would know were never to be understood by those to whom they were addressed. In the candor of these observations I hope you will see proofs of the confidence esteem and which I entertain for you.</p>
<p>The Writings of Thomas Jefferson By Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Adgate Lipscomb, Albert Ellery Bergh, Richard Holland Johnston, Thomas Jefferson memorial association of the United States</p></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjV1FW35WbaMcFpmz_EJCjRgsyuj1hcglHJ2Kaf2b8rbAykPsJR2PdVV_YKaEOKaQ2qSiv3aJhMedGkOV-m9YfB83oih9vxL72_89ZNE649CNQhi46m4154bIbujIvvglNeA3JWm1AF3Oc/s1600/mermaid.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjV1FW35WbaMcFpmz_EJCjRgsyuj1hcglHJ2Kaf2b8rbAykPsJR2PdVV_YKaEOKaQ2qSiv3aJhMedGkOV-m9YfB83oih9vxL72_89ZNE649CNQhi46m4154bIbujIvvglNeA3JWm1AF3Oc/s1600/mermaid.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>The great navigators from ancient time who discovered new lands and increased scientific knowledge about geography, the size and shape of the Earth, also went out to sea and came back with "Great mythical tales" -- similar to the Greek Sphinx about "mermaids" -- human heads and torsos attached to bodies of animals... in this case Fish... should we gather up all the "sailors' diaries" and "Navigators" journals, and toss those in the waste basket too?</p>
<p>Perhaps have another book burning like the one at the Library of Alexandria?</p>
<blockquote>Mermaid<br>
". . . A mermaid is a legendary aquatic creature with the upper body of a female human and the tail of a fish.[1] Mermaids appear in the folklore of many cultures worldwide, including the Near East, Europe, Africa and Asia. The first stories appeared in ancient Assyria, in which the goddess Atargatis transformed herself into a mermaid out of shame for accidentally killing her human lover. Mermaids are sometimes associated with perilous events such as floods, storms, shipwrecks and drownings. In other folk traditions (or sometimes within the same tradition), they can be benevolent or beneficent, bestowing boons or falling in love with humans.<br>
Some of the attributes of mermaids may have been influenced by the Sirens of Greek mythology. Historical accounts of mermaids, such as those reported by Christopher Columbus during his exploration of the Caribbean, may have been inspired by manatees and similar aquatic mammals."<br>
(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mermaid" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Mermaids, Religion, Sphinxes, Greek, Occult, ... Science ... Darwinism... Atheists are not the only one that would like to toss it all in the trash can :</p>
<blockquote>Evolution in the Ancient World:<br>
"...<i>For Anaximander, the world had arisen from .... mud. Humans were not present at the earliest stages; they arose from fish. This poem was quite influential on later thinkers, including Aristotle. Had Anaximander looked at fossils? Did he study comparative fish and human anatomy? Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what evidence Anaximander used to support his ideas. His theory bears some resemblance to evolutionary theory, but also seems to have been derived from various Greek myths.... Anaximander's ideas drew on the religious and mythical ideas of his time, he was still one of the first to attempt an explanation of the origin and evolution of the cosmos based on natural laws.</i>"<br>
(<a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>ERASE IT ALL:</p>
<blockquote>Facebook Comment:<br>
"...The Greek Philosopher Empedocles ( same guy who believed he was a "god" and threw himself into a volcano), philosophized that man came from "fish like creature", which were birthed from Fish from the SEA. ( based not on observation, but on conjecture, and the idea dates back to the <u>Mystery religions of Babylon and Egypt, where the first time we hear the word "Evolution" is in Egyptian religion, as the gods "evolve" from the waters of chaos</u>, and "The Goddess" emerges from the SEA. ( Virgin Mother Goddess Motiff of Antiquity). <u>The Greeks adopted this pagan belief system, with modification into their system of thinking, and theorized of the Scala Natura, or "Great Chain of Being" ( from insects to fish, to beasts, to men, to angels, to God, etc. . .)</u>. Erasamus Darwin was the leading Freemason in all of Scotland, and was a member of the Lunar Society ( a symbol for the Goddess of Antiquity). The Darwin family were nearly ALL Masons, and Occultists, and BELONGED to this organization. Such organizations are OBSESSED with ancient "god-wisdom" and "serpent-wisdom" and "the mysteries", and thus, they superimposed their a priori ideas UPON what little Charlie Darwin had OBSERVED. The fact that evolution is taught as "science" is absurd. It is actually a very ancient pagan philosophy or origins, from MYSTERY cults dating back to the first pagan and occult civilizations. Of course, we can't talk about THAT in Public Schools now, can we??? Evolution is a bucket of CRAP. It is a LIE, and no matter how many times these zoo monkeys REPEAT it, that will not change."<br>
(<a href="https://www.facebook.com/simon.wellington.775/posts/354338924719387" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Scala Natura, or "Great Chain of Being"</p>
<blockquote>Abstract<br>
"...All living beings on Earth, from bacteria to humans, are connected through descent from common ancestors and represent the summation of their corresponding, ca. 3500 million year long evolutionary history. However, the evolution of phenotypic features is not predictable, and biologists no longer use terms such as "primitive" or "perfect organisms". Despite these insights, the Bible-based concept of the so-called "ladder of life" or Scala Naturae, i.e., the idea that all living beings can be viewed as representing various degrees of "perfection", with humans at the very top of this biological hierarchy, was popular among naturalists until ca. 1850 (Charles Bonnet, Jean Lamarck and others). Charles Darwin is usually credited with the establishment of a branched evolutionary "Tree of Life". This insight of 1859 was based on his now firmly corroborated proposals of common ancestry and natural selection. In this article I argue that Darwin was still influenced by "ladder thinking", a theological view that prevailed throughout the 19th century and is also part of Ernst Haeckel's famous Oak tree (of Life) of 1866, which is, like Darwin's scheme, static. In 1910, Constantin Mereschkowsky proposed an alternative, "anti-selectionist" concept of biological evolution, which became known as the symbiogenesis-theory. According to the symbiogenesis-scenario, eukaryotic cells evolved on a static Earth from archaic prokaryotes via the fusion and subsequent cooperation of certain microbes. In 1929, Alfred Wegener published his theory of continental drift, which was later corroborated, modified and extended. The resulting theory of plate tectonics is now the principal organizing concept of geology. Over millions of years, plate tectonics and hence the "dynamic Earth" has caused destructive volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. At the same time, it created mountain ranges, deep oceans, novel freshwater habitats, and deserts. As a result, these geologic processes destroyed numerous populations of organisms, and produced the environmental conditions for new species of animals, plants and microbes to adapt and evolve. In this article I propose a tree-like "symbiogenesis, natural selection, and dynamic Earth (synade)-model" of macroevolution that is based on these novel facts and data."</blockquote>
<blockquote><p>BACKGROUND<br>
"...In his Autobiography [1], Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882) presented a self-critical review of his achievements as a naturalist that revealed much about the character of this key figure of the evolutionary sciences and other branches of biology and geology [2-4]. With respect to the most influential of Darwin's 16 scientific books, On the Origin of Species, the author remarked that "Sixteen thousand copies have now (1876) been sold in England and considering how stiff a book it is, this is a large sale" [1]. This judgement is in part due to the fact that the Origin of Species was not designed by Darwin as a separate book; rather, it was published as an Abstract, taken from a much larger manuscript entitled Natural Selection [5]. Ironically, Darwin's major, scheduled "Magnum opus" with the tentative title Natural Selection never appeared in print, but the Extract published by the author in November 1859 in order to establish priority with respect to his theory of the "preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations" became a best- and longseller [6].</p>
<p>The second and more important reason for the "stiffness" of Darwin's Origin of Species is attributable to the almost complete lack of illustrations. In contrast to Darwin's books on botanical and zoological issues, which contain numerous pictures [2-4], his Abstract published in 1859 (6th and final edition, 1872) [6,7] contained only one rather "sterile" diagram, a phylogenetic scheme. This "tree-like" figure is part of Chapter IV entitled "Natural Selection" in the first edition [6], and re-named "Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest" in the 6th and final version of the "Species book" [7]. It should be noted that the phrase "survival of the fittest" was borrowed by Darwin from the philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), who was also the first to introduce the word "evolution" sensu phylogenetic development (a term not used by Darwin in the first edition [6]) into the emerging biological sciences of the 19th century [5].</p>
<p>With reference to his abstract illustration, Darwin explained at length the principle of "descent with modification by means of natural selection", and concluded, with his Bible-educated readers in mind, that "On the view that each species has been independently created, I can see no explanation of this great fact (i.e., the relatedness of all animals and all plants) in the classification of all organic beings; but, ..., it is explained though inheritance and the complex action of natural selection, entailing extinction and divergence of character as we have seen illustrated in the diagram" [6] p. 100.</p>
<p>Although Darwin made many changes and added entire sections to the text during the five revisions of his original version of the Origin [6], one key sentence remained unchanged: At the end of Chapter IV, the author wrote, with reference to his tree-like diagram, that "As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever-branching and beautiful ramifications" [6], p. 101; [7], p. 137.</p>
<p>In this article I argue that the metaphorical "Tree of Life"-statement quoted above was still heavily rooted in the religious pre-Darwinian "evolutionary ladder-" or Scala Naturae-thinking of earlier naturalists.</p>
<p>From the scala naturae to the symbiogenetic and dynamic tree of life<br>
Ulrich Kutschera<br>
Institute of Biology, University of Kassel, Heinrich-Plett-Str. 40, D-34109 Kassel, Germany<br>
(<a href="http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/33" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Even Darwin's theory isn't immune to revision by Scientists:</p>
<blockquote><i>Charles Darwin's "tree of life", is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to leading scientists. Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a "tangled bank". Plants and animals regularly crossbreed - and the offspring can be fertile. According to some estimates, 10 per cent of animals regularly form hybrids by breeding with other species. Living things evolve into new species only to cross again and again."</i></blockquote>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life" target="_blank">Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life</a></li>
<blockquote><p>The "Tree of Life" vs. the "Tangled Web" and how it relates to bird origins.<br>
“...<i>Many birds occasionally mate with members of other bird species, producing hybrid offspring,” said Dr. Lovette, about 10 percent of the world’s 10,000 bird species are known to have bred with another species at least once, either in the wild or in captivity. Hybridization tends to occur between species that are closely related, but an individual from ONE GENUS may occasionally form a pair with a bird from an altogether DIFFERENT GENUS, separated by many millions of years of evolutionary divergence</i>."</blockquote>
<li><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/science/does-bird-mating-ever-cross-the-species-line.html?_r=2" target="_blank">Avian Affairs</a>, By C. CLAIBORNE<br>
Q, Does bird mating ever cross the species line?</li>
<li><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/hybrid-animals-created-from-climate-change-2013-9" target="_blank">These Hybrid Animals Will Be Created Because Of Climate Change</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/are-hybrid-species-being-created-due-to-climate-change" target="_blank">Are hybrid species being created due to climate change?</a><br>
Pushed north by a warming climate, southern species mate with northern cousins, muddying gene pools and conservation efforts.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-spawns-hybrid-species/" target="_blank">Global Warming Spawns Hybrid Species</a></li>
</ul>
<blockquote><p>Dagon, the fish god<br>
"<i>Some rather scant sources, counting the Catholic Encyclopedia, say that Dagon is a merman, with the upper half of his body that of a man and the other half a fish. This belief stemmed from the interpretation that the name Dagon is related with the Hebrew word for fish, dag. On the other hand, it is clear from the account of Phoenician history by Philo of Byblos that the Dagon word in question is just that: the Phoenician dagon (dagan in Hebrew), which Philo even translated to Greek, Siton, also meaning “grain.” The god of fertility was a Phoenician god; imposing a Hebrew word from the Bible in place of the native, specifically Phoenician name to explain the pagan god’s origin and makeup is inappropriate. So is the verbal maneuvering of theologians to equate the stump or torso that remained unbroken of the earth god in 1 Samuel 5 to the body of a fish based on that erroneous etymology. Above all, to the pagan people who worshiped the god of earth, it is highly doubtful that the image of a sea-dwelling merman would make sufficiently for the persona of a plough-wielding god of agriculture who administers the fields.</i>"<br>
(<a href="http://canaanite-religion.cosmism.info/dagon-the-god-of-fertility-earth-and-agriculture/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwZXWuTG6Xzld7QHeEc-645HaqzMbd9spR-IrgDm_-3WjWMy8tksDiSmxMHBcNqUKoTD0_UTCb7dkDi0RA3yD7fdSfTae4KDLYHUU4XwkXg7cZhBntJADHl9Ihij_8ERiDedmDir3AZp4/s1600/dagon-fish-god.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwZXWuTG6Xzld7QHeEc-645HaqzMbd9spR-IrgDm_-3WjWMy8tksDiSmxMHBcNqUKoTD0_UTCb7dkDi0RA3yD7fdSfTae4KDLYHUU4XwkXg7cZhBntJADHl9Ihij_8ERiDedmDir3AZp4/s320/dagon-fish-god.jpg" /></a></div>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384891901109297877.post-82725662925737284032015-12-09T23:49:00.000-08:002016-03-31T22:28:10.208-07:00Hellenistic Greek Influence on Genesis<p>Atheism is not "The" Answer(TM).<br>
I've acquainted overconfident Atheists espousing faith in how Science has all the answers, but when I actually corresponded with Scientists who were responsible for cutting edge research... they weren't so confident in some of the mainstream interpretations of certain data... and often in the business of correcting "mainstream information". </p>
<p>Very sad.</p>
<p>The Ultimate Answer to Everything... Science-Wise: A BIG FAT UNKNOWN.</p>
<p>This ... I am NOT Agnostic about! Both them... and their fanatical "absolute truthism".</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSZ6MTx6C-owSbRXwNBvHiTpjWzuO3aPoI3X4V-8Ptmr7Uh91V5dmSwhv7z_SLQs4MDQb5unbZwUprs9pKiQRuvle3Z4Ih808CNfY7BGwjvzhYDAzECPBZu3b-jJXqCRiSLi9LOM1id7U/s1600/atheist-believers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSZ6MTx6C-owSbRXwNBvHiTpjWzuO3aPoI3X4V-8Ptmr7Uh91V5dmSwhv7z_SLQs4MDQb5unbZwUprs9pKiQRuvle3Z4Ih808CNfY7BGwjvzhYDAzECPBZu3b-jJXqCRiSLi9LOM1id7U/s320/atheist-believers.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Most scientists I've corresponded with -- are pretty grounded AGNOSTICS about their science. The more they know, the less overconfidence they have in any "absolute Truth(TM)". So much for Theism or Atheism.</p>
<p>I do consider myself Christian. That is, there are stories in the Bible written about a man named Jesus who was a wise prophet and philosopher... very inspirational wisdom and it is written, if I believe in his teachings, then I'll inherit "the Kingdom of God". He did not command, "Thou must believe in Satan" nor did he teach, "You must abstain from blood transfusions". He said none of the things which 95% of "Religions"' creeds and dogmas center around.</p>
<p>All of the other things found within the Bible... is up for debate. I don't know what I believe about Jesus in detail because though I've read many debates... my mind is not concluded one way or the other. I guess you can call it FAITH that fills in the unknowns... even in the absence of absolutely certainty. A sort of "Agnosticism" about many things in the Bible.<br>
Meanwhile on Genesis, I've read many arguments for and against it... comparing it with Babylonian and Egyptian mythology...</p>
<p>I believe sincerely the Jews were living under the strong influence of Greek thought around 300 AD and wrote "Genesis" which reveals Greek philosophy in the text... the Greeks who are responsible for developing a precursor to what is now called, "Evolution".</p>
<p>The ancient people had hands-on, eyewitness understanding of "cultivation" or as it is called today, "Artificial Selection". These things are described in the opening chapters of Genesis.</p>
<p>The Influence of Greek Philosophy on the Early Commentaries on Genesis<br>
Frank Egleston Robbins<br>
The American Journal of Theology<br>
Vol. 16, No. 2 (Apr., 1912), pp. 218-240<br>
Published by: University of Chicago Press<br>
(<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3155149?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" target="_blank">Study Link</a>)</p>
<p>Both the Greeks (in the ancient Evolution school of thought) Modern Science and the Bible assert, "all life began in the water".</p>
<p>The author of Genesis was simply copying what the Greeks had already theorized.</p>
<p>Terms such as, "every creature <i>after its kind</i>," and "every plant <i>before its kind</i> was in the earth" but "no plant of the field, yet grew" ... imply the wild mustard, that is cultivated by man, to become Broccoli, Caulflower, etc.<br>
Genesis even emphasizes this, "There was no plant of the field which grew, because there was no man to till the ground." (translated as cultivation).</p>
<p>Artificial Selection is a man-made form of Evolution. I had a theistic evolutionist argue once, "Impossible! Ancient people would've never seen it happen within their lifetime." Hogwash! If a pig escapes captivity, it quickly reverts back into its original, wild form. So the ancient knew indeed and were experts at man-made "Evolution" or cultivation of crops and livestock.</p>
<p>I read that the ancient Greeks had no word for "Evolution" but are describing ancient cultivation -- agriculture -- "<i>before its kind</i>" and "<i>after its kind</i>" which they made a RELIGION out of. . . they worshiped Agriculture... the heavens, and its influences on crops. Even the Hebrews were guilty of worshiping the Olive Tree, just like cultures surrounding them.</p>
<p>So, that's where the buck stops for me.</p>
<p>No "divine revelation" necessary. Nor is Genesis a piece of Literature deserving being blindly tossed in the trash can. It was written from heavy influence of ancient Greek thought.</p>
<p>After all the studies I have read about ancient cultivation (ARTIFICIAL Selection vs. Natural Selection) I find the opening of Genesis, absolutely amazing... ancient farmers actually understood "Evolution" in terms of Artificial Selection (cultivation of crops/livestock) although, with it being man-made Greek thought behind it... then no, I don't see Genesis as itself "evidence" that ancient writers had an inside scoop from the divine about Science.</p>
<p>The Greeks were, intellectually, well ahead of their time.</p>
<p>From what I have studied about ancient people and agriculture over several years... when I realized that the author of Genesis was elaborating on his worship of Agriculture... now I see, Genesis is pretty awesome curiosity.</p>
<p>But I don't see now, really why or how God would be involved ... when it was getting copied from the Greeks.</p>
<blockquote>History of plant breeding<br>
"...Plant breeding started with sedentary agriculture, particularly the domestication of the first agricultural plants, a practice which is estimated to date back 9,000 to 11,000 years. Initially, early human farmers selected food plants with particular desirable characteristics and used these as a seed source for subsequent generations, resulting in an accumulation of characteristics over time. In time however, experiments began with deliberate hybridization, the science and understanding of which was greatly enhanced by the work of Gregor Mendel. Mendel's work ultimately led to the new science of genetics. Modern plant breeding is applied genetics, but its scientific basis is broader, covering molecular biology, cytology, systematics, physiology, pathology, entomology, chemistry, and statistics (biometrics). It has also developed its own technology. Plant breeding efforts are divided into a number of different historical landmarks."<br>
(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_plant_breeding" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Different translations reveal A LOT about what the ancient Hebrew was attempting to convey:</p>
<p>Genesis 2:5</p>
<p>(Some translations emphasize the absence of man-made cultivated plants i.e., broccoli, cauliflower ------ while other translations emphasize their precursor, the wild ancestor, mustard plant which man used ARTIFICIAL SELECTION to cultivate . . . man created these vegetables, God did not create them. The author of Genesis confirms this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(1) CULTIVATED PLANTS DO NOT EXIST
<p>English Standard Version<br>
"...no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up .... there was no man to work the ground..."</p>
<p>New American Standard Bible<br>
"...no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted .... there was no man to cultivate the ground."</p>
<p>(2) WILD PLANTS DO EXIST
<p>King James Bible<br>
"...And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew ....there was not a man to till the ground."</p>
<p>Jubilee Bible 2000<br>
"...and every plant of the field before it was in the earth and all the grass of the field before it grew... neither was there a man to till the ground."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course some translations go off the rails... because <b>some translators, not being knowledgeable about ancient worship of Agriculture, had little knowledge of what they were actually translating</b> -- <u>the cultivation of crops</u> ... Agriculture Worship... it's my guess these translators are most likely indoctrinated Young Earth Creationists... therefore, they see no difference between "plants of the field" and "wild plants".</p>
<p>But the King James translation, is emphatic in its use of the evolutionary term, <b>every plant "before its kind"</b> DOES exist while Young's point to <b>cultivated plants of the field</b>, DO NOT.
<blockquote>Young's Literal Translation<br>
"...and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth ... and a man there is not to serve the ground,"</blockquote>
<p>Awesome. The ancient Greeks had no word for "Evolution" (I had read) . . . so the author is trying to imply it with difficulty, by saying "After their kind" and "Before its kind" because livestock and crops, may transform into new, yet similar.. evolving kinds.</p>
<p>EVOLUTION... Artificial Selection... Science is Awesome!<br>
"Every plant before it" was in the earth... but "no plant of the field" grew... for there was no man to (cultivate) till the ground.</p>
<p>The ancient Greeks were awesome... ahead of their time.</p>
<p>The Author of Genesis...</p>
<blockquote>Hellenistic Judaism<br>
". . . Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in the ancient world that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. Until the fall of the Roman Empire and the Muslim conquests of the Eastern Mediterranean, the main centers of Hellenistic Judaism were Alexandria (Egypt) and Antioch (Northern Syria—now Turkey), the two main Greek urban settlements of the Middle East and North Africa area, both founded at the end of the 4th century BCE in the wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great. Hellenistic Judaism also existed in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period, where there was conflict between Hellenizers and traditionalists (sometimes called Judaizers).
The major literary product of the contact of Second Temple Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible from Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic to Koiné Greek, specifically, Jewish Koiné Greek."<br>
(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtuJwowPZAoNl7K5HD_i9YuD_hj2RxkyD65GwoOHYrFl1-n84aqe93VWlcKx4wdQ4mRCFXJM_0cIQXaMSQrj20lQsPbs5TmWjInbCxBqAjhzay2wiNBNmRrhUACDFhW2IGIRWfZ-VjKCA/s1600/genesis-kinds.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtuJwowPZAoNl7K5HD_i9YuD_hj2RxkyD65GwoOHYrFl1-n84aqe93VWlcKx4wdQ4mRCFXJM_0cIQXaMSQrj20lQsPbs5TmWjInbCxBqAjhzay2wiNBNmRrhUACDFhW2IGIRWfZ-VjKCA/s400/genesis-kinds.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Hellenistic (Greek) Jewish ideas, are quite intriguing... This Hellenistic Jewish "Law of Nature" and what it is. They were beginning to observe the Natural World, and presumed what the "Natural Order" must be. . . I really am not certain if the author referred to is pro-homosexual or anti-homosexual, but none the less sheds some light on ancient Hellenistic (Greek) Jewish thought.</p>
<blockquote>The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics<br>
By Robert A.J. Gagnon<br>
(<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Er-7rMuPBWIC&pg=PT256&lpg=PT256&dq=Genesis+ancient+greece+hellenistic+jews&source=bl&ots=JbS8bo7wTk&sig=UKY_MdA4q9S5f58f_2Df8vuiU_k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW0OXF5c3JAhXH5iYKHWOTAsAQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=Genesis%20ancient%20greece%20hellenistic%20jews&f=false" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx4v77MW12oO7bGuBWlq2QvTR9ZO1mlfxTygB2z5b9IxIz0gSPr1Cfp15xAOFnhK2WLk87eiozG7RJhfTFQrJ7WdKRWtyohpcwMhRMvkS-d_ayaTneHF_3csz4VVUKfcnkePFRv8DnqKY/s1600/hellenistic-judaism-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img width="425" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx4v77MW12oO7bGuBWlq2QvTR9ZO1mlfxTygB2z5b9IxIz0gSPr1Cfp15xAOFnhK2WLk87eiozG7RJhfTFQrJ7WdKRWtyohpcwMhRMvkS-d_ayaTneHF_3csz4VVUKfcnkePFRv8DnqKY/s1600/hellenistic-judaism-01.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Ancient Greek thought is elaborated in the following excerpt -- the Hellenistic Jews under influence of Greek thought reveal some of the earliest traces of Human "Reason"... observation of the "Natural Order" -- perhaps Paul didn't get his conclusion, correct, but at least it is evidence the ancients were making an attempt at "Reason." Interesting, because there existed a conflict between the Hellenistic Jews and their earlier predecessors.</p>
<p>It is obviously the Greeks who introduced the Hebrew to the concept of "Natural Law"... as in the Hellenistic Jews enlightened by Greek thought... and "Reason".</p>
<p>At least, that is how I interpret these passages.</p>
<p>Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity
Front Cover<br>
Hindy Najman<br>
BRILL, 2010 - Religion - 270 pages<br>
(<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=DmmLKbts2HsC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=hellenistic+%22law+of+nature%22&source=bl&ots=OTcwm5RZzU&sig=2H9lXubGvQTy7UEHSzT_IZDLQJY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigseCa583JAhVGKCYKHShVCc4Q6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=hellenistic%20%22law%20of%20nature%22&f=false" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>Now.. if only the YEC could catch up with where the Hellenistic Jews were, scientifically, 2300 years ago because "Evolution" happens.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJS6WGFaVcMDOBJRucUoOj0ec-cuHVp2dPIfKcuzmC4mP1cIyhNemBaF76IIU850tMAeJHmr3eqdr9eVN0ANjWgHcMvpOP2Da1DooLjKZvcF9d-qDm-3RjDD9hi_jnzybP07_bZEBQsic/s1600/hellenistic-judaism-02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJS6WGFaVcMDOBJRucUoOj0ec-cuHVp2dPIfKcuzmC4mP1cIyhNemBaF76IIU850tMAeJHmr3eqdr9eVN0ANjWgHcMvpOP2Da1DooLjKZvcF9d-qDm-3RjDD9hi_jnzybP07_bZEBQsic/s1600/hellenistic-judaism-02.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>The ancient Hellenistic Jews who are responsible for the passages in Genesis were copying Greek philosophy when they mixed their religion with bits and pieces of Greek culture, "God said, '...<i>Let the waters bring forth</i>..."</p>
<p>It was the Greeks who first suggested it.</p>
<blockquote><p>Evolution and Paleontology in the Ancient World</p>
<p>"...Even "primitive" peoples may have extremely detailed knowledge of the living organisms around them, knowledge on which their survival or well-being often depends. When such knowledge is arranged systematically and used to make general statements and predictions about the world, one may speak of a scientific tradition. Such traditions were developed among the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians; the Egyptians, in particular, developed a scientific tradition in medicine, one based on careful observations. It was the Greeks, however, who led the way in developing a general scientific worldview -- one in which natural, non-miraculous explanations for the causes of phenomena were sought. The earliest Greek philosophers lived and worked, not in Greece itself, but in the Greek colonies of Ionia (the Mediterranean coast of Asia Minor -- now Turkey -- and the nearby islands). Because it was favorably located for trade among Greece, Egypt, and the Near East, Ionia was not only wealthy, but well placed for the dispersal of ideas; thus Greek thought drew on the knowledge of the Near East, Egypt, and even India at various times in history. Later, the thinkers of the Roman Republic and Empire carried on the Greek tradition, although relatively less original scientific thought was developed among the Romans.<br>
We can't showcase the entire spectrum and long history of the scientific thought of the ancient world. This exhibit is simply intended to point out some currents within ancient thought that foreshadowed later developments in evolutionary biology.<br>
[...]<br>
For Anaximander, the world had arisen from an undifferentiated, indeterminate substance, the apeiron. The Earth, which had coalesced out of the apeiron, had been covered in water at one stage, with plants and animals arising from mud. Humans were not present at the earliest stages; they arose from fish. This poem was quite influential on later thinkers, including Aristotle.<br>
Had Anaximander looked at fossils? Did he study comparative fish and human anatomy? Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what evidence Anaximander used to support his ideas. His theory bears some resemblance to evolutionary theory, but also seems to have been derived from various Greek myths, such as the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha, in which peoples or tribes are born from the Earth or from stones. His concept of the apeiron seems similar to the Tao of Chinese philosophy and religion, and to the "formless and void" Earth of the Hebrew creation account and other creation myths. However, even though Anaximander's ideas drew on the religious and mythical ideas of his time, he was still one of the first to attempt an explanation of the origin and evolution of the cosmos based on natural laws.<br>
[...]<br>
In the 6th century B.C.E. Xenophanes of Colophon (died ca. 490 B.C.E.), who was a disciple of Anaximander, developed Anaximander's theories further. He observed fossil fishes and shells, and concluded that the land where they were found had been underwater at some time. Xenophanes taught that the world formed from the condensation of water and "primordial mud;" he was the first person known to have used fossils as evidence for a theory of the history of the Earth.<br>
The Greek historian Herodotus (484-425 B.C.E.) also observed fossil shells in Egypt, and cited them as evidence that Egypt had once been underwater. He also described a valley in Arabia, in the Mokattam mountains, where he saw "the backbones and ribs of such serpents as it is impossible to describe: of the ribs there were a multitude of heaps. . . " He ascribed these bones to winged serpents that had been killed by ibises. We now know that these are the bones of fossil mammals that wash out of the rocks every rainy season. Several other ancient historians briefly mentioned fossils in their writings. Finally, the famous Greek physician Hippocrates of Cos (460-357 B.C.E.) is known to have collected fossils; in fact, modern excavations at Asklepion, the famous medical school of Hippocrates's day, unearthed a fragment of a fossil elephant molar.<br>
(<a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Hellenistic Philosophy (300BCE-200CE)<br>
(<a href="http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme04.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeTzFTBvs_ayGatcLDo_cq5v167LyqRlcmbG66Vu5UtBR5M_YwBqWHpriUK7rLoELZayTI2G5yVrGzJnjeW0mN05ZOwAgir-R8bAZkzYseNlQY_B-giCzxTienle0fCCBkygglzOf0cn0/s1600/hellenistic-judaism-03.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeTzFTBvs_ayGatcLDo_cq5v167LyqRlcmbG66Vu5UtBR5M_YwBqWHpriUK7rLoELZayTI2G5yVrGzJnjeW0mN05ZOwAgir-R8bAZkzYseNlQY_B-giCzxTienle0fCCBkygglzOf0cn0/s1600/hellenistic-judaism-03.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>I know the various "dates" scholars assign to scripture (and, oh how they vary) ... I also know, and you know, that certain forgeries, attempting to misrepresent certain patriarch were pawned --and even believed . . . purposely retroactively, misdated into the past, such as the book of "Enoch". Show me ancient autographa, before time of Thallus and Anaximander, which discuss the act of ARTIFICIAL SELECTION "no plant of the field yet grew" because "there was no man to till(cultivate) the ground" but "every plant before it, grew wild."</p>
<p>I heard Norman Geisler make the argument once, "No Original Autographa Remain".</p>
<blockquote>The Oldest Medical Books in the World<br>
"...Long ago, when writing was a secret science, the Egyptian scribe was not a simple copyist. He had the combined training of a calligrapher, a philosopher, a scholar and a scientist. Many physicians prided themselves on bearing the title of scribe among their others, and like Hesyreh, had themselves portrayed with the palette and reeds, the sesh, symbol of that learned class. The actual copying was probably performed in the pir-ankh or Houses of Life that were attached to the temples and where the scholars, physicians, philosophers and scientists of the time used to meet.
We know of nine principal medical papyri. They are called after their original owners (Edwin Smith, Chester Beatty, Carlsberg), the site of their discovery (Kahoun, Ramesseum), the towns were they are kept (Leyden, London, Berlin) or their editor (Ebers).<br>
The Kahoun Papyrus is the most ancient scroll and was discovered at Fayoum and was called by mistake the Kahoun Papyrus. It dates from 1950 B.C. And has on its back an account from the time of Amenemhat III (1840-1792 B.C.). Not only is this the oldest known papyrus, but the original from which it was copied seems also more antique than the originals of the other papyri."<br>
"...The Ramesseum IV and V papyri were probably written about 1900 B.C., i.e. At about the same epoch as the Kahoun Papyrus."<br>
"...The Ebers Papyrus is the longest of all the known papyri and the most important, considering the physiological and medical knowledge it reveals. It is complete in 108 pages and bears the date of the 9th year of the reign of Amenophis I (1550 B.C.)."<br>
(<a href="http://www.wrf.org/ancient-medicine/oldest-medical-books.php" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>A certain Atheist, wrote: "....<i>is nothing more than a ludicrous, bald-faced attempt to rewrite the Bible!</i>"</p>
<p><i>WHO</i> WOULD DO SUCH A THING?</p>
<blockquote>"...<i>All the pieces are in their proper, chronological order, and they form one, seamless, complete account. The attempt to fracture this account by abruptly jumping 250 years into the future, by dragging in Alexander the Great out of the blue, all of this being based on the odd usage of "they" in verse 12, is nothing more than a ludicrous, bald-faced attempt to rewrite the Bible! The clear intent of such nonsense is to nullify, at all costs, the obvious failure of the prophecy, a prophecy that plainly features Nebuchadrezzar throughout. If that's what it takes to make the Bible "inerrant," then that battle is already lost."<br>
Apologists tell us, on the basis of their analysis of the ancient Hebrew, that we must break the obvious unity of this account, jump hundreds of years into the future, and drag in a person of their choosing!"</i><br>
- Ezekiel's Prophecy of Tyre: a failed prophecy</blockquote>
<p>Another Atheist writes:<br>
"...<i>Finally, when discussing the autographs of the OT, I like to ask, what is the autograph of the Psalms which were written over a 1000 years? How about Jeremiah? The original was burned by the king. Then Jeremiah wrote or rather dictated an expanded copy, but that was over twenty years before the last events of the book were recorded. Even then the Hebrew tradition grew after Jeremiah died as evidenced when it is compared to the LXX. So, what was the autograph of Jeremiah? The argument for the inerrancy of the autograph has a number of problems. Making the concept a statement of faith as some seem to argue is a corruption of orthodox Christianity.</i>"</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrJpwJjBha7NYguimBs6XeuDZiJ_15ZcNsDEbfjECB5M3TeY4yA4NK2_0dUzMJlMk4-5iC0Of2qufOUefaSgMChCPQFnyhB5JvX7ToIvsx963SzKZsFeW8TIqxmlRS1t0SyoQtPm4J5WA/s1600/hebrew-scroll-dates.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img width="425" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrJpwJjBha7NYguimBs6XeuDZiJ_15ZcNsDEbfjECB5M3TeY4yA4NK2_0dUzMJlMk4-5iC0Of2qufOUefaSgMChCPQFnyhB5JvX7ToIvsx963SzKZsFeW8TIqxmlRS1t0SyoQtPm4J5WA/s1600/hebrew-scroll-dates.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Biblical text, the oldest find since the Dead Sea Scrolls, revealed in digital image of a charred scroll<br>
"...JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israeli archaeologists said on Monday they had discerned biblical writing on a charred 1,500-year-old parchment with the help of digital imaging and described the text as the oldest found since the Dead Sea Scrolls.<br>
U.S. and Israeli researchers made the discovery using advanced medical and digital technology to examine the object, first unearthed 45 years ago when then-standard forensics could not decipher any script on the scroll."<br>
(<a href="http://www.religionnews.com/2015/07/21/biblical-text-the-oldest-find-since-the-dead-sea-scrolls-revealed-in-digital-image-of-a-charred-scroll/" target="_blank">Source</a>).</p>
<p>CT scan of charred scroll yields oldest Biblical remnant after Dead Sea Scrolls<br>
High-tech deciphering of parchment found in ancient Ein Gedi synagogue, excavated 45 years ago, yields text from Book of Leviticus<br>
"The document, found during the excavation of the synagogue in Ein Gedi 45 years ago, was burned 1,500 years ago while stored inside the ark in the ancient house of worship. Since then, however, the text has been unreadable."<br>
(<a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/1500-year-old-scrap-of-bible-found-near-dead-sea-deciphered/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>Dead Sea Scrolls<br>
"...Biblical text older than the Dead Sea Scrolls has been discovered only in two silver scroll-shaped amulets containing portions of the Priestly Blessing from the Book of Numbers, excavated in Jerusalem at Ketef Hinnom and dated c. 600 BCE. A burnt piece of Leviticus dating from the 6th century CE analyzed in 2015 was found to be the fourth-oldest piece of the Torah known to exist.[5]<br>
Most of the texts are written in Hebrew, with some in Aramaic (in different regional dialects, including Nabataean), and a few in Greek.[6] If discoveries from the Judean desert are included, Latin (from Masada) and Arabic (from Khirbet al-Mird) can be added.[7] Most texts are written on parchment, some on papyrus and one on copper.[8]"<br>
(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>"...The Isaiah Scroll, found relatively intact, is 1000 years older than any previously known copy of Isaiah. In fact, the scrolls are the oldest group of Old Testament manuscripts ever found."<br>
(<a href="http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>Dead Sea scrolls: world's oldest copy of the Ten Commandments to go on display in Israel<br>
2,000-year-old scroll will remain at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem for two weeks<br>
(<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/dead-sea-scrolls-worlds-oldest-copy-of-the-ten-commandments-to-go-on-display-in-israel-10229088.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures<br>
Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, Matthias Weigold<br>
BRILL, 2011 - Dead Sea scrolls - 980 pages<br>
(<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=xM7EnOx7CnYC&pg=PA485&lpg=PA485&dq=The+Isaiah+Scroll+age&source=bl&ots=G2BRaqSdBf&sig=3PlbaBYPmCdIeXDYeKofsfd54qE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQn6Hk-M_JAhUGSCYKHWkXB8MQ6AEIeDAR#v=onepage&q=The%20Isaiah%20Scroll%20age&f=false" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<blockquote>"...The oldest Egyptian leather manuscript has been found in the shelves of the Egyptian museum in Cairo, where it was stored and forgotten for more than 70 years.<br>
Dating from the late Old Kingdom to the early Middle Kingdom (2300-2000 B.C.), the roll measures about 2.5 meters(8.2 feet) and is filled with texts and colorful drawings of the finest quality.<br>
“Taking into account that it was written on both sides, we have more than 5 meters (16.4 feet) of texts and drawings, making this the longest leather roll from ancient Egypt,” Wael Sherbiny, the Belgium-based independent scholar who made the finding, told Discovery News."<br>
(<a href="http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/oldest-and-longest-ancient-egyptian-leather-manuscript-found-150914.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>If Medical Scrolls and Literature from Egypt still survive, couldn't the Almighty God have preserved his written word as good or better than the Egyptians?</p>
<p>The scrolls pretty much begin disappearing from history, the further one moves back into time toward 300-600 BC. Which tells me the approximate time such books were written... by Jews in Hellenistic Greece.</p>
<p>The Almighty God of the Universe... and the best they can do is produce an inconclusive string of text on a shard of pottery dating 1000 BC that may or may not, be Hebrew.<br>
If these people actually did what some claim: <blockquote>"...<i>the ancient Israelites would be recording their history in real time instead of several hundred years later</i>..."</blockquote>
<p>There would be much older manuscripts, all over the place with radiocarbon dating, verifying the authenticity. <b>The evidence points to their "history" being written several 100 years later.</b></p>
<blockquote>3,000-Year-Old Inscription May Be ‘Oldest Form Of Written Hebrew’
"...“The letters of the inscription match those of contemporary inscriptions, many of which form words that clearly are part of the Hebrew language. Hebrew speakers were controlling Jerusalem in the 10th century, which biblical chronology points to as the time of David and Solomon," ancient Near Eastern history and biblical studies expert Douglas Petrovich told Fox News.<br>
If Petrovich’s claim is accurate, the inscription could prove the veracity of the Old Testament. That is, if the Hebrew language dates back to the 10th century B.C., <u>the ancient Israelites would be recording their history in real time <b>instead of several hundred years later</b></u>.<br>
But other archaeologists do not support Petrovich’s theory. Earlier this month, Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Eilat Mazar, who found the relic, said that the text was written in the Canaanite language, which translates to M, Q, P, H, N, possibly L, and N. <u>The combination of letters doesn’t correspond to any words in west-Semitic languages</u>, but it may describe the contents of the jug or its owner, NBC News reports.<br>
“Because the inscription is not in Hebrew, it is likely to have been written by one of the non-Israeli residents of Jerusalem, perhaps Jebusites, who were part of the city population in the time of Kings David and Solomon,” Mazar describes in a paper for the Israel Exploration Journal."<br>
(<a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/3000-year-old-inscription-may-be-oldest-form-written-hebrew-photo-1368121" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Ceramic shard may bear oldest Hebrew inscription<br>
Bernat Armangue / AP<br>
"...A 6-by-6-inch pottery shard unearthed at the archaeological dig site of Hirbet Qeiyafa (the Elah Fortress) in Israel, shown here, contains five lines of faded characters that may bear the oldest Hebrew inscription ever found. The 3,000-year-old text dates to the time of the Hebrew Bible's King David <b>and is thought to be written in proto-Canaanite, <u>a precursor to the Hebrew alphabet</u></b>. While other people used proto-Canaanite characters as well, the inscription contains a three-letter verb meaning "to do" that existed only in Hebrew, according to Yossi Garfinkel, a Hebrew University archaeologist in charge of the dig. "That leads us to believe that this is Hebrew, and that <u>this is the oldest Hebrew inscription that has been found</u>," he told the Associated Press. Other scholars, however, have urged caution until more is known about the inscription and its context."<br>
(<a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28162671/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/jewish-archaeological-discoveries/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>"Before its kind" . . . "After its kind". Such a strange way to word something when speaking of cultivated "plants of the field" vs. "every plant before it," but that is because :</p>
<blockquote>History of Evolution<br>
" ... <u>The Greeks had, it is true, no term exactly equivalent to "evolution"</u>; but when <u>Thales asserts that all things originated from water</u>; when Anaximenes calls air the principle of all things, regarding the subsequent process as a thinning or thickening, they must have considered individual beings and the phenomenal world as, <u>a result of evolution</u>, even if they did not carry the process out in detail. Anaximander is often regarded as a precursor of the modem theory of development."<br>
(<a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/evolutio/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>The Greeks: Triumph of Rational Thought and Mathematics<br>
"... The long era of Greek Philosophy (literally, “love of wisdom”) began in the early seventh century B.C. (Table 3.1). The concept of “science” as an organized view of the world (expressed by the Greek concept, “Cosmos”) arose alongside mythology as an alternate way of viewing and interpreting nature. The two parallel ideals developed and prospered together for several centuries, neither entirely supplanting the other.<br>
[...]<br>
"...On the other hand, science – as we define it today -- was born and given shape and form during the age of the Greek philosophers. Modern students should be cautioned not underestimate their profound contributions to scientific understanding.<br>
Two “schools of thought” arose during the Grecian philosophical era. These competing groups were: the Ionians -- a group of great thinkers, most of whom lived on islands or coastal city states scattered along the east coast of the Aegean Sea, an area of Asia Minor now administered by Turkey (Fig. X) – and the Mainland Greeks who lived in large city states like Athens. The Ionians produced the first great Greek philosopher, Thales (pron: Th-all-es) of Miletus.<br>
Miletus stood in the middle of a swampy deltaic flood plain at the mouth of the Meander river (from which the term meander is derived). In Thales’ time it was a center of maritime trade, sporting no fewer than four separate harbors. It was here around 640 B.C. that the mutiny against superstition and fuzzy thinking took root with the birth of Thales, commonly accorded the honor of being the world’s first scientist. Thales claimed that human reason could be applied to questions regarding the nature and origins of natural phenomena; the gods of Olympus were of no help in that endeavor. In his time his Greek contemporaries deemed him one of the Seven Sages, the seven wisest men on earth.<br>
Thales also spent considerable time in Egypt. He stunned the Egyptians with his ability to measure the height of the pyramids by applying the law of similar triangles, and was celebrated for his ability to measure the shoreline distance of a ship in the Mediterranean Sea. His mathematical prowess was such that he laid much of the groundwork for the great mathematician Euclid, who lived centuries later.<br>
He is credited with the first system of logical reasoning, and he coined the word geometry, Greek for “earth measurement”, the terminology he learned from the Egyptians.<br>
Perhaps Thales’ greatest contributions to modern science – and astronomy – are the notions that all natural phenomena can be understood via reason and observation, and the idea that nature follows regular laws. He firmly rejected the intercession of the gods in creating natural materials or events. These concepts are the underpinnings of what is now popularly termed the “scientific method”.<br>
In an amazing leap of intuition, he also explored the ultimate nature of matter and space. He speculated that despite apparent differences, all matter must be composed of a single, fundamental material (anticipating the concept of atoms). Thales is commonly derided for assuming that this fundamental material essence was, in fact, water, but living in a watery world no doubt lead him to that “logical” conclusion. His notion that the earth is a flat disc floating on water, however, does illustrate the limitations of some of his cosmological constructs.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Anaximander, Student of Thales<br>
Like Thales, Anaximander was a resident of Miletus, although very little is known about his life. Most of what we know about him was handed down from Aristotle and his student Theophrastus. He was probably a student, or at least an important contemporary of Thales, founded a colony on the Black Sea (Apollonia), and introduced the gnomon-style sundial to Greece. He was a seasoned traveler and besides astronomy, also contributed to the study of geography and biology. For instance, Anaximander is credited with producing the first major world map (550 B.C.), and speculated that life evolved from lower forms of life, in a very primitive precursor to evolutionary theory. Humans, for example, evolved from fish, which constituted the first animals. Remember, like Thales, Anaximander lived in a world dominated by water.<br>
Perhaps his most profound contribution to astronomy is the “Boundless” principle, known as apeiron in Greek. The apeiron was a highly abstract concept but contained the idea of “that which has no boundaries”, a system without limits. It was philosophically at variance with Pythagorean virtues of a harmonious, symmetrical, and finite world, reassuringly accessible and knowable through mathematics. In fact the Pythagoreans listed the apeiron concept as a “negative thing”, and Aristotle is known to have been troubled by its lack of limits. The “Boundless” seems to embrace the infinite, and somewhat parallels our current overall concepts of the nature of the universe.<br>
Anaximander was not content to simply propose an abstract concept like apeiron without presenting logical arguments in its defense. In that respect he seems to be the first Greek to make use of true philosophical argument, an important step toward the systematic, rational analysis of nature embodied in modern science.<br>
Anaximander was not an observational astronomer like the Babylonians and Egyptians, but a speculative astronomer. He relied on pure reason and logical arguments to prove his points, a situation in keeping with the teachings of Thales. For example, Anaximander speculated that (1) celestial bodies make full circles and may pass beneath the earth, (2) the earth is a free-floating body in space, and (3) celestial bodies may lie behind one another (not “painted” on a two-dimensional surface).<br>
As for the “Boundless” concept, he offered logical arguments for each speculation, and for each he should be awarded a gold star for accuracy. Interestingly, his argument for a suspected earth includes the notion of the centrality of the earth compared to the rest of the universe. Since all things should seek that central point, that which occupies that space must hang suspended. Interesting philosophical argument, even though the science lacks some rigor. Gravity and the non-centrality of the earth were still distant ideas in his day."<br>
(<a href="http://www.fredonia.edu/department/geosciences/chapter3-greeks-fin.pdf" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384891901109297877.post-698300138546675912015-01-18T15:52:00.000-08:002016-03-31T22:25:28.025-07:00Einstein's God<p>LOL, for those like myself who are unfamiliar with the order in which "God creates" (Einstein's God, that is)<br>
<blockquote>"A transcriptome is a collection of all the transcripts present in a given cell. There are various kinds of RNA. The major type, called messenger RNA (mRNA), plays a vital role in making proteins."<br>
(<a href="http://www.genome.gov/13014330" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>Killing Einstein's God<br>
"...Krauss, and Richard Dawkins, who makes similar claims in his bestselling 2006 book The God Delusion, are making a serious historical mistake. It has to do with the definition of "God," both for Einstein and, in contrast, for religious people around the world. As someone who has spent a decade and a half studying Einstein's writings, I see it as my responsibility to correct this prevalent misconception [...] Albert Einstein believed in something like Spinoza's "God": a powerful entity that transcends the world. To Einstein, "God" was the maker of the laws of physics that he, Einstein, saw as his life's role to uncover. This is far from the "God" of all organized Western religions, to be sure, but it is equally far from Krauss' "universe from nothing," meaning a universe without any maker of the rules of physics or any creator of the quantum foam that gave rise to our universe through a quantum fluctuation. Krauss places a "[sic]" after "God" when quoting Einstein mentioning the "deity." He tries to reinterpret Einstein's words as not meaning what he writes. Richard Dawkins does the same in a chapter titled "A Deeply Religious Non-Believer," referring to Einstein.<br>
But these are unjust pronouncements."<br>
- Amir D. Aczel is a lecturer in mathematics and the history of mathematics and science, and an author of popular books on mathematics and science.<br>
(<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amir-aczel/killing-einsteins-god_b_5128129.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Einstein raised doubts in the concept of God envisioned and created in the image of modern judeo-christianity. I do too.
<p>The mysterious "God" Einstein knew of is unknown to western religions.</p>
<p>Likewise... when I read and re-read the opening of Genesis, it began to dawn on me, after many years, "...these words are not saying at all, what the Young Earth, "Designer" creationist crowd, are attempting to interpret it to do." The descriptions are of evolution, "every plant of the field before its kind was in the earth, though no plant of the field yet grew" and God commanded... "the water, the earth... to bring forth living creatures, "after their kind," -- the opening writers were (as I only recently realized) speaking from ancient Greek wisdom -- and there was no word in the Greek for "Evolution".</p>
<blockquote>"...From Genesis to Revelation it is a Greek document, written around 300BC in Alexandria Egypt..."</br>
"...Jewish people who became Greeks migrating to Alexandria in 300 BC, who wrote the Bible under Greek direction, and in the Greek language."<br>
(<a href="http://www.hiddenmeanings.com/Sermon11bible.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>The ancient Greeks were ahead of their time.</p>
<p>The western religions today, do not know God's "mysteries".</p>
<p>The ancient people of Greece did not need a university degree in Biology to understand evolution, or "artificial selection". The entire ancient near-east practiced SCIENCE; the cultivation of livestock and produce in their daily lives. The Egyptians made a religion based on their agriculture and nature. Many of their great religious deities were actually scientists/men of medicine. They saw the "natural fact" they could take a useless plant in the wild, cultivate it, to where it would produce desirable fruits/vegetables.. transforming with each successive generation, "after its kind," -- or evolving, and if it were possible to do with agriculture (cultivation through "artificial selection") then, surely the great minds of Greece surely must wonder, that same occurs in nature. (Thales of Miletus, attributed "water" as the first cause) Therefore, God said, "Let the waters bring forth moving creatures after their kind," -- it would have been normal to the people of the ancient near east, who had cultivated wild Aurochs and other beasts, into the domesticated "cattle" as they are known today... "cattle after their kind," -- the Greeks and Egyptians had seen it done. These ancient scientists religiously worshipped agriculture.</p>
<p>Smarter than western religions.</p>
<p>The "Sacred" Olive Tree of the Bible (cultivation in Greece).
<blockquote>"...Nothing is more characteristic of Crete than the millions of olive trees that grow in valleys and mountainous areas. Cretans have been cultivating the olive tree and have been using olive oil since 3500 BC during the early Minoan period, as archaeological findings have proved.
The olive tree (Olea Europea) is one of the few trees that can still produce fruits even in rocky and unproductive land. Olea’s main characteristic is its longevity and the preservation of its productivity.
The olive tree has been the symbol of wisdom and peace. The olive tree was the sacred tree of goddess Athena and Athens, the capital of Greece, took its name from the goddess. Zeus had decreed that the city should be given to the god who offered the most useful gift to the people."<br>
(<a href="http://www.explorecrete.com/nature/olive.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>YEC and other creationists (the western religions) take for granted that (cabbage, onion, garlic, lentils, chick pea, beans) and orchards (fig, almond, pomegranate) come in the form "God designed" them... "before Adam."</p>
<p>But God did not "design" them. The author of Genesis, says so. The author of Genesis explains, "Every plant of the field BEFORE IT was in the earth" and "No plant of the field yet grew for there was no man to til the ground."</p>
<p>The Greeks lacked a word for "evolution" that is associated with "artificial selection," or, "cultivation."</p>
<p>Ancient religious obsession with their Agriculture.</p>
<p>The ancient near east deified their scientists.</p>
<p>One of the Egyptian's "gods"...
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg3zkYUfMiezNitxnaZreiFB7LQiA5_t9KJCjJ6KquzPN2w_ykLgg0_4cb7lom8y-6P67Jd6YJ6LvraIieT4fLKhr0OYcdATTqRXLynOxs2MSJij3CXtJtQ1WW9pVh5BCJgE6GOEDrcLU/s1600/Imhotep-Louvre.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg3zkYUfMiezNitxnaZreiFB7LQiA5_t9KJCjJ6KquzPN2w_ykLgg0_4cb7lom8y-6P67Jd6YJ6LvraIieT4fLKhr0OYcdATTqRXLynOxs2MSJij3CXtJtQ1WW9pVh5BCJgE6GOEDrcLU/s1600/Imhotep-Louvre.JPG" width="450" /></a></div>
Imhotep: The Father of Mathematics (architecture, mathematics, medicine and patron of the scribes)<br>
(<a href="http://www.oakwood.edu/historyportal/Research/otherside/imhotep.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>The religions of the ancient near east were nothing like modern day western religions. The ancient near east prized science and medicine. The modern west, scoffs it. Takes for granted, that "beans, peas, collards, corn, cucumbers," were magically designed by a god and set before man. The author of Genesis knew better.</p>
<p>Since, such thought guided the writing of the opening of Genesis, it is no wonder that modern Christians can not understand when Genesis describes the fundamentals of Agriculture 101.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxS36t9i73fNhabZxGg1doDeMtGjki-513tzI0V75Fg17PPjJz7iDIvhRX_Z3vRjoTVMp8Bz15QQSCer610oF4okf1ESoQU-PWa5R4qeYDqVLQBamTHX3EeZGHYFQtN0TGHjzzAUy5h30/s1600/orngou2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxS36t9i73fNhabZxGg1doDeMtGjki-513tzI0V75Fg17PPjJz7iDIvhRX_Z3vRjoTVMp8Bz15QQSCer610oF4okf1ESoQU-PWa5R4qeYDqVLQBamTHX3EeZGHYFQtN0TGHjzzAUy5h30/s1600/orngou2.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Many non-believers might rarely crack open a Bible and read Genesis and probably think "silly eastern religion".</p>
<p>The ancient author of Genesis looked at his food and marveled with an awe... knowing that he could cultivate it into fuller, sweeter varieties...</p>
<p>The western religions look at their food and think, "God designed it this way in the beginning," and tune into another episode of "Wheel of Fortune".</p>
<p>I look at it, and realize, "What is, was not always so. Many mysteries are held in those gourds... and ponder on history -- and the mysteries of Einstein's 'God'" and I marvel a bit too (like the author of Genesis).</p>
<p>SOME WEB REFERENCES ON PUMPKINS, SQUASH AND GOURDS.<br>
"<em>Every squash of the field before it was in the ground, but no squash of the field yet grew because there was no man to cultivate and till the ground."</em></p>
<blockquote>The name pumpkin originated from the Greek word for "large melon" which is "pepon." "Pepon" was nasalized by the French into "pompon." The English changed "pompon" to "Pumpion." Shakespeare referred to the "pumpion" in his Merry Wives of Windsor. American colonists changed "pumpion" into "pumpkin."<br>
A pumpkin is really a squash.<br>
Pumpkins are believed to have originated in Central America. Seeds from related plants have been found in Mexico, dating back over 7000 years to 5500 B.C. Native Americans used pumpkins as a staple in their diets for centuries. They called the pumpkin “isqoutm Squash.” Native Americans used pumpkin seeds for food and medicine. They also flattened strips of pumpkin, dried them and made mats. Early settlers ate pumpkin as a staple in their diet. Colonist filled a hollowed out shell with milk, honey, and spices, then baked it in hot ashes. This is considered the origin of the pumpkin pie.<br>
Pumpkins, squash and gourds are members of the enormously diverse Cucurbitaceae family, which contains more than 100 genera and over 700 species. They have been providing mankind with food and utilitarian objects since before recorded history. Various members of the genus Cucurbita are known as squash or gourds.<br>
Spaghetti squash and most of the colorful, warty and star-shaped ornamental gourds seen at Thanksgiving time also come from varieties of Cucurbita pepo. Since they all belong to the same species, ornamental gourds, summer squash and pumpkins may cross pollinate in your garden, resulting in some interesting hybrids. In fact, some farmers avoid planting ornamental gourds near their edible crops to prevent pollen contamination and bitter, inedible squash and melons.<br>
(<a href="http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0503.htm#pollination" target="_blank">Source</a>), (<a href="http://urbanext.illinois.edu/pumpkins/history.cfm" target="_blank">Source</a>), (<a href="http://cals.arizona.edu/yavapai/fcs/allaboutpumpkins.pdf" target="_blank">Source</a>), (<a href="http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/gardens-gardening/your-garden/help-for-the-home-gardener/advice-tips-resources/gardening-help-faqs.aspx?questionid=274&afmid=4462" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0