tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7001926896031909018..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59229845165388265192015-05-19T11:41:24.271-04:002015-05-19T11:41:24.271-04:00I've read Jordan's book on Creation in Six...I've read Jordan's book on Creation in Six Days.<br /><br />I've said I don't rely on Green. <br /><br />I don't think the issue of open or closed genealogies is a key issue. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77610325811037801242015-05-19T09:53:03.096-04:002015-05-19T09:53:03.096-04:00Steve, have you read Jordan and/or Freeman's e...Steve, have you read Jordan and/or Freeman's essays? Your answer seems to indicate that you are not familiar with either. The idea that Green successfully buys time gaps is extremely tenuous - refer to Jordan's excellent essay (Jordan is very knowledgeable regarding biblical chronology).<br /><br />In addition, the symmetry does not in fact exist - see Freeman's comments regarding that argument. It seems to me that evangelicals who keep appealing to Green for any gaps (regardless of length) need to reassess in the light of the key creationist responses noted above.<br /><br />I'd be interested to see your interaction with those essays (if you don't think they have successfully dispatched Green).<br /><br />Interestingly, Freeman is one of a few YACs who Kurt Wise recommends. As an aside - I've seen you comment positively on Walt Brown's work (the Hydro-plate theory) - however this is regarded by Wise as poor quality creationist literature. I think you would be helpfully informed by Kurt Wise's notes on 'How to Discern Quality' amongst creationist literature - see this science supplement: <br /><br />http://hongmark.com/resource/SummitResearchSupplementals/Science.pdfHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36570561262942246382015-05-18T12:26:13.545-04:002015-05-18T12:26:13.545-04:00i) I mention Green's essay because that was a ...i) I mention Green's essay because that was a seminal study, and not because it's the definitive analysis. There's been a lot of additional study on the Genesis genealogies since then.<br /><br />ii) To suggest that the genealogies record the most significant ancestors is not unreasonable.<br /><br />iii) Green's argument has less explanatory power in the 21C than it did in the mid-19C. He was attempting to reconcile Genesis with scientific chronology for the age of the world and the age of man. But, of course, modern establishment science has greatly extended both, so that solution doesn't buy enough time. <br /><br />iv) There's considerable evidence that the genealogies are stylized to some degree. They are unrealistically symmetrical. Likewise, the ages are multiples of 5, sometimes with the addition of 7. <br /><br />That suggests an element of numerology. I think the ages are round numbers. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57971785155231557892015-05-18T09:10:25.896-04:002015-05-18T09:10:25.896-04:00Steve, I've seen you refer positively before t...Steve, I've seen you refer positively before to the landmark work by William Green - Primeval Chronology.<br /><br />Are you aware of James Jordan's excellent interaction with this, from 1979:<br />Part 1 - http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v02n2p09.htm<br />Part 2 - http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v02n3p17.htm<br /><br />I don't think Green's work can any longer be appealed to in light of this. <br /><br />I came across this because it was in turn referred to in a couple of the premier creationist articles on the topic, e.g.:<br /><br />Freeman, T. R. (2004). A new look at the Genesis 5 and 11 fluidity problem. Andrews University Seminary Studies, 42, 259-286. http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=1078&journal=1&type=pdf<br /><br />A modified version of which was published in the Journal of Creation: <br />Freeman, T.R., The Genesis 5 and 11 fluidity question, Journal of Creation 19(2):83–90, 2005; http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_2/j19_2_83-90.pdfHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20234867661032670292015-05-17T06:26:29.057-04:002015-05-17T06:26:29.057-04:00Jon Sorensen's conclusion: "Newton's ...Jon Sorensen's conclusion: "Newton's Space Gun uses standard religious process where a 'suspect' becomes a 'fact'".<br /><br />Steve Hays said: "So, by his own admission, Noah's flood has a factual basis."<br /><br />Analysis #1: Jon Sorensen continues to demonstrate his difficulty with basic reading comprehension since "fact" is not equivalent to "a factual basis".<br /><br />Analysis #2: Jon Sorensen poisons the well by framing the problem in terms of "standard religious process" when it has nothing to do with "religious" (or irreligious). It's simply an issue of logic (or illogic).Newtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06655829667033554000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68666017300013691202015-05-17T03:15:12.330-04:002015-05-17T03:15:12.330-04:00Example #2
Book:
"I continue to suspect that...Example #2<br /><br />Book:<br />"I continue to suspect that..."<br /><br />Conclusion:<br />"So, by his own admission, Noah's flood has a factual basis..."<br /><br />Analysis:<br />Newton's Space Gun uses standard religious process where a "suspect" becomes a "fact"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00641347336544149392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17360496019171433932015-05-16T20:24:24.798-04:002015-05-16T20:24:24.798-04:00Jon Sorensen's conclusion: "This is a sta...Jon Sorensen's conclusion: "This is a standard religious process where a 'belief' becomes a 'fact'."<br /><br />What Jon Sorensen missed: "I continue to suspect that the much-discussed 'Black Sea deluge' is behind it."<br /><br />Analysis: Jon Sorensen has difficulty with basic reading comprehension.Newtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06655829667033554000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86755319113969048672015-05-16T19:47:35.866-04:002015-05-16T19:47:35.866-04:00Book:
"Such a catastrophe could have spawned ...Book:<br />"Such a catastrophe could have spawned the belief in a universal flood..."<br />"Everyone in antiquity seems to have believed..."<br /><br />Conclusion:<br />"So, by his own admission, Noah's flood has a factual basis..."<br /><br /><br />Analysis:<br />This is a standard religious process where a "belief" becomes a "fact".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00641347336544149392noreply@blogger.com