But, it does say specifically that god stopped the sun. It would say that god stopped the earth if back then they knew what we do now.
And it was specifically a metaphor. By def., a metaphor is a simile with 'like' removed, correct? This and other passages are always a topic of debate between theologians, but it is my belief that this passage was written in the viewpoint of an Earth-dweller. After all, it is said that God did not physically write Scripture; He inspired scribes to write them. And there are multiple manuscripts that were written at different times, in different places, by different people that agreed so much that they could be compiled into the book that is the Bible.
Also, these books were written well before Ptolemy was around to say the world is flat.
The UA team radiocarbon dated the famous Book of Isaiah scroll at between 335 BCE and 122 BCE. Paleogra- phers had dated this scroll at between 150 - 125 BCE. The team also analyzed the commentary on the Psalms (UA radiocarbon dated at between 22 CE and 78 CE); the Messi- anic Apocalypse that paleographers date at 100 BCE to 80 BCE (UA radiocarbon dated at between 35 BCE and 59 CE); the Exodus scroll of the Bible written in ancient Hebrew script that paleographers date at between 100 BCE and 25 BCE (UA radiocarbon tests date it between 159 BCE and 16 CE); and an inscribed round leather patch with holes that was attached to the Exodus scroll. Paleographers date the patch between 50 BCE and 50 CE (UA radiocarbon dated the patch at from 98 BCE to 13 CE). Inscribed patches of this sort have been described in ancient Jewish writings, Tov said.
Source (
http://www.physics.arizona.edu/physics/public/dead-sea.html)
The latest of these was dated at as new as 78 C.E.. Note that
1. 78 C.E. is a max age, and may or may not be the actual age,
2. Ptolemy wasn't born until 85 C.E., later than all the above manuscrpts. (
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html)
3. Aristole was born in 384 B.C.E (
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aristotl.htm)., however, he spent almost his entire life in Greece, leaving only to go to Lesbos Island (you have no idea how many porn links I got trying to research that) where he got married, but eventually went back to Athens. The idea of Israel meeting with Aristotle is highly doubtful. And word-of-mouth can hardly spread over lands that want the Israelites dead. Oh yes, Israel has always had quite the array of enemies. The chances that his teachings influenced these manuscripts is highly doubtful at best.
Does this prove the Bible correct on all points? No, of course not. But it does help prove the Bible isn't 100% wrong, either. If I could prove that 100% of the Bible is completely accurate, I'd have a job as a religious scholar instead of 'student'. Nobody can prove it or disprove it. That's obviously the case; after all, there are quite a few religions in the world, variations on those religions, etc.
Atheists aren't members of a religion (we've been arguing this with rccar ), but of course atheists have ****ed some **** up.
I know. Forgive me; I mistyped. I meant to point out that the religious aren't the only ones to make blunders, is all. My apologies for the confusion.
My point originally was the credibility. Creationism was first thought up by the early Egyptians and was passed on to all religions. Early people weren't all that credible, what with them believing things like the earth being flat and the center of the universe.
The Ancient Egyptians did believe that the world was flat, and they had indeed spread that over their region. But to say that religion itself stems from them is beyond inaccurate. After all, the Jews believed in one God, one Messiah, during the time period of their enslavement in Egypt! Someone had to allow them to believe, and it sure as hell wasn't the pharaoh.
Which creation story, specifically, should be discussed in a science classroom and why?
No specifics. Just the idea of evolution and the idea of creation, or "intelligent design" as the PC call it. Of course, I've never been accused of being PC. I say that the students, if left to their own devices, can make an intelligent decision.
Moreover, what has the supernatural and the mythical to do with science?
You just beautifully illustrated what I wouldn't want to see in a class. See, that statement seeks to damage the credibility of religion in general, and I'm asking for a completely unbiased lesson plan. That statement skews the whole thing in favor of evolution by passing it off as "just another myth". Well, let me tell you something: What if I told you that evolution was itself a myth? It does exactly what any myth of this type does: It tries to explain the history of the Earth, the history of animal species, and our place in the world. Touching. But the Bible is equally capable of accomplishing the same goals. Neither one can prove their case, however, which is why there is so much heated debate on the subject.
OK, scientists have proven that the Earth is far older than 6000 years by our reckoning. Proven it to be billions of years old. My answer is: Who cares? Does it not say in 2 Peter 3:8 that "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day"? So, when Genesis says that the Lord created the Earth in six days, he could be meaning 6000 years! If each day is to a thousand years, would that not age the Earth at approximately 4.5 billion years? That agrees with modern science, and I see no conflicts.
The myth of Atun speaking the world into existence really has little of scientific value. Nor does the Norse myth of two god-brothers creating the first humans from two logs on a beach. And as interesting as the myth of Pan Gu is, the Chinese god that died and left his body to create the world, it holds little of scientific value for biology, chemistry, physics, etc.
Again, I am not saying that specific creation stories should be taught! I am saying that students should be allowed to choose rather than indoctrinated into a single idea, such as the myth of evolution.
I'm afraid, however, that the desire to interject Christian creation myths in a biology classroom is obvious proselytizing and therefore unconstitutional.
Funny, that. Biology teachers attempt to convert people into believing in evolution (what did you do, put the word "convert" in a thesaurus?) without giving it a second thought. I was once cornered in a one-on-one with a biology teacher about this very subject. Without her precious internet buddies to back her up (server was down) she soon gave up. She did this because I snickered when she "proved" evolution's reality.
Since you attempted to damage the credibility of the Bible, I will do the same for the myth of evolution. Answer these questions:
Where is the next step in evolution? Why don't we see any trace of it?
What caused the first organic life to develop?
What caused that first process to begin?
Why are there no intermediate species? (Yes, I know that toucans from one island look different from toucans on another island. That process is called adaptation, not evolution. And there is a difference; Adaptation does not cause a new species. If it did, why don't we see evidence of this?)
Why does evolution only occur on one planet that we can find? After all, hasn't the universe had billions of years to create life? Yep. So where's the beef?
See, my "mythical" religion answers all of these questions. I have yet to get such answers from an evolutionist.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm)
Well, that's as close to bi-partisan as you can get. As a president I say he should not be using the office this way. As a person, he's doing what he should. Every religion attempts to convert others, but the President shouldn't be doing this. So, when he gets out of office he's fine, but now is not a good time for that.