'And a bit of a wit...'

I'll tell a witty story at the end of this post; meanwhile, thanks
for using that word instead of others you might have had in mind!

'Never surrender a premise, no matter...'

Are you talking about me or yourself here?

'The fact that something needs explaining...doesn't make it an error...'

Of course not.

'The fact that something doesn't fit your own predetermined world view...'

Who has the predetermined world view here?

'You have accepted a particular school of thinking...'

Not at all, but I respect Bible research and scholarship, especially
when conducted without denominational bias. This is why I hold the AB in such high regard.

'Your paraphrase...is not quite what I said.'

Actually, caf, I believe it's exactly what you said, "It isn't really
a motion verb. That's an accomodation to English"'

'"zarah" means to rise, come up...'

I'm not questioning that, but the NET says that the word used here
was 'JRZ', which DOES seem to be a motion verb.

'The sun appears in the morning...'

Well, not really in the way that a leprosy sore appears. The sun
SEEMS to 'rise' or 'come up' little by little. But that is only
an illusion - it is the earth that is moving.

'The Moody Bible Institute...'

Talk about a 'predetermined world view'!!! Chicagoans call it the
Mighty Booble Institute, but that is beside the point.

'In English, about the only way to say it is "sun rise". What other expression do we have?'

Well, for starters, how about daybreak, (crack of) dawn, sunup,
first light, hand me that Roget's Thesaurus and I'll give you a dozen more.

'(The geocentric universe) cannot be established as fact...'
'There is nothing observable or testable that excludes a geocentric universe'

Well, I'm not sure that you're saying what you seem to be saying
here - if you are, I think astronomers and cosmologists, of which
I am neither, would surely not only disagree, but provide all kinds
of proof to the contrary. As a layperson, let me provide just two, based on common sense:

1. Does the circumference of a circle have a center (that is a
center point on the line itself)? Does the SURFACE of a sphere,
such as the earth, have a center? I think not, and neither does
the universe, for the same reason. The word 'China', as you probably
know, means 'central kingdom'. Of course, to the ancient Chinese,
China was the center of the world. Unknown to them at the time, so was Rome, Jerusalem, etc.

2. If we assume that the earth is the center of the universe, then
not only our sun, but the entire universe must revolve around it,
and this can be easily observed with a telescope. Thus a star,
for example, 1 light year from earth (VERY close in astronomical terms)would have to circumnavigate an orbit (around the earth) of 6.28 light years (C=2piR) every 24 hours, far, far, beyond the speed of light, which is all the speed there is! Caf, I can't believe you're serious here, but again, maybe I'm misunderstanding you. If so, please explain.

'The Bible is not merely a human product with human understandings and misunderstandings.'

Here I disagree, but I have a problem with the word 'merely'. The
Bible is not a 'mere' book, but a very special one, and the reason
it is so special is the human scholarship that has gone into it,
for example, the painstaking assembly of Genesis, as we have discussed,
from pre-existing, unrelated threads. I have no problem with someone
claiming that the Holy Spirit guided this scholarship.

'Ecclesiastes...does not make the absurd errors of fact found in
the myths of all other peoples...'

Whoa, ALL other peoples? Talk about hasty generalizations, and
this also ignores the fact that much of the OT was itself 'borrowed'
from other cultures. Satan, for example, never mentioned before
1 Chronicles, comes from the Jews' exposure to Persian Zoroastrianism during the Exile.

'(You) have adopted a humanistic slash-and-burn approach to the Bible...'

I am not a humanist, and my experience has been that most humanists
don't have a great deal of interest in the Bible.

To continue the whole discussion of animals would be, I thimk, beating
a dead hors...excuse me, beating a dead camel, but...

'The Brittanica said...'

It's good that you use the EB as an expert reference, Caf. Published
by my former employer, the University of Chicago, the EB is indeed
a fine source of FACTS on almost anything. Have you ever read the
Macropedia section on Biblcal Literature? It addresses many of
the topics we've discussed here. Are their experts as knowledgable
here as with regard to rumination? I especially call to your attention
to the section on authorship and dating.

'When Jesus cites Leviticus, He cites Moses...when He cites Deuteronomy, He cites Moses...'

When I cited the Thesaurus a while ago, I cited Roget, whose name
is on it, tho' I realize he had nothing to do with writing it.

'Step away from your own traditions of humanistic denial of the Biblical text...'

As I mentioned briefly before, I have no such traditions. My mother's
family were German Catholics and Lutherans, my father's family Welsh
Congregationalists and Methodists, not a humanist to be found.
I would like to talk more about these 'family traditions' in a later post.

'He is not far from any of us, and we will find Him if we search. (Acts 17:27).'

Please continue to Acts 17:31: 'For He has fixed a day in which
He will judge the whole world by means of A MAN HE HAS CHOSEN (my
emphasis)' Chosen from among whom? We'll come back to this in a minute.

'Now, essay, "no claim of literal truth"?'

What I said was (go back and read it again) that the Writings were
a COMBINATION of the factual and the fictitious, with no claim of
total literal truth. I have no reason to doubt that Boaz married
Ruth, nor have I any reason to doubt, as you do, that the events
in Tobit took place just because they were recorded a few years later.

'You have a foregone conclusion...about Luke getting it wrong...'

No, caf, you have a foregone conclusion about Luke getting it right.
Secular history seems to confirm different dates and events than
he reports. Matthew himself contradicts Luke several times, leaving aside the genealogy.

'Hostility toward the information posted at that link...'

You are confusing hostility with indifference. As a matter of fact,
several of their stated beliefs are the same as my own. On others
we differ. There is no hostility. They are not attempting to have
their list of beliefs taught in public school science classes.

'You seem to say (repeatedly), "I will only consider evidence or
arguments if the source supports the conclusions I have already drawn"'

WHO seems to say this?

'Oh, you meant those other guys? No, I guess you meant me.'

Actually, I meant those other guys.

'The Bible....offers no hope of coming to God apart from Christ.'

Luke 10:25-28, John 5:28-29 do not support you here. One earns
eternal life, 'comes to God' as you say, by loving God, loving his
neighbor, keeping the commandments, helping the poor, just as Jesus taught.

'You are attacking a straw man here...poisoning the well...'

No, I'm not, nor am I gilding the lily or belling the cat.

'(Jesus) being equal with God...'

Mt 12:18 says, 'Here is my SERVANT, whom I have CHOSEN (I said we'd
come back to this - chosen from among whom?)'. Read Is 42:1-9 for
the entire quote, a CLASSIC description of the Messiah - the SON
of God, the MESSENGER of God, the SERVANT of God. Is that equal?
And by the way, why do you think God quoted Isaiah here, rather
than saying something original?

'...mis-statement about what the gospels and Paul say about the
resurrection appearances of Jesus.'

What is mis-stated? Mark, who presumably got his infromation from
Peter, says nothing about appearances. Zilch. Only that the women
found the tomb empty and 'they were afraid'. I am saying only that
the risen Christ does not seem to have been the same as before. When
Jesus raised Lazarus, by contrast, Lazarus was seemed to be much
the same as before he died. He looked the same, he didn't walk
thru walls, that we know of, he could be touched. The risen Christ
told MM not to touch Him? Why not? Is it possible there was nothing
physical to touch? Just asking. Also, Lazarus, one may assume,
eventually died again, sooner or later. It's not the same thing.

'I'm sure you don't believe Jesus walked on the water...'

Really, caf? You're sure of that? We'll come back to this.

'No, He didn't say "it would be within a few generations at the most".'

Well, here is precisely what He said: Mt 10:23, Mt 16:28. Mt 24:29-34.
'ALL THESE THINGS will happen before the people now living have
all died'. Is that a few generations? The quotation from 2 Peter
is not particularly relevent, and as we have discussed, 2 Peter
was a 2nd century AD plagiarism of Jude.

'Luke has the maternal genealogy...'

He doesn't say that, he say that Joseph was the son of Heli. Also,
Matthew identifies Mary's family as Levites.

'Adam the son of God...'

This ignores millions of years of humankind prior to the time of
Adam as indicated by the genealogies.

Finally, because you consider me a wit, and we have discussed walking
on water, I will relate the following story, which you may or may not have heard before:

-------

In a little town, somewhere in the USA, there are three houses of worship: a Catholic church, a Protestant Fundamentalist church, and a synagogue. The Fundamentalist preacher retires and a new, young preacher comes in from out of town to replace him. To welcome him, the priest and the rabbi invite him to go fishing, which he does. When they get a ways out in the boat, the priest says, 'I'm hungry! Rabbi, where's the picnic basket?'

'I don't have it', says the rabbi, 'I thought you brought it.'

'It's still under the tree', says the priest, 'I'll go get it.' The priest jumps out of the boat and - splish, splish, splish, splish - skims across the water, grabs the basket, and - splish, splish, splish, splish - back to the boat.

The preacher is impressed! 'Wow', he thinks, 'there may be more to Catholicism than holy cards and bingo!'

They all chow down on the sandwiches, which are delicious, when the rabbi says, 'Father, will you pass me a beer?' (The little town was in Wisconsin, and yes, they also brought some NEHI for the preacher).

'I don't have it', says the priest, 'I thought you brought it'.

'I can see it from here', says the rabbi, 'it's under the other tree. I'll get it.' The rabbi jumps out of the boat and - splish, splish, splish, splish - skims across the surface of the water, grabs the beer and the NEHI, and - splish, splish, splish, splish - right back to the boat.

Needless to say, the preacher is amazed. 'Well, the Bible says if you have enough faith, you can move mountains', he thinks, 'and of course, the Bible is always right.'

'Father, where's the opener?', asks the rabbi.

'I don't have it, rabbi, I thought you brought it with the beer. It must be back under the tree.'

'Gentlemen', says the preacher, 'relax - I'll go get it!' The preacher jumps out of the boat and sinks like an anvil to the bottom of the lake.

The rabbi turns to the priest and says, 'Father, when he comes up, maybe we should show him where the rocks are.'

------

Caf, I have no problem with Jesus walking on water, I have no problem with accepting things by faith that cannot be proven. Where we seem to differ, however, is that I also have no problem with knowing, or learning, where the rocks are. In this series of exchanges, I've tried to point out to you, and the other readers, where I think some of them are, or might be.

As soon as time permits, I'll reply to your later posts. It will probably be later in the week, after the holiday, so I'll say now,

'A Happy and Prosperous New Year to Everyone at Living Waters!'