Answers

Stephen:

That's a lot of trouble you went to. Would you concede that another way of phrasing it might be:

1) Being primitive, the writers/redactors of the creation myth were obliged to use metaphor and imagination, lacking as they did the exact physical terminology we have today.

2) In doing so, they left a *lot* of scope for interpretation, permitting their myth to be recast in the light of nearly *any* plausible cosmological speculations (current cosmology is too inherently limited for them to have theories).

3) Based on limited observations of the heavens, and more detailed observations of 1 (one) actual case, cosmologists have come up with rather a variety of possibilities for the nature of the big bang, the development of the observable universe, the formation of stars and planets. These are all tentative, and new observations with new equipment continue to present us with confounding surprises.

4) Nonetheless, we can find some way to interpret Genesis to fit the cosmological speculation-of-the-day, whatever it is, and then turn around and be amazed at the prescience Moses must have possessed! How did he do it? God simply must have whispered in his ear.

So OK, by carefully selecting specific aspects of current cosmological notions, and applying creatitivy to Genesis, we "discover" that the creation myth can be made to match (or at least not directly contradict) some of what we think we know today! But in this case, just what do we need Genesis for anyway?

At least the myth's originators had the good sense to keep things vague nearly to the point of meaninglessness. Our current specificity has the unfortunate side-effect of being demonstrated to be wrong quite regularly.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Has anyone seen the movie Dogma? It's one of those good/bad movies that leads one to think afterwards. It's DEFINITELY not suitable viewing for children, as the language used perhaps even exceeded MY tolerance level on the 'f' word, but it had a lot of other points that, IMO, led to questions. I watched it on T.V. last night.

Chris Rock played the role of the 13th apostle. He claimed that when it was written down, he was omitted because he's black. He ALSO claimed that Jesus was black, but the guys who wrote the story changed things. The heroine in the story didn't understand why SHE was chosen to stop two fallen angels from gaining entry to Heaven. The 13th apostle explained: "You are the great, great, great [continue on there] niece of Jesus." She said, "This is nonsense. Jesus had no brothers or sisters." He said, "Did you ever ask yourself why the bible jumps from a child to a man of 30? These books were left out intentionally to exclude the other children of Joseph and Mary. Joseph and Mary were married. Do you REALLY believe he wasn't 'getting any?'"

Personally, I think there are a LOT of unanswered questions in the book that so many believe, and I suppose I enjoyed the movie because it pointed out some of them.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Anita:

Jesus, according to what is written, did have brothers and probably sisters [women weren't all that important in that society, so this is an open question]. Of course this may not be true as it is [as far as I can tell] impossible to prove that Jesus existed. His existence is a matter of faith. Yes, much was changed. Paul was the master changer of facts.

I have spent decades studying this [since my many theology courses in undergrad school]. I have tens of thousands of pages of notes.

My experience is if you are a rational person and your religous beliefs are important to you; don't look into the matter.

Flint's analysis is a good one.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Z: I'm not a Christian, but I DO love the stories and I'm continuously fascinated by how folks interpret the Bible.

I think there was an article in the past several years in Smithsonian stating that there's no proof that Jesus ever existed. SO pointed it out to me. I take somewhat of a "Jeffersonian" stance on the whole thing. If one believes that Jesus is the son of God, one would [hopefully] follow the words of same [which basically includes things like being kind to others, etc.] I haven't seen that done much in practice, so, IMO, the whole religious base becomes a farce.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

An afterthought for Maria on another thread.

BIG BANG Originated with George Gamow. I actually had lectures from him in grad school. I knew his son Igor.

Hawking, my ass.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

All this sounds pretty reasonable but what in the world are we going to do with all these religious people?

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

All this sounds pretty reasonable but what in the world are we going to do with all these religious people?

Religion, IMO, is a lot like ice-cream. It comes in many flavors, some folks only like ONE flavor, while others enjoy sampling them all. My preference would be rocky-road. My mom won't THINK of eating anything but vanilla, but she doesn't care if someone else prefers another flavor. SO eats any flavor of ice-cream I buy.

My answer to your question would be to treat religious folks the same way you treat ice-cream folks.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Church of the Rocky Road. I like that. You guys have any statues?

Seriously (well sort of), there are a hell of a lot of religious people out there and most all pretty good folks. Aside from being the biggest charitable contributors they lend much to what's left of civility. They're fun to make fun of but don't you think we'd be sore without them?

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Carlos,

That last response was one of the best-said things I've read in a while. Religious political activists make up only a tiny fraction of the whole; most people who Believe (capital "B") live their lives quietly and without much fuss overall.

An aside: the other morning, Dobson had a well-known Hollywood producer on his show (was it Martha Williamson, Touched By An Angel?). They actually got into an argument over "agendas." Dobson wanted her to admit that "radical homosexuals" were using film and television to actively promote their lifestyle. She wouldn't budge.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Flint,

You haven't had the benefit of debating this with me at any length, so you've never received Stephen's Standard Disclaimer: I admit that you cannot "prove" the existence of God. I also admitted above that there are other interpretations.

There are problems with your assessment. First, cosmological theory is really beginning to mature. The idea that we are learning all sorts of radical new things that are likely to overthrow everything we ever thought we understood about the fundamentals is a popular misconception; the "new theories" that you refer to are really just refinements (albeit signficant ones) and tweaks to the old ones.

For example, star formation: there is no doubt whatsoever now that interstellar gasses contract via gravity, begin to fuse under pressure and become stellar objects. That's as close enough to a fact as makes no difference.

The theories are the things which MODEL how this happens so that we can make testable predictions. As we learn more, sure, we refine these theories. But our understanding of the basic mechanism is mature (shoot, it's GRAY-haired[g]). We can take it to the bank.

Likewise, the big bang: very few physicists question it anymore (regardless of what you might have read in Wired or People magazine[g]). The basic theory is accepted implicitly. What is debated are the arcane refinements that matter to those who are trying to figure out HOW it happened.

Whether this universe began as a singularity full of superstrings or as a quantam wave function caused by very high gravity doesn't alter the fact that this universe started very much smaller than at present size. See?

That leads me into the second problem with your assessment. I don't believe that chapter 1 of Genesis is allegorical; it is liturgical. (A fine point, and the operative word is "believe." But I would also add that, if you consider it a "myth," you do so from belief and not from any rational evidence that would compel that assessment, and the operative word HERE is "compel.")

If you will exercise your imagination and step inside my scenario for a moment, there is nothing in it that's unacceptable.

The fact that our interpretation of what he wrote down will change as new knowledge arrives can't be helped, either. I would be more concerned about that if I didn't KNOW that it happens all the time when reading ancient documents, anyway.

To give you an analogy, imagine that we read an ancient account that states that on a certain verifiable date, something "ate" the Sun. We might conclude that these ancients observed an eclipse. But later work reveals that a volcano exploded around that time and that the dust clouds occluded the Sun.

Our inability to determine precisely what the ancient SAW and tried to record doesn't mean that he didn't actually see and record it as faithfully as possible.

You might then respond that such accounts are worthless because they're not specific enough. Those who study history certainly wouldn't think so! What I have done above is something that happens in history departments at universities around the globe on a daily basis.

Finally (not an objection, a statement of belief), the Genesis account makes clear, declarative statements which can be positively disproven. This doesn't make it a scientific theory (don't be silly[g]), but it does make it something more than an allegory. For example, Genesis indicates that plant life came first.

The only qualification I can think of, using my "observer-of-the-day" interpretation, is that perhaps he couldn't see the subterranean proto-bacteria which was probably the first life on this planet. But that's not much of a dodge; our knowledge of the early Earth is become very detailed, too. The fact remains: Genesis makes declarative statements that can be disproven.

On the other hand, how could you demonstrate, with any assurance, that there were no Titans who gave birth to the Gods? That perhaps they really did create what we see with the appearance of age, and the Greeks were right all along? You can't.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Z,

So you met Gamow! Did he use the term "YLEM" in your presence? :)

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Stephen:

Well, just two quibbles here:

1) Most of what you quote is observation. Gee, there are seas and land. God created seas and land. Yes, that's a declarative sentence, but it's describing the way things are (except that the waters aren't all gathered to one place, but hey, details!). Indeed, most of those sentences describe the way things are. My reading is simply that the early storytellers looked around and saw day and night, and attributed it to God. Land and sea, light and darkness, plants and animals. In other words, it would be nearly impossible to deny any of those declarative sentences without denying what we can now see around us unequivocably. I consider the implied sequence of development's resemblance with current theory NOT to be a coincidence, because I read it as hazy enough to accommodate (as I said) nearly any plausible natural explanation.

2) The Genesis story has not *informed* our cosmology. It has not been a data source. To the extent that biblical accounts of *anything* have been considered valid data in natural history, they have served to cripple, rather than aid, scientific investigation. And I wouldn't be surprised if you could find elements of other creation myths that look good (or not too bad) today, from other cultures. But those aren't data sources either.

So if it makes you comfortable to use imagination and hindsight to find "accuracy" in the Genesis story, fine, enjoy. But from my perspective, this is strictly a matter of working backwards from belief. The proponents of *any* religion can and do find value in the tales handed down as part of their own religious heritage, and most of those tales are vague enough that you can find "scientific merit" in one interpretation or another, because the science came first.

So your perceived parallels are FAR more likely to derive from a strong desire to believe, than in anything anachronistic buried in the stories themselves.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Poole:

That was a long time ago. Edward Teller also gave some lectures in the course. Someone else [I believe Robert Oppenheimer] was supposed to speak but backed out. This was a course in chemical physics. Since I digressed into molecular biology, I don't even remember the content of the course let alone anything else. Hey it was the 60's. No one remembers anything from the 60's. Cool dude!

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Genesis is a tough read.

Still, some biblical stuff is coming round. Da Flood! Evidence now that the last ice age's retreat raised sea levels enough to pierce the Bosphorus and create the Black Sea. Living in that great basin and being driven out by seawater consuming miles a day would have made me pass on the story of a flood.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Carlos:

I thought that it covered the whole world and killed every living thing. Black sea doesn't do it for me.

Sure is a tough read, particularly in the original language [in Iraq] from whence it was copied. I, for one, never mastered that.

Cheers,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

It was the whole world if you lived there baby. We're talking some serious time ago where when neighboring tribes concur that this water deal is definately out of hand then indeed the whole "world" was flooded.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Flood mythology is fairly common; the Chinese have one about Yu, who saved China by building massive dams. I suspect it's because most civilizations start around rivers, and these are the kind of concerns you end up with when you live around a flood plain.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Flint,

On your first point, I could continue to frustrate you because of the precise wording used. "Let there be" and "made" (or "caused") aren't the same as "create" (which is used in the first verse). But now we really are getting into interpretation, and I'll admit that, when you get that nit-picky, twenty different people could easily form twenty different conclusions. :)

I will also point out that, when the Earth first formed, all of the seas WERE gathered to "one place" with one "supercontinent" (around the South Pole, believe it or not) -- or again, near enough as makes no difference.

Besides, the "observer" -- someone standing in the spot where Earth is being formed -- would have see the seas recede into "one place," anyway.

Your second point:

The Genesis story has not *informed* our cosmology.

Of course not; that's not its purpose, anymore than that account of the Sun being "eaten" would be written by ancient "scientists" to inform ours of the modern day.

Don't misunderstand my purpose in creating this little ditty. Didn't I say that the Bible isn't a science textbook? Even if I'm dead-on correct, the first 8-10 billion years of the cosmos are dismissed with a single sentence in the Genesis account!

All I'm trying to show is that the popular misconception amongst the digeratti -- that the Genesis account is hopelessly (emphasis mine) at odds with what we know about the early Earth -- is ITSELF based on BELIEF. There is no hard evidence which would compel that viewpoint.

(Look: I get just as nervous as you when I see Morris and Gish insisting that Genesis 1 should be read as literal history.[g])

Z,

And while I'm on a roll, the idea that the Genesis account is "based" on other accounts (from Persia or Babylon) is itself a matter of belief. :)

It's certainly your right to believe that, but there is no hard evidence to COMPEL (and again, the operative word is "compel") that viewpoint.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Stephen:

This is kind of fun. Onward into your comments...

[I will also point out that, when the Earth first formed, all of the seas WERE gathered to "one place" with one "supercontinent" (around the South Pole, believe it or not) -- or again, near enough as makes no difference.]

Well, two things about that. (1) What do you mean by "first formed". We have various scenarios, but these start with a molten body, with water a relative latecomer, probably from comets. (2) Gondwanaland seems the best explanation for some of our genetic divergence and convergence (and some retrocalculation of plate tectonics), but this only implies (strongly) that such a supercontinent once existed. There are some suggestions that plate tectonics *formed* this continent as well as broke it up later. I have not before seen the claim that this form represented the "first" land formation after things had cooled enough and enough water had been collected for such things as continents to become meaningful. Some geophysicists have the equivalent of Gondwanaland forming and breaking up several times over 2-3 billion years.

[Besides, the "observer" -- someone standing in the spot where Earth is being formed -- would have see the seas recede into "one place," anyway.]

I seem to have misunderstood you in this case. Is your observer standing somewhere on the surface of the earth, or in geosynchronous orbit, or what? I can understand the part where God is simplifying his Word to the point where primitive hunter gatherers can make sense of it, but why does God's restricted vocabulary constrain his frame of reference so severely?

I guess my point is that I see no particularly compelling reason to consider anything in Genesis at all. I feel more like an anthropologist, looking at various tales from the past heritage of various cultures, and seeing them as providing rallying points for those cultures, something that makes each culture unique. What possible difference could it make, and how could it possibly be important, whether or not *any* of those tales can be stretched to fit current scientific views? That's surely NOT their purpose. Kind of like noticing that the rate at which I'm gaining weight somewhat matches the current rate of highway building in India. Neither says anything about the other, nor is it supposed to.

You might enjoy finding meaningless correlations as a hobby, but when you go to the obvious effort you did, there is a strong implication that you *think* there is something meaningful there, that maybe we have a hint here of cosmological anachronism unexplainable except through supernatural means. And this implication isn't your style. You are usually more direct.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

This is kind of fun.

Yes, it is. By the way ... you may have heard of Jack Crenshaw, the guy quoted at the beginning of that article; he's a regular contributor to Embedded Systems, among other magazines.

(1) What do you mean by "first formed". We have various scenarios ...

I have got to finish the articles and get them posted online, because we now know more. Our knowledge had exploded just in the past 10 years.

Just to give you an idea of that statement, here's the first image from an animated GIF taken from a (IIRC) the US Geological Survey Web site (I've compressed it so it won't take forever to load):

This is the Earth approximately 3.5-4 billion years ago.

water a relative latecomer

No. This is one of those cases where we now know more, much more. Water was here to start with. Some was ADDED by cometary impacts, but good ol' H2O was here almost from the beginning.

Is your observer standing somewhere on the surface of the earth ...?

That's not so clear. :)

You might enjoy finding meaningless correlations as a hobby, but when you go to the obvious effort you did, there is a strong implication that you *think* there is something meaningful there, that maybe we have a hint here of cosmological anachronism unexplainable except through supernatural means.

No. Now YOU are misreading ME. Take me at face value here: I meant what I said. The original reason why that article was even prepared was because I was addressing the common belief (conceit) on the part of some that, if you believe the Bible, you are forced to abandon what science has discovered about nature in the past 50-100 years. In fact, the opposite is true.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything, save for my initial assertion above: if you choose to believe that there's nothing to Genesis, that's your right, but the operative word is "choose." There's no hard evidence that would COMPEL that viewpoint.

That's IT. Don't look for hidden meanings of subtleties; there are none. My agenda is on my sleeve here. :)

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Flint,

PS - it might help you understand my motives, too, if I mentioned that the series of articles from which that was taken was written as much for *CHRISTIANS* as for non-believers.

(In particular, I wrote it for Fundies, who seem to think that dispensing with anything related to science is Step One toward becoming a good Believer.)

(As someone who loves, and who is fascinated by, science, that attitude bothers me.[g])

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Stephen:

Dang, words are slippery. Let me try again. Based on your paragraph:

[I'm not trying to "prove" anything, save for my initial assertion above: if you choose to believe that there's nothing to Genesis, that's your right, but the operative word is "choose." There's no hard evidence that would COMPEL that viewpoint.]

I'm hard pressed to understand just how what I wrote was misconstrued. Was I that opaque? I simply do not know what you mean by the words "believe there's nothing to" Genesis. What do you mean by "nothing"? Are you proposing that any similarities you find between this particular creation story and current cosmological thinking are (1) Coincidence, (2) Anachronism, (3) Creative reading, or (4) Irrelevant?

I know that the tales and myths dear to human cultures and subcultures are just that - dear. This is not "nothing". It's very important. Cultures *are* their history. I don't see that the Genesis stories present any cosmological or scientific insights, nor do I think such myths would be any less valuable (that there would be less "to" them) if they were clearly silly (who is the creationist now teaching that the craters on the moon are from battles between the devil and the angels? Now *that's* entertainment!)

Incidentally, I'm picking (3), creative reading. I just don't see why you bother. Do you really think Genesis loses any punch if you read it as pure allegory? Why? I believe (yes, believe) that you are finding what isn't there, but I can't help wondering why you look. Do you think this makes the Hebrew tales more "real" or more "accurate" than, say, the Hopi's?

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Stephen:

PS -- I think you may be doing Christians a disservice here. Do you suppose the Hopis, with their wild creation stories, are even more inclined to reject science? This hasn't been the case to my knowledge. I think trying to tell Christians that the Bible's tales have a plausible scientific basis is dangerously misleading, given the propensity for some people to say "Aha! I *knew* the bible was Truth all along!" I think it's less misleading to view such tales within a context of moral instruction, and NOT cosmology. Genesis really needs a facepage saying "Any resemblance between these stories and reality is purely coincidental and not intended by the authors"!

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Flint,

The failure to communicate is probably more on my part than yours.

I believe that the writer of Genesis was given a "vision" (for lack of a better term) of what happened during the creation of this planet, which vision he then struggled to record in the language of his day.

(And yes, the operative word here is DEFINITELY "believe." Don't ask me to prove THAT one or we'll be here a while.[g])

Now: why do I bother?

An example. Think of the countless scientists who happen to be devout Christians and who wish to reconcile their beliefs to, say, the theory of (macro)evolution. They want to believe that the Bible is an accurate historical record, so they have no choice: they must come up with interpretations like the one I invented above.

I've simply let you have a glimpse into HOW I did the same thing, in essense, for myself.

I think trying to tell Christians that the Bible's tales have a plausible scientific basis is dangerously misleading, given the propensity for some people to say "Aha! I *knew* the bible was Truth all along!"

Why would you consider it "dangerous" for people to conclude that the Bible is Truth? You don't understand why I should go to this much trouble because for you, it's a simple matter: the Bible is NOT Capital-T Truth, so why waste time?

But put yourself in my shoes: IF I really believe that God created man for special fellowship with Him, and that He caused the Bible to be written as a record of that, then it SHOULD accurately reflect (even if only incidentally) what we know about nature and history.

Otherwise, you DO have something that is a contradication on its face: a Book which claims to be "Truth," but which makes obvious and fundamental mistakes, thus discrediting ITSELF from the git-go.

And that brings us back to the "we now know more" thing. In the past, all sorts of irreconciliable contraditions have been imagined between the Bible and the record of history. But new knowledge indicates that possibly -- just possibly -- the Bible was right all along.

Yes, as a Bible-believing Christian, that's important to me. Surely you can understand that?

I think it's less misleading to view such tales within a context of moral instruction, and NOT cosmology.

The thing I'd change to that sentence would be, "view such tales as someone trying to record God's relationship with man." Aside from that, believe it or not, I don't really diagree with it.

Words ARE slippery. It's apparently very difficult for me to get this distinction across: I'm not claiming that the Bible is a scientific reference. What I AM claiming is that the Bible is not at odds with modern science.

Finally, just because some people might misunderstand my purpose for writing is no reason to avoid the effort. (This problem is by no means limited to religion, either.)

PS - the thing about craters on the moon has actually been around for years. I heard it as a kid; it keeps making a comeback. I have also heard that hurricanes are battles between angelic forces and that the Bermuda Triangle is the Gate of Hell. :)

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

To bring those up to date who haven't read the Bible since Sunday School:

(1) There has never been a figure who changed human history as much as Jesus Christ. A poor carpenter from Nazareth. There must have been something going on with that guy, above and beyond appearances. That one poor carpenter has rocked empires, and changed the course of human history like no other person. About that there can be no argument.

(2) Jesus claimed divinity. He told the Jews, "Before Abraham was, I am." - John 8:58. They took up stones to kill Him; they well knew He was claiming to be the Being that spoke to Moses from out of the burning bush. (Exodus chapter 3.)

He also claimed to be able to forgive sins. Matthew 9:2. This was considered blasphemy (Matt. 9:3) because only God can forgive sins.

What am I getting to? Just this:

Jesus Christ considered the Old Testament to be God's Word.

"Thy word is truth." - John 17:17. Jesus was praying to God the Father here; to any Jew living in Palestine at that time, God's Word was equivalent to the Old Testament. The New Testament was not yet written.

So Jesus Himself considered the Old Testament to be "truth".

He took the Old Testament quite seriously.

"And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but Him they saw not. Then He said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself." -- Luke 24:24-27.

"And when He had thus spoken, He shewed them His hands and His feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And He took it, and did eat before them. And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me." -- Luke 24:40-44.

Jesus took the Old Testament quite seriously. "Thy Word is truth."

If God in human flesh considered the Old Testament to be the real deal; who is any lesser being (i.e. every other human who has ever lived) to poo-poo that idea?

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

BTW --

I saw it said somewhere the the King James translation of the Bible might be an "archaic" version.

Not so. It is absolutely the best version available, though it's coming up on 500 years old.

(1) It's a known fact among the English-speaking world that the English language was at its height in the early 17th century. Shakespeare, Bacon, the Globe Theatre. It was in such an atmosphere that the King James Bible was translated.

(2) the KJV had a much higher level of 'peer review' than any Bible translation before or since. Every word, every sentence had to pass muster with another committee of reviewers, many of whom completely disagreed with the original submission team. There had to be a final agreement between many various divergent camps of belief. This has not been the case with later translations.

(3) the KJV has a much closer agreement with the original languages. The later versions (RSV, NIV, NAB, RKJV) have all translated certain passages according to the translators' personal religious biases. ('political correctness' crept into the later translations, so to speak)

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Anyone ever experience anything that leads you to believe that you cease to exist after death?

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

Poole:

And while I'm on a roll, the idea that the Genesis account is "based" on other accounts (from Persia or Babylon) is itself a matter of belief. :)

Good point, but a virtually exact copy, given the translation problems, is good enough for me. Doesn't require too much belief. This, however, doesn't invalidate the work, in iteself, just questions the origin with the "dusty travelers" as the name means.

You might want to speak a bit about El as we discuss intellectual piracy.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Cherri:

Remember back in the days of y2k, when people demanded you provide PROOF that embeddeds would NOT fail at rollover? At that time, you seemed quite intimately familiar with the logical fallacy of proving a negative.

Yet here you are asking someone to provide proof that you DO NOT continue living somehow after death. Have you forgotten your logic already?

No life after death is the default. It can be unequivocally, resoundingly disproved by only one, single counterexample. There have so far been none.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Ah, the subject of Satan's first lie to mankind.

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die." -- Genesis 3:4.

In one form or another, mankind has believed that ever since.

The Old Testament Hebrews knew nothing of such a concept, that of an 'immortal soul' that continues to live and think after death.

Even the New Testament says that only God has immortality. 1 Timothy 6:16. Only He can give it to those who do not possess it.

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." -- Ecclesiastes 9:5.

"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." -- Psalms 146:4.

"The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence." -- Psalms 115:17.

"David is not ascended into the heavens." -- Acts 2:34.

***

A most famous account: Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after he had been dead for "four days". John 11:39. Even Jesus Himself said, "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep." -- John 11:11.

Jesus indeed raised Lazarus from the dead. BUT -- what did Lazarus talk about, having been raised from the dead? Did he speak of the wonders of heaven? Or the horrors of hell? Or anything at ALL about what he saw after he died? NO HE DID NOT. At least, there is no Bible account of it -- but certainly if Lazarus had had things to say about life after death, which would be pretty remarkable comments; the Bible would have recorded such comments. But the Bible record is SILENT.

Simply because dead people don't see or do ANYTHING. They "sleep". Just as Jesus said.

Until the resurrections.

The idea of an 'immortal soul' that lives on after death wasn't universally known or spread around in the ancient world until the writings of Plato; who was a pagan Greek. Certainly it had its origins earlier; but has no root in early Hebrew thought. It is 100% pagan in origin.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Flint said: "No life after death is the default. It can be unequivocally, resoundingly disproved by only one, single counterexample. There have so far been none."

Guess you've never heard of Jesus Christ, Mr. Wizard.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Flint, you are assuming again. I did not ask if anyone had proof of life after death, or proof of heaven or anything like that. You seem to think I am so set in my views that I am incapable of an open mind and changing same. I am always learning, I welcome other views because I don't know everything and am not always right (I was wrong once so I know this).

Actually, a few years ago I was injected with substance and had an allergic reaction to and went into anaphylactic shock which stopped my heart. I experienced something and was wondering if others had experienced the same thing.

Don't be so quick to assume my intentions :o)

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001