"Nor is it useful for us to go around believing that we are the chosen ones simply because we have faith, because it is ultimately up to God, and we don't know God's criteria." Really? I John 5:11-13 11 And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. 13...more

"Nor is it useful for us to go around believing that we are the chosen ones simply because we have faith, because it is ultimately up to God, and we don't know God's criteria."

Really? I John 5:11-13
11 And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.

Seems like God's criteria is pretty clear, and He wants us to KNOW if we have eternal life.less

David wasn't referring to heaven, per se. The Jews of his day had no understanding of heaven and hell as we think of them. All who died went to "sheol" - the grave, a shadowy place of existence never fully described in scripture. Later Jews believed Sheol was divided into two places, one for the wicked and one for the righteous, sometimes called paradise. I hope that helps.

Baty, wasn't it YOU who accused Mathetes of doing SECRET RESEARCH? Wasn't it YOU who castigated him/her for spending hours trying to find something on you? You, sir, are a HYPOCRITE of the worst kind, pointing the finger at others while doing worse things yourself. Titus 3:10-11 - NKJV 10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, 11 knowing that such a person is warped...more

Baty, wasn't it YOU who accused Mathetes of doing SECRET RESEARCH? Wasn't it YOU who castigated him/her for spending hours trying to find something on you?

You, sir, are a HYPOCRITE of the worst kind, pointing the finger at others while doing worse things yourself.

Titus 3:10-11 - NKJV
10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,
11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.less

Cheisa said: "While the BIble does record some historical events..." Would you mind telling me which events are not historical? How do you know the difference between the ones which you interpret as historical and the ones which you interpret as not historical?

Been teaching mostly Bachelor of Science students for over 10 years, with some BA students also.

Ketch, I don't know, but when you figure it out, will you let me know?

RLBaty said: "Thou art the man, "ProfPete"! Thou art the man!" Thanks, Robert. I guess that's how it sounds in KJV English. My students say, "You da man, Doc! You da man!"

Since you in no way have shown how my post contains any pseudo-science, you are merely trying to lessen the impact of the facts presented through the logical fallacy called "appeal to ridicule." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule) Grow up.

RLB asked of ProfPete below: "Weren't you the same fellow who was seen complaining about a lack of references, which weren't necessary for the purposes of my message, and now, in making some rather serious charges against me, you fail to provide anything I actually said to support what I claim are your false charges against me." Wow, you must put Matt. 7:1-2 at the end of your posts because yo...more

RLB asked of ProfPete below:
"Weren't you the same fellow who was seen complaining about a lack of references, which weren't necessary for the purposes of my message, and now, in making some rather serious charges against me, you fail to provide anything I actually said to support what I claim are your false charges against me."

Wow, you must put Matt. 7:1-2 at the end of your posts because you know so much about hypocrisy. You claim that I failed to provide proof to support my claim, when the proof was in your own posts just a little ways down the page for all to see (if you haven't deleted them). Then you have the nerve to say that I am "complaining about a lack of references" to some alleged expert (Muller) you cited from off-site, who turns out not to be an expert at all.

Hypocrisy much?
And you seem surprised that no one wants to play with Li'l Robert? Boo hoo hoo....less

Rev, you seem to know RLB better than anyone else, so let's see: Wikipedia: "According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include: 1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts." Check. That definitely describes Baty. "2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important." Check. Ever ...more

Rev, you seem to know RLB better than anyone else, so let's see:
Wikipedia: "According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:
1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts."
Check. That definitely describes Baty.

"2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important."
Check. Ever since Baty burst on the scene at CP, he has badgered and bullied people in an attempt to make them accept his challenge, because he feels YECs are holding back the church and the YECs must be stopped.

"3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial."
Check. Plenty of documentation of that below. Baty was wrong about Muller, but he won't admit it.

"4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions."
Bingo! It doesn't matter what the CP article is about, Baty was pushing his Goliath of old-earth ideas.

Thanks, Rev. You have ably proved your premise that Baty is a Crank. Carry on.less

Thanks, Rev. That definition definitely applies to the one who keeps regurgitating his Goliath of GRAS ad nauseum. Carry on.

Whatever. You were wrong, but your pride won't let you admit it. Instead, you throw up smoke screens and strain at a gnat, while swallowing the camel. You believed a bad source, and when shown a better source, you pretend it never happened. You show what kind of man you are, RLB, and it ain't pretty.

By all means, RLB, ignore the massive evidence that you were wrong in following Muller, and that the Tahitian people, like the Miao and over 200 other cultures, preserve in their histories stories of creation and a worldwife flood, all bearing many similarities to the original events recorded in Genesis. Instead focus on a miniscule difference that amounts to nothing, and try to make a mountain ou...more

By all means, RLB, ignore the massive evidence that you were wrong in following Muller, and that the Tahitian people, like the Miao and over 200 other cultures, preserve in their histories stories of creation and a worldwife flood, all bearing many similarities to the original events recorded in Genesis. Instead focus on a miniscule difference that amounts to nothing, and try to make a mountain out of it. Surely that will keep people from seeing that you were wrong.less

You know, it sure is funny how there's always one vote for Agree within a minute of you posting your comments. I know it's neither Ketch nor I, yet we three are the only ones active on this article. Are you voting for yourself, RLB?

[excerpt continued from previous post] In this case, I believe the probability is that the story of the creation of the first woman from the bone of a man existed among the Tahitians before their intercourse with Christians, but I need hardly add that the similarity between the Polynesian name for bone, ivi, even when it was used as the name of the first woman, and the English corruption of the...more

[excerpt continued from previous post]
In this case, I believe the probability is that the story of the creation of the first woman from the
bone of a man existed among the Tahitians before their intercourse with Christians, but I need hardly add that the similarity between the Polynesian name for bone, ivi, even when it was used as the name of the first woman, and the English corruption of the Hebrew mn, Chavah, Eve, could be the result of accident only. Whatever Chavah meant in Hebrew, whether life or living or anything else, it never meant bone, while the Tahitian ivi, the Maori wheva meant bone, and bone only.
[end excerpt]
(found at http://www.archive.org/stream/chipsfromgermanw05mluoft/chipsfromgermanw05mluoft_djvu.txt)

Notice Muller never gave his source for his knowledge of the Tahitian or Maori words. On the other hand, William Ellis lived in the South Pacific for 14 years and published his “Polynesian Researches” in 3 volumes (1829-32). Calder, Lamb and Orr said of this work: “Ellis’ Polynesian Researches is probably the most important source of information about Polynesian cultures in the first half of the nineteenth century.” (Voyages and Beaches: Pacific Encounters, 1769-1840; p. 228).

Notice what Muller himself wrote: "I believe the probability is that the story of the creation of the first woman from the bone of a man existed among the Tahitians before their intercourse with Christians." Points to Genesis as the origin of all these creation and flood stories.

Regarding "ivi" you can go with Muller if you like, but I think Ellis sounds like more of an expert on Polynesian language and culture. So I stand by what I wrote about the relationship between Genesis and the Tahitian creation story.less

RLB, I can understand why you would not want to divulge your source for the Muller quote you gave concerning Tahitian "ivi": it comes from a footnote in a Theosophist book “The Secret Doctrine” by H.P. Blavatsky. That is the only book “referenced numerous times in simply Googling the subject” as you said. I’m sure Blavatsky has no ax to grind with Christianity. ;-) However, I wasn�...more

RLB,
I can understand why you would not want to divulge your source for the Muller quote you gave concerning Tahitian "ivi": it comes from a footnote in a Theosophist book “The Secret Doctrine” by H.P. Blavatsky. That is the only book “referenced numerous times in simply Googling the subject” as you said. I’m sure Blavatsky has no ax to grind with Christianity. ;-)

However, I wasn’t satisfied with ending with Blavatsky, so I looked until I found the primary document. Here is an excerpt from Muller’s Chips from a German Workshop. Muller includes Ellis’ Tahitian story and then disagrees with Ellis about the meaning of the Tahitian word “ivi”:

[begin excerpt]
The same remark applies to a curious coincidence pointed out many years ago by Mr. Ellis in his
"Polynesian Researches" (London, 1829, vol. ii. p. 38). We there read : —

"A very generally received Tahitian tradition is that the first human pair were made by Taaroa, the principal deity formerly acknowledged by the nation. On more than one occasion I have listened to the details of the people respecting his work of creation. They say that, after Taaroa had formed the world, he created man out of araea, red earth, which was also the food of man until bread first was made. In connection with this some relate that Taaroa one day called for the man by name. When he came, he caused him to fall asleep, and, while he slept, he took out one of his ivi, or bones, and with it made a woman, whom he gave to the man as his wife, and they became the progenitors of mankind. This," Mr. Ellis continues, " always appeared to me a mere
recital of the Mosaic account of creation, which they had heard from some European, and I never placed any reliance on it, although they have repeatedly told me it was a tradition among them before any foreigners arrived. Some have also stated that the woman's name was Ivi, which would be by them pronounced as if written Uve. Ivi is an aboriginal word, and not only signifies a bone, but also a widow, and a victim slain in war. Notwithstanding the assertion of the natives, I am disposed to think that Ivi, or Eve, is the only aboriginal part of the story, as far aa
tt respects the mother of the human race. Should more careful and minute inquiry confirm the truth of this declaration, and prove that their account was in existence among them prior to their intercourse with Europeans, it will be the most remarkable and valuable oral tradition of the origin of the human race yet known."
[excerpt continued in next post]less

By the way, here's another web site that describes the content of the poem, or as they call it, the "ancient song." Notice this is not from a Christian web site, but one run by the Ministry of Culture, People's Republic of China. http://www.chinaculture.org/focus/2008-04/10/content_129927.htm

Regarding your next point: “Other flood myths collected from the Miao differ greatly from Traux's version and yet are consistent in their details: A brother and sister survive the flood in a wooden drum or boat. The Lord of the Sky causes the water to drain. In the absence of other survivors, the brother wants to marry the sister. The sister resists but is persuaded when tests show it is the wi...more

Regarding your next point:
“Other flood myths collected from the Miao differ greatly from Traux's version and yet are consistent in their details: A brother and sister survive the flood in a wooden drum or boat. The Lord of the Sky causes the water to drain. In the absence of other survivors, the brother wants to marry the sister. The sister resists but is persuaded when tests show it is the will of heaven. Their child is limbless and egg-like; when cut into pieces, the pieces become new people. In some versions, different pieces become different ethnic groups or clans. (Geddes 1976, 22-24; Johnson and Yang 1992, 115-117). This myth follows the same pattern which is common throughout Southeast Asia (Dang Nghiem Van 1993).”

First, the other Miao from which flood stories were collected, as shown in your references, are not the people of China with whom Truax ministered. Geddes dealt with tribes in Thailand, while Johnson wrote of those in Laos. Why do you find it surprising that Truax reported a different story told by his tribe of Miao people?

Second, even the stories you report have their similarities to the Genesis story. Relatives (brother and sister) are spared from the flood – who do you think married to produce Noah’s great-grandchildren? The Lord of the Sky causes the water to recede – same in Genesis. Different ethnic groups and clans proceed from the one family – ever read Genesis 10-11? Many of the children of Noah’s sons went on to found cities and civilizations throughout Africa, Europe, and western Asia. Japheth went towards southern Europe; Greek legends say the founder of Greece was Iapetos (the Greek form of the Hebrew Yapheth). Mizraim founded Egypt and is still the preferred name of Egypt for many Egyptians - you’ll find it on the big sign outside the Cairo airport: Mizraim International Airport.

So your criticism of the Miao story, as well as that of Ernest Truax and his translation, is without merit.less

I only have a few minute between classes, but I’ll try to enter a quick response to your points. “That particular version of a Miao flood myth appears to be unique to Traux. The editor of the Impact article notes that they cannot confirm its authenticity. It was probably a retelling of the story of Noah which a missionary had told that group of Miao earlier.” First, Edgar’s name is T...more

I only have a few minute between classes, but I’ll try to enter a quick response to your points.

“That particular version of a Miao flood myth appears to be unique to Traux. The editor of the Impact article notes that they cannot confirm its authenticity. It was probably a retelling of the story of Noah which a missionary had told that group of Miao earlier.”

First, Edgar’s name is Truax, like Ernest (the missionary who worked among the people for years and translated the poem into English) and his widow Ellen. Their relationship to Edgar is unknown to me.

Second, you use part of a paragraph to cast doubt on the authenticity of the story. Perhaps readers should read the whole context:

“This remarkable account of creation and the flood apparently has been handed down generation after generation from the ancestors of the Miao tribespeople in the mountains of southwest China, for they possessed this legend before they met missionaries.” (http://www.icr.org/article/genesis-according-miao-people/)

Further: “Although many legends of creation and the flood have been preserved, only a few have included the story of Babel and the post-flood dispersion. This is surely one of the most Bible-like of all these traditions, and bears significant independent testimony to the truth of the record in Genesis. Even though we have been unable so far to locate anyone who can confirm the authenticity of the Miao tradition or the accuracy of its translation, it clearly has the ring of truth about it and we can believe it is authentic until someone can prove otherwise. Its differences from the Biblical account clearly show its source was not directly from the Bible or early Christian missionaries (if any), but its similarities are so striking as to imply that it came from the same original source - namely, the events themselves!” (Ibid.)

Do you have a reason to doubt the word of Ernest and Ellen Truax? If so, please share it with the rest of us. Otherwise, I’m inclined to believe this man who dedicated so many years to serving God. He said they had this story for many generations before they encountered a missionary. If they told Truax that he was the first missionary they had met, do you doubt the tribe too?less

Sorry to hear about your computer problems. Yes, the English proper name “Eve” is not exactly the same as the Hebrew “Chavah,” but anyone familiar with languages know how a word will change in translation, though the two words are related (Petros = Pierre = Peter). By the way, you neglected to give your source on Muller; since he appears to contradict Frazer, I’d like to look at it mysel...more

Sorry to hear about your computer problems. Yes, the English proper name “Eve” is not exactly the same as the Hebrew “Chavah,” but anyone familiar with languages know how a word will change in translation, though the two words are related (Petros = Pierre = Peter). By the way, you neglected to give your source on Muller; since he appears to contradict Frazer, I’d like to look at it myself.

Here’s another example, this one from the history of the Miao people of China:

“The Patriarch Lama begat the man Nuah.
His wife was the Matriarch Gaw Bo-lu-en.
Their sons were Lo Han, Lo Shen and Jah-hu.”
(http://www.icr.org/article/genesis-according-miao-people/)

Anyone familiar with the Bible will recognize these names from the fifth chapter of Genesis: Lamech became the father of Noah, who became the father of Ham, Shem, and Japheth. According to the translator, the Miao version is preserved in a poem which is recited at every marriage and funeral; this helps explain why they have preserved the details so exactly.less