They have found grain in the pyramids, but small amounts buried along with the other treasures as part of the burial ritual. Since grain was "stored" there then they were technically used to "store" grain.
That's technically true, but irrelevant, at least in the context of what Carson said. Carson's comment was that the pyramids were built by Joseph to store grain. This is significant because Joseph prophesied seven years of famine and urged the Egyptians to store grain against it (Ge41). So anything built "by Joseph to store grain" would have to hold a lot of grain.
Carson is a Seventh-day Adventist, and hence a young-earth creationist. (Yes, I know. It's mind-boggling, isn't it?) And he's stood by the remark. So almost certainly he was being (and continues to be) serious.
I'm not sure if this shows he is really serious or exactly the opposite.
In Poland there is a guy, Janusz Palikot, who in 2005 owned a "Christian", anti-(many things including LGBT) newspaper but later sold it and founded a pro-LGBT, anti-religion political party.
"God has revealed in Scripture the authentic and historical account of His creative activity. He created the universe, and in a recent six-day creation the Lord made “the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” and rested on the seventh day."
Yes, they quote the bible. Yes, many Christian churches quote the same text and call it the same. No, it does not mean all Seventh Day Adventists are young earth creationists.
I didn't say all 7DAs were YECs. But the fact of the matter is that YEC is the church's official position. And Ben Carson is on record as believing in a six-day creation, and professing ignorance of the age of the earth. So we can quibble over the YE part, but not the C part. Ben Carson is without question a creationist.
Really? You want to hold me feet to the fire over my use of the word "hence"? Very well, let me be as excruciatingly precise as I can.
Ben Carson self-identifies as Seventh-Day Adventist (7DA). Hence, if he follows the doctrine of the church he professes to believe in, he is a YEC.
Now, it is possible for someone to self-identify as a 7DA and not be a YEC, just as it is possible for someone to self-identify as a Catholic and deny the authority of the pope, at least on some matters (e.g. all the self-identified Catholics who deny that the use of birth control is a mortal sin). But Ben Carson is clearly a creationist. He's said so on numerous occasions. Arguing over whether he is a YEC or some other flavor of creationist is really whittling at the margins. He's specifically proclaimed ignorance of the age of the earth. He uses YEC code words like "evolutionist" and "micro-evolution".
Finally, it would be exceedingly peculiar for a 7DA to not be a YEC. The name of the sect derives from their belief in Biblical literalism, and specifically from their belief in creation as described in Genesis. A 7DA who is not a creationist would be like a Mormon who thinks Joseph Smith was a con man. Again, not impossible. People can self-identify as anything they want, and once you've abandoned science and reason anything is possible. But it would be really, really weird.
Source for which? For grain in general? For Josef supposedly being the one to store it? Or for the pyramids having nothing to do with the Jews being slaves in Egypt?
For Hollywood. You said that associating pyramids with Biblical events was their idea, so I thought that maybe there was some particular movie which spawned this meme.
I don't think it's created by Hollywood. I don't think it'd be all that odd to assume they might be the legendary grain silos when they'd just been found and hadn't been opened up yet. It's just that after they've been opened and examined, and we know a lot more about them, it's silly to cling to something that's so obviously false.
Ben Carson is a Seventh-day Adventist and he does believe that the Pyramids of Giza were built by the Biblical Joseph to store grain. I'm sure he's also interested in gaining the support of Christian and Jewish voters but this is ultimately an example of one of his personal beliefs.
>According to Jewish history Josef stored grain in the year 1532BCE, but the pyramids were mostly finished by 1759BCE, more than 200 years earlier. If you are going to base a belief in the Bible, maybe actually know what it says first?
Well, if you're going to base a belief in the Bible, why take an outside estimation (the 1759BCE number) into account at all?
It's not an outside estimation, it's based on dates written in the bible. You don't get to believe in the bible and claim a significantly different date for this event.
Carson's position is simply illogical. Either he doesn't know the bible well, or he disagrees with the estimated dates for the construction of the pyramids.
I suspect it's the former, not the latter. He definitely doesn't get my vote.
>It's not an outside estimation, it's based on dates written in the bible.
The 1759 BCE chronology is based on when archeology says the pyramids were finished. Which is very much an outside estimation -- someone who believes in the Bible can just sidestep it as an inaccurate estimation by archeologists.
In fact it's even worse: there are no dates given in the Bible regarding that story. The 1532BCE number is ALSO an external estimation, based on when historians think who the Pharaohs mentioned was and when he lived. Again, someone who believes in the Bible can just sidestep it as an inaccurate estimation by those historians.
>You don't get to believe in the bible and claim a significantly different date for this event.
You could very much do that too.
Even if there was a specific date mentioned in the Bible about the event and you wanted to reconcile that with a different date that archeology gives, you could just as well believe in the Bible as a collection of first person accounts written by various persons (from kings like Solomon and prophets like Isaiah to wealthy merchants and peasants) that naturally have small inaccuracies here and there.
Not everybody who believes in the Bible thinks it's the perfect account as written down by God himself accurate to any single word (the Eastern Orthodox church, for one, doesn't believe that at all).
>Carson's position is simply illogical. Either he doesn't know the bible well, or he disagrees with the estimated dates for the construction of the pyramids.
Actually there's nothing illogical about disagreeing with the estimated dates for the construction of the pyramids. Heck, archeologists themselves disagree all the time in this or that chronology.
If you think you have a better source of information (the bible in this case) it's perfectly rational to believe that over measly human estimations.
He will lose Jewish votes simply because he is running as a Republican more so than his odd takes on history surrounding the Christian Church. All politicians have eccentricities, as long as they are harmless I am more concerned about what they want to accomplish. That and their character are my two big areas of concern
"God has revealed in Scripture the authentic and historical account of His creative activity. He created the universe, and in a recent six-day creation the Lord made “the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” and rested on the seventh day."
Yes, now get into a debate about the time it took those seven days. My original statement stands, and I expect just as much FUD this time as we had in the 60's.
Personally, I don't much care about the particular flavor of Ben Carson's wing-nuttery. The fact that he's the leading contender for the Republican nomination is deeply disturbing. And the Republican leadership agrees with me, BTW:
Look, I grew up in a mixed SDA/Catholic household and I'm a bit sick of this crap every time we talk about Mormons, SDA, or Catholics. Its spreading FUD, and of course the establishment Republicans are going to throw a damn fit since Jeb is their candidate.
There's a salient difference between 7DAs and Catholics: it is possible to be a Catholic without abandoning science and reason. That's not possible for a 7D-adventist. Biblical literalism is one of the defining characteristics of 7D-adventism. It's the reason for the "Seventh Day" part of the name. I think it is perfectly reasonable for people to be doubtful and uncertain, even fearful, of the prospect of having someone who rejects science as president.
BTW, another defining characteristic of 7D-adventism is their belief that Jesus is coming back Real Soon Now. In this, they have common cause with Daesh, who believe they are doing the work of God by helping to bring about the last days. Again, I think it is perfectly reasonable to harbor fear, uncertainty, and doubt over someone like that having their finger on the nuclear button.
I am pretty aware of the difference given that I said I grew up in a mixed household. The Seventh Day part of the name is because of the rejection of the belief that the Catholic Church has the authority to move the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday (The Lords Day in Catholic terminology) thus they worship on the seventh day. Now I know your just trying to spread FUD.
> The Seventh Day part of the name is because of the rejection of the belief that the Catholic Church has the authority to move the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday
The word "Catholic" does not appear in that document. But this does:
God has revealed in Scripture the authentic and historical account of His creative activity. He created the universe, and in a recent six-day creation the Lord made “the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” and rested on the seventh day. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of the work He performed and completed during six literal days that together with the Sabbath constituted the same unit of time that we call a week today. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was “very good,” declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1-2; 5; 11; Exod. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Isa. 45:12, 18; Acts 17:24; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; 11:3; Rev. 10:6; 14:7.)
So does this:
The second coming of Christ is the blessed hope of the church, the grand climax of the gospel. The Saviour’s coming will be literal, personal, visible, and worldwide. When He returns, the righteous dead will be resurrected, and together with the righteous living will be glorified and taken to heaven, but the unrighteous will die. The almost complete fulfillment of most lines of prophecy, together with the present condition of the world, indicates that Christ’s coming is near.
If quoting from the church's official web site is spreading FUD, well, so be it.
I'll quote Ellen White the prophet of SDA and its namer:
“Seventh-day Adventists, who profess to be looking for and loving the appearing of Christ, should not follow the course of worldlings. These are no criterion for commandment keepers. Neither should they pattern after first-day Adventists, who refuse to acknowledge the claims of the law of God and trample it under their feet.”—2 Testimonies, 450.
Adventist is the part of the name you are quoting. Seventh Day by the words of the person who named the church distinguished from 1st Day who took Sunday.
Plus, anyone who does not know the reason that Catholics and most of the other Christian churches switched to Sunday won't get the whole seventh day part of the name.
Once again, FUD. All Christian churches expect the imminent return of the Jesus. Its part of the base Christian belief.
> I'll quote Ellen White the prophet of SDA and its namer:
I don't see how that quote in any way contradicts what I said: the "seventh day" part of "seventh day adventism" derives from a belief in Biblical inerrancy, specifically the literal truth of the story of Creation in Genesis 1, and the "fact" that God rested on the seventh day.
> All Christian churches expect the imminent return of the Jesus.
Not true. All Christian churches expect the eventual return of Jesus, not His imminent return. There's a big, big difference.
> the reason that Catholics and most of the other Christian churches switched to Sunday
Well, the early Christians did it ostensibly because Jesus was crucified on a Sunday. But the real reason was to distinguish themselves from Judaism. And by the time there were "other" Christian churches the tradition had already been established for 1500 years or so.
> Once again, FUD.
No, these are salient issues for a presidential candidate. Someone who believes in the imminent return of Jesus is going to have a very different approach to long-term problems like climate change than someone who thinks Jesus may not be coming back for a long, long time (or at all). And someone who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible over science is going to have a very different approach to, well, just about everything.
7DA is a fundamentalist, apocalyptic religion. It's fundamentalist because they believe in Biblical inerrancy (that's what fundamentalist means) and it's apocalyptic because they believe Jesus is coming Real Soon Now. That's not FUD, those are simply facts. And they are facts that the American people ought to know if they are going to vote for a 7DA.
> the "seventh day" part of "seventh day adventism" derives from a belief in Biblical inerrancy, specifically the literal truth of the story of Creation in Genesis 1
"literalism" and "inerrantism" are two different things (well, more than that, since there are two different doctrines called "inerrancy", one Protestant and one Catholic, and they have substantially different substance), and what you refer to here appears to be more "literalism" than "inerrancy", since "inerrancy" (in the Protestant form; the Catholic form addresses moral truths but not factual accuracy) only holds that what the Bible says is accurate when read properly, but is compatible with metaphorical readings, while literalism layers on the additional requirement that the truth is in a strictly literal reading.
Yes, I know. That's why I elaborated with "specifically the literal truth of the story of Creation in Genesis 1". I don't know if 7DAs are literalists w.r.t. the rest of the Bible (their official doctrine doesn't say) but they are quite specific about this point:
"[God] created the universe, and in a recent six-day creation the Lord made “the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” and rested on the seventh day. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of the work He performed and completed during six literal days that together with the Sabbath constituted the same unit of time that we call a week today."
> Well, the early Christians did it ostensibly because Jesus was crucified on a Sunday. But the real reason was to distinguish themselves from Judaism. And by the time there were "other" Christian churches the tradition had already been established for 1500 years or so.
That's not even close to the truth. Look it up, even the Catholics admit it was to increase members by attracting the Romans of the time.
> don't see how that quote in any way contradicts what I said: the "seventh day" part of "seventh day adventism"
Its does contradict what was meant and is a quote from the person who named the religion.
I'm done, you are spreading untruths about a religion to discredit people.
The whole Valley of the Kings system (formal pyramid without grave goods; secret tomb with grave goods) started because they were tired of public tombs getting plundered.
I'm a little surprised that patent trolls get such a bad rap on hacker news. I would argue that patent trolls exists to protect the small inventors. Without patent trolls, the big companies can easily infringe the small inventors' patents knowing full well that the little guys can't afford to go up against them in court. The patent trolls merely step in to enforce the rights of the small inventors.
That is not to say that software patents are a good idea or should be allowed, and one could certainly make the case against them, but that's a separate issue.
No, the difference is in the added word troll, not simply a defender. Trolls are non-practicing, and produce nothing and protect nothing. I'm sure a legitimate 'little guy' with a patent would get all the sympathy he deserves here, unless perhaps, as you mention, it's a software patent.
I think you're missing the point. You can't distinguish between the patent troll and the little guy inventor because their rights are one and the same. A patent troll purchases the right to enforce a patent from an inventor who would otherwise not have the resources to enforce it himself. It is that right, the right granted to the inventor, that is being enforced. Without the patent troll the inventor's rights would get trampled by the large corporations. Hence, the patent troll is defending the small inventor's rights.
The fact that the patent troll is not practicing the invention matters not. There is no requirement that a patent holder practice the patent in order to enforce it. I can assure you the big corporations do not practice all patents they hold and enforce, many just get licensed out - and there's nothing wrong with that. But there also shouldn't be anything wrong with the small inventor doing the same thing, except for him it often requires the help of a patent troll. The patent troll is just doing for the inventor what the big corporations do for themselves, thus leveling the playing field.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Too bad they don't feel the same way about the health insurance industry...instead they exempt health insurance companies from antitrust violations!
Yes. Less government, more free market. The government should be fighting anti-competitive behavior not granting monopolies. There is no reason for a government sanctioned monopoly in ANY market...it's just a breeding ground for corruption.
