hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  157

  Evolutionary establishment tactics

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

  " dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

  http://www.rsternberg.net/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Hooberus,
  
  
  Don't you ever get tired of strawmen?
  
  
  Notice - even in Mayr's expanded definition - no hint of the "origins of life" is included.

  Rem, your methodology seems to be to point to definitions of evolution that do not specifically mention the origins of life (ie: ther "allele-frequency" definition; Mayr's "adaptation/diversity" definition), and based on these to accuse me of setting up a strawman (because I say that evolution can be defined to include the origins of life). The problems with this are:
  1. It is possible to define evolution in many different ways (Evolutionists themselves frequently do this), thus merely because some definitions of evolution do not include something does not mean that it is a "strawman" to for other definitions to include the item. 2. Even though an evolutionist may in a certain context define evolution in certain way, the same evolutionist may themselve later include things not specifically in the afore mentioned definition as also being "evolution". The classic example of this is to define evolution "as any change in allele frequencies" then later on to also include things such as "universal common ancestry" in evolution. As another example while Mayr defined evolution as: ". . . change in the adaptation and in the diversity of populations of organisms" (Mayr 1988: 162), other statements of his include things such as "the origin of new higher taxa" ("What evolution Is" Chapter 10) that are were not specifically named in the previous definition. 3. Prominent evolutionists themselves have either directly included the origin of life (such as when George Gaylord Simpson wrote: "The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems." - opening sentence chapter 2 "The Meaning of evolution" 1949) or at least included it prominently in specific evolution books (such as the entire 3rd Chapter in "What Evolution Is" being on the subject of the origin of life.

  Including the origins of life anywhere near the definition shows a gross misunderstanding of the Theory and/or intellectual dishonesty.

  Despite the above facts (such as evolution being definable in many ways and that even some prominent evolutionists themselves have included the origin of life in "evolution") if a creationist includes it the following frequently occurs: 1. We are told that we have "a gross misunderstaning of the Theory" ; "simply do not understand the nature of evolutionary theory" etc. or 2. That we are guilty of "intellectual dishonesty" ; "being consciously and deliberately dishonest." etc. (see for example your comments compared with http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_abio.htm)

  
  
  
• 
  157

  Evolutionary establishment tactics

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

  " dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

  http://www.rsternberg.net/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Hooberus,
  
  
  Also to say that the Theory of Evolution as defined above has little explanatory power is laughable. Of course it has little explanatory power about ultimate origins - because it has nothing to do with that. It does, however, have much explanatory power regarding the relatedness of life on earth and genetic studies and is useful in helping us understand much about life on earth.

  Mayr ("the worlds greatest living evolutionary biologist") disagrees:

  http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol21/9925_defining_evolution_12_30_1899.asp

  ___________________________________________________________________________________

  I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades — evolution is a change in gene frequencies in populations — is not only not explanatory, but is in fact misleading. Far more revealing is the definition: "Evolution is change in the adaptation and in the diversity of populations of organisms" (Mayr 1988: 162).

  ___________________________________________________________________________________

  The problem with claim that the minimalist (ie: "any change in alle frequencies") definition has "much explanatory power regarding the relatedness of life on earth and genetic studies and is useful in helping us understand much about life on earth" is that such a thing does not even attempt to explain the origin of anything -not even different alleles (let alone biological structures, body plans, how the various phyla ultimately came about, etc.).
• 
  157

  Evolutionary establishment tactics

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

  " dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

  http://www.rsternberg.net/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Hooberus,
  
  
  >> I am familiar with this definition. This is one of the definitions that evolutionists like to use to establish the "fact" of evolution (indeed it would). The problem is that it is so bland that it is compatible with virtually any origins scenario (from creationism, to panspermia, to universal common ancestry, polyphyletic origins, etc). Its really of little explanatory value. In fact, it doesn't even necessarily even require the formation of new genes, merely that frequencies of existing genes are changing (perhaps back and forth ultimately to exactly where they were before). In reality the above definition it is more accurately a definition of what population genetics studies.
  
  
  Well now you're starting to get the picture. You would just LOVE to argue a strawman, wouldn't you. It doesn't matter what you FEEL the definition of the Theory of Evolution should be, it can only be what it is.

  Allowing "the Theory of Evolution" to be potentially defined as including more than merely "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next" is not setting up "a strawman." Evolutionists themselves frequently do it.

  In fact, the claim that "allele-frequency definition" is "the definition of the Theory of Evolution" is even at variance with another "talk origins" arcticle which (in responding to a creationist claim) admits that "the theory of evolution" "encompasses a much broader range of observations and ideas" than merely biological change over time (ie: changes in allele frequencies).

  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA212.html

  _________________________________________________________________________________

  Claim CA212:

  Evolution is defined ambiguously, and claims that it is fact are based on the ambiguity. It is usually defined as "change in heritable characteristics in a population over time" (often expressed as "change in allele frequencies"), which everyone accepts as fact, but that does not mean that macroevolution or common descent are fact.

  Source:

  POSH (Parents for Objective Science and History), n.d. Biology text review. http://posh.roundearth.net/biology.htm

  Response:

  1. Language tends to be ambiguous at times (e.g., the entry for the word "set" covers more than twenty-two pages of the original Oxford English Dictionary.) The word "evolution" is an unfortunate instance of that ambiguity; it is used for the fact of biological change over time; as shorthand for the theory of evolution, which encompasses a much broader range of observations and ideas; and for change generally, in any realm. The ambiguity can usually be resolved by the context in which the word is used, at least by people who know something about biological evolution.
     
     Mixing contexts is indeed improper, and the fact of allele frequency change, by itself, does not establish the theory of evolution.

  ______________________________________________________________________________________

  Furthermore, (even as the NCSE admits) some evolutionists (including Mayr) don't even accept the "alle-frequency" definition:

  http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol21/9925_defining_evolution_12_30_1899.asp

  _____________________________________________________________________________________

  The "allele-frequency" definition of evolution has survived to become the "standard" definition in textbooks and discussions about the nature of evolution . . . A more important controversy, however, is between the proponents of the allele-frequency definition and those who reject it altogether as too narrow:

  I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades — evolution is a change in gene frequencies in populations — is not only not explanatory, but is in fact misleading. Far more revealing is the definition: "Evolution is change in the adaptation and in the diversity of populations of organisms" (Mayr 1988: 162).

  ______________________________________________________________________________________

  Mayr ("the worlds greatest living evolutionary biologist" according to Gould) even said in the preface of his recent book "What Evolution Is" that: "Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations, with species; it is not "a change in gene frequencies.""

  The fact is that "evolution" and/or "the Theory of Evolution" can be defined in many different ways from the minimalist "any change in alle frequencies" to possibly also include things such as universal common ancestry, amphibians descending from fish, humans descending from ancient apes, the origin of life itself, etc. (for a source that includes the orign of life see for example George Gaylord Simpson' s "The Meaning of Evolution").
• 
  157

  Evolutionary establishment tactics

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

  " dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

  http://www.rsternberg.net/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  ___________________________________________________________________________________
  

  Read the second link I provided. It's educational. There's a bit you should really consider

  This is another excellent example of supposed 'creation science'. All creation science is reactionary. There is no creation model and there is no original research aimed at establishing a creation model. Creationists, like Snelling, rely on a false dichotomy and conclude that if evolution is wrong, then their narrow misinterpretation of Genesis is correct.

  _____________________________________________________________________________________-

  Even your bolded point is wrong:

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i2/logic.asp

  Many evolutionary propagandists dispute this reasoning when creationists use it, on the grounds that creation and evolution are not the only alternatives. Creationists are thus accused of the fallacy of false alternatives, that is, the disjunctive premise leaves out a possible alternative. But as shown, many evolutionists agree there are only two, so there are double standards at work.26 This can be shown by the Law of Excluded Middle: either things were made (creation) or they weren’t (evolution). It is true that biblical creation is not the only alternative, so it is not proven by disproof of evolution. Biblical creation is certainly consistent with disproof of evolution, unlike atheism.
• 
  157

  Evolutionary establishment tactics

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

  " dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

  http://www.rsternberg.net/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  From past experienece you'll either absent yourself from the thread or fail to respond to the allegations regarding your behaviour.
  Funny how someone claiming they have the truth needs to hide, quote erroneous twaddle, or remain silent....

  
  Abaddon, I have already spent (wasted) considerable time responding to many of your accusations against myself (and sources that I use). The post history between us is sufficient enough to establish the fact of the matter. For the interested, here are a few sample dialogues:
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/72354/4.ashx
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/89867/5.ashx

  ... in them you or other Creationists or ID-ots show a remarkable ability to ignore evidence, misinterpret facts due to lack of knowledge or over-zealous belief (or be so poorly informed about the subject that the ear-tickling Creationist websites seem to be good sources of reliable information).

  Time and time again, key flaws with Creationist or ID-ot (a new term I've coined) theory are not so much dealt with by the supposrteres of such theories as ignored. Or, even worse, they don't know enough about the subject to see the faults in the arguments they use (or copy and paste).

  
  Furthermore, you should not charge others with not knowing "enough about the subject to see the faults in the arguments they use (or copy and paste)" when you yourself copy and paste quotes such as this (your full post is between the lines): http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/72354/1172867/post.ashx#1172867
  
  ___________________________________________________________________________________ hooberus, when you're defending something it's wise to check what you're defending it against. You are so sure that you can rely upon the honesty and scientific knowledge of the people involved that you completely fail to defend this AIG claim from what is wrong with it.
  
  
  
  

  Read the second link I provided. It's educational. There's a bit you should really consider

  This is another excellent example of supposed 'creation science'. All creation science is reactionary. There is no creation model and there is no original research aimed at establishing a creation model. Creationists, like Snelling, rely on a false dichotomy and conclude that if evolution is wrong, then their narrow misinterpretation of Genesis is correct.

  
  ______________________________________________________________________________________
  
  
  
  
  
  *The creation model can be found in many introductory Creation science books: Even the anti-creationist NCSE admits that there is one: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3690_issue_01__volume_1_number_1__7_1_1980.asp#Virginia
  
  
  ?
• 
  157

  Evolutionary establishment tactics

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

  " dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

  http://www.rsternberg.net/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Hooberus,
  
  This is a widely accepted definition of the Theory of Evolution used by Biologists:
  
  "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
  
  
  - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

  
  
  I am familiar with this definition. This is one of the definitions that evolutionists like to use to establish the "fact" of evolution (indeed it would). The problem is that it is so bland that it is compatible with virtually any origins scenario (from creationism, to panspermia, to universal common ancestry, polyphyletic origins, etc). Its really of little explanatory value. In fact, it doesn't even necessarily even require the formation of new genes, merely that frequencies of existing genes are changing (perhaps back and forth ultimately to exactly where they were before). In reality the above definition it is more accurately a definition of what population genetics studies.
  

  The Theory of Evolution is a theory of Biology. Before living organisms existed there was no biology. Thus Abiogenesis is not a part of the Theory of Evolution.

  
  If Evolution deals with biology, then there shouldn't necessarily be a problem with defining it to explain all biology- including the cause of the first living (biological) organisms, (even as the prominent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson did in his book "The Meaning of Evolution").
  
  
  

  It is common for people to use the term Evolution in the casual manner as you presented, but that is not what we are talking about when we refer to the Theory of Evolution. Therefore, unless you plan on discussing something different from the rest of us, I suggest we use the definition accepted by mainstream scientists in the field and not some harvested quotes that don't necessarily reflect the mainstream or modern view.

  I wouldn't consider what I presented as being "casual". However, if you wish to define evolution merely as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next," then there really is nothing to discuss (since everyone acepts changes in alle frequencies).
• 
  3

  Chimp DNA Sequenced, Interesting Article

  by Big Dog in

  1. social
  2. current

  i found the last couple of sentences of this article particlularly interesting.

  any thoughts?

  is this dr. collins a scientific heretic/hack, or is the question of what makes us human more than a purely scientific question?scientists find chimps, people are 96 percent identical.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  On a related note:

  http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2324

  One area of research currently being conducted at ICR is a comparison of the human and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) genomes. The Biblical teaching that man was a special creation (Genesis 1:27), different from any other created "kind," is contrary to the evolutionary paradigm that man evolved from a primitive ape.

  This Impact article signals the beginning of genomic studies at ICR. We are currently working on a number of research projects associated with genomics in addition to the human/chimpanzee homology study. Some of our proposed projects will include sequencing mitochondrial DNA with the goals of:

  1) Measuring mutation rates in humans.
  2) Determining the validity of molecular clocks.
  3) Refining the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis showing the relatedness of all humans.
  4) Delineating the created kinds.

  We will also conduct research using computer models to study the feasibility of evolutionary genetic theory versus the actual emergence of modern populations from a literal Adam and Eve.
• 
  157

  Evolutionary establishment tactics

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

  " dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

  http://www.rsternberg.net/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus,

  Here is one (from ReMine):
  
  
  
  An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.
  
  
  
  This is potentially falsifiable (for example by a demonstration that nautral processes are sufficient to account for life from non-life).

  Now thats the kind of hypothesis one can work with! I like that example.

  I also find it interesting that the subject of that particular hypothesis is in the field of abiogenesis. A field where, for now at least, there's relatively scant concrete information or data on which to test any hypotheses. I dare say thats why there are so many different naturalistic scenarios for the emergence of life, offered up by scientists --- not enough data collected to draw a valid conclusion on them. Yep, alot of properly formed hypotheses can stand unfalsified for now.

  I think that the abiogeneis situation is much more dubious. We have a lot of knowledge about chemistry, and there are severe problems with every abiogenesis scenaio (ie: protein first, DNA first, RNA first, etc.). In fact, I believe that if it were any other (non-origins related) "science" field, that abiogenesis would be considered somewhere between highly dubious and falsified (see for example ReMine 1993).

  What about the subject of evolution though (where we have a good deal more information)?

  Your comment implies that evolution is a different subject than abiogenesis. I don't think that the distinction is necessarily quite as clear cut as many today claim. Firstly, there are many possible definitionis of evolution, and (in the past anyway) at least some evolutionists had included the origin of life in the definition of evolution. For example: Evolutionist G.A. Kerkut defined the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ in his 1960 book 'Implications of Evolution' as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." (source http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/evolutiondefinition.htm) Also, I have an older book by prominent evolutionist Simpson, which seems also to include it in the definition. It seems to me that when modern abiogenesis was in its early stages that evolutionists were possibly much more likely to include it in the "definition", however since then with the discovery of the full magnitude of the problem they have insisted on errecting a firewall between the two (I think that if the situation had turned out differently that it would probably be in the definition). Furthermore, as ReMine points out prominent origin of lifers (ie:Cairns-Smith), have declared that the current biological universals (ie:DNA, RNA) are too complicated to have preceed life, and must be placed at a time point following the start of "evolution", thus accoridng to this they would be "back in play" under even the current definitions of evolution (which seek to exclude the alledged original self-replicating entities) from the definitions. I'll try to respond to the rest of your comments a little later, sincerely, hooberus
• 
  38

  Jonah as Fiction

  by Leolaia in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the book of jonah contains one of the most famous stories in the ot: the account of a cowardous prophet who was swallowed whole by a giant fish.

  the only other mention of jonah in the ot however is absolutely silent about this remarkable story (2 kings 14:25), and there is much evidence that the book is a late tale written after the babylonian exile.

  the book is unique among the twelve minor prophets for being mostly narrative and it has much in common with post-exilic haggada (such as the first-century lives of the prophets, which added considerably to the jonah legend), the "great city" of ninevah is little more than a distant, vague memory (as evidenced by such things as the anomalous title "king of ninevah" and the non-mention of the king's name in jonah 3:6), legendary touches like the giant fish and the magical growth of the castor-oil plant, and especially the late aramaisms rife in the book (such as spynch in 1:5, ht'st "to think" in 1:6, stq in 1:12, mnh in 2:1, and so forth).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Jonah and the Psalms continued:
  
  

  • Other Psalms do however show stronger similarites in certain phrases (particularily those that involve water). For example: Psalm 42:7 compared with Jonah 2:3.

  • Leolia's conclusion for similarities is that:

  Here the author of Jonah was heavily influenced by the Psalter -- especially the psalms that expressed metaphors of drowning which became literalized as actual references to the prophet's watery fate in the prayer of ch. 2.

  However, rather than "metaphors of drowning" becoming "literalized as actual references to the prophet's watery fate", could it instead be that that Jonah (being familiar with the Psalms) may have used a few certain relevant memorized portions of a few psalms in his prayer to God? Today people do the same (ie: Psalm 23 at funerals). (It should also be remembered that scripture memorization was much more important then in that culture than it is today).

  It is very significant to note that the prayer passage in Jonah is the only passage in Jonah that is claimed above as being similar to certain Psalms. One would think that if the author of Jonah had really used Psalms "literalized as actual references" that similarities to Psalms would be found in the non-prayer passges of Jonah as well, however this does not seem to be found (and would have been potentially more difficult to explain).
• 
  38

  Jonah as Fiction

  by Leolaia in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the book of jonah contains one of the most famous stories in the ot: the account of a cowardous prophet who was swallowed whole by a giant fish.

  the only other mention of jonah in the ot however is absolutely silent about this remarkable story (2 kings 14:25), and there is much evidence that the book is a late tale written after the babylonian exile.

  the book is unique among the twelve minor prophets for being mostly narrative and it has much in common with post-exilic haggada (such as the first-century lives of the prophets, which added considerably to the jonah legend), the "great city" of ninevah is little more than a distant, vague memory (as evidenced by such things as the anomalous title "king of ninevah" and the non-mention of the king's name in jonah 3:6), legendary touches like the giant fish and the magical growth of the castor-oil plant, and especially the late aramaisms rife in the book (such as spynch in 1:5, ht'st "to think" in 1:6, stq in 1:12, mnh in 2:1, and so forth).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Jonah and the Psalms

  Leolaia wrote:

  ___________________________________________________________________________________

  JONAH'S PRAYER: A PASTICHE FROM THE PSALMS

  The only portion of the book not yet accounted for is the lengthy prayer that occupies ch. 2. But this poetic text was composed largely from material drawn from the Psalms:

  Psalm 120:1, 130:1: "In my distress (btsrth ly) I called out (qr'ty) to Yahweh ('l-yhwh) and he answered me (wy'nny).... Out of the depths (mm'mqym) I have cried to you (qr'tyk), O Yahweh".
  
  

  Psalm 116:3: "The cords of death encompassed me, and the terrors of Sheol (s'wl) came upon me; I found distress (tsrh) and sorrow".

  Jonah 2:2: "I called out (qr'ty) of my distress (mtsrh ly) to Yahweh ('l-yhwh) and he answered me (wy'nny). I cried for help (sw'ty) in the depth of Sheol (mbtn s'wl), you heard my voice".

  Psalm 116:3, 42:7, 31:22: "The cords of death encompassed me ('ppwny) ... Deep calls to deep (thwm-'l-thwm) at the sound of your waterfalls; all your breakers and waves rolled over me (kl-msbryk wglyk 'ly 'brw)... I said (w'ny 'mrty) in my alarm, 'I am expelled from your sight (ngrzty mngd 'ynyk). Nevertheless ('kn) you heard the voice of my supplications' .
  
  

  Psalm 5:7, 46:2: "But as for me, by your abundant loving kindness I will enter your house, at your holy temple ('l-hykl qdsk) I will bow in reverence for you...The mountains slip into the heart of the seas (blb ymym)".

  Jonah 2:3-4: "For you had cast me into the deep (mtswlh), into the heart of the seas (blbb ymym), and the current encompassed me (ysbbny). All your breakers and waves rolled over me (kl-msbryk wglyk 'ly 'brw). So I said (w'ny 'mrty), 'I have been expelled from your sight (ngrsty mngd 'ynyk). Nevertheless ('k) I will look again toward your holy temple ('l-hykl qdsk)' ".

  Psalm 69:1-2: "The cords of death (chbly-mwt) encompassed me ('ppwny)... the cords of Sheol (chbly-s'wl) surrounded me (sbbwny)...Save me, O God, for the waters (mym) have threatened my life ('d-nps). I have sunk (tb') in deep mire, and there is no foothold; I have come into deep waters, and a flood overflows me".
  
  

  Psalm 16:10, 30:3: "You will not abandon my soul to Sheol (npsy l-s'wl)...O Yahweh, you have brought up my soul from Sheol (h'lyt mn-s'wl npsy)".

  Jonah 2:5-6: "Water encompassed me ('ppwny mym) threatening my life ('d-nps). The great deep surrounded me (thwm ysbbny), weeds (swp) were wrapped around my head ... but you have brought up my life from the pit (wt'l mscht chyy), O Yahweh my God".

  Psalm 22:25, 116:18: "My praise (thlty) shall be for you in the great assembly, I will fulfill my vows (ndry 'slm) in the presence of those who fear him...I will offer you a sacrifice of thanksgiving ('zbch zbcht wdh) and will call upon the name of Yahweh. I will fulfill what I vowed to Yahweh (ndry l-yhwh 'slm)".
  
  

  Psalm 3:8: "From Yahweh comes salvation (l-yhwh hysw'h). May your blessing be on your people".

  Jonah 2:3: "But I (w'ny), with a song of thanksgiving (bqwl twdh), will sacrifice to you ('zbchh-lk). The vow I have made I will fulfill ('sr ndrty 'slmh). Salvation comes from Yahweh (ysw'th l-yhwh)".

  _____________________________________________________________________________________

  Comments:

  • First of all it should be remembered that both Jonah and the Psalms were written in the same language; culture; (and if the Bible is true) by prophets of the same God YHWH. Hense, finding similarities in words does not necessarily in itself prove fictional dependance.

  • Secondly, I don't think that similarity is strong enough in some of the above verses to demonstrate dependance. For example: Psalm 5:7 compared with Jonah 2:4; Psalm 16:10, 30:3 compared with Jonah 2:5-6; Psalm 3:8 compared with Jonah 2:3.

  Psalm 5:7: "But as for me, by your abundant loving kindness I will enter your house, at your holy temple ('l-hykl qdsk) I will bow in reverence for you...

  Jonah 2:3-4: "For you had cast me into the deep (mtswlh), into the heart of the seas (blbb ymym), and the current encompassed me (ysbbny). All your breakers and waves rolled over me (kl-msbryk wglyk 'ly 'brw). So I said (w'ny 'mrty), 'I have been expelled from your sight (ngrsty mngd 'ynyk). Nevertheless ('k) I will look again toward your holy temple ('l-hykl qdsk)' ".

  
  

  Psalm 16:10, 30:3: "You will not abandon my soul to Sheol (npsy l-s'wl)...O Yahweh, you have brought up my soul from Sheol (h'lyt mn-s'wl npsy)".

  Jonah 2:5-6: "Water encompassed me ('ppwny mym) threatening my life ('d-nps). The great deep surrounded me (thwm ysbbny), weeds (swp) were wrapped around my head ... but you have brought up my life from the pit (wt'l mscht chyy), O Yahweh my God".

  Psalm 3:8: "From Yahweh comes salvation (l-yhwh hysw'h). May your blessing be on your people".

  Jonah 2:3: "But I (w'ny), with a song of thanksgiving (bqwl twdh), will sacrifice to you ('zbchh-lk). The vow I have made I will fulfill ('sr ndrty 'slmh). Salvation comes from Yahweh (ysw'th l-yhwh)".