I don't know where to find a reputable source on this, but these are historical facts.

I suspect that you wrote "instinctively" when you meant "reflexively." Misidentifying a reflex as an instinct is unproductive.

Re:
"most people that have been raised in a Christian culture instinctively recognize ... "

Please explain why you misidentified as "instinct" the results of environment.

Incorrectly Labeling what I said as Intelligent design and creationism is a convenient straw man for you to knock down to dismiss my arguments and end discussion.

I am not arguing Religion and you are not arguing Science. In fact you have made no arguments. Only denials and denigration.

Pre-civilization? Where do you think our civilization comes from? Our Moral and legal code, ethics, even the concept of a weekend. Goat herders? LOL

"Intelligent Design" is not science and is the opposite of the science of evolution, not an explanation for evolution. Creationism versus random metaphysical chance is a false alternative misrepresenting the science. Dogmatic assertions of what can "only be" from the supernatural is not science and neither is attributing the latest pseudo-scientific fiction using terminology stolen from science to primitive pre-civilization goat herders.

Your assumptions of 'legends' is incorrect. Legends and Myths and 'mysticism' is a misinterpretation. The information is factual when translated properly. It is science not science fiction.

How Moses could possibly have known information about the expansion of space, that we only discovered in that last two decades, should raise some questions and perhaps temper your dismissive scorn.

The current backward Church of 'scientific' Atheism, based on the dogma of evolution without intelligence is an impediment to free scientific inquiry into the the true origins of our Universe. Evolution solely by chance and natural selection is scientifically impossible. No complex system, based on parts that have no use until all are assembled can arise by accident. Nor can the programming in the dna that controls the timing of chemical reactions result from chance mutations. Only an intelligent program towards more and more complexity explains evolution.
So science leads to research into what constitutes this intelligence. How did it arise? Moses explains that the universe is imbued with intelligence and these forces of nature are a manifestation of the intelligence of existence which we are sheltered from inside our bubble of time/space.

Not so mystical. Just incredible, as is the Quantum reality.

I see an awful lot worth commenting on in this thread, but I will be mercifully brief . . .

It is impossible to disprove a negative and irrational to make such an attempt.

Socrates dispatched Thracymachus' notion that justice (or right) is whatever is in the interests of the stronger party. Being a fallible human, the "stronger party" may be completely ignorant as to what, in fact, is in his interests. A feeling is factual but it is not a fact nor is it knowledge.

Intellectual Ammunition Department, "Who is the final authority in ethics?', Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1965.

Lecture 9, "The Objectivist Ethics," from Basic Principles of Objectivism taped lecture series by Nathaniel Branden (transcribed in The Vision of Ayn Rand, Branden, 2009)

Lecture 4, The Concept of God, ibid.

Robbie 53024, I hope you find an interest in the above.

The basic beliefs of Christianity are centered on acting and thinking by commandment as an unquestionable duty, saving your soul in a mystical other world, and sacrificing to others in this one.

To say the least.

Re-interpreting the legends of ancient people to mean modern science they had no conception of, while using it to rationalize away their belief in mysticism is not "translation". Whether they wanted to put camels or ropes or unicorns or anything through the eye of a needle is irrelevant. Better translations can be interesting, but are secondary to the topic under discussion even when objective, let alone revisionist history in the form of science fiction.

Good question. When I wrote my original statement above I realized this was a point that was not clarified. I let it go because I felt most people would instinctively know what it was referring to within the conversation and defining it precisely would have taken far more effort than I was willing to spend. However, I think I can give a loose incomplete explanation rather easily.

If you look at the basic beliefs of most of Christianity I believe they are all pretty consistent as to what makes a person good. They may quibble about some specific items and how to handle some specific situations or how to pray, or a thousand other things. But these are all rather superficial. They agree in the core essence of what it means to be good. This includes; honesty, not stealing, no physical harm to others merely for your own advancement or pleasure, and etc.

Islam and other religions may or may not believe in these (I do not know them well enough top say) but most people that have been raised in a Christian culture instinctively recognize these aspects of "good" even if they choose to go another direction.

Maybe someday I will tease this definition out further. Or maybe someone has already done so and you can direct me to it. Thanks

Thanks...you have given me some food for thought. I have never heard some of this, like your interpretation that a camel should have actually been a thick rope (which changes it from being impossible to one of being very difficult).

You obviously know more about this than I do but I will mention my initial reaction is to find it troubling to interpret anything through the lenses of advances in science, and culture for that matter. Even if there is no language barrier a difference in time and cultural evolution can lead to very different feelings/understanding of the exact same words. While not possible, the ideal would be to have things interpreted by someone with the exact same knowledge and culture as those typical at the time of the writing. Any additional knowledge the translator posses could potentially make the translation less accurate, while doing nothing to increase the chances of a more accurate interpretation.

I'm being serious.

Your presumption is incorrect. The Greeks were not fluent in Hebrew at all. They relied on the Septuagint (70 Translators) who translated the simple meaning in the format that the Greeks would understand. Mythology, Gods etc.

Even if the translators were fluent in Hebrew, word roots have multiple meanings, abstract and concrete, including Hieroglyphic and context based. In Genesis , for instance the word Mayim - water, which did not yet exist, means the abstract liquid or dissolved state. Just as science tells us. In the heat of the initial stage of the Universe everything was mixed and dissolved and stuck together. Nothing could yet combine into molecules or even emit quanta of energy. But the ancient translators did not know that meaning yet.

It changes things because the new testament is a summation of what Jesus taught, which came from the Books of Moses. Jesus was an Israelite. The new testament is subject to the writer's understanding and later translation errors. (A camel through the eye of a needle...actually a thick rope going through the eye of a needle. It was a saying that got lost in the translation) Even the usage of the word Lord to mean God, where the Hebrew means the owner as in "Lord of the manor".

So an incorrect assumption can be corrected by going back to the source, the five books.

The interpretation of the Hebrew flowers based on advances in Science and understanding. What seemed like an inscrutable "and the spirit of God hovered over the waters" becomes "and the energy that expands space expanded the outer space (face) of the the dissolved liquid state." or something similar.

Are you being serious or sarcastic when you say you are fluent in Ancient Hebrew? If you are serious, I have two curiosity questions. First, since the people that did the translation were presumably as fluent or more so than you, why did they not interpret it correctly? Second, assuming you are correct, how does that change things? After all, most Christians I know pretty much base everything off the new testament anyway. Just curious

Am I to understand that the above 2 paragraphs constitute proof?

The "right one" given the way it was set up.

That is one of the unlimited number of alternate, equally baseless "quandries", but very quickly illustrates what goes wrong in the argument. There are no grounds to speculate about any supposed "infinitessimal chances" for the arbitrary.

The invalid restriction on the "possibilities" arbitrarily allowed or disallowed for consideration reveals the root of the problem: It isn't based on anything. It's completely arbitrary. There is no reason to embrace it on it a death bed or anywhere else (which the same sophistry quickly leads to).

There is no "quandry". The "Objectivist position" on it was described long ago. It rejects the supernatural out of hand.

Faith is often related to hope psychologically, but not intellectually or philosophically. Cognitively it isn't based on anything and isn't supposed to be. It's literally embracing the arbitrary.

You don't get to decide what an unknowable God would do. Their game is already rigged to be what they say it is in the official dogma. Thinking you have to defend against it with your own game is pointless. None of it makes any sense to begin with.

No one has capitulated to you. You are a nuisance with nothing to say.

You are the one making the assertion here. So the burden of proof lies with you.