The evidence against religon won with just one argument until...

stevejazzx

pH wrote:

Those claiming that genesis is a metaphor have yet to explain what exactly it is a metaphor for.

Genesis is a collection of tales (hence 2 creation myths) but how a 6 day direct creation is a metaphor for 4.5 billion years of gradual unguided evolution is beyond me.

And all the other stuff? Painful childbirth for women is caused by the fall, how is that a metaphor for "Painful childbirth for women is cause by evolutionary pressure for finding a balance between the child having a large brain and keeping the pelvis small enough for efficient upright walking".

damn you ph...just seeing this now..this could've saved me a lot of typing

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

That is irrelevant, as I explained. There is little reason to believe that those who wrote the Bible didn't take it completely seriously.

It is not irrelevant. You have tried to portray a 2000 year-old viewpoint (at least 2000 years, possibly much older) as an accommodation to modern science. I have cited examples to show that your interesting theory is historically unsupportable.

Now you give the impression that you have some kind of knowledge as to what was in the minds of the author(s) of Genesis. Theologians and historians, with far greater understanding of ancient literature than you or I, have failed to attain to this knowledge. We really cannot state with any certainty whether the authors' intention was that their account would be taken poetically, metaphorically or scientifically.

Also, I might point out that 'taking the Bible seriously' is perfectly compatible with seeing a biblical passage as being metaphorical.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I would be curious what reason or evidence modern Christians have for the belief that those who wrote the Old Testament did not mean for it to be taken as a literal history

There's an element of proving a negative there. What evidence do you have that they intended it to be taken as literal history?

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

PDN wrote:

A very convenient argument, but totally false and easily disposed of. Your attempt to present a 2000 year-old viewpoint as a modern phenomenon is to history what Ken Hamm is to geology. The idea that the Bible makes no attempt to give a scientic description of creation is not modern at all, in fact this position was held by the majority of theologians at a time when there was no carbon dating, no understanding of the fossil record, and no modern physics or chemistry.

Yes and they were very clever, all 5 of them but they couldn't prove anything insofar as anything is provable. Nowadays anyone (not just a clever philopsher or theologian) can look at biblical accounts of the world and immediately see the disparities between it and science. So in fact it is a modern phenomenon (last 50 years).

bonkey

stevejazzx wrote:

I've often asked the question why would God use methaphors when he must of known that future generations would be so confused and struggle and fight over their meaning?

Maybe our struggle with our confusion was part of the reason?

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote:

There's an element of proving a negative there. What evidence do you have that they intended it to be taken as literal history?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thats an excellent question - possibly becasue they supposedly used real characters and punished people in their time who didn't follow it? I seee your point but it seems it was an attempt to record history while accounting for all thier superstitions also. I imagine it would be a safe assumtion to make....

stevejazzx

bonkey wrote:

Maybe our struggle with our confusion was part of the reason?

<

---

>

PDN

stevejazzx wrote:

Thats an excellent question - possibly becasue they supposedly used real characters and punished people in their time who didn't follow it?

What? The author(s) of Genesis punished people who understood the account of creation metaphorically? Have you any evidence for such an amazing assertion?

stevejazzx

Tim Robbins wrote:

Sounds deadly Steve. Fair play, I'm delighted for you.


.........Anyway, if you are just looking for sex it might be better to stick to Britney Spears talks.

Are you going to meet her again? Why not suggest to meet her and go to something in the fringe festival?

Best of luck.

Well it was fun evening but alas I am happily married. She was, to use the parlance of our times, way out of my league anyway. That doesn't mean that I would have...just that emmm well you know...;)

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

It is not irrelevant. You have tried to portray a 2000 year-old viewpoint (at least 2000 years, possibly much older) as an accommodation to modern science.

No actually I haven't

I have (tried to?) portray this viewpoint (how old it is is irrelevant) as a realization that what is described in the Bible cannot be true but a failure to accept the logical conclusion that it is therefore simply wrong.

Ancient "science" of the Greeks and Romans knew that it is very unlikely that the Earth was created in the way described in Genesis, so the modernity of the science isn't that important.

As soon as people realised that this couldn't have actually happened they started floating around the idea that it as never meant to be taken literally. This was easier than accepting that it was just plan wrong.

PDN wrote:

I have cited examples to show that your interesting theory is historically unsupportable.

To do so PDN you would have to demonstrate that those who wrote the Old Testament did not mean for it to be taken literally.

So far you have not done so, though I would be interested in seeing this evidence.

PDN wrote:

Now you give the impression that you have some kind of knowledge as to what was in the minds of the author(s) of Genesis.

Not me PDN -

James Barr wrote:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.

This is from James Barr, who did not believe the Bible to be without error, but who did believe, and supported the belief, that those who wrote it meant it to be taken as it was written.

You can find this quote and many more like them on any number of Creationists websites (which unfortunately due to my adventures on the Creationists thread in Christianity I'm all to familiar with).

What ever people say about Creationists (and I could say a lot) there seems to be little doubt that they are reading the Bible as it was meant to be read by those who wrote it.

I suppose one has to respect the devotion to the inerrant nature of the original text in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

PDN wrote:

We really cannot state with any certainty whether the authors' intention was that their account would be taken poetically, metaphorically or scientifically.

Very true, and in that little glimmer of uncertainty lives the belief that none of this was ever meant to be taken literally.

But honestly, if you came to this as an unbiased person, would you accept that over the idea that they simply got it completely wrong?

stevejazzx

PDN wrote:

What? The author(s) of Genesis punished people who understood the account of creation metaphorically? Have you any evidence for such an amazing assertion?

Well I meant the generation of people directly following who may of been more acquainted with that history who chose to follow those scriptures and hold them as sacrosanct. The idea is that surely they would have been able to distinguish whether or not the texts were meant litreally seeing as they were far closer to the actual histoires thmeselves.
However if we take the idea that moses wrote Genesis, he smited the Midianites for idolatry or some such thing so thats not a million miles away from what I'm saying either.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

There's an element of proving a negative there. What evidence do you have that they intended it to be taken as literal history?

I see your point.

But, well the fact that they wrote it, would be strong suggestion for a start.

When people write a history they generally mean it to be take as just that, a history. Given the context in which the books were written that seems to be the most reasonable conclusion.

I mean it could be argued that nothing in the Bible is supposed to be taken seriously, that the whole thing is a joke. And it would be rather difficult to demonstrate conclusively otherwise. But I doubt many people hold that as likely, believers and non-believers a like

PDN

stevejazzx wrote:

Well I meant the generation of people directly following who may of been more acquainted with that history who chose to follow those scriptures and hold them as sacrosanct. The idea is that surely they would have been able to distinguish whether or not the texts were meant litreally seeing as they were far closer to the actual histoires thmeselves.
However if we take the idea that moses wrote Genesis, he smited the Midianites for idolatry or some such thing so thats not a million miles away from what I'm saying either.

Actually it is a million miles away. Idolatry is the worship of a false god. That is a completely issue from whether someone understands a piece of literature as being poetry or as a scientificly accurate description. (When in a hole, sometimes it's best to stop digging).

A small minority of theologians believe that Moses wrote Genesis, but most would agree that we don't know the date in which it was written and therefore we would have no way of knowing which generation 'directly followed', or what they did.

I would certainly agree with you that the first readers/hearers of the Genesis account, and probably a number of later generations, would be able to clearly tell whether the account was to be taken literally or not. Unfortunately that is of little assistance to us since we have no records of whether they understood it metaphorically or not. We do know that early Hebrew thought used metaphors extensively, but we cannot say with any certainty whether that is the case in the creation accounts.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I see your point.

But, well the fact that they wrote it, would be strong suggestion for a start.

When people write a history they generally mean it to be take as just that, a history. Given the context in which the books were written that seems to be the most reasonable conclusion.

I mean it could be argued that nothing in the Bible is supposed to be taken seriously, that the whole thing is a joke. And it would be rather difficult to demonstrate conclusively otherwise. But I doubt many people hold that as likely, believers and non-believers a like

I'm not sure those are the only options. I think what we're looking at here is a confusion over what 'literal' and 'historical' mean to us now, and meant in a pre-scientific age. Is Robin Hood historical? The Iliad? Gilgamesh and Enkidu?

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

PDN wrote:

Actually it is a million miles away. Idolatry is the worship of a false god. That is a completely issue from whether someone understands a piece of literature as being poetry or as a scientificly accurate description. (When in a hole, sometimes it's best to stop digging).

A small minority of theologians believe that Moses wrote Genesis, but most would agree that we don't know the date in which it was written and therefore we would have no way of knowing which generation 'directly followed', or what they did.

I would certainly agree with you that the first readers/hearers of the Genesis account, and probably a number of later generations, would be able to clearly tell whether the account was to be taken literally or not. Unfortunately that is of little assistance to us since we have no records of whether they understood it metaphorically or not. We do know that early Hebrew thought used metaphors extensively, but we cannot say with any certainty whether that is the case in the creation accounts.

Grand then we agree on something...it is an excellent question that Scofflaw asks not becasue we don't know the answer, I think answer is pretty much goes one way, that they did mean 'it' litereally, but it raises the point that we could never really be sure what the 'it' is and how it was dervied. On the basis of our current understanding we could never say that those histories, myths, legends srtories etc. all formed into some kind flawless manuscript, in fact they almost certainly didn't but yet 70% of Americans believe it is the literal word of God, not to demean your outlook or study or belief but there must be some kind guilt by association at this early stage in the 21st century. I mean are you not cheerypicking, compartmentalising or being selectively intellectual? I really do respect your belief but I don't understand where you got it from. You are obviously well read (based on your input in other threads) but I can't get around idea that a person would have to bypass so much information to argue for a biblical God in a very similar way that JC bypasses so much information to argue against evolution.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

I think what we're looking at here is a confusion over what 'literal' and 'historical' mean to us now, and meant in a pre-scientific age.

Possibly, TBH I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make

As far as I'm aware there is little reason to believe that the people who wrote the Old Testament didn't believe that these stories actually physically happened. That is what I mean by literal. When the early Hebrews wrote down their creation stories that the world was created in 6 days by their God they believed that this actually happened. Or at least if they didn't they didn't suggest this in the writing.

That at least seems to be the general consensus among historians and Biblical scholars.

indough

Aren't we to assume, if the bible (and Genesis in particular) is truly the word of God, that those who wrote it were simply reporting on accounts given to them by God? Would God have explained in great detail how he created the universe, or would he have dumbed down a little and used metaphors for what actually happened?

I suspect if all this were true then he would have had to explain things in ways that the original writers would have understood.

The original writers and followers would probably not have been able to get past those metaphors and taken it literally, he probably would have found it safe to assume that we'd be able to understand his method, and use our scientific knowledge to adapt his teachings.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Possibly, TBH I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make

As far as I'm aware there is little reason to believe that the people who wrote the Old Testament didn't believe that these stories actually physically happened. That is what I mean by literal. When the early Hebrews wrote down their creation stories that the world was created in 6 days by their God they believed that this actually happened. Or at least if they didn't they didn't suggest this in the writing.

If you mean that they really meant that the world started with an act of Creation by God, yes, I'm sure that they meant that.

If, on the other hand, you mean that they would have expected, had they been physically present at the moment of Creation, they would have seen and experienced exactly the events recorded in Genesis, I doubt it.

Finally, if you mean they would have expected to be able to trace and detect exactly the falsifiable evidence of the exact actions recorded in Genesis, as JC claims, no, I think that's a post-scientific viewpoint.

When someone says they take the Bible metaphorically, I don't think they mean that 6 days is a "metaphor" for 4.6 billion years. The order of creation could be taken for an order of the 'importance' of different parts of creation, or of the reliance of one thing on the other, or of their emotional distance from man, or many other things. Is the age of the earth really important to the Christian message? Not really, so why waste Biblical space on it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Possibly, TBH I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make

As far as I'm aware there is little reason to believe that the people who wrote the Old Testament didn't believe that these stories actually physically happened. That is what I mean by literal. When the early Hebrews wrote down their creation stories that the world was created in 6 days by their God they believed that this actually happened. Or at least if they didn't they didn't suggest this in the writing.

That at least seems to be the general consensus among historians and Biblical scholars.

No, there is a host of biblical scholars who believe that the creation accounts were not intended to be taken as a scientifically accurate description. Obviously my own background means I am more familiar with those in the evangelical tradition, but the following is a small selection of such scholars from the last 20 years:

Gordon R. Lewis - senior professor of systematic theology and Christian philosophy at Denver Seminary. He is the past president of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and the Evangelical Theological Society.

Meredith Kline - professor of Old Testament & professor emeritus at Westminster Theological Seminary & Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

James Montgomery Boice - Presbyterian pastor/theologian & founding member of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Author of a respected 3 volume commentary on Genesis.

Gleason L. Archer - Professor of Biblical Languages at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California from 1948 to 1965. From 1965 to 1986 he served as a Professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois. He became an emeritus faculty member in 1989. The remainder of his life was spent researching, writing, and lecturing. Was one of the 50 original translators of the NASB published in 1971. He also worked on the team which translated the NIV Bible published in 1978.

Bruce K. Waltke - professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Dallas Theological Seminary, Regent College, Westminster Theological Seminary and Reformed Theological Seminary. Has served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society and was on the translation committee of the New American Standard Bible and the New International and Today's New International Version of the Bible. His books include Intermediate Hebrew Grammar, and Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Also co-authored a prominent commentary on Genesis.

John H. Sailhamer -professor of Old Testament at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary & formerly senior professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Author of An Introduction to Old Testament Theology and The NIV Compact Bible Commentary.

Wayne A. Grudem - Research Professor of Bible and Theology at Phoenix Seminary. Prior to that, he had taught for 20 years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he was chairman of the department of Biblical and Systematic Theology. Served on the committee overseeing the English Standard Version translation of the Bible, and in 1999 he was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Millard Erickson - Distinguished Professor of Theology at Western Seminary and author of Christian Theology.

Kenneth A. Mathews - professor of Old testament & Hebrew at Beeson Divinity School. His book, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll was the first full study of the Leviticus Dead Sea Scroll. He authored Genesis 1-11:26 and Genesis 11:27-50:26 in the New American Commentary (NAC) series and serves as associate general editor of that series.

Norman L. Geisler - Dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary.

C. John Collins - professor of Old Testament at Covenant Seminary. Author of Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. Also served as Old Testament chair on the translation committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible.

Gordon Wenham - senior professor of Old Testament at the University of Gloucester. Author of Exploring the Old Testament: the Pentateuch and of the IVP commentary on Genesis.

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. - distinguished Professor of Old Testament and former President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Author of A History of Israel, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, and The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant?

Now we could play a game of 'my list of scholars is bigger (or better) than your list of scholars' but that would miss my point entirely. No-one who knows anything of theology would describe anything as a 'consensus' if it excluded the preceding (partial) list of Old Testament and Hebrew scholars.

Tim Robbins

stevejazzx wrote:

Well it was fun evening but alas I am happily married. She was, to use the parlance of our times, way out of my league anyway. That doesn't mean that I would have...just that emmm well you know...;)

If your wife is reading this: hey house it going? All blokes have fantasy files, seriously its no big deal. Seriously he's a great guy.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

No, there is a host of biblical scholars who believe that the creation accounts were not intended to be taken as a scientifically accurate description.

I'm sure there are.

PDN wrote:

Now we could play a game of 'my list of scholars is bigger (or better) than your list of scholars' but that would miss my point entirely.

Indeed it does, though I fear you are still missing the point.

PDN wrote:

No-one who knows anything of theology would describe anything as a 'consensus' if it excluded the preceding (partial) list of Old Testament and Hebrew scholars.

Which is why I've been avoiding "theology"

Theology is pretty much a made up subject, where someone can pretty much say anything they like. Also most theologians are limited by the fact that they must start from the position that something is true, such as the belief that the Bible is inspired by God. Historians have no such limitation.

None of the people you listed have (as far as I can tell) ever put forward any proper evidence for their claims. If they did I doubt there would be such debate. The reason there is such debate over this subject in theology circles is because there is nothing but personal opinion (as theologists seem to like it)

They simply attempt to demonstrate that there is uncertainty, how ever limited, about what the original authors actually meant, which I would point out one can pretty much do with any text (as have been done to great comical effect by various cynics) Therefore they can insert which ever theory is fashionable, such as the Framework theory, or the Gap theory.

But again all of this is missing the point. As I've already said, what theologians personally spiritually believe on this subject is largely irrelevant unless they have historical evidence to back it up.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

If, on the other hand, you mean that they would have expected, had they been physically present at the moment of Creation, they would have seen and experienced exactly the events recorded in Genesis, I doubt it.

Any reason why?

Scofflaw wrote:

When someone says they take the Bible metaphorically, I don't think they mean that 6 days is a "metaphor" for 4.6 billion years.

Some do, they are called Day-Age Creationists, who view the "6 days" as a representation of a cycle (the Sabbath cycle), that is repeated in the Bible (such as farming on land for 6 years and leaving to "rest" for a year).

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Which is why I've been avoiding "theology"

Theology is pretty much a made up subject, where someone can pretty much say anything they like. Also most theologians are limited by the fact that they must start from the position that something is true, such as the belief that the Bible is inspired by God. Historians have no such limitation.

So, let's get this straight. You are happy to quote a theologian (James Barr) when it supports your argument. Then, a few hours later, you want to dismiss Barr's entire field of study as "a made up subject where someone can pretty much say anything they like". Doesn't that strike you as being slightly (or maybe even overwhelmingly) hypocritical?

Let's just examine the logic of your next argument.

None of the people you listed have (as far as I can tell) ever put forward any proper evidence for their claims. If they did I doubt there would be such debate. The reason there is such debate over this subject in theology circles is because there is nothing but personal opinion (as theologists seem to like it)

You appear to be arguing that debate will not occur on a subject if any proper evidence has ever been advanced. Do you really believe that? I'm really trying to give you a 'way out' here, as otherwise that ranks as one of the craziest pieces of bad logic that I've encountered on this board. Please tell me it was dyslexia or something.

Son Goku

Well there is an answer to the "where did matter come from?" question.
As for the time question, there is a few possible answers but it is still an open problem until observational cosmology can give more accurate observations.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

So, let's get this straight. You are happy to quote a theologian (James Barr) when it supports your argument. Then, a few hours later, you want to dismiss Barr's entire field of study as "a made up subject where someone can pretty much say anything they like". Doesn't that strike you as being slightly (or maybe even overwhelmingly) hypocritical?

I'm happy to quote Barr when he gives an assessment that is something other than spiritual belief, (ie theology). I would be happy to quote Kline doing that as well.

Barr's personal spiritual beliefs are as irrelevant to this conversation as Kline's are.

This is a point you are still not getting.

You keep talking about theology, what people personally spiritually believe, God meant.

I'm actually talking about history, what the people who wrote the Bible believed to be true. What God wants is largely irrelevant (this is the atheist forum after all).

PDN wrote:

You appear to be arguing that debate will not occur on a subject if any proper evidence has ever been advanced. Do you really believe that?

No, I believe the more evidence presented the more consensus arises, and the easier it becomes for someone to convince others of a position.

Do you disagree?

PDN wrote:

Please tell me it was dyslexia or something.

I do have dyslexia, though you apparently don't understand what that means.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

I'm happy to quote Barr when he gives an assessment that is something other than spiritual belief, (ie theology). I would be happy to quote Kline doing that as well.

Barr's personal spiritual beliefs are as irrelevant to this conversation as Kline's are.

This is a point you are still not getting.

You keep talking about theology, what people personally spiritually believe, God meant.

I'm actually talking about history, what the people who wrote the Bible believed to be true. What God wants is largely irrelevant (this is the atheist forum after all).

The field of 'Theology' includes exegesis, biblical languages, biblical history and the study of Hebrew culture. These are the very subjects that relate to, and provide evidence for, the question as to whether the author(s) of Genesis intended the creation account(s) to be taken as scientifically accurate. The scholars I have cited have reached conclusions using the same disciplines and in the same fields as James Barr. So how do you reach the conclusion that one of them (Barr - coincidentally the one who it suits you to quote) is practising history while the rest of these Hebrew and Old Testament scholars are all expressing their 'personal spiritual beliefs'?

this is the atheist forum after all

I know that, but I understood that we were still speaking English.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote:

No, there is a host of biblical scholars who believe that the creation accounts were not intended to be taken as a scientifically accurate description. Obviously my own background means I am more familiar with those in the evangelical tradition, but the following is a small selection of such scholars from the last 20 years:

Gordon R. Lewis - senior professor of systematic theology and Christian philosophy at Denver Seminary. He is the past president of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and the Evangelical Theological Society.

Meredith Kline - professor of Old Testament & professor emeritus at Westminster Theological Seminary & Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

James Montgomery Boice - Presbyterian pastor/theologian & founding member of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Author of a respected 3 volume commentary on Genesis.

Gleason L. Archer - Professor of Biblical Languages at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California from 1948 to 1965. From 1965 to 1986 he served as a Professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois. He became an emeritus faculty member in 1989. The remainder of his life was spent researching, writing, and lecturing. Was one of the 50 original translators of the NASB published in 1971. He also worked on the team which translated the NIV Bible published in 1978.

Bruce K. Waltke - professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Dallas Theological Seminary, Regent College, Westminster Theological Seminary and Reformed Theological Seminary. Has served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society and was on the translation committee of the New American Standard Bible and the New International and Today's New International Version of the Bible. His books include Intermediate Hebrew Grammar, and Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Also co-authored a prominent commentary on Genesis.

John H. Sailhamer -professor of Old Testament at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary & formerly senior professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Author of An Introduction to Old Testament Theology and The NIV Compact Bible Commentary.

Wayne A. Grudem - Research Professor of Bible and Theology at Phoenix Seminary. Prior to that, he had taught for 20 years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he was chairman of the department of Biblical and Systematic Theology. Served on the committee overseeing the English Standard Version translation of the Bible, and in 1999 he was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Millard Erickson - Distinguished Professor of Theology at Western Seminary and author of Christian Theology.

Kenneth A. Mathews - professor of Old testament & Hebrew at Beeson Divinity School. His book, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll was the first full study of the Leviticus Dead Sea Scroll. He authored Genesis 1-11:26 and Genesis 11:27-50:26 in the New American Commentary (NAC) series and serves as associate general editor of that series.

Norman L. Geisler - Dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary.

C. John Collins - professor of Old Testament at Covenant Seminary. Author of Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. Also served as Old Testament chair on the translation committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible.

Gordon Wenham - senior professor of Old Testament at the University of Gloucester. Author of Exploring the Old Testament: the Pentateuch and of the IVP commentary on Genesis.

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. - distinguished Professor of Old Testament and former President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Author of A History of Israel, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, and The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant?

Now we could play a game of 'my list of scholars is bigger (or better) than your list of scholars' but that would miss my point entirely. No-one who knows anything of theology would describe anything as a 'consensus' if it excluded the preceding (partial) list of Old Testament and Hebrew scholars.

...well I was just about to post up a big lst of theologians and there are many who support the opposite here i.e that the creation stories are factual, {by the way some of your guys aren't exactly clear on calling them methaphors it rather more complex than that.}..however I thought of a better direction (I think!) to take this in.
If the creation stories are methaphorical, how on earth do we know what they're methaphors for exactly? Where does the comparison begin and end and can we really place our lives in the hands of methaphorical anicient text? What do your theolgians offer in place of fact? What can they offer which isn't purely theoretical if they are acting on the assumption (lets face they can't be sure) that the creation myths are not factual representations? Everything falls down like a house cards, it's all conjecture, I mean we study origins and texts that we know are unreliable and now we've got to factor in that the same texts may be entirely methaphorical..so it's no longer a history we're looking but a complete fantasy and the only thing suspending this house of cards is the grandiose claim that the whole sordid mess was created by a being that has no history in and of itself, this being just exists...don't you think that it is very likely that this 'impossible' being was invented, after all the people of the time had such a necessity for him that we just don't have today, I think it was Thomas Edison who said that 'necessity is the mother of invention'. I mean think about it, the evidence aginast a biblical God is massive, you'd have to dismiss all other religons for a start and essentially say that everyone else is doomed who happened to be born in a non christian country, isn't it absurd to suggest that this all loving God would create or allow us to create such a mess and leave us stranded in such incertainity? If we were to say that ancient cultures created their Gods in the absence of observable explanations for the universe wouldn't we be closer ot the truth? Doesn't that make a billion times more sense? I mean otherwise we have to select one religon and say well that's the right one and their God is the only one that's true and not made up. Isn't every religous person an astheist in regard to other cultures customs and habits, what does dawkins say, we just take it one god further...I mean come on..this business of chosing one true God...doesn't it seem so unnatural and so unfair that your geographical location might determine your salvation? I think Zillah said a while that he thought it was quite humourous that the Biblical God behaved just like a crazy anicient primitive arabic despot, you know no matter what way you way you shine the light on the subject there is no getting away from the harsh reality that everytihng that we have come to understand in the 21st century teaches us quite implicity that these anicient gods were invented...we've buried most of them, Zeus, thor etc lets put the rest to bed and get on with enlightenment.

earnestly,

steve

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

So how do you reach the conclusion that one of them (Barr - coincidentally the one who it suits you to quote) is practising history while the rest of these Hebrew and Old Testament scholars are all expressing their 'personal spiritual beliefs'?

Because they haven't, as far as I can tell, put forward a historic reason for their conclusion. Their conclusion is based on the initial starting point that the Bible does not contain errors. It is a theological position. Barr is not limited by that starting point since he accepts that the Bible can contain errors.

PDN wrote:

I know that, but I understood that we were still speaking English.

The issue isn't whether or not we are speaking English (though it is always fun having dyslexia used as an insult :rolleyes:)

The issue is whether or not we are discussing this subject in terms of the initial starting point that the Bible cannot be wrong and that those who wrote it did so under the guidance of God.

All the theologians that you quote to me do, as far as I can tell, start from this initial position. Asking them therefore if the authors meant what they said is a non-question, of course they meant what they said, God was inspiring them! The Bible cannot be wrong. No matter how one interprets it, the authors must have meant what they said and what they meant is the interpretation that someone arrives at, and this interpretation must be valid. You can change the interpretation any way you like and still end up with the conclusion that the authors meant what they said, because one will always believe that the original authors meant the passages to be interpreted as these theologians interpret it.

This is the kind of nonsense logic that theology seems to be riddled with. But as I tried to point out, you aren't on the Christian forum any more, it is no longer given that this will be assumed when discussion this subject. Around here we require higher standards of argument.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote:

...well I was just about to post up a big lst of theologians and there are many who support the opposite here i.e that the creation stories are factual, {by the way some of your guys aren't exactly clear on calling them methaphors it rather more complex than that.}..however I thought of a better direction (I think!) to take this in.
If the creation stories are methaphorical, how on earth do we know what they're methaphors for exactly? Where does the comparison begin and end and can we really place our lives in the hands of methaphorical anicient text? What do your theolgians offer in place of fact? What can they offer which isn't purely theoretical if they are acting on the assumption (lets face they can't be sure) that the creation myths are not factual representations? Everything falls down like a house cards, it's all conjecture, I mean we study origins and texts that we know are unreliable and now we've got to factor in that the same texts may be entirely methaphorical..so it's no longer a history we're looking but a complete fantasy and the only thing suspending this house of cards is the grandiose claim that the whole sordid mess was created by a being that has no history in and of itself, this being just exists...don't you think that it is very likely that this 'impossible' being was invented, after all the people of the time had such a necessity for him that we just don't have today, I think it was Thomas Edison who said that 'necessity is the mother of invention'. I mean think about it, the evidence aginast a biblical God is massive, you'd have to dismiss all other religons for a start and essentially say that everyone else is doomed who happened to be born in a non christian country, isn't it absurd to suggest that this all loving God would create or allow us to create such a mess and leave us stranded in such incertainity? If we were to say that ancient cultures created their Gods in the absence of observable explanations for the universe wouldn't we be closer ot the truth? Doesn't that make a billion times more sense? I mean otherwise we have to select one religon and say well that's the right one and their God is the only one that's true and not made up. Isn't every religous person an astheist in regard to other cultures customs and habits, what does dawkins say, we just take it one god further...I mean come on..this business of chosing one true God...doesn't it seem so unnatural and so unfair that your geographical location might determine your salvation? I think Zillah said a while that he thought it was quite humourous that the Biblical God behaved just like a crazy anicient primitive arabic despot, you know no matter what way you way you shine the light on the subject there is no getting away from the harsh reality that everytihng that we have come to understand in the 21st century teaches us quite implicity that these anicient gods were invented...we've buried most of them, Zeus, thor etc lets put the rest to bed and get on with enlightenment.

earnestly,

steve

OK, so that's 2 or 3 new arguments you've decided to raise. I guess that means that your claim "the evidence against religon won with just one argument" (whatever that means) is now conceded to be a bit of an overstatement?

If you want to start a thread in the Christianity forum about the different metaphors suggested by biblical scholars in the creation accounts then feel free to do so. It's probably not very relevant to the subject of atheism since it is hardly essential to whether one believes in God or not.

As for your argument that one's geographical location determines your salvation, most Christians would not subscribe to such a viewpoint. I think you're starting to tilt at windmills at this point.

robindch

PDN wrote:

As for your argument that one's geographical location determines your salvation, most Christians would not subscribe to such a viewpoint

Possibly they do not subscribe to this viewpoint, because many christians are parochial, literally as well as intellectually.

If you subscribe, as many christians do, to the idea that you must believe the correct thing in order to go to heaven, and that exactly what one should believe is determined by the religion to which you adhere, then a short examination of a page like this one:

http://www.adherents.com/adhloc/indexWhere.html

...would suggest to many that one's religion, as largely determined by the location of one's birth, does indeed have a major influence upon whether one is "saved" or not.