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

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

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.

I see, so what you are saying is that evangelical biblical scholars (because they hold to one set of presuppositions) are incapable of coming to conclusions based on their knowledge of Hebrew language, ancient history, literary forms etc. James Barr, on the other hand, (because he holds to a different set of presuppositions, one that you prefer) is guaranteed to come to a conclusion based on evidence rather than spiritual beliefs.

Apart from being incredibly prejudiced, such an argument is complete nonsense. For example, many other evangelical scholars hold to the opposite view - that the author(s) of Genesis intended their accounts be treated strictly literally. This is because the disagreement is not over one's stance on inspiration, but rather on how one weighs up the available evidence.

The main reason why I cited evangelical biblical scholars is not because they are the main proponents of a non-literal reading of Genesis, but rather because they are the ones I am most familiar with. In fact most liberal biblical scholars (ie those who deny the inerrancy or inspiration of Scripture) also treat the Genesis accounts as poetic or symbolic. These include Herman Gunkel, Rudolf Bultmann, Claus Westermann, Walter Brueggemann, Gerhard von Rad, and Karl Barth. In fact the Young Earth critics are particularly scathing against people like Wenham because they accuse him of being a traitor to the evangelical cause by espousing a position more usually held by liberals. This is not a liberal/evangelical issue. It is a position where different scholars disagree over how to interpret the evidence. Contrary to your earlier post, there is no consensus on this issue.

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

I did not use dyslexia as an insult, and I apologise unreservedly if it appeared that way. This was because in a previous thread, some time ago, you spent a long time discussing adultery in response to a post I had made about idolatry. Even though I thought that the context (repeated references to worshiping false gods) was clear, you made a reference to "damned dyslexia" which I thought must be some kind of joke (since dyslexia would not explain missing the context). Please believe me that I would never see dyslexia as a reason to insult or mock anyone.

My reference to 'speaking English' refers rather to your occasional habit of choosing to assign to words a meaning different to that used by the rest of us.

PDN

robindch wrote:

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.

Many (possibly most) Christians believe that those born in non-Christian societies and who never hear the Gospel will be judged compassionately by God according to the light they have received. I have actually encountered very few Christians who would believe that every Muslim, for example, will be sent to hell for failing to believe in a Gospel that they never had the opportunity to hear. Now, there are undoubtedly some who do believe such a doctrine (to save you the bother of having to google them) but they represent a strand of belief within Christianity, not Christian belief per se.

This has been my point all through this thread. You may, or may not, have noticed that at no stage have I stated what my own personal belief is concerning the scientific accuracy of the creation accounts in Genesis. My own opinion is actually irrelevant to the point in hand. The central point I am making is that stevejazzx's arguments (both concerning creation and now this link between geographical location and salvation) are actually only addressing certain viewpoints within Christianity. They most certainly do not even address issues held in common by all evangelicals, let alone by all Christians. Therefore it is patently wrong to present them as proofs against belief in the biblical God.

Another point I made earlier was that belief in a literal 6 day creation is not necessarily synonymous with believing in a young earth. There are plenty of Old Earth Creationists who take the Genesis accounts literally but still believe in a world that is millions of years old. The OP, and most subsequent contributions to this thread, hopelessly conflate the two distinct issues of creationism and the age of the earth.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote:

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.

Well I haven't heard a rebuttal of the time argument yet, unless you're telling me that

1.the creation stories are methaphorical and Gods six days actually equals hundreds of millions of years in which case I'd know where you stand at least...
2. ...otherwise you're telling me that it actually was six days between 6-12 thousands years ago.

Either way I cannot see a rebuttal because in the case of:

1. making six days into 400 hundred million years would require the question 'why call it six days? 6 days = 6 eons is something a priest told me before..my next question was whats an eon and his reply was vast greatness of time..you've gotta love the convenience of that...
2. the world is quite simply not just thousands of years old..that doesn't need debating does it?

Our only conclusion form this argument is that biblical accounts are either enormously confusing or made up...

As for geogrpahy do you imagine that the 70% of americans feel their Islamic friends are all going to their private heaven.... It is a greatly sobering thought to imagine where one might have been born and what odd religon one might have been indoctrinated into. One things for sure, although the proper christian outlook might be one of harmony and understanding it is also one of exclusivity like every other major religon, you're either in or out and if you're out you're doomed...IMO religon wouldn't exist without fear.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote:

Many (possibly most) Christians believe that those born in non-Christian societies and who never hear the Gospel will be judged compassionately by God according to the light they have received. I have actually encountered very few Christians who would believe that every Muslim, for example, will be sent to hell for failing to believe in a Gospel that they never had the opportunity to hear. Now, there are undoubtedly some who do believe such a doctrine (to save you the bother of having to google them) but they represent a strand of belief within Christianity, not Christian belief per se.

This has been my point all through this thread. You may, or may not, have noticed that at no stage have I stated what my own personal belief is concerning the scientific accuracy of the creation accounts in Genesis. My own opinion is actually irrelevant to the point in hand. The central point I am making is that stevejazzx's arguments (both concerning creation and now this link between geographical location and salvation) are actually only addressing certain viewpoints within Christianity. They most certainly do not even address issues held in common by all evangelicals, let alone by all Christians. Therefore it is patently wrong to present them as proofs against belief in the biblical God.

Another point I made earlier was that belief in a literal 6 day creation is not necessarily synonymous with believing in a young earth. There are plenty of Old Earth Creationists who take the Genesis accounts literally but still believe in a world that is millions of years old. The OP, and most subsequent contributions to this thread, hopelessly conflate the two distinct issues of creationism and the age of the earth.

Hang on a second...firstly you're right, talking about geographical location and salvation was bringing this thing way off thread.
However you say that my points only address certain 'viewpoints within christianity' and since they are not all encompassing it is 'patently wrong to offer them as arguments against a biblical God'. Well that's interesting so now any evidence against a biblical god must be all encompassing of the chrisitian religon? That'll be a bit tiring won't it? I mean next time before I write that the earth being infintely older than the bible records I should consider the compassion of the christinan ideal? I mean what are you saying that my evidence is incomplete? But the idea of the thread was that one well made argument against biblical records is enough to get someone thinking. And people thinking and questioning is what we want not people saying forget about gravity...God did it!

PDN

stevejazzx wrote:

Well I haven't heard a rebuttal of the time argument yet, unless you're telling me that

1.the creation stories are methaphorical and Gods six days actually equals hundreds of millions of years in which case I'd know where you stand at least...
2. ...otherwise you're telling me that it actually was six days between 6-12 thousands years ago.

Either way I cannot see a rebuttal because in the case of:

1. making six days into 400 hundred million years would require the question 'why call it six days? 6 days = 6 eons is something a priest told me before..my next question was whats an eon and his reply was vast greatness of time..you've gotta love the convenience of that...
2. the world is quite simply not just thousands of years old..that doesn't need debating does it?

Our only conclusion form this argument is that biblical accounts are either enormously confusing or made up....

You haven't really been reading much of what has already been posted in this thread, have you?

The time argument can be rebutted on the following basis.
Belief in the biblical God does not necessitate belief in a literal 6 day creation. Neither does belief in a literal 6 day creation necessitate belief in a young earth. Therefore to use evidence for the age of the earth as an argument against belief in the biblical God requires, not just one, but two leaps of logic.

As for geogrpahy do you imagine that the 70% of americans feel their Islamic friends are all going to their private heaven....

There you go again. You refer to a statistically tiny group within Christianity and try to use it as an argument against the rest of the faith. Firstly you make the mistake of assuming that your sterotypical impression of American Christianity is uniformy applicable to the whole. Your "70% of Americans" who claim to be Christian includes large numbers of wooly minded liberals who are perfectly happy to engage in multifaith encounters that include Muslim imams (as in the 911 memorial at the Washington National Cathedral in 2001) and who vote practicing homosexuals in as bishops. So, yes, some of them would be very happy to believe their Islamic friends are going to their own little heaven, if indeed they believe in heaven at all.

By the way, those 70% of Americans amount to less than 12% of the total number of Christians worldwide.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote:

And people thinking and questioning is what we want not people saying forget about gravity...God did it!

Er, the gravity thing is a parody. Didn't you get that?

Fanny Cradock

stevejazzx wrote:

Well I haven't heard a rebuttal of the time argument yet, unless you're telling me that

1.the creation stories are methaphorical and Gods six days actually equals hundreds of millions of years in which case I'd know where you stand at least...
2. ...otherwise you're telling me that it actually was six days between 6-12 thousands years ago.

Either way I cannot see a rebuttal because in the case of:

1. making six days into 400 hundred million years would require the question 'why call it six days? 6 days = 6 eons is something a priest told me before..my next question was whats an eon and his reply was vast greatness of time..you've gotta love the convenience of that...
2. the world is quite simply not just thousands of years old..that doesn't need debating does it?

Our only conclusion form this argument is that biblical accounts are either enormously confusing or made up...

Why make it six days? The obvious answer would be that such a time frame made perfect sense to the initial audience of Genesis.

If you believe Genesis to be a metaphorical account of creation then I would think you could argue that the 6 days are purely an arbitrary figure. I really don't see how you can state this is belief is 'enormously confusing'. Maybe you are just slipping into hyperbole, or perhaps you should again look up 'metaphorical' in a dictionary

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Why make it six days? The obvious answer would be that such a time frame made perfect sense to the initial audience of Genesis.

If you believe Genesis to be a metaphorical account of creation then I would think you could argue that the 6 days are purely an arbitrary figure. I really don't see how you can state this is belief is 'enormously confusing'. Maybe you are just slipping into hyperbole, or perhaps you should again look up 'metaphorical' in a dictionary

Well, while steve is doing that, perhaps PDN might like to clarify his use of the word 'literal'? I suspect that when he says "literal reading of the text" he doesn't mean "superficially exact".

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, while steve is doing that, perhaps PDN might like to clarify his use of the word 'literal'? I suspect that when he says "literal reading of the text" he doesn't mean "superficially exact".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Neither do I mean 'of or pertaining to the letters of the alphabet'.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Neither do I mean 'of or pertaining to the letters of the alphabet'.

You might mean according with the letter of the scriptures, but given we're talking about literal readings of Scripture, that doesn't get us very far...

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

PDN wrote:

You haven't really been reading much of what has already been posted in this thread, have you?

The time argument can be rebutted on the following basis.
Belief in the biblical God does not necessitate belief in a literal 6 day creation. Neither does belief in a literal 6 day creation necessitate belief in a young earth. Therefore to use evidence for the age of the earth as an argument against belief in the biblical God requires, not just one, but two leaps of logic.

'Does not necessitate' is your rebuttal is it? Seriously that is simply another way of saying na na na na na....

pdn wrote:

There you go again. You refer to a statistically tiny group within Christianity and try to use it as an argument against the rest of the faith.

Ok so I took a cross smaple, the point though is not about many, it is about what the religon demands of it followers. In this case it is the belief that those who do not go with your god are doomed.

PDN wrote:

Firstly you make the mistake of assuming that your sterotypical impression of American Christianity is uniformy applicable to the whole. Your "70% of Americans" who claim to be Christian includes large numbers of wooly minded liberals who are perfectly happy to engage in multifaith encounters that include Muslim imams (as in the 911 memorial at the Washington National Cathedral in 2001) and who vote practicing homosexuals in as bishops. So, yes, some of them would be very happy to believe their Islamic friends are going to their own little heaven, if indeed they believe in heaven at all.

By the way, those 70% of Americans amount to less than 12% of the total number of Christians worldwide.

Fair enough point accepted but I refer to my answer again...

stevejazzx

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Why make it six days? The obvious answer would be that such a time frame made perfect sense to the initial audience of Genesis.

If you believe Genesis to be a metaphorical account of creation then I would think you could argue that the 6 days are purely an arbitrary figure. I really don't see how you can state this is belief is 'enormously confusing'. Maybe you are just slipping into hyperbole, or perhaps you should again look up 'metaphorical' in a dictionary

Well thanks very much..I was really hoping someone would say that. That the six days if taken methaphorically (and I assure you I am quite au fait with the word 'methaphor', it's just the best word we have in this situation) is, and you're quite right, purely an arbitary figure. So all those great scholars theroizing over arbitary figures, all this death pain and suffering over arbitary words and images written thousand of years ago..very silly isn't it? Either side of the argument is absurd becasue if it's not literal then it's fantasy.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote:

Er, the gravity thing is a parody. Didn't you get that?

Like the condom thing perhaps....or the former popes plea to scientists not to investigate time before the big bang?

By the by, I was bieng a little obtuse, my point was something that a creationist could concievably say..after all the JC has claimed that the Noahs Ark really happened...that puts gravity in perspective...

PDN

stevejazzx wrote:

'Does not necessitate' is your rebuttal is it? Seriously that is simply another way of saying na na na na na....

Are you drunk?

Can you not understand the basic logical principle here? You are advancing the following argument:

1. Some Christians are Creationists.
2. Some Creationists believe in a young earth.
3. There is strong evidence against a young earth.
4. Therefore all Christians are wrong.

Your argument would only hold true if all Christians were Creationists and also if all Creationists believed in a young earth. The phrase 'does not necessitate' turns the 'all' into 'some' and renders your argument logically invalid.

Ok so I took a cross smaple, the point though is not about many, it is about what the religon demands of it followers. In this case it is the belief that those who do not go with your god are doomed.

But that belief is not true of Christianity as a whole, only of certain strands within Christianity. It is like me presenting an argument against North Korean communism and then claiming that I've disproved the entire system of atheism with just one argument.

Fair enough point accepted but I refer to my answer again...

By 'answer' you mean "na na na na na...."?

You're making JC sound more articulate and rational by the post.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

Well thanks very much..I was really hoping someone would say that. That the six days if taken methaphorically (and I assure you I am quite au fait with the word 'methaphor', it's just the best word we have in this situation) is, and you're quite right, purely an arbitary figure. So all those great scholars theroizing over arbitary figures, all this death pain and suffering over arbitary words and images written thousand of years ago..very silly isn't it? Either side of the argument is absurd becasue if it's not literal then it's fantasy.

A perspective shared, oddly enough, by certain atheists and certain Christians.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

stevejazzx wrote:

Well thanks very much..I was really hoping someone would say that. That the six days if taken methaphorically (and I assure you I am quite au fait with the word 'methaphor', it's just the best word we have in this situation) is, and you're quite right, purely an arbitary figure. So all those great scholars theroizing over arbitary figures, all this death pain and suffering over arbitary words and images written thousand of years ago..very silly isn't it? Either side of the argument is absurd becasue if it's not literal then it's fantasy.

So you are au fait with the word 'methaphor'? That is interesting.

"Death, pain and suffering?" I am obviously missing something here. What death, pain or suffering has been caused by discussions about whether creation occurred in 6 literal days or not?

Either side of the argument is absurd becasue if it's not literal then it's fantasy.

"Muhammad Ali - floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee."

Did he literally float like a butterfly? No. Did he literally sting like a bee? No. Is It just fantasy? (Caught in a landslide? No escape from reality? - sorry, couldn't help myself) No! It's a metaphor that millions of people understood as expressing the grace and power of a great athlete.

pH

PDN wrote:

So you are au fait with the word 'methaphor'? That is interesting.

...

"Muhammad Ali - floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee."

Did he literally float like a butterfly? No. Did he literally sting like a bee? No. Is It just fantasy? (Caught in a landslide? No escape from reality? - sorry, couldn't help myself) No! It's a metaphor that millions of people understood as expressing the grace and power of a great athlete.

So what's this a metaphor for?

Genesis 3:16 wrote:

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

PDN

Originally Posted by Genesis 3:16
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

pH wrote:

So what's this a metaphor for?

What makes you think it is a metaphor for anything? The first humans sinned. This can be true irrespective of whether you believe the first humans were created in 6 days or whether you believe they were the culmination of an evolutionary process of mutations. It is also applies whether you think the first couple lived 60 million years ago or 6000 years ago.

One of the results of that sin is that the entire created order is now out of whack. Two specific consequences would appear to be that childbirth became a painful process and that 'the battle of the sexes' (with women desiring to dominate men, and men acting like petty despots) replaced the harmonious relationship that God had intended for men and women.

Either ways, I don't see that this has any bearing whatsoever on the Original Post or on the arguments advanced in this thread.

Myksyk

PDN wrote:

One of the results of that sin is that the entire created order is now out of whack. Two specific consequences would appear to be that childbirth became a painful process and that 'the battle of the sexes' (with women desiring to dominate men, and men acting like petty despots) replaced the harmonious relationship that God had intended for men and women.

Absolute mind-numbing nonsense.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I see, so what you are saying is that evangelical biblical scholars (because they hold to one set of presuppositions) are incapable of coming to conclusions based on their knowledge of Hebrew language, ancient history, literary forms etc. James Barr, on the other hand, (because he holds to a different set of presuppositions, one that you prefer) is guaranteed to come to a conclusion based on evidence rather than spiritual beliefs.

Well whether they are capable or not is rather irrelevant. I'm sure they are capable.

They haven't come to this conclusion based on these things, they have come to their conclusions based on the spiritual idea that the Bible is inerrant, and I think we can both agree that you won't find evidence of that in the Hebrew language, ancient history or literary forms.

If one starts of from that position it changes the entire ball game, because the possibility that these people were simply wrong goes out the window, and from then on one works under the assumption that there is a valid interpretation some where.

Now if you are trying to convince me, an atheist, on this forum, the atheist forum, that I should be open to the idea that the Bible is actually the inerrant word of God, and that I should therefore be just as accepting to historical theories that work of that assumption, and that assumption alone, then as I said before I'm sorry but you need to look at where you are.

What evidence is there that the people who wrote the Bible knew the passages were metaphor for something greater, or that they were inspired by God while they wrote them?

PDN wrote:

This is because the disagreement is not over one's stance on inspiration, but rather on how one weighs up the available evidence.

No its actually based on how strong the initial belief in the inerrant nature of the Bible is, the person will then go searching for gaps in the Bible where they can fit their belief in. Which is what I was talking about earlier, the problem with theology and why scientists such as Dawkins describe it as a nonsense subject.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

and that 'the battle of the sexes' (with women desiring to dominate men, and men acting like petty despots) replaced the harmonious relationship that God had intended for men and women.

.. have you being watching 'War of the Roses' recently?
Seriously PDN, that's ridiculous.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

.. have you being watching 'War of the Roses' recently?
Seriously PDN, that's ridiculous.

So why is it ridiculous that conflict of any kind (be it racial, class-oriented, or gender based) is a result of human sinfulness?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Either ways, I don't see that this has any bearing whatsoever on the Original Post or on the arguments advanced in this thread.

Well it goes to the argument that the Bible is not supposed to be read literally (Ali doesn't actually float, nor does he sting)

The question then becomes what where the original authors attempting to explain if they did not mean for this to be read literally.

The arguments that it is a metaphor for anything seem as weak are the Creationist arguments that it accurately describes history

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

So why is it ridiculous that conflict of any kind (be it racial, class-oriented, or gender based) is a result of human sinfulness?

Well which came first, the sin or the conflict?

Your argument seems to be that human conflict is a punishment from God for humans being sinful. If humans were sinful to start with then what is this harmonious relationship we had with each other that God decided to take away as punishment.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote:

Are you drunk?

Can you not understand the basic logical principle here? You are advancing the following argument:

Rght.Well I'm sober now..I was awash with booze last night, my apologies.

pdn wrote:

1. Some Christians are Creationists.
2. Some Creationists believe in a young earth.
3. There is strong evidence against a young earth.
4. Therefore all Christians are wrong.

Your argument would only hold true if all Christians were Creationists and also if all Creationists believed in a young earth. The phrase 'does not necessitate' turns the 'all' into 'some' and renders your argument logically invalid.

Let me explain the probelm here as I see it. You seem to be saying that because christians believe different things in relation to the age of the earth then I cannot critticise biblical records as inaccurate using modern scientific methods? I don't get it, I'm sorry. Saying that I am mixing up creationsist with other christians is not a rebuttal to the argument that I presented in the begining of the thread. Heres the argument again:

The age of earth can now be accurately shown as 4.5 billion using absolute/radiometric dating. If the earth really is this old then this is very strong evidence that the accounts of creation as recorded in biblical texts are incorrect.

Your rebuttal as I understand it:

Different christians believe different things about the age of the earth, some believe in a young earth and some don't.

The probelm:

The christians who believe in an old earth cannot in any way reconcile that with their bible suffice to say that their bible is a one big methaphor.

The young earth creationists have thier own issues that i don't think need to be argued.

pdn wrote:

But that belief is not true of Christianity as a whole, only of certain strands within Christianity. It is like me presenting an argument against North Korean communism and then claiming that I've disproved the entire system of atheism with just one argument.

What would be your argument be, (out of curioulty)? Can you think of one, hypothetically speaking? And what would you be disproving atheism or communism, hypothetically of course lest you imagine I'm on the sauce again.

pdn wrote:

By 'answer' you mean "na na na na na...."?

You're making JC sound more articulate and rational by the post.

To your ears, perhaps, anything is possible after all.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Why make it six days? The obvious answer would be that such a time frame made perfect sense to the initial audience of Genesis.

Then why make it 10+ billion years? Why not just create the universe in 6 days, as he claimed he did?

stevejazzx

PDN wrote:

So you are au fait with the word 'methaphor'? That is interesting.

Interesting that you appear not to really understand that I used the expression correctly. I invite u to present evidence to the contrary?

pdn wrote:

"Death, pain and suffering?" I am obviously missing something here. What death, pain or suffering has been caused by discussions about whether creation occurred in 6 literal days or not?

Perhaps you are missing something and there I was assuming that you had read about christian history...

pdn wrote:

"Muhammad Ali - floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee."

Did he literally float like a butterfly? No. Did he literally sting like a bee? No. Is It just fantasy? (Caught in a landslide? No escape from reality? - sorry, couldn't help myself) No! It's a metaphor that millions of people understood as expressing the grace and power of a great athlete.

Thanks for the English 101 there..much appreciated but I'll tell you why people didn't believe that he didn't actually sting like a bee or float like a butterfly, it's becasue they know he's a man. And a man, to the best observable knowledge, cannot do those things. Also they (people) knew he was a real figure because they were able to see him in the flesh. The methaphors from the bible are unknowable, untestable, unobservable...Muhammed Ali was quite real, as real as human experience can testify, your bible conversely bares all the hallmarks of being a fabricated text with very little bassis in reality at all.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Well whether they are capable or not is rather irrelevant. I'm sure they are capable.

They haven't come to this conclusion based on these things, they have come to their conclusions based on the spiritual idea that the Bible is inerrant, and I think we can both agree that you won't find evidence of that in the Hebrew language, ancient history or literary forms.

If one starts of from that position it changes the entire ball game, because the possibility that these people were simply wrong goes out the window, and from then on one works under the assumption that there is a valid interpretation some where.

Now if you are trying to convince me, an atheist, on this forum, the atheist forum, that I should be open to the idea that the Bible is actually the inerrant word of God, and that I should therefore be just as accepting to historical theories that work of that assumption, and that assumption alone, then as I said before I'm sorry but you need to look at where you are.

What evidence is there that the people who wrote the Bible knew the passages were metaphor for something greater, or that they were inspired by God while they wrote them?



No its actually based on how strong the initial belief in the inerrant nature of the Bible is, the person will then go searching for gaps in the Bible where they can fit their belief in. Which is what I was talking about earlier, the problem with theology and why scientists such as Dawkins describe it as a nonsense subject.

Your ability to dodge and change the subject is really quite remarkable.

You claimed that the metaphorical approach to creation was a modern response by Christians to the discoveries of science. I cited historical examples to show that the metaphorical approach was as old as Christianity itself. You were wrong.

You claimed that there was a consensus among historians and biblical scholars that the creation accounts were intended to be taken as literal scientific descriptions. I cited examples of many biblical scholars, including some of the foremost experts in the Hebrew language, in near-eastern literary forms, and in Old Testament studies to show that no such consensus exists. You were wrong.

You attempted to dismiss all these experts on the grounds that they were evangelicals. Apparently the word consensus now means "all scholars who conform to Wicknight's expectations on the subject of inspiration or inerrancy". However, I then gave you the names of some of the foremost liberal scholars who treat the creation accounts as metaphorical, symbolic or poetry. Therefore you are still wrong.

Now you are still attempting to argue that the issue at hand (were the creation accounts intended to be taken metaphorical or literally) is determined by one's approach to inspiration & inerrancy. How long will it take you to get this into your head? There are evangelical scholars who hold to both sides of this debate. There are liberal scholars who hold to both sides of this debate. That is because the debate is nothing to do with inspiration. It is to do with evidence, and the experts in the field (irrespective of their views on inspiration) cannot agree/ That is because there is no consensus. You are wrong.

Now you are trying fall back on the old get-out of "well it's all a loud of rubbish anyway". That would be acceptable in an atheist forum if it were not for one thing. You already quoted a theologian (James Barr) as an authority to support your argument. If theology is a nonsense subject then James Barr is a nonsense scholar. You are therefore not only wrong, but hypocritical.

Now if you are trying to convince me, an atheist, on this forum, the atheist forum, that I should be open to the idea that the Bible is actually the inerrant word of God, and that I should therefore be just as accepting to historical theories that work of that assumption, and that assumption alone, then as I said before I'm sorry but you need to look at where you are.

Show me one place in this thread where I have tried to convince anyone about inerrancy or inspiration. That is one big fat red herring. All I have done is to argue the point, a point backed by copious evidence, that not all Christians believe in a young earth, and that belief in a literal 6-day creation is not essential to Christianity. You are the one who keeps raising the issue of inspiration and inerrancy.

What evidence is there that the people who wrote the Bible knew the passages were metaphor for something greater, or that they were inspired by God while they wrote them?

Inspired by God? What has that got to do with this thread? I have not made an issue of that at any stage. Every argument I have made is valid whether you believe in inspiration or not. You are the one with the bee in your bonnet about inspiration, not me.

What evidence is there that the people who wrote the Bible believed that every passage should be taken literally? Hebrew language and culture are rich in metaphors. There are parts of the Bible that even a three year old can see where to be taken metaphorically. For example, did Jesus mean that his disciples were literally going to turn into sheep? Since the Bible contains both literal descriptions of events and metaphors, those who have spent their academic lives studying the Bible (both evangelicals and liberals) are divided as to whether the creation accounts were intended to be taken literally or metaphorically. What is so hard to understand about that?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

1. Some Christians are Creationists.
2. Some Creationists believe in a young earth.
3. There is strong evidence against a young earth.
4. Therefore all Christians are wrong.

Your argument would only hold true if all Christians were Creationists and also if all Creationists believed in a young earth.

His argument is a lot similar than that

1 - The Bible is supposed to be inspired by a Biblical God
2 - The Bible incorrectly describes history
3 - The Biblical God that was supposed to inspire the Bible doesn't exist.

Like it or not that is strong evidence that the Biblical God doesn't exist

Of course a lot of Christians get around that by saying that 2 doesn't hold because the Bible was never attempting to describe history accurately in the first place.

But so far the only evidence for that is based on the assumption that the Biblical God already exists, and must have inspired the Bible in the first place so therefore some why or some how the Bible must be an accurate representation of his inspiration and he cannot be wrong.

Which is cyclical logic of the highest order.

the_syco

Eh, some christians, in an attempt to make us believe that the world is only a few thousand years old, try to say that humans and dinosaurs lived in the same time frame, and that humans rode the dinosaurs around the place.

Sure, cos if this wasn't the case, they'd have no basis on the "earth is a few thousand years old" sh|te.

Oh, and for the record, the earth being made in 7 days thing: it never says how long a day is.