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

PDN

stevejazzx wrote:

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

Well, I would imagine that if you were really au fait (being up to a particular standard, well-versed, expert) on something then you might be able to spell it correctly.

I normally try to ignore the frequent spelling mistakes that crop up on these boards. Education isn't what it used to be, and we all suffer from 'fat fingers' now and again. Also I understand that drawing attention to bad spelling is considered bad form in internet fora.

However, when someone claims to be au fait about 'methaphors' (having already spelled the word wrongly on dozens of occasions) then it really is Trotteresque (as in Del-Boy). If I have overstepped the mark by drawing attention to this then no doubt the mods will clobber me accordingly.

Scofflaw

I have some issues with this one:

Wicknight wrote:

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.

The argument relies on the idea that the primary purpose of the Bible is to describe history accurately - that it is, first and foremost, a historical work - since otherwise, why should history be the primary criterion on which it is judged?

I think you'll have to walk a very long way before you find a Christian who agrees with that.

Wicknight wrote:

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

If and only if the primary purpose of the Bible is to record history.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

I find this incomprehensible...what exactly do you mean that the 'only evidence that the Bible doesn't try to describe history accurately' is based on the assumption that God already exists? If the primary purpose of the Bible is as a guide to life, then the contents should be seen first and foremost as expressing moral or religious truths - and why should the real history not be secondary?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

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.

I find it interesting that you repeatedly accuse JC of lying for doing exactly what you are doing here.

I have already demonstrated that there are plenty of liberal theologians (those who deny that the Bible is anything other than men's well-meaning attempts to describe God) who treat the Genesis accounts as metaphors not intended to be taken literally.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote:

Well, I would imagine that if you were really au fait (being up to a particular standard, well-versed, expert) on something then you might be able to spell it correctly.

I normally try to ignore the frequent spelling mistakes that crop up on these boards. Education isn't what it used to be, and we all suffer from 'fat fingers' now and again. Also I understand that drawing attention to bad spelling is considered bad form in internet fora.

However, when someone claims to be au fait about 'methaphors' (having already spelled the word wrongly on dozens of occasions) then it really is Trotteresque (as in Del-Boy). If I have overstepped the mark by drawing attention to this then no doubt the mods will clobber me accordingly.

You know many I've had to type metaphor in this thread..there I finally spelt it correctly, it should've been obvious by the prefix 'meta' I'll grant you that but I frequently add in those extra h's when typing quickly don't know why that happens..carelessness I imagine. I originally thought you meant that I hadn't used the expression 'au fait' correctly as I never for a second imagined you were gong to be this pedantic but in saying that you did have a point...
__________________

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote:

I have some issues with this one:



The argument relies on the idea that the primary purpose of the Bible is to describe history accurately - that it is, first and foremost, a historical work - since otherwise, why should history be the primary criterion on which it is judged?

I think you'll have to walk a very long way before you find a Christian who agrees with that.



If and only if the primary purpose of the Bible is to record history.



I find this incomprehensible...what exactly do you mean that the 'only evidence that the Bible doesn't try to describe history accurately' is based on the assumption that God already exists? If the primary purpose of the Bible is as a guide to life, then the contents should be seen first and foremost as expressing moral or religious truths - and why should the real history not be secondary?

cordially,
Scofflaw

History cannot be a 'secondary' factor becasue the telling of history outlays the 'moral and reliogus truths' you speak of.
It is a matter of indivisibility. History the bible and the divine creator are interlocked in a chain of events. If you remove either from the equation, as I suggested earlier, you bring down the house of cards because they are indivisible. Imagine this proposition, that somehow we found absolute proof that the God was a human concpet. In this situation the bible is rendered fabricated also bacause it is the word of God, who, in the example I listed, has been proved conceptual. the bible cannot remain true after God is disproved.

John Wine

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?

It's a cause and effect argument.
Cause: Original Sin
Effect: Conflict between Men and Women

Crazy for three reasons:
1. No objective evidence for cause.
2. The existence of conflict between Men and Women is actually subjective.
3. Absolutely no logic why the cause actually implies the effect. It's just stated not derived.

There is abosuletly no reason to believe in this myth than to believe in Zeus.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

You claimed that the metaphorical approach to creation was a modern response by Christians to the discoveries of science.

No, actually I didn't

PDN wrote:

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 did, and I quoted Barr in support (Barr is a Prof. of Hebrew btw).

And you posted me back a list of theologians that you claim don't agree with conclusion that the original writers of the Bible meant the passages to be taken literally. On study they appear to based this purely on spiritual belief.

I suppose in the interest of fairness I will have to concede the point. There is no consensus.

While I don't consider a theologian as someone who's spiritual opinions have any validity in the study of history, you obviously do and it would be unfair on my to discount theology from the group, even if I personally would prefer to stick to history.

PDN wrote:

You attempted to dismiss all these experts on the grounds that they were evangelicals.

No PDN, I've made this quite clear already

I was dismissing their specific opinions on this matter because they are based on an initial spiritual belief.

I can find no historical evidence put forward by the people you posted in support of their position. It is a spiritual position.

PDN wrote:

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.

Well as has been pointed out to you PDN that is actually irrelevant to Steve's point, so I'm not quite sure why you keep stating this.

PDN wrote:

What evidence is there that the people who wrote the Bible believed that every passage should be taken literally?

Well we aren't discussing the entire Bible, we are discussing Genesis.

The issue is whether or not Genesis was meant to be taken as literally history or as metaphor/poetry.

My understand, and I'm sure you will find someone to disagree, is that it is possible to tell from the style of Hebrew writing, when a passage is meant to be taken as poetry, and this is not present in the first chapters of Genesis.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote:

History cannot be a 'secondary' factor becasue the telling of history outlays the 'moral and reliogus truths' you speak of.
It is a matter of indivisibility. History the bible and the divine creator are interlocked in a chain of events. If you remove either from the equation, as I suggested earlier, you bring down the house of cards because they are indivisible. Imagine this proposition, that somehow we found absolute proof that the God was a human concpet. In this situation the bible is rendered fabricated also bacause it is the word of God, who, in the example I listed, has been proved conceptual. the bible cannot remain true after God is disproved.

Bad logic. The Bible and the Creator are interlocked in a chain of events, but only inasmuch as the Creator creates the Bible. The Bible cannot remain true if God is disproved (since it is a result of God) but God can remain true even if the Bible were to be disproved (since God is not a result of the Bible).

The use of metaphor, by the way, is not considered by any reasonable person to constitute disproving the Bible. Jesus said, "I am the Good Shepherd". Now we know, as indeed all his hearers also knew, that was not literally true. He was not a shepherd (nor indeed was he a door!) - he was a carpenter. He was using metaphors, as do any writers or public speakers worth their salt.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

If and only if the primary purpose of the Bible is to record history.

Not really. This holds only if Genesis is supposed to be correct.

For example the primary purpose of the Irish Census is not to give out the correct address of the local county council office. It is a census, the address is a tiny minor part. That does not mean that the local county council office address on the form is to be assumed incorrect.

Scofflaw wrote:

I find this incomprehensible...what exactly do you mean that the 'only evidence that the Bible doesn't try to describe history accurately' is based on the assumption that God already exists? If the primary purpose of the Bible is as a guide to life, then the contents should be seen first and foremost as expressing moral or religious truths - and why should the real history not be secondary?

That is working under the assumption that it is necessary for either God or the authors, to lie to the people to express moral and religious truths. I'm not sure I follow the logic on why that is necessary.

The point is that Genesis is not described as metaphor or poetry. So whether or not the authors believed it to be true, there is strong support for the idea that they wished others to believe it true (which people did for thousands of years).

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I find it interesting that you repeatedly accuse JC of lying for doing exactly what you are doing here.

I have already demonstrated that there are plenty of liberal theologians (those who deny that the Bible is anything other than men's well-meaning attempts to describe God) who treat the Genesis accounts as metaphors not intended to be taken literally.

And the evidence for this is what exactly?

I'm not being smart, I would actually like to see the evidence. I said "so far" and I stand by that because PDN you haven't actually put forward evidence for any of this, you have just posted theologians and said they believe this or they believe that.

Can you post what these theologians, both those who believe the Bible was inspired by God and those that don't, have to support their position that Genesis is not literal and was never meant to be considered a literal history by the Hebrews.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

History cannot be a 'secondary' factor becasue the telling of history outlays the 'moral and reliogus truths' you speak of.

First, history is always a story - a narrative constructed out of a series of events. Second, that narrative is always told from a point of view, and the events in it seen from a point of view - one telling can emphasise one aspect, another telling a different aspect. Third, since one is in any case picking and choosing how one tells history, there is no 'strictly accurate' version of history.

Most importantly, though, what you have claimed above is not necessarily the case. If one is telling a story, the 'real history' is secondary to the purpose of the story.

stevejazzx wrote:

It is a matter of indivisibility. History the bible and the divine creator are interlocked in a chain of events. If you remove either from the equation, as I suggested earlier, you bring down the house of cards because they are indivisible. Imagine this proposition, that somehow we found absolute proof that the God was a human concpet. In this situation the bible is rendered fabricated also bacause it is the word of God, who, in the example I listed, has been proved conceptual. the bible cannot remain true after God is disproved.

Yes, but the reverse is not the case. Nor is this anything more than a repetition of the claim that the Bible should be historically accurate.

Both yours and Wicknight's arguments rely on this assertion:

"the Bible must be historically accurate in order to be inspired by God".

As far as I can see, you both reach this conclusion the same way:

1. for something to be "inspired by God" it must be true
2. for something to be true it must be factually accurate
3. therefore, if the Bible is "inspired by God" it must be factually accurate

Unfortunately, that's only one value of 'true'. If it is the only value of 'true' you recognise, then no counter-argument will ever make sense to you - but that is not the same thing as there being no counter-arguments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

As far as I can see, you both reach this conclusion the same way:

1. for something to be "inspired by God" it must be true
2. for something to be true it must be factually accurate
3. therefore, if the Bible is "inspired by God" it must be factually accurate

Well actually there is a 4

4. when something in the Old Testament is not meant to be taken as literally true history the style changes to highlight this fact.

Genesis as far as I know from reading about it, doesn't do this. Which is why Hebrews scholars such as Barr state that Genesis was supposed to be taken literally, the argument being that it is not metaphor because they style is not consistent.

I suppose in the interests of fairness (and my own embarrassment) I will await the evidence from PDN that Genesis was written actually in this style and not meant to be taken literally, as he claims so many historians believe.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Now modern Christians, including some scientists, might have decided for themselves that rather than the Bible being in error, the Bible was never actually trying to be correct or literal in the first place.

PDN wrote:

You claimed that the metaphorical approach to creation was a modern response by Christians to the discoveries of science.

Wicknight wrote:

No, actually I didn't

:eek:

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Well actually there is a 4

4. when something in the Old Testament is not meant to be taken as literally true history the style changes to highlight this fact.

Genesis as far as I know from reading about it, doesn't do this. Which is why Hebrews scholars such as Barr state that Genesis was supposed to be taken literally, the argument being that it is not metaphor because they style is not consistent.

I suppose in the interests of fairness (and my own embarrassment) I will await the evidence from PDN that Genesis was written actually in this style and not meant to be taken literally, as he claims so many historians believe.

Well, personally I would consider Genesis to be written in pretty much standard style for myth. It's one of the reasons I find Creationist claims so ludicrous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote:

First, history is always a story - a narrative constructed out of a series of events. Second, that narrative is always told from a point of view, and the events in it seen from a point of view - one telling can emphasise one aspect, another telling a different aspect. Third, since one is in any case picking and choosing how one tells history, there is no 'strictly accurate' version of history.

Most importantly, though, what you have claimed above is not necessarily the case. If one is telling a story, the 'real history' is secondary to the purpose of the story.

Ok, but the details from that time, from whichever perspective, moral and otherwise are relayed thorugh the telling of that history. To some degree the hsitory in and of itself is used to show the setting where the 'stories' took place. The idea of accuracy is academic in this case, we seem to be discussing that Genesis doesn't have to be recounting a factual history, it can be recounting a moral guide for example. But the moral guide recounted in Genesis takes place in actual places on this earth known to us. Much of what would read in the bible appears to be recounting a 'hsitory'. Even the metaphors must tie into the reality somehow, they are thereby recounting, at least in some way, a factual account from certain perspectives. The argument is then applied that we cannot tie in any of these accounts with what we know to be true today.

scofflaw wrote:

Yes, but the reverse is not the case. Nor is this anything more than a repetition of the claim that the Bible should be historically accurate.

Both yours and Wicknight's arguments rely on this assertion:

"the Bible must be historically accurate in order to be inspired by God".

As far as I can see, you both reach this conclusion the same way:

1. for something to be "inspired by God" it must be true
2. for something to be true it must be factually accurate
3. therefore, if the Bible is "inspired by God" it must be factually accurate

Unfortunately, that's only one value of 'true'. If it is the only value of 'true' you recognise, then no counter-argument will ever make sense to you - but that is not the same thing as there being no counter-arguments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well, we kind of get into wordplay. We have to ask ourselves about what we know about the nature of God or at least what we might safetly assume are the activities and outcomes congruent with his behaviour. It seems clear to me that the biblical God is meant by chistianity to be the creator of the universe and the world (the earth the heavan and the stars). It follows logically therefore that this supposition leads one to believe that the people who recorded the bible as the word of God would have meant it from the perspective that he was the creator of all things, that he existed everywhere and influenced everything. We can only conclude I think, that the recoreded accounts of this time represent God as a real agent overseeing our planet. So knowing that they believed that wouldn't it be more logical to conclude that they meant it as a proper history?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

And the evidence for this is what exactly?

I'm not being smart, I would actually like to see the evidence. I said "so far" and I stand by that because PDN you haven't actually put forward evidence for any of this, you have just posted theologians and said they believe this or they believe that.

Can you post what these theologians, both those who believe the Bible was inspired by God and those that don't, have to support their position that Genesis is not literal and was never meant to be considered a literal history by the Hebrews.

Whatever the intention of the individual accounts of creation may have been, it is clear from the Bible as a whole that its compilers were not overly concerned with the details of the creation story in the first chapter of Genesis. They incorporated several accounts of creation in the Bible even though no two accounts agree in detail with Genesis 1 or with each other. Genesis 1 tells about the creation of the world in 6 days. The second account of creation is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2). Several other accounts are found in poetic form in Psalms, Proverbs, and Job.16 Genesis 1 says that man was the last living creature created, while Genesis 2 says that he was the first. Genesis 1 speaks of the prehistoric waters in purely naturalistic terms and says that God merely commanded that they gather in a single spot so that dry land could appear. But in the poetic passages the ancient waters are personified as rebellious sea-monsters which threatened to swamp the dry land, until God subdued them and created the seashore as a boundary which they were prohibited from crossing. The most notable difference between Genesis and all the other accounts is that none of the others mentions the idea that the world was created in six days. This idea -- which is the centerpiece of the whole creationist movement -- was apparently not considered important enough in the Bible to be repeated in other accounts of creation.

The fact that so many differing accounts were all accepted in the Bible shows that its compilers were not concerned about these details.17 They undoubtedly assumed that the differences could be reconciled, but they left this task to the ingenuity of exegetes. This virtually assured that different reconciliations would be proposed and that some of the passages would have to be interpreted non-literally.18 What the Bible as a whole insists on is not these details but only what the stories have in common. In other words, these stories are regarded as poetic statements of certain basic truths, not as literal scientific accounts of how the universe developed. What matters in Judaism is the concepts shared by all these stories: that the world was created by God, that He planned it carefully and designed it to be hospitable to man. These are the very conclusions to which astronomy now points. The other details of the Biblical accounts should not be taken literally but metaphorically or poetically. To give but one example: the six days of creation culminating in the Sabbath on the seventh symbolize how God guided the development of the world stage by stage according to a well-thought-out plan. The process is described as taking place over a period of seven days because seven was regarded in the ancient world as the number of perfection and seven days were regarded as the ideal length of a process.19 The seven days are more a statement about the perfection of the process than a chronological statistic.

Thus a literal reading of the Bible, on which "creation science" implicitly insists, misses the point of the Bible itself, which seems uninterested in literal interpretation. Like poetry and certain kinds of prose, which sometimes speak in metaphors and symbols, the Bible as a whole does not intend these stories to be taken literally.

Jeffrey H. Tigay is Ellis Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages and Literatures in the Department of Oriental Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. He is one of the foremost scholars on ancient myths and storytelling techniques and is author of The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. His view that the Old Testament incorporates other near-eastern creation myths would be incompatible with any evangelical Christian view of Scripture. Dr Tigay is a liberal Jew. His conclusions are based on textual and linguistic evidence, not on any preconceived notions of inspiration or inerrancy.

Here is an example of the kind of evidence used by Gleason Archer. Archer, I should point out, was a professor of biblical languages and of semitics, so was well qualified to reach conclusions on the basis of linguistic evidence rather than 'personal spiritual beliefs'. He points out that, in the Hebrew, Genesis 1 omits the definite article before each of the creation days. Rather than saying "the first day," it literally reads, "day one." Says Archer, "In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite; only in poetic style could it be omitted." This would also lead us to believe that a figurative meaning for the word day is intended.

Now, Wicknight, I have given you some evidence. Maybe you could reciprocate? So far all you have offered is a quote from a theologian (a 'nonsense science') that you lifted from a Creationist web site, but that offers no evidence and so is simply an appeal to authority.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote:

Well, we kind of get into wordplay. We have to ask ourselves about what we know about the nature of God or at least what we might safetly assume are the activities and outcomes congruent with his behaviour. It seems clear to me that the biblical God is meant by chistianity to be the creator of the universe and the world (the earth the heavan and the stars). It follows logically therefore that this supposition leads one to believe that the people who recorded the bible as the word of God would have meant it from the perspective that he was the creator of all things, that he existed everywhere and influenced everything. We can only conclude I think, that the recoreded accounts of this time represent God as a real agent overseeing our planet. So knowing that they believed that wouldn't it be more logical to conclude that they meant it as a proper history?

Can't you see that 'proper history' can still contain metaphor. For instance, I was recently reading a history book. The author made reference to Hitler "bulldozing his way across Europe". Am I to understand that Adolf Hitler actually drove a bulldozer across Europe? If not, then was the author not writing proper history? The author in question, presumably his editor and publisher, and myself as the reader all had no difficulty in his use of a metaphor to express a truth.

Zombrex

Wicknight wrote:

Now modern Christians, including some scientists, might have decided for themselves that rather than the Bible being in error, the Bible was never actually trying to be correct or literal in the first place.

What part of that is a claim that the metaphorical approach to Genesis is solely a modern response in the face of science?

Are you honestly claiming that I believe it is only modern Christians who held that Genesis was not literal? PDN we have discussed at length people like Aquinas on previous threads on this very issue

I would be like me saying "now modern Christians may wish to get married in a church that isn't in their own home town due to the realities of the modern world" and you coming back saying I'm claiming that no Christian has ever got married in a town that wasn't their own home town

You seem so determined to just disagree with everyone I say that this is clouding you to what I'm actually saying.

Zombrex

Ok, now we are getting some where

They incorporated several accounts of creation in the Bible even though no two accounts agree in detail with Genesis 1 or with each other. Genesis 1 tells about the creation of the world in 6 days. The second account of creation is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2).
...
The fact that so many differing accounts were all accepted in the Bible shows that its compilers were not concerned about these details.

Interesting, though I don't know if either of us would take this as actual evidence they didn't believe it.

The same miss-match of accounts occurs in the descriptions of Jesus' resurrection in the New Testament (the different accounts are all over the place with people being in different places at the same time and the order is all wrong), but I doubt many historians or theologians believe that the resurrection is not supposed to be taken literally by those who wrote the passage.

In other words, these stories are regarded as poetic statements of certain basic truths, not as literal scientific accounts of how the universe developed.

This seems to be confirming the original assertion, that these people believed that what they were describing happened, in the same way that those who described the Resurrection believed it happened, even if the specific details of who found who at what time aren't that important.

That of course leaves us with the same issue, since nothing in Genesis actually happened. It doesn't really if the details form up to a general picture, because the general picture didn't happen.

What matters in Judaism is the concepts shared by all these stories: that the world was created by God, that He planned it carefully and designed it to be hospitable to man. These are the very conclusions to which astronomy now points.

I'm not quite sure what he means by that, since astronomy points to the exact opposite conclusion. The Earth was not "planned carefully" to be hospitable to man.

If that is what Genesis is supposed to convey it is wrong, and as such the notion that it was inspired by God is also wrong (assuming God cannot be wrong)

PDN wrote:

Maybe you could reciprocate?

Certainly, Archer's theory of the definite article seems to be quite well known in the Creationist circles and it isn't hard to find a rebuttal.

James Stambaugh wrote:

http://www.icr.org/article/288/
ABSENCE OF THE ARTICLE

Once we have determined the meaning of the term "day," we need also to examine another problem connected with the days of Genesis 1. Some writers have observed the absence of the article from the mention of each of the first five days. They have concluded that Moses must have meant to convey to his readers that at least those days were long periods of time. They have noted that the normal use of the article is to make the noun definite.5 Gleason Archer makes the following statement: "In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite."6 The genre, or the form of the literature (i.e., history as opposed to poetry) he is referring to here, is history. Let us see if he is correct in this use of the article.

The reader must be aware of two points regarding the use of the article in Hebrew. First, the article is usually present in the historical sections of the Old Testament for the sake of definiteness. But this is not always the case. Second, Hebrew has more peculiarities in its use of the article than most languages.7 This should make the reader very sensitive to the nature of the Hebrew language. The Hebrew language is one that must be observed closely. The most common observation among Jewish and Christian commentators is that the use of the article on the last two days is to show the importance of the sixth and seventh days.8 This also is in full accord with the Hebrew grammatical rule that the article may be used in this manner.9 On the basis of grammar alone, then, we are still justified in our interpretation of "day" being 24 hours in length.

Also, there is another reason for the absence of the article. It appears that numbers in the Hebrew language have a definitive quality in themselves. Kautzsch refers to them as substantives,10 yet the meaning is the same. A substantive is a noun that one can touch, such as a chair. He cites many examples where the number and noun occur without the article, yet the meaning is definite. There are 13 other occurrences similar to Genesis 1, where the noun does not have the article but is with a number. In each of these other occurrences, the English translation uses the definite article.11 Therefore, we must conclude that the absence of the article in Genesis 1 does not mean that the days are long periods of time. Moses' point is still very clear: The days are to be thought of as normal 24-hour days.

PDN wrote:

So far all you have offered is a quote from a theologian (a 'nonsense science') that you lifted from a Creationist web site, but that offers no evidence and so is simply an appeal to authority.

As I've pointed out a few times James Barr is a Professor of Hebrew. But you are quite correct I've not put forward any evidence so far.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

Ok, but the details from that time, from whichever perspective, moral and otherwise are relayed thorugh the telling of that history. To some degree the hsitory in and of itself is used to show the setting where the 'stories' took place. The idea of accuracy is academic in this case, we seem to be discussing that Genesis doesn't have to be recounting a factual history, it can be recounting a moral guide for example. But the moral guide recounted in Genesis takes place in actual places on this earth known to us.

Well, that will be a relief to those who have been unable to identify Eden, and Ararat, and the rest.

stevejazzx wrote:

Much of what would read in the bible appears to be recounting a 'hsitory'. Even the metaphors must tie into the reality somehow, they are thereby recounting, at least in some way, a factual account from certain perspectives. The argument is then applied that we cannot tie in any of these accounts with what we know to be true today.

Metaphors may have to 'tie into reality', but the important word there is 'somehow'. You have decided that the somehow is in the matter of historical fact, but that is only one option - and since the metaphor clearly doesn't tie into historical fact, it's clearly not the right option, is it?

stevejaxx wrote:

Well, we kind of get into wordplay. We have to ask ourselves about what we know about the nature of God or at least what we might safetly assume are the activities and outcomes congruent with his behaviour. It seems clear to me that the biblical God is meant by chistianity to be the creator of the universe and the world (the earth the heavan and the stars). It follows logically therefore that this supposition leads one to believe that the people who recorded the bible as the word of God would have meant it from the perspective that he was the creator of all things, that he existed everywhere and influenced everything. We can only conclude I think, that the recoreded accounts of this time represent God as a real agent overseeing our planet. So knowing that they believed that wouldn't it be more logical to conclude that they meant it as a proper history?

Nope.

Let's assume for a moment that I am an omnipotent being, and I'm going to inspire you (and a couple of others) to write down how the Universe came to be. First, I'm going to show you the nothing that existed before spacetime - darkness, and void. Then I will show you the moment of the Big Bang, the blossoming of everything into existence. Then, because you live here on Earth, I'm going to show you the formation of the Earth, and the ripping out of it of the Moon. I'll fast forward through the long aeons of bugger all, and show you the life that teems in the sea. I'll show you the greening of the land, and the things that crawl onto it. Once again we fast forward through a whole load of things living and dying, while the seas rise and fall, and finally I get to show you the first in your species that you recognise as human - standing, wearing clothes, talking.

What I've just done is sent you on a 'trip' of literally cosmic proportions - and now you take that jumble of vast impressions and write it down. Compare it with what the others have written, and summarise the result in the length of an essay. How 'factual' and 'historic' is your account? Now let's assume that not only do you have no scientific training, but in fact come from a Bronze Age culture. How much will be 'factual' and 'historic' in your account? How much of what you saw did you even understand?

How will you write it down in a few thousand words? Will you write an exact, step-by-step, blow-by-blow account? I don't think you will.

How will you summarise it? First, you'll have to try and put a framework on it - give it some kind of narrative. You'll probably divide it into phases - and if you're modern, you'll use the term 'phase', too. If you're not modern, you'll use the only 'phase' type words you know about - days, or weeks, or years, whatever. You'll probably wind up with days, because otherwise people will be asking "what happened on the second day of the third week, then?".

I'm also prepared to bet that your opening lines will wind up looking surprisingly like the opening lines of Genesis - maybe something like this:

1 In the beginning was created the universe.

2 And the universe was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the void.

3 And there was light.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Can't you see that 'proper history' can still contain metaphor. For instance, I was recently reading a history book. The author made reference to Hitler "bulldozing his way across Europe". Am I to understand that Adolf Hitler actually drove a bulldozer across Europe? If not, then was the author not writing proper history?

You seem to be not understand what people (or at least me) mean when they say literal.

Using the example above, imagine that in the period the author is talking about Hitler was actually in South America, or that Hitler didn't even exist.

For the passage about Hitler to make sense there must actually be a Hitler and the metaphor must closely correlate to something he actually did.

Even though the author is using a metaphor in the terms of the bulldozing, we are still supposed to understand that Hitler is a literal person, he exists, and that he moved his away across Europe destroying as he did.

So the question is what literal truth are people supposed to take from Genesis?

Tigay says in your quoted article, that while the details of how he did it are not quite important, the truth we are supposed to take from Genesis is that God created a planet that was perfect for humans to inhabit and placed humans on the planet. He suggests that the people who wrote the Bible actually literally believe this.

The problem of course is that science tells us that that isn't true.

Humans evolved on this planet to fit the environment, not the other way around. The planet is not perfect for humans, quite the opposite in fact.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

You seem to be not understand what people (or at least me) mean when they say literal.

Using the example above, imagine that in the period the author is talking about Hitler was actually in South America, or that Hitler didn't even exist.

For the passage about Hitler to make sense there must actually be a Hitler and the metaphor must closely correlate to something he actually did.

Even though the author is using a metaphor in the terms of the bulldozing, we are still supposed to understand that Hitler is a literal person, he exists, and that he moved his away across Europe destroying as he did.

The Russian Bear, and his ally, Winter, bulldozed their way through the crumbling legions of Barbarossa.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Tigay says in your quoted article, that while the details of how he did it are not quite important, the truth we are supposed to take from Genesis is that God created a planet that was perfect for humans to inhabit and placed humans on the planet. He suggests that the people who wrote the Bible actually literally believe this.

The problem of course is that science tells us that that isn't true.

Humans evolved on this planet to fit the environment, not the other way around. The planet is not perfect for humans, quite the opposite in fact.

Science does not tell us that at all. Your interpretation of science tells you that. Science may tell us facts of what happened. It offers no explanation as to why it happened or indeed who made it happen. You are using steps of faith to fill in those missing pieces of the jigsaw.

Science does not tell us whether God created the earth or not.

I am unaware of any scientific proof that renders impossible the concept that the first couple lived in a perfect local environment. (Obviously the entire world was not perfect for habitation. Adam and Eve, for example, could not have lived on the ocean floor).

Science does not tell us whether it was God who placed humans on the planet or not. Many Christians, for example, believe in theistic evolution.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

How much will be 'factual' and 'historic' in your account?

One would assume all of it.

I'm not following the argument that these bronze age people would have simply f**ked up the story when attempting to write it down so we get the mess that Genesis is.

Genesis looks like it was written by someone who has absolutely no concept of the actual nature of the universe. This would suggest that those who wrote it had no concept of the the way the actual universe was.

The focus is on the Earth with the heaven as something external around the Earth. This is in no way a reflection of reality, but it would have been the current thinking of most bronze age cultures who did not imagine anything beyond the Earth below them.

In Genesis the "sky" is treated as a physical object, which again has no reflection in reality but was the thinking of most bronze age cultures who viewed the sky as a sheet that covered the Earth.

The Sun and Moon and the stars are simply considered "lights" to light the day and the night (the day and night being unconnected to the Sun)

Etc etc

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

It offers no explanation as to why it happened or indeed who made it happen.

No one "made" it happen, it happened due to natural forces. Stars form. Stars explode. Planets form from the remains of these explosions. At no point is there any evidence (or need) for someone to do anything.

PDN wrote:

Science does not tell us whether God created the earth or not.

Science tells us that the Earth was created by the remains of an exploded star imploding under gravitational pull of the gas and rock. God didn't create the Earth.

I suppose if you really want to get pedantic you can claim that God set the universe up originally so this would happen and then became hands off, but that still doesn't fit with Genesis.

PDN wrote:

I am unaware of any scientific proof that renders impossible the concept that the first couple lived in a perfect local environment.

I'm not even sure where to start with that one ....

To start there was no first human couple. The ancestry of homo-sepians can be traced back to when humans didn't exist.

Secondly what is a "perfect local environment"?

PDN wrote:

Science does not tell us whether it was God who placed humans on the planet or not.

Humans were not placed on this planet. We evolved on this planet.

Again to get to a point where God actually did anything one has to go back to the beginning of the universe.

PDN

Wicknight, I admire your cojones in wanting to lock horns with a Professor of Hebrew over his assessment of a piece of Hebrew literature. I am content to acknowledge my limitations and simply state that there are recognised scholars on both sides of this issue who base their opinions on linguistic and contextual evidence.

Certainly, Archer's theory of the definite article seems to be quite well known in the Creationist circles and it isn't hard to find a rebuttal.

Hold on, aren't you the guy who accuses Creationists of dishonesty and intellectual incompetence because of the way they misquote scientific evidence? Now you want to cite Creationist sources as a reliable source in other matters. I wonder why I'm less than impressed.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not following the argument that these bronze age people would have simply f**ked up the story when attempting to write it down so we get the mess that Genesis is.

Why not? The Qu'ran was actually dictated by the archangel Gabriel, but the Bible was not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Wicknight, I admire your cojones in wanting to lock horns with a Professor of Hebrew over his assessment of a piece of Hebrew literature. I am content to acknowledge my limitations and simply state that there are recognised scholars on both sides of this issue who base their opinions on linguistic and contextual evidence.

Fair enough

PDN wrote:

Hold on, aren't you the guy who accuses Creationists of dishonesty and intellectual incompetence because of the way they misquote scientific evidence?

Aren't you the guy who disagreed ... ?

This is fun :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Why not?

Well because Bronze Age people weren't idiots. They had engineering and maths, complex language and poetry

They are also supposed to have a perfect intelligence explaining this to them. The idea that this intelligence would explain it to them in a way that they wouldn't understand makes little sense.

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, that will be a relief to those who have been unable to identify Eden, and Ararat, and the rest.

:rolleyes:

Come on...there are penty of real placneames used in scripture...I'll need to reply yo your other point (rest of that psot) later, it looks substantial...