Summoning Ethelred. . . About Genesis

[ckweb]

Hi Ethelred!

I was reading some of your posts in Evolution vs. Creationism threads. Personally, I find that debate relatively uninteresting as often the proponents of one side or the other speak to things they actually have very little professional knowledge about. For myself, I would never presume to disprove evolution; and proving creation with the scientific method is absurd as scientific method studies the natural world and creation purports a supernatural phenomenon. On the other hand, what I will debate is the biblical text and it is to that end I have posted a new thread to draw your attention. In my opinion, you are mistaken when you declare that evolution disproves Genesis. While evolution may disprove "Creationism," it cannot disprove Genesis because Genesis does not contain scientific theory. (Incidentally, it may also be argued that Genesis does not prove "Creationism" for precisely this same reason). The attempt to use Genesis, or any other biblical text, in argument (for or against) a natural scientific theory is a waste of time. Genesis is a text written to recount a people's experience with their God; it is highly subjective and personal--which is exactly the opposite of the objectivity desired by science. The stories of Gen 1-11, which includes the creation and flood accounts, are not concerned with answering scientific questions instead they answer theological ones. Many of the stories were written to counter prevailing myths of the period in which they were written. Genesis 1, for instance, is a carefully written polemic against polytheism. It rejects the divinity of the sun and the moon. It counters the myth that a clash of sea monsters created and divided the sea and land masses. Instead, sea monsters are under the sovereignty and creative hand of God. It also rejects the notion that humans were created as slaves for the gods (ie. Atrahasis). In a final analysis, Genesis 1 declares that God created the universe and it also declares that the world and humanity, as the pinnacle of God's creative activity, has inherent worth. Neither of these declarations are scientific ones; they are theological ones. It is not the domain of science to answer these questions; rather, it is the domain of philosophy and religion. When science attempts to answer these questions, it is moving beyond its realm of study and makes steps towards becoming a religion of its own. Too often evolution is propagated as dogma rather than what it is, namely scientific theory. To read Genesis 1 as a blueprint for the creation of the world, which is what you as well as creationists are doing (each for your own ends), is asking that a person from somewhere between 8th-11th B.C.E. was concerned with such matters. It requires that such a person understood and looked at his/her world from a modern (or post-modern), 20th-21st century worldview, which they quite obviously did not. It requires the perversion of a literary work to serve theories (for or against) it was not intended to and did not speak about.

On another point, I also find your argument that God is deceptive if he created a world that appeared to be older that it really was, fallacious. Science, by definition, studies the natural world. It, therefore, by necessity, and quite correctly, excludes supernatural phenomenon from its study. Consequently, it studies the world as it appears to be IF the world only contained natural phenomenon. But, if literature and experience has taught us anything, it is that appearances are deceiving, which is how you arrive at your argument. But, where your argument goes wrong, is that it fails to consider that the substance of the thing might be different and therefore, it is the test not the actual thing that is deceptive. Put another way, if I judge a book by its cover, I may or may not come to the correct conclusion. But, if I come to the wrong conclusion, it is not necessarily because the cover was deceptive; it may be that having failed to consider the substance or content of the book, my test necessarily lead me to deceptive conclusions. So then, if the world does in fact contain supernatural phenomenon, the scientific method may be arriving at deceptive conclusions because it ignores this part of the substance of the thing it studies. This is the limitation of science. It cannot study the supernatural and therefore, its conclusions should always be held in tension with the results of studies in other related and not-so-related disciplines, such as psychiatry, sociology, psychology, theology, literature, personal experiences, history, and so on.

Anyways, having said this much, way to go at keeping those "Creationism" theorists on their toes!

[Boris Godunov]

Not to step on the toes of the Master, I will at least say this before he posts:

The arguments Ethelred (and others) have given against the Creationists are confined to disproving a literal interpretation of the events chronicled in Genesis. If, however, you take the stance that the Biblical account of Creation is metaphorical, that's a whole different ballgame.

But the problem here for fundamentalist Creationists is that if you accept that one part of the Bible is literary allegory, you must accept that any part of the Bible is allegory. This brings the fundamentalist doctrine crashing down, as it subjects the dogma they believe to be the precise Will of God to be--heaven forbid!--the literary fiction of human authors. This creates an untolerable condition for a fundamentalist, since they base their worldview on the precise meanings of words written thousands of years ago that were, in turn, passed along orally for thousands of years before that. Admitting any event of the Bible is susceptible to even the slightest bit of inaccuracy destroys the notion it is a perfect book and that it is the word of God.

Science, on the other hand, is not bound by such rigid dogma, and so will always be different than religion. Science is flexible, as what is considered "canon" by science changes all the time, and the vast majority of scientists do not have a problem with altering their worldview to accomodate new evidence and theories. I can not think of a comparable religious idealogy that is so flexible and open to experimentation and change.

But if we accept the Bible can't be taken literally, it renders the Flood discussion moot, as we can just assume it is allegory. Ditto for Sodom and Gommorah. Ditto for Exodus. Ditto, in fact, for everything in the Bible. See where this leads religious folks who take the Bible literally into a hopelessly losing situation?

Anyway, I'm sure Ethelred will have much deeper insights than I...

[Skanky Burns]

Well said, Boris. Well said.

[ckweb]

Boris, you bring up a commonly-used argument but unfortunately, an untrustworthy one.

The point I make to Ethelred is that Genesis, like any body of literature, must be interpreted according to what it is. Also, because it is literature, it is fallacious to use scientific method as your interpretive guide.

So, how do you interpret literature? Well, literary theory offers many approaches. You can use New Criticism, Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Deconstruction, Form Criticism, etc. Some literary theories are concerned with author; some with text; some with audience. As Ethelred and now you have attacked (that may be too strong a word but I can't think of a better one) the text, we should employ an approach that focuses on the text. Such methods typically require an analysis of form and genre, which is what you are doing. You argue that if someone concedes that the Flood Story is not a literal account, they have conceded that nothing in the bible can be trusted because whose to say whether or not it is literal. This is simply wrong. If someone concedes that the Flood Story adheres to the rules of a certain genre of literature that is precisely what they have done, no more no less. And, it does not demand that every other part of the bible adheres to that same genre. Quite obviously, the bible consists of many different genres and each must be interpreted in light of the genre employed. To interpret poetry or parable as historiography or myth is simply wrong. You'll arrive at incredibly stupid notions about the intent of the poem or the parable if you read according to the rules of a different genre. This is basic hermeneutics and basic common-sense.

BTW, the Flood Story and the Creation Story are NOT allegory. Allegory is not really a convention used in Classical Hebrew all that often. I believe I'd be correct in saying that it is largely a form of speech/writing arising out of the Hellenistic Period. Paul occassionally uses allegory in his letters of the New Testament.

[Boris Godunov]

ckweb, you're still missing a basic point:

The Creationists Ethelred is arguing with are ones who believe the entire Bible is the word of God and therefor 100% accurate. That leaves no room for it being metaphor in any way (I should have used metaphor, perhaps, instead of allegory).

Even if the rest of the Bible is true, admitting that even the slightest bit of the Bible is literary metaphor smashes the foundations upon which fundamentalism resides, as fundamentalist dogma leaves no room for such a compromise. If you're a fundamentalist, you must believe the world was created in 6 days, that the Flood happened exactly as detailed in Genesis, etc., ad infinitum. Since it is easy to disprove the literal account of the Bible, if even just once, it is ergo easy to prove that religious fundamentalism is an erroneous doctrine.

[ckweb]

Re: Fundamentalism, I'm likely to agree with you. But, simply because you have undercut the erroneous presumptions and assumptions of Fundamentalism, you have not undercut the value, accuracy, or truthfulness of the biblical text.

Also, it is erroneous to form the following equations as you, Ethelred and quite ironically, the Fundamentalists often do:

truthful=historical
literal=truthful
truthful=literal
metaphor (or other genres) does not equal truth.

Each of these equations are often inaccurate and lead to wrong conclusions. Here is an example where you have made that error:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That leaves no room for it being metaphor in any way (I should have used metaphor, perhaps, instead of allegory).

Even if the rest of the Bible is true

Notice how you say, "Even if the rest of the Bible is true." This statement suggests that you do not believe a "metaphor," as you've elected to call it, can be true. What I think you really meant is "Even if the rest of the Bible is historical" because both history and metaphor can be true.

[Boris Godunov]

Not all Biblical text, no. But some of it, yes. That's enough to tell the fundamentalists to shut up. If someone asserts the Bible is the unerring and literal Word of God, then proving even the slightest thing wrong is enough to destroy their credibility.

When it comes to Biblical interpretivism, however, one can feasibly interpret the Bible means anything, so then it becomes a matter of picking and choosing what one thinks is literal and what is metaphor, perhaps based on your notion of "literary genre." In that case, religious ideology becomes personal rather than universal, and theists lose any moral authority to impress their ideology on others.

[SnowFire]

theists lose any moral authority to impress their ideology on others.

Kind of a vauge statement here. What if my personal reading of Holy Book X is that I should impose my reading on everybody else, including which parts are metaphor and which aren't? This happened to a mild degree during the time of the Mu'tazilites in early Islam- the caliphs semi-imposed their doctrines, which included some of what modern Muslims would probably call "watered down" Islam (ie that God is not actually seated on a throne in heaven, it's a metaphor. "Official" theology today will say that if the Koran says God's on a Throne in heaven, then he's on this big old Throne in heaven, darn it.). They still read the same Koran, and certainly tried to impress the moral authority of their reading on others, which included which parts were literal and which were metaphorical (but 100% word of God, natch).

As a side note, if I was a Muslim, I'd probably be quite favorable to the Mu'tazilites (I blame the Caliphs for the whole Mihna deal more than them), but I'm not, so the point is moot anyway. The general idea is that metaphor does not neccessarily take away moral authority, or at least percieved moral authority.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ckweb
Boris, you bring up a commonly-used argument but unfortunately, an untrustworthy one.

The point I make to Ethelred is that Genesis, like any body of literature, must be interpreted according to what it is. Also, because it is literature, it is fallacious to use scientific method as your interpretive guide.

Most agree that Genesis can be viewed as a historical record of sorts, in which case, a scientific approach will have to be used. As to whether it is literature is debatable. Certainly not all of the bible is literature, and probably not Genesis

Originally posted by ckweb
BTW, the Flood Story and the Creation Story are NOT allegory. Allegory is not really a convention used in Classical Hebrew all that often. I believe I'd be correct in saying that it is largely a form of speech/writing arising out of the Hellenistic Period. Paul occassionally uses allegory in his letters of the New Testament.

Certainly not a factual account in any case.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
For myself, I would never presume to disprove evolution; and proving creation with the scientific method is absurd as scientific method studies the natural world and creation purports a supernatural phenomenon.

Supernatural or not there would be evidence to support it unless more supernatural effort went into making the world look exactly like its very old and that evolution has shaped life over millions and billions of years.

In my opinion, you are mistaken when you declare that evolution disproves Genesis.

You are mistaken in your assertion that I said that. I have said the Genesis one is does not fit the world we live in as it is written and that is a fact. However evolution itself does not show this. It is the order that things occur in Genesis that shows that. A literal six days is right out of course but that is not what I am talking about nor is Genesis one the most obvious areas to deal with regarding the accuracy of the Bible.

While evolution may disprove "Creationism," it cannot disprove Genesis because Genesis does not contain scientific theory.

This is both true and false. It is true that Genesis is not scientific but it is false that it cannot be disproved because of this. Genesis makes a large number of very clear and fairly precise statements. Many of them can be checked against the real world. Many fail that check. For instance The Elder Edda is not scientific either. However it says the Earth was formed by a giant cow licking a giant block of ice. This is clearly wrong just as Genesis is on some things. Neither of those two religious writings is scientific yet both make specific statements. Both can be checked against the real world. Both fail.

(Incidentally, it may also be argued that Genesis does not prove "Creationism" for precisely this same reason).

That too is wrong. Creationism is an attempt to prove Genesis and not the other way around. If Creationism was true it would indeed be provable by looking at the real world and comparing what Creationism says about it with the world really is. It fails that test.

The attempt to use Genesis, or any other biblical text, in argument (for or against) a natural scientific theory is a waste of time. Genesis is a text written to recount a people's experience with their God; it is highly subjective and personal--which is exactly the opposite of the objectivity desired by science.

Its not highly subjective nor is it personal. Its written in many areas as it was a factual telling. Rememberance of Things Past by Proust is highly subjective not the Bible. I doubt you would make that claim if the Bible and the real world were a better match. You would claim that match as evidence supporting the Bible, as would I.

The stories of Gen 1-11, which includes the creation and flood accounts, are not concerned with answering scientific questions instead they answer theological ones.

Not just theological ones. Real ones. Like how sheep got patches of color for instance. That they are put in theological terms is due to the fact that the authors simply didn't know any better. Theology was what they did and it was factual to them.

Many of the stories were written to counter prevailing myths of the period in which they were written.

And replace them with new myths. Myths that fit the authors beliefs. Many based on old legends and myths that had been around for a long time. None of them any more relevant to reality than the Elder Edda unless a god was involved in the writing. In which case they should have a much better fit to reality.

Genesis 1, for instance, is a carefully written polemic against polytheism.

So how come Genesis 2 refers to 'elohim instead of Jehovah? Plural gods instead of one god.

It rejects the divinity of the sun and the moon. It counters the myth that a clash of sea monsters created and divided the sea and land masses. Instead, sea monsters are under the sovereignty and creative hand of God. It also rejects the notion that humans were created as slaves for the gods (ie. Atrahasis). In a final analysis, Genesis 1 declares that God created the universe and it also declares that the world and humanity, as the pinnacle of God's creative activity, has inherent worth.

Its does more than that. Its fairly specific on a number of points. Those points only seem to match reality occasionaly by accident since they mostly don't match.

Neither of these declarations are scientific ones; they are theological ones. It is not the domain of science to answer these questions; rather, it is the domain of philosophy and religion.

It is the domain of science to understand how things work. If that shows the Bible has things wrong that is a byproduct of science and not a goal.

When science attempts to answer these questions, it is moving beyond its realm of study and makes steps towards becoming a religion of its own. Too often evolution is propagated as dogma rather than what it is, namely scientific theory.

You make a standard mistake here. Evolution is two valued word. Its a theory to explain facts. The fact is life evolves. Darwin came up with a theory that explains why and how it evolves. He did pretty good considering he didn't know about genes. Evolution is both theory and fact.

There is nothing wrong or religious in trying to understand how things happened. That is what science does and that includes trying to understand as much as possible about the beginning of the universe. Perhaps that is what you referring to in you implication that science is becoming a religion.

To read Genesis 1 as a blueprint for the creation of the world, which is what you as well as creationists are doing (each for your own ends), is asking that a person from somewhere between 8th-11th B.C.E. was concerned with such matters.

I do it for the simple reason that Creationist claim it. If they didn't I wouldn't. Creationists are attempting to push their religious beliefs into the US public school system disguised as a science. This is the main reason I argue against Creationism. The other reason is that its fun. That came second though.

It requires that such a person understood and looked at his/her world from a modern (or post-modern), 20th-21st century worldview, which they quite obviously did not. It requires the perversion of a literary work to serve theories (for or against) it was not intended to and did not speak about.

Actually it did speak about the creation of the world and a number of other things. It was not presented as theory that is true. It was presented as fact and there is no reason at all that those alledged facts cannot be contested.

On another point, I also find your argument that God is deceptive if he created a world that appeared to be older that it really was, fallacious.

Well you sure don't like I gather. Its not falacious though.

Science, by definition, studies the natural world. It, therefore, by necessity, and quite correctly, excludes supernatural phenomenon from its study.

Its hard to study things that there is no sign of. If there was evidence for the supernatural it would be studied. In fact there have been attempts to study things that many would call supernatural. They have produced nothing convincing. The Klein studies of ESP for instance.

Consequently, it studies the world as it appears to be IF the world only contained natural phenomenon. But, if literature and experience has taught us anything, it is that appearances are deceiving, which is how you arrive at your argument.

Its the job of science to clear up the deceptions should there be any. The real world can complex but it is not deceptive. That is what life does. Man and animal use decpetion for survival purposes so its not surprising that literature should abound with deception. You aren't doing for the Bible with this line of reasoning. You make it look deliberatly deceptive instead of due to ignorance.

But, where your argument goes wrong, is that it fails to consider that the substance of the thing might be different and therefore, it is the test not the actual thing that is deceptive. Put another way, if I judge a book by its cover, I may or may not come to the correct conclusion.

Its the job of science to open this metaphorical book.

But, if I come to the wrong conclusion, it is not necessarily because the cover was deceptive; it may be that having failed to consider the substance or content of the book, my test necessarily lead me to deceptive conclusions.

This look like an attempt to muddle things and nothing else.

So then, if the world does in fact contain supernatural phenomenon, the scientific method may be arriving at deceptive conclusions because it ignores this part of the substance of the thing it studies. This is the limitation of science. It cannot study the supernatural and therefore, its conclusions should always be held in tension with the results of studies in other related and not-so-related disciplines, such as psychiatry, sociology, psychology, theology, literature, personal experiences, history, and so on.

Science COULD study the supernatural if there was any evidence that it existed. However all you are doing here is saying what I said. The world and the Bible don't match. One must be wrong or Jehovah must have engaged in deception which is definitly what covering things up is. Wether reality is covered up via natural or supernatural means its still deception. The world looks exactly like its not the world described in parts of Genesis.

If you want to believe in a god that would do that be my guest. I find such an entity untrustworthy.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
The point I make to Ethelred is that Genesis, like any body of literature, must be interpreted according to what it is. Also, because it is literature, it is fallacious to use scientific method as your interpretive guide.

I use the Bible for interpreting it. I then compare it to the world around us. There is a failure to match. Calling it literature does not free it from testing unless of course you are calling fiction. Is that what you are doing? Calling the Bible fiction?

You argue that if someone concedes that the Flood Story is not a literal account, they have conceded that nothing in the bible can be trusted because whose to say whether or not it is literal. This is simply wrong.

I don't see anything wrong in it. If its myth its not trustworthy. This is simply realism.

If someone concedes that the Flood Story adheres to the rules of a certain genre of literature that is precisely what they have done, no more no less.

They have done much more. They have said the the people within the Bible that clealy treat the Flood as a fact are also mere literature or at least remarkably unaware that the story is mere literature if they were real people. Unless of course it was intended to thought of as real when it was written as I think was the case. There are a number of references to the Flood in the New Testament that clearly treat it as a real event just as described in Genesis.

And, it does not demand that every other part of the bible adheres to that same genre. Quite obviously, the bible consists of many different genres and each must be interpreted in light of the genre employed.

That would be fine if it was not the clear the others in the Bible did not think of it as a genre but instead thought of it as real. How does one decide which is which? It looks to me like you base your decision on whether it fails to match the real world and not by looking at the text.

For instance it is clear that the Psalms are songs and not prophecy despite the efforts of Fundamentalists to use Psalm as if it was prophecy. However there is nothing in Genesis that shows that it was not intended as a real description of actual events and later biblical figures clearly treat them as actual events.

BTW, the Flood Story and the Creation Story are NOT allegory. Allegory is not really a convention used in Classical Hebrew all that often. I believe I'd be correct in saying that it is largely a form of speech/writing arising out of the Hellenistic Period. Paul occassionally uses allegory in his letters of the New Testament.

Well the Flood story is treated as real throughout the Bible. Not as myth or legend. In any case I don't see any reason to put the Bible over any other book of myths and legends if it does not show some special knowledge that can be tested for a reality check.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Supernatural or not there would be evidence to support it unless more supernatural effort went into making the world look exactly like its very old and that evolution has shaped life over millions and billions of years.

Not necessarily. Science can only test what can be reproduced. It is a major tenet of Science that experiments, which are the vehicle for its conclusions, must be repeatable. How do you repeat the supernatural? I'd like to point out, however, that I'm not arguing the validity of scientific theories of evolution. I do not have the expertise to do so and quite frankly am more than willing to accept (at the very least) aspects of evolution, if not the whole theory.

Originally posted by Ethelred You are mistaken in your assertion that I said that. I have said the Genesis one is does not fit the world we live in as it is written and that is a fact. However evolution itself does not show this. It is the order that things occur in Genesis that shows that. A literal six days is right out of course but that is not what I am talking about nor is Genesis one the most obvious areas to deal with regarding the accuracy of the Bible.

I apologize if I misunderstood you. I will look again for the post that gave me this sense and quote it. You can then clarify what you meant.

You employ the word "fact" with the self-assured certainity of a devout modernist. I would hesitate to be so free with that term, especially in areas that you do not have professional expertise. BTW, what do you mean by "Genesis one is does (sic) not fit the world we live in as it is written"?

Originally posted by Ethelred This is both true and false. It is true that Genesis is not scientific but it is false that it cannot be disproved because of this. Genesis makes a large number of very clear and fairly precise statements. Many of them can be checked against the real world. Many fail that check. For instance The Elder Edda is not scientific either. However it says the Earth was formed by a giant cow licking a giant block of ice. This is clearly wrong just as Genesis is on some things. Neither of those two religious writings is scientific yet both make specific statements. Both can be checked against the real world. Both fail.

Again, you are guilty of applying a modernist standard of truth to an ancient document. Moving from your example of "The Elder Edda" (which I'm not all that familiar with), I would judge its truthfulness on the basis of its genre. If it is an epic or a myth, the author may not have really believed that a giant cow licking a block of ice caused the formation of the earth. It may simply serve to represent or justify a particular worldview, i.e. cows are sacred. The question is then whether or not that worldview is accurate.

Originally posted by Ethelred That too is wrong. Creationism is an attempt to prove Genesis and not the other way around. If Creationism was true it would indeed be provable by looking at the real world and comparing what Creationism says about it with the world really is. It fails that test.

Actually, the way many fundamentalists argue Creationism, it would seem that they are more concerned with their theory then they are with the biblical text. While Creationism may fail in its scientific methodology, the claim that God created the world, which you should not construe as the same as the theory of "Creationism," is simply not open to scientific investigation because God is not a variable that can be controlled.

Originally posted by Ethelred Its not highly subjective nor is it personal. Its written in many areas as it was a factual telling. Rememberance of Things Past by Proust is highly subjective not the Bible. I doubt you would make that claim if the Bible and the real world were a better match. You would claim that match as evidence supporting the Bible, as would I.

It is very subjective and personal. Genesis 12-50 are comprised of several toledoths, which are essentially stories about families and in the case of Genesis, one particularly family, namely the family descending through Terah. Also, I am relatively certain that you do not have the expertise to claim, "Its written in many areas as it was a factual telling," because in fact that claim (in the context in which you employ it and with the meaning you are assigning it) is misleading.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Not just theological ones. Real ones. Like how sheep got patches of color for instance. That they are put in theological terms is due to the fact that the authors simply didn't know any better. Theology was what they did and it was factual to them.

That an ancient people believed they could manipulate the color of sheep (when in the "real" world, as you like to call it, we know that this cannot happen without genetic engineering) does not invalidate their story . It is still a story, told from their point of view, that (for the believer) passes on certain theological truths. That the elements of the story include superstitutions of the people who wrote only adds to the authenticity of the story itself and hence its reliability.

Originally posted by Ethelred And replace them with new myths. Myths that fit the authors beliefs. Many based on old legends and myths that had been around for a long time.

No argument here. Genesis 1-11 is best classified as myth.

Originally posted by Ethelred None of them any more relevant to reality than the Elder Edda unless a god was involved in the writing. In which case they should have a much better fit to reality.

I beg to differ about their relevancy. Many people, including myself, find the biblical stories extremely relevant.

Originally posted by Ethelred
So how come Genesis 2 refers to 'elohim instead of Jehovah? Plural gods instead of one god.

First off, I was talking about the purpose of Genesis 1 not Genesis 2, which has a totally different purpose and was probably written by a completely different writer. So, what's your point?

Second, you reveal a glaring lack of familiarity and understanding of Classical Hebrew. To avoid digressing into Hebrew grammar and morphology, the simplest answer to your statement is that Elohim is here used as a name and therefore it really doesn't matter what the name means. My middle name means "Handsome" but that is a description of me that is certainly open to interpretation.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Its does more than that. Its fairly specific on a number of points. Those points only seem to match reality occasionaly by accident since they mostly don't match.

What points are you talking about? Describe some for me. If they are simply points of culture then they only reflect something about the culture and the people who wrote the text.

Originally posted by Ethelred
It is the domain of science to understand how things work. If that shows the Bible has things wrong that is a byproduct of science and not a goal.

Except as pertains the theology of the bible. Science cannot instruct the bible as to what is right or wrong nor more than it can instruct society on morality. Science consists only of hypothesis, experimentation, and observation.

Originally posted by Ethelred You make a standard mistake here. Evolution is two valued word. Its a theory to explain facts. The fact is life evolves. Darwin came up with a theory that explains why and how it evolves. He did pretty good considering he didn't know about genes. Evolution is both theory and fact.

There is nothing wrong or religious in trying to understand how things happened. That is what science does and that includes trying to understand as much as possible about the beginning of the universe. Perhaps that is what you referring to in you implication that science is becoming a religion.

No. I'm not attacking science on its pursuit of knowledge in the natural world. What I am, however, arguing is that often times scientific theory is translated into dogma? For instance, darwinism is not only a scientific theory but it has also been translated into a social theory (Social Darwinism), which formed the basis of the many of the Third Reich's views of humanity. And, certainly, if we were to simply base our morality on the scientific theory of darwinism, would it not be for the betterment of humanity that we exterminate and/or sterilize people with disabilities?

BTW, I've been using evolution throughout in the sense of the scientific theory.

Originally posted by Ethelred Its hard to study things that there is no sign of. If there was evidence for the supernatural it would be studied. In fact there have been attempts to study things that many would call supernatural. They have produced nothing convincing. The Klein studies of ESP for instance.

You are looking for and expecting evidence of the supernatural in the natural world. But, there are many things, even in your so-called "real" world, that cannot be studied or at least are not fully discernable by science because they are not part the natural world, i.e. love, or various other more abstract ideas. You are right, however, that occassionally some supernatural things can be studied. You are wrong, however, when you state that "they have produced nothing convincing." Studies of the power of prayer for healing have in many cases provided remarkable results of its benefit.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Its the job of science to clear up the deceptions should there be any. The real world can complex but it is not deceptive. That is what life does. Man and animal use decpetion for survival purposes so its not surprising that literature should abound with deception. You aren't doing for the Bible with this line of reasoning. You make it look deliberatly deceptive instead of due to ignorance.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Its the job of science to open this metaphorical book.

It has its limitations, however. Hence, the other disciplines that exist in the pursuit of knowledge.

Originally posted by Ethelred
This look like an attempt to muddle things and nothing else.

Didn't understand something I wrote?

Originally posted by Ethelred
Science COULD study the supernatural if there was any evidence that it existed. However all you are doing here is saying what I said. The world and the Bible don't match. One must be wrong or Jehovah must have engaged in deception which is definitly what covering things up is. Wether reality is covered up via natural or supernatural means its still deception. The world looks exactly like its not the world described in parts of Genesis.

Again, science has limitations and I think you grant science powers it does not possess. What do you mean by "The world and the Bible don't match"? I think the bible provides a profound description of the reality of the human condition.

How did "Jehovah" (which btw is an incorrect attempt to vocalize the divine name used by old translations and Jehovah's Witnesses) deceive? I don't understand your point. How does the world not look like the world described in Genesis? And besides, you talk as if "Jehovah" wrote the bible.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I use the Bible for interpreting it. I then compare it to the world around us. There is a failure to match. Calling it literature does not free it from testing unless of course you are calling fiction. Is that what you are doing? Calling the Bible fiction?

Calling it literature means that it needs to be tested according to literary theories not scientific ones. And yes, many parts of the bible are fiction.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I don't see anything wrong in it. If its myth its not trustworthy. This is simply realism.

Really? Something that is ahistorical is not trustworthy? Have you ever cried "wolf"?

Originally posted by Ethelred
They have done much more. They have said the the people within the Bible that clealy treat the Flood as a fact are also mere literature or at least remarkably unaware that the story is mere literature if they were real people. Unless of course it was intended to thought of as real when it was written as I think was the case. There are a number of references to the Flood in the New Testament that clearly treat it as a real event just as described in Genesis.

To actually profit from this line of discussion, it would be very useful for you to provide quotations from the bible.

Originally posted by Ethelred
That would be fine if it was not the clear the others in the Bible did not think of it as a genre but instead thought of it as real. How does one decide which is which? It looks to me like you base your decision on whether it fails to match the real world and not by looking at the text.

For instance it is clear that the Psalms are songs and not prophecy despite the efforts of Fundamentalists to use Psalm as if it was prophecy. However there is nothing in Genesis that shows that it was not intended as a real description of actual events and later biblical figures clearly treat them as actual events.

What kind of story begins "Once Upon a Time"?
What kind of document begins "Dear ______"?
Genres have literally clues at the beginning, scattered throughout them, and at the end. It just so happens that separation of culture and time make it difficult to pin down all the varied genres employed in the bible. As you point out, some of them are easily discernable, i.e. Psalms (although here too there are many different types and forms of Psalms), Proverbs, Wisdom Lit., Oracles, Historiography, Short Story, Hero Stories, Typology, etc. The field of comparative literature is critically important to determining Classical Hebrew genres. By reading literature contemporeanous (sic) with the bible, we can discern various similarities and differences with those literary forms. As an example, "The Birth of Moses" in Exodus 1-2 takes on a typical form used repeatedly throughout the Ancient Near East. In fact, scholars have found well over a hundred literary parallels. This strongly indicates that it is the form of the story that conveys something the audience was meant to understand about Moses rather than the modernist tendency to believe that Exodus 1-2 is a historical record of Moses' birth. The form used here, as in most if not all the cases it is used in the Ancient Near East, foreshadows the fact that Moses will be a great person. It's as simple as that. There are other examples in the biblical text itself. For instance, have you ever wondered why the men of the bible so often meet their wives at wells? This is another "type" story. Their truthfulness (and even their historicity) can only be discerned if you recognize what in fact they are saying happened.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Well the Flood story is treated as real throughout the Bible. Not as myth or legend. In any case I don't see any reason to put the Bible over any other book of myths and legends if it does not show some special knowledge that can be tested for a reality check.

Again, please provide quotations on the use of the Flood Story in the rest of the bible.

Why put the Bible over other texts? Several reasons come to mind at the moment:

(1) It does contain historical kernels and many of these kernels are supported by archaeology. Most other religious texts have absolutely no grounding in history.

(2) The truthfulness of the bible's worldview on issues of theology, the human condition and such. This is a matter of personal conviction.

(3) The testimony of quite literally billions of humans who have been affected and moved by encounters with their God. (It is also worth pointing out that the perception that Christianity is a white man's religion is totally false. Christianity is the only religion of the world that can truly claim to be international and clearly knows no ethnic bounds. There are Christian Palestinians and Christian Israelis. The biggest Christian churches are in South Korea and South America. Christianity is experiencing its most significant and rapid growth in Africa and China. And, these are no simply recent developments. Christianity has thrived in many disparate parts of the world since the time of Jesus.)

(4) Most importantly, the authority of the bible rests in two historical encounters with God that a preponderance of the evidence (a legal standard) suggests were likely events and manifestly unique events in the course of human history: The National Revelation of God at Mount Sinai (Horeb) and for Christians, the Crucifixition and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, any person faced with the biblical text has to come to terms with these events. You can either deny them (but you would be rejecting exceedingly likely events), reject their efficacy and importance, or you can accept them and become a Christian in doing so (or if you only accept the former, become a Jew).

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Most agree that Genesis can be viewed as a historical record of sorts, in which case, a scientific approach will have to be used. As to whether it is literature is debatable. Certainly not all of the bible is literature, and probably not Genesis.

Yes. The Bible is literature. All of it! What is your definition of literature that somehow the bible would not be included?

Second, "Most agree that Genesis can be viewed as a historical record of sorts"? Are you talking about lay people or professionals? What do you mean by "historical record of sorts"? It is certainly an artifact of history and in that capacity reveals something of the culture and people who wrote it as well as the cultures and peoples that preserved it. The historical-scientific approaches can be applied to it in that capacity, most certainly. But, scientific method can't be applied as means to interpret the text itself. Well, it can but it yields inane results like trying to use literary theory to solve a math problem--good luck!

[Aeson]

The National Revelation of God at Mount Sinai (Horeb) and for Christians, the Crucifixition and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, any person faced with the biblical text has to come to terms with these events. You can either deny them (but you would be rejecting exceedingly likely events), reject their efficacy and importance, or you can accept them and become a Christian in doing so (or if you only accept the former, become a Jew).

Just wondering why you would claim these events were exceedingly likely to have happened?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Aeson

Quote:

The National Revelation of God at Mount Sinai (Horeb) and for Christians, the Crucifixition and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, any person faced with the biblical text has to come to terms with these events. You can either deny them (but you would be rejecting exceedingly likely events), reject their efficacy and importance, or you can accept them and become a Christian in doing so (or if you only accept the former, become a Jew).

Just wondering why you would claim these events were exceedingly likely to have happened?

I won't go into great depth because I have a life and other things to do but I will offer some points for each:

The National Revelation of God at Mount Sinai

The most convincing argument in my mind on this point is based on the nature of the claim. No other religion that I am aware of claims that God revealed himself to the entirety of their nation as Judaism does. I think there is a simple reason for this fact: it has never occurred to any other nation and trying to propagate such a claim (if it was a lie) upon an entire people that had alledgedly experienced this event would gain shortshrift. Imagine, if you were told that Congress declared that Elvis Presley was really alive because everybody in the U.S.A. has seen him. I'm guessing more than a few people would oppose this measure. But, in the case of the Jewish people of that time, there is no evidenced that they doubted their historical encounter with God. Most other religions, i.e. Islam, are based upon the revelations of God to one man. One's belief therefore rests in whether or not you trust the testimony of that one man. In the case of Judaism, one's belief would rest on whether or not you trust the testimony of an entire nation. I'll take the latter over the former any day.

Other arguments which you may find more convincing then this one are sociological and anthropological in nature. There is the simple historical fact of a people whose religious life, traditions and fortunes changed drastically. From slaves in Egypt to possessors of land in Canaan. From monolatry (at best) and polytheism (at worst) to strict monotheism (a decidedly original concept in the ANE). A culture, somehow, someway, changed so drastically that it is difficult to account for it if it is not rooted in an encounter with God at Sinai. Particularly given the substance of the change (i.e. we can explain rapid change in Britain in 19th century as a result of industrialization because of the substance of the change. The nature of the Hebrew/Israelite change presupposes some sort of encounter with a god.)

There are more reasons and sources but I'll stop here for now.

The Crucifixition and Resurrection of Jesus

First, Jesus is a real historical figure. There is simply no question on this fact. No historical figure in world history has more extant textual evidence to his existence than Jesus. Deny Jesus' existence and you might as well deny all your world history. There are references to Jesus not only in Christian literature (canonical and non-canonical) but also he is polemicized in the Talmud (where interestingly he is described as a miracle-worker, though his miracles are ascribed to Satan); he is mentioned in the Koran and other Muslim literature (where his miracles are sometimes even more incredulous than reported in the Gospels); he is mentioned in the work of Jewish/Roman historian Josephus; he is mentioned in Roman literature. Each of these sources takes for granted his existence and his crucifixition.

Second, on Jesus' resurrection, there is again an enormous body of literature that testifies to the event. Though granted, and as one would expect, it is all Christian. (People who don't believe in Jesus' resurrection are simply not going to report the evidence that it occurred.) In addition to the literature, we have the unexplained evolution of Christianity. Judaism had many sects during this period and many would-be messiahs who were followed. Yet, whenever the leaders of these sects died, so did the sects themselves. The bible reports quite interestingly that the disciples were dismayed and scattered after the death of Jesus (if they were making this up, why not report that they stayed firm in their convictions? That they trusted Jesus could never be killed? The Gospels routinely make the disciples look bad). Yet, for some reason, something changes the disciples so that they opt to challenge the Jewish and Roman authorities with their conviction that Jesus was resurrected. They even did so to the point of death. Ah, you may say, many people die for religious convictions? But, I think if you examine the possible motives and the consequences of why people die for religious convictions, you'll see how different and abnormal the early Christians were. Not to degrade Islam, but its martyrs die as much for social and political reasons as for religious ones. Also despite the increasing problem that the Jews and Romans perceived Christianity was becoming, they never produced his body despite the fact that it was in their charge and protection. It may be an argument from silence but geez its a pretty convincing one! I've explained this reasoning in a very colloquial way but it is actually rooted in strong sociological and anthropological logic and theory. Further sociological and anthropological reasons again make it likely that the Jesus event occurred.

But, notwithstanding, I do not expect that most people would be persuaded by any evidence of this nature simply because the events are too manifestly unique and require too much of a person to accept them. People are persuaded with this type of evidence on all sorts of other issues but they are issues that hold no personal significance for them. This issue, however, would radically change a person's worldview and people simply don't swap their worldview for another one on the basis of this type of evidence. It's insufficient and I completely understand that. I think the Fourth Gospel acknowledges this fact when it declares, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" (Jn 20:29b). Also, for some reason, I believe that God has made it so that faith is not unreasonable but it is ALWAYS necessary. I'm not sure why he did this and I often question the justice of it. But, we also have the testimony of other Christians. Some Christians have believed without seeing. Others, however, have experienced Jesus in very personal ways: actual appearances, visions, discourse, etc. (I, for one, would be an agnostic or atheists if I had not been born into a Christian family--I believe in Jesus because I trust the experiences of family members). But, ultimately, even this is not enough for many people; they rationalize it away by appealing to seemingly comparable phenomenon in other religious movements and amongst Elvis Presley fans. Some just need Jesus to present himself to them. However, some would not even believe (or at least would not serve) if given that grace. The nature of human evil is that humans are alienated from and so either deny or hate their creator. Not even he can change that without compromising his holiness (and thereby making himself something other than he is; put another way, Not even he can change that because then he would not be God; it's a logical impossibility).

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
Not necessarily. Science can only test what can be reproduced.

False. Science includes many things that deal with non-reproducible events. Forensics is the science of studying events that should not be reproduced as in murders. Anthropology is a study of human activity both physical, cultural, and archeological. Medicine often deals with statistical analysis of events that occured in the past when dealing with plagues that no longer plague us.

What you are talking about is only some of the experimental sciences which themselves are only part of science. This a now common redefinition of science by fundamentalist to evade paleontology and archeology. It often goes with a bogus claim that I cannot know anything about the past. Usually while pretending that the same would not apply to the Bible.

It is a major tenet of Science that experiments, which are the vehicle for its conclusions, must be repeatable.

Only in dealing with things that are subject to experiment. Did you learn this twisted definition from some fundamentalist? You sure didn't learn it from a scientist.

How do you repeat the supernatural?

Ask Oral Roberts. He claims to have cured many. While your at ask Marjoe Gortner. He did it too while banging two chicks and smoking pot and making a documentary about the Revival circuit during his tour of the the circuit.

He was fully capable of repeating the standard miracle cures that are common amongst profesional preachers.

I'd like to point out, however, that I'm not arguing the validity of scientific theories of evolution. I do not have the expertise to do so and quite frankly am more than willing to accept (at the very least) aspects of evolution, if not the whole theory.

Actually you did just do that. You just made it clear the you think its not a science since it mostly does not deal with repeatable events. Its darn hard to simulate a 7 mile diameter asteroid striking the edge of the Yucatan Penisula. Yet we know this happened based on clear physical evidence. The same kind of evidence that can be used to check the Bible for signs of reality.

You employ the word "fact" with the self-assured certainity of a devout modernist. I would hesitate to be so free with that term, especially in areas that you do not have professional expertise.

I don't have to be a profesional to learn things. This is a bogus attempt to deny me the ability to use real know science to support my position. I can back up what I said. I have done so and if you are looking at old posts then you will have seen that.

BTW, what do you mean by "Genesis one is does (sic) not fit the world we live in as it is written"?

It doesn't and that is exactly what I meant. The order of creation in Genesis one is wrong as can easily be seen in the fossil record. Just for one example. Flying animals did not preceed land animals. Grass did not preceed animals either. Grass didn't show up for over two hundred million years after the first land animals.

Again, you are guilty of applying a modernist standard of truth to an ancient document. Moving from your example of "The Elder Edda" (which I'm not all that familiar with), I would judge its truthfulness on the basis of its genre.

Well I judge on its match with reality. If you are going to treat religious writing as a philosophical tract I don't see any reason at all to accept any of it as having relevance to anyone at all. You seem to be trying to redefine things for the purposes of evading a reality check. The Bible has never been treated as mere fiction in which case it is very possible to check it against reality. If it can't be tested at all its worthless except as a philosophy and then its mere matter of taste whether go with the Bible or Budda, or the Quran.

If it is an epic or a myth, the author may not have really believed that a giant cow licking a block of ice caused the formation of the earth. It may simply serve to represent or justify a particular worldview, i.e. cows are sacred. The question is then whether or not that worldview is accurate.

Its wasn't and neither is the one Gensis. Both can be checked against reality and both fail.

[QUOTE]
Actually, the way many fundamentalists argue Creationism, it would seem that they are more concerned with their theory then they are with the biblical text. While Creationism may fail in its scientific methodology, the claim that God created the world, which you should not construe as the same as the theory of "Creationism," is simply not open to scientific investigation because God is not a variable that can be controlled.

The Elder Edda is a collection of Norse myth and Legend. It is in poetic form. The Youger Edda is in prose form. Gensis is no more that either. A collection of myth and legend. Legends of course are distinguished from myth by haveing some basis in reality no matter how remote. Beowulf for instance may very well have existed but he sure didn't kill a troll that lived in a lake. Nor was he killed by a dragon.

It is very subjective and personal. Genesis 12-50 are comprised of several toledoths, which are essentially stories about families and in the case of Genesis, one particularly family, namely the family descending through Terah.

Which counts as historical not personal nor subjective since it is portrayed as real.

Also, I am relatively certain that you do not have the expertise to claim, "Its written in many areas as it was a factual telling," because in fact that claim (in the context in which you employ it and with the meaning you are assigning it) is misleading.

I can read the Bible and that is more than enough expertise. You seem to be claiming some expertise that so far you have not displayed. If the meaning was that misleading than the Bible is very poor literature and even worse history.

That an ancient people believed they could manipulate the color of sheep (when in the "real" world, as you like to call it, we know that this cannot happen without genetic engineering) does not invalidate their story .

Actually it does. It shows its just a story with no more relevance to how the world or a god works than any other book of myths and legends. To have real meaning the Bible must rise above the rest. If it does not there really is no reason to base your life on it.

It is still a story, told from their point of view, that (for the believer) passes on certain theological truths. That the elements of the story include superstitutions of the people who wrote only adds to the authenticity of the story itself and hence its reliability.

Fantasy cannot lend credibility. That is double think right of George Orwells 1984. That the story is from the past in no way makes it a valid story. Perhaps an entertaining one for the easily amused but that is all. It is nothing to base a life on.

Unless your life is based on entertaining people with silly old tales. I prefer the Illiad myself. Its better written.

No argument here. Genesis 1-11 is best classified as myth.

Well then there is nothing special in it. The question that comes to mind is Why do you believe in the god that is in that book then? I might as well believe in Thor and Odin.

I beg to differ about their relevancy. Many people, including myself, find the biblical stories extremely relevant.

Relevant to what? It sure isn't relevant to a belief in a god if its nothing but myth.

First off, I was talking about the purpose of Genesis 1 not Genesis 2, which has a totally different purpose and was probably written by a completely different writer. So, what's your point?

My point is that the Bible imediatly thereafter went polytheist. Whats your evasion on this?

Of course it was written by someone else. Its all just the writing of largely ignorant men. No more valid than the any other collection of myth.

Second, you reveal a glaring lack of familiarity and understanding of Classical Hebrew. To avoid digressing into Hebrew grammar and morphology, the simplest answer to your statement is that Elohim is here used as a name and therefore it really doesn't matter what the name means. My middle name means "Handsome" but that is a description of me that is certainly open to interpretation.

You reveal a glaring lack of belief. Its not a name. Its a sign that the original writing of that part was written by people with more than one god. Jehovah is a name. Gods is a description.

What points are you talking about? Describe some for me. If they are simply points of culture then they only reflect something about the culture and the people who wrote the text.

You have covered some yourself allready. All that geneology is pretty darn specific. Specific names, specific ages and specific offspring. It doesn't get much more specific. So is the Flood story. Its quite specific both about what happened and Jehovah's intent.

If you don't believe the story that can be checked then why do you believe the the stories that cannot?

Except as pertains the theology of the bible. Science cannot instruct the bible as to what is right or wrong nor more than it can instruct society on morality. Science consists only of hypothesis, experimentation, and observation.

This is mere evasion. The Bible can be checked against the real world. You are argueing that we are ignorant and we are not that ignorant. Science CAN help us understand morality. You have tried to redefine it so you can avoid what the real world shows us regarding the Bible.

No. I'm not attacking science on its pursuit of knowledge in the natural world. What I am, however, arguing is that often times scientific theory is translated into dogma?

Well it isn't. Thats just plain wrong. Its tested all the time unlike dogma.

For instance, darwinism is not only a scientific theory but it has also been translated into a social theory (Social Darwinism), which formed the basis of the many of the Third Reich's views of humanity.

That was not science that was a philisophy intended to support a otherwise usuportable set of actions. The Nazis were carefull not to test against reality.

And, certainly, if we were to simply base our morality on the scientific theory of darwinism, would it not be for the betterment of humanity that we exterminate and/or sterilize people with disabilities?

No. Thats a typical ploy by fundamentalists. Sickle cell anemia is a severe disabilty. However it exists despite that for the simple reason that having only one copy of the gene protects people from malaria. Evolution does not need our help. Nor does that have anything to do with Darwin as his theory is about NATURAL selection. However I can understand your thinking since Jehovah did exactly that in the Flood story. He killed all humans that did fit the profile he wanted.

You play moral games with me and I will give them right back. Stick to an honest discusion because if you try and go the moral route I will use the Bible as an example of immorality on a one for one basis. This is an easy thing to do and its why Lincoln is so annoyed with me. That paragraph was *** for tat and this one is explaining why. Do not go this route if you want a reasoned discusion. I will remain reasonable but I will quote the Bible in the responce.

BTW, I've been using evolution throughout in the sense of the scientific theory.

Not when you tried that Social Darwinism ploy.

You are looking for and expecting evidence of the supernatural in the natural world. But, there are many things, even in your so-called "real" world, that cannot be studied or at least are not fully discernable by science because they are not part the natural world, i.e. love, or various other more abstract ideas.

Those ARE things that can be studied. Not very precisely of course but nevertheless love is indeed amenable to study. Whether anything concrete can come of the study is another thing. However it has been learned that a good orgasm effects women far more emotionally that it does men. They produce many times the amount of a specific mood altering hormone than men do.

You are right, however, that occassionally some supernatural things can be studied. You are wrong, however, when you state that "they have produced nothing convincing." Studies of the power of prayer for healing have in many cases provided remarkable results of its benefit.

Nothing was proven that involved the supernatural. Placebos also often have remarkable results. Marjo Gortner had remarkable results even though he was a complete and utter fraud. Bad actor too. Great prosyletizer but he later became afflicted with morals.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

That is because you are so vague in your beliefs. You don't seem to have any basis for them. Indeed so far I am not sure you actually have any beliefs. You are avoiding having one on all points.

It has its limitations, however. Hence, the other disciplines that exist in the pursuit of knowledge.

Those are not knowledge. They aren't very disiplined either. Science is cross checked and religion avoids that.

Didn't understand something I wrote?

Actually I did. You are trying to avoid taking a stand on anything and claiming that I can't either so you can avoid a reality check.

Perhaps you are not aware of what you are doing but you are doing that.

Again, science has limitations and I think you grant science powers it does not possess. What do you mean by "The world and the Bible don't match"? I think the bible provides a profound description of the reality of the human condition.

I have made it very clear what I meant. The Flood never happened. Life did not arise as described in Genesis. These two items are cases where the Bible does not match reality but they are two of the supernatural claims that can be checked. I think you WAY overstate the Bible description of the human condition. It even claims that mankind is inherently evil which is utter nonsense.

How did "Jehovah" (which btw is an incorrect attempt to vocalize the divine name used by old translations and Jehovah's Witnesses) deceive?

The Jehova's witnesses have nothing to do with the spelling. Its that way in the KJV. That is why I use that spelling. I use the name specificly because I want to make it clear that I am only dealing with a specific god. Its amazing to me how many people claim that I have said I have disproved god when I only claim to have disproved the god of the Bible. Many other godly concepts are possible.

I don't understand your point. How does the world not look like the world described in Genesis? And besides, you talk as if "Jehovah" wrote the bible.

You don't want to understand my point. Even you have admited that the Genesis one story is myth. That showst that you too do not believe the world of Genisis matches the world we live in.

Pick one.

The Genisis story is myth and therefor the world described in that story is not ours.

Genisis is an accurate depiction of the world we live in and we simply don't know it.

I don't think that is a false dichotomy. If you think it is please explain. To me you are switching back and forth line by line. One time you say that Genesis one is myth and then you say Genisis does not fail to match reality. Those are contradictory statements. Only one of them can be true.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
Calling it literature means that it needs to be tested according to literary theories not scientific ones. And yes, many parts of the bible are fiction.

Calling it literature is merely an effort to avoid a scientific study. There is no reason at all that it cannot be checked against the real world. Unless of course you fear the results of such a check.

How do you know which parts are fiction if you refuse to make a reality check?

Really? Something that is ahistorical is not trustworthy? Have you ever cried "wolf"?

No I haven't. Crying wolf is a story its not book that claims special knowledge. If the Bible has no special knowledge than it isn't special. Its just myth. Of no more value than what people read into just as with any other myth.

To actually profit from this line of discussion, it would be very useful for you to provide quotations from the bible.

You are the claiming expertise regarding the Bible. A simple search for the word Noah shows others Biblical figures mentioning the story. I take it then that you are not the expert you are implying you are with your frequent references to people being or not being profesionals.

However since you asked you will recieve. After all I did the research on that question two months ago. Here it is again. Please keep mind that this was originally written for someone else but the biblical quotes are valid. I just don't feel like rewriting the whole thing to make it specific to you instead of Monkspider.

So you are now claiming that Noah is only mentioned once elsewhere in the Bible and that is treated as allegory there. Otherwise its your statement that is false. Lets see what a search for Noah turns up.

Well not counting Genesis and some where it might be different person with the same name.

Noah isn't mentioned in Luke. At least not by name.

Ah found what you were referring too

Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Looks like Luke thought of it as real.

Now for Noah as opposed to Noe.

1Ch 1:4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Treated as real anyway.

Isa 54:9 For this [is as] the waters of Noah unto me: for [as] I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

Again treated as real

Eze 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver [but] their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

Treated as real by Jehovah. Of course if Jehovah is a mere allegory why are you arguing with me?

Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Repetition of the story in a manner not cosistent with allegory.

1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Here even in the New Testament it is treated as real.

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Peter again treating it as real. What do you know that Peter didn't?

Thus endeth my self quote from a previous post.

What kind of story begins "Once Upon a Time"?
What kind of document begins "Dear ______"?

Not the Bible.

Genres have literally clues at the beginning, scattered throughout them, and at the end. It just so happens that separation of culture and time make it difficult to pin down all the varied genres employed in the bible.

I suspect the physical evidence that shows which is clealy wrong has a lot more to do with it than internal evidence.

As an example, "The Birth of Moses" in Exodus 1-2 takes on a typical form used repeatedly throughout the Ancient Near East. In fact, scholars have found well over a hundred literary parallels. This strongly indicates that it is the form of the story that conveys something the audience was meant to understand about Moses rather than the modernist tendency to believe that Exodus 1-2 is a historical record of Moses' birth.

Again you are only making my point for me. You are showing the Bible is a collection of myths, legends, and dubious history. Nothing that makes if special.

The form used here, as in most if not all the cases it is used in the Ancient Near East, foreshadows the fact that Moses will be a great person. It's as simple as that.

The rest of that story is not exactly conducive to my having good thoughts about Jehovah. Thank you for setting my mind at rest that its all just a load of hooey just as any other collection of myth tends to be.

There are other examples in the biblical text itself. For instance, have you ever wondered why the men of the bible so often meet their wives at wells? This is another "type" story. Their truthfulness (and even their historicity) can only be discerned if you recognize what in fact they are saying happened.

No I haven't. The first two books are more than enough to make it clear the Bible is nothing exceptional. I only have read other parts to check on specifics.

Again, please provide quotations on the use of the Flood Story in the rest of the bible.

For an expert you sure did miss a lot of them didn't you?

Why put the Bible over other texts? Several reasons come to mind at the moment:

(1) It does contain historical kernels and many of these kernels are supported by archaeology. Most other religious texts have absolutely no grounding in history.

Many other religous texts DO have a grounding in history. The Quran for one. We don't know about a lot of them. Christians burned a lot of the texts. Who knows what historicity there was to the tale of the Aztecs. The Spaniards destroyed most of them.

2) The truthfulness of the bible's worldview on issues of theology, the human condition and such. This is a matter of personal conviction.

So is your claim of truth. It just feels right to you so its true and you don't want to look too close either so you claim that science cannot apply.

There is equal truth in Shakespeare. There is nothing special in your second point. Its purely subjective and its not unique except in your mind.

(3) The testimony of quite literally billions of humans who have been affected and moved by encounters with their God.

Exaggeration will get you no where. Try millions. Most christians don't make such a claim so its not billions as there only between one and two billion christians. Testimony based on belief and not reality has no special meaning. It only means that the brainwashing was successfull. Physical evidence has real meaning.

(It is also worth pointing out that the perception that Christianity is a white man's religion is totally false.

No one claimed that here. Why bring it up. Most christians are in South America. Mostly Amerind and not what is called white. There a nearly a billion mostly Amerind christians.

Christianity is the only religion of the world that can truly claim to be international and clearly knows no ethnic bounds.

False. Islam can make the same claim. There is nearly a billion Moslems that will make similar testimony as well. This is a mere bandwagon arguement. 50 million Frenchman can be wrong.

There are Christian Palestinians and Christian Israelis. The biggest Christian churches are in South Korea and South America. Christianity is experiencing its most significant and rapid growth in Africa and China. And, these are no simply recent developments. Christianity has thrived in many disparate parts of the world since the time of Jesus.)

Again this shows nothing special about the Bible. Its just a bandwagon aproach. Billions think that the Flood happened and you disagree with them as does all the evidence. Obviously YOU are also unimpressed by the billions.

(4) Most importantly, the authority of the bible rests in two historical encounters with God that a preponderance of the evidence (a legal standard) suggests were likely events and manifestly unique events in the course of human history: The National Revelation of God at Mount Sinai (Horeb) and for Christians, the Crucifixition and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Neither of which is historical nor likely. Only a believer would claim a miracle likely. The is no contemperary source backing those claims outside the Bible. Even the one single historical reference to Jesus was neither contemporary nor did it mention the crucifiction much less the resurection.That reference is in Josephus.

Ultimately, any person faced with the biblical text has to come to terms with these events.

I see nothing to support those alleged events. I can even see how Jesus could have been crucified without actually dying. Especially considering the fact that even the Bible does not have an eyewittness acount of the crucifiction.

You can either deny them (but you would be rejecting exceedingly likely events),

I am denying you claim of likelyhood. Its only based on your belief as there IS NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to support them outside of the biblical claims and its the Bible that is in question. We have allready agreed that much in it is not real.

reject their efficacy and importance, or you can accept them and become a Christian in doing so (or if you only accept the former, become a Jew).

The belief in them has become important. There is no sign of reality to them.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
False. Science includes many things that deal with non-reproducible events. Forensics is the science of studying events that should not be reproduced as in murders. Anthropology is a study of human activity both physical, cultural, and archeological. Medicine often deals with statistical analysis of events that occured in the past when dealing with plagues that no longer plague us.

What you are talking about is only some of the experimental sciences which themselves are only part of science. This a now common redefinition of science by fundamentalist to evade paleontology and archeology. It often goes with a bogus claim that I cannot know anything about the past. Usually while pretending that the same would not apply to the Bible.

I see your point here but it seems to me you are talking about science that needs to be tested and experimented.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Only in dealing with things that are subject to experiment. Did you learn this twisted definition from some fundamentalist? You sure didn't learn it from a scientist.

Actually no. I learnt it in public school and have regularly confirmed it with friends who study in the sciences. Despite your attempts to deny it, I'm pretty sure repeatability remains an important concept in science. I'm open to being proven otherwise, however, by more than your inflammatory accusation of my source.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Ask Oral Roberts. He claims to have cured many. While your at ask Marjoe Gortner. He did it too while banging two chicks and smoking pot and making a documentary about the Revival circuit during his tour of the the circuit.

He was fully capable of repeating the standard miracle cures that are common amongst profesional preachers.

Please don't lump me in with people I share very little in common with. The people you have listed are, at least from my standpoint, of very questionable character. Besides which you have merely skirted my point by making an inflammatory and really unrelated issue. Go back, read again!

Originally posted by Ethelred
Actually you did just do that. You just made it clear the you think its not a science since it mostly does not deal with repeatable events. Its darn hard to simulate a 7 mile diameter asteroid striking the edge of the Yucatan Penisula. Yet we know this happened based on clear physical evidence. The same kind of evidence that can be used to check the Bible for signs of reality.

I'm not doubting that sort of study. Like I said in an earlier post, "It is certainly an artifact of history and in that capacity reveals something of the culture and people who wrote it as well as the cultures and peoples that preserved it. The historical-scientific approaches can be applied to it in that capacity, most certainly." When genre is taken into consideration, the bible holds up remarkably well.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I don't have to be a profesional to learn things. This is a bogus attempt to deny me the ability to use real know science to support my position. I can back up what I said. I have done so and if you are looking at old posts then you will have seen that.

It doesn't and that is exactly what I meant. The order of creation in Genesis one is wrong as can easily be seen in the fossil record. Just for one example. Flying animals did not preceed land animals. Grass did not preceed animals either. Grass didn't show up for over two hundred million years after the first land animals.

I was only urging caution because you'd be surprised what you don't understand when you have not made it your life to study it.

About your reading of Genesis, I don't diagree with you that Genesis 1 and Science may appear to be contradictory when you are using Genesis 1 as if it is a Science textbook!! And this is my point, you are totally misreading Genesis 1 and therefore making the statement that it is wrong according to a standard it was never intended or could have met. The person writing the story was living in 8th-11th B.C.E. Do you think he knew squat about how the world was made? What the hell do you expect from him?

Originally posted by Ethelred
Well I judge on its match with reality. If you are going to treat religious writing as a philosophical tract I don't see any reason at all to accept any of it as having relevance to anyone at all. You seem to be trying to redefine things for the purposes of evading a reality check. The Bible has never been treated as mere fiction in which case it is very possible to check it against reality. If it can't be tested at all its worthless except as a philosophy and then its mere matter of taste whether go with the Bible or Budda, or the Quran.

I'm not evading a reality check. Many things in the bible are historical BUT they are not written in a history book and therefore they must be read with that understanding. Also, you seem to be constantly attempting to define the bible as one homogenous book, either as a science textbook (albeit a bad one in your eyes) or a history book or now a philosophical tract. The fact is that the Old Testament itself consists of 39 books (and that's not counting the fact that many of those books existed as separate books or parts of books and were edited together). Within those 39 books, you have literature representing as many as ten different centuries of cultural history amongst the Israelite/Hebrew people. My point has always been that the literature of the bible represents varied genres. And even so, that doesn't mean it doesn't have errors. Because it does and I could point out many of them. All I've said is that the errors you are accusing it of possessing are totally ludricous given who wrote it.

It is sad that you would say: "If it can't be tested at all its worthless except as a philosophy." From this quote, it would appear that your interest in science seems to have deadened your appreciation for the arts and culture. There are many things in life that can't be tested and are still wonderful and awesome.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Which counts as historical not personal nor subjective since it is portrayed as real.

Really? Very questionable point...

Originally posted by Ethelred
I can read the Bible and that is more than enough expertise. You seem to be claiming some expertise that so far you have not displayed. If the meaning was that misleading than the Bible is very poor literature and even worse history.

You can read the bible. Wow! I'm amazed. Hate to be sarcastic but anybody over grade one can read the bible. How well do you know your comparative literature? How well do you know your history of the Ancient Near East? Explain the culture of the Ancient Near East, specifically the people of Canaan. Do you read Hebrew and Aramaic? What sorts of literary theories and strategies do employ in your reading? What are the leading scholarly commentaries on Genesis? What are the leading scholarly commentary series on the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible? What is your knowledge of Hebrew grammar and morphology?

The meaning is misleading to modern audiences because we are over 3000 years removed from the time and culture and language that wrote the book in the first place.

"even worse history" . . . That's my point. It's not history. It's a body of literature the reflects a time and a culture and a personal experiences seen through the eyes of faith. As history, it is pretty crappy.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Actually it does. It shows its just a story with no more relevance to how the world or a god works than any other book of myths and legends. To have real meaning the Bible must rise above the rest. If it does not there really is no reason to base your life on it.

The bible does rise above the rest in my opinion as a remarkable body of literature preserved through time and culture. If you do not agree, that is fine. I'm not attempting to proselytize just challenge your argumentation and open your mind as to views of other Christians than those you have previously debated.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Fantasy cannot lend credibility. That is double think right of George Orwells 1984. That the story is from the past in no way makes it a valid story. Perhaps an entertaining one for the easily amused but that is all. It is nothing to base a life on.

Unless your life is based on entertaining people with silly old tales. I prefer the Illiad myself. Its better written.

Well then there is nothing special in it. The question that comes to mind is Why do you believe in the god that is in that book then? I might as well believe in Thor and Odin.

Relevant to what? It sure isn't relevant to a belief in a god if its nothing but myth.

I'm surprised that you would say as much and I don't see any point to arguing with you. I certainly don't believe that a story has to be historical to be true. Fantasy, myth, and other genres can be equally insightful particularly if you share the worldview with the author that wrote them.

Originally posted by Ethelred
My point is that the Bible imediatly thereafter went polytheist. Whats your evasion on this?

Of course it was written by someone else. Its all just the writing of largely ignorant men. No more valid than the any other collection of myth.

You reveal a glaring lack of belief. Its not a name. Its a sign that the original writing of that part was written by people with more than one god. Jehovah is a name. Gods is a description.

No evasion at all. And it doesn't go polytheist. There are a few commentators who argue this line but it simply doesn't work. Elohim is a proper name (not a description). Moreover, while English normally restricts the use of the plural to multiples, the Hebrew plural has many different uses. In Hebrew, you have plurals of extension; body parts are almost always plural; complex nouns can be plural; abstract nouns are frequently plural (especially those that refer to states or condition); and, honorifics and intensives are often plural (Elohim fits in this last category). Take for instance the sea monsters in Ps 74:13-14 and Job 40:15, 16, 19; the plural is always used yet they are singular entities. To prove the point, look at the verbs that designate "Elohim's" actions in Genesis 2. Are they singular or plural? You'll notice that they are in fact singular, which clearly shows that the writer envisioned one entity not a plurality. But anyways, thanks for coming out!

By the way, as I've pointed out, "Jehovah" is a bastardized attempt to vocalize the divine name. It is wrong.

Originally posted by Ethelred
You have covered some yourself allready. All that geneology is pretty darn specific. Specific names, specific ages and specific offspring. It doesn't get much more specific. So is the Flood story. Its quite specific both about what happened and Jehovah's intent.

If you don't believe the story that can be checked then why do you believe the the stories that cannot?

So, how do you read the genealogies? From your posts, I'm guessing you really think that "begat of" always, always means the equivalent of the English "son of". I'm guessing you've even tried to form a chronology based on the genealogy (or used a source that did this not unlike the medieval buffon who designed our calendar).

The Flood Story is specific. Really? Why doesn't it report exactly the types of animals brought into the ark. Hey after all, don't we want to know exactly what was meant by "all animals"? Hyperbole is frequent in Hebrew so a little clarification on this point would have been helpful, don't you think? Or, why doesn't it say how Noah managed to feed all those animals? How many times did Noah enter the ark? How animals of each kind did he bring on the ark? The Flood Story is really bad history if it is trying to be history. What about those dates throughout the story? The number "7" appears quite frequently, doesn't it? I suppose you really think the author believed something occured on the seventh of the seventh of the seventh? The Flood Story actually consists of at least two stories brought together to form one. The literary style conveys in more than a few ways that the history of it is much less important than the moral of it. Have you ever read historical fiction? It's pretty specific. That doesn't mean the events it is telling were believed to be actual historical events. But again, thanks for coming out!!

Originally posted by Ethelred
This is mere evasion. The Bible can be checked against the real world. You are argueing that we are ignorant and we are not that ignorant. Science CAN help us understand morality. You have tried to redefine it so you can avoid what the real world shows us regarding the Bible.

Having trouble with my point, eh?

Originally posted by Ethelred
Well it isn't. Thats just plain wrong. Its tested all the time unlike dogma.

That was not science that was a philisophy intended to support a otherwise usuportable set of actions.

I didn't say it was science. I said it was morality derived from science.

Originally posted by Ethelred
The Nazis were carefull not to test against reality.

I don't understand. What do you mean?

Originally posted by Ethelred
No. Thats a typical ploy by fundamentalists. Sickle cell anemia is a severe disabilty. However it exists despite that for the simple reason that having only one copy of the gene protects people from malaria. Evolution does not need our help. Nor does that have anything to do with Darwin as his theory is about NATURAL selection. However I can understand your thinking since Jehovah did exactly that in the Flood story. He killed all humans that did fit the profile he wanted.

You play moral games with me and I will give them right back. Stick to an honest discusion because if you try and go the moral route I will use the Bible as an example of immorality on a one for one basis. This is an easy thing to do and its why Lincoln is so annoyed with me. That paragraph was *** for tat and this one is explaining why. Do not go this route if you want a reasoned discusion. I will remain reasonable but I will quote the Bible in the responce.

Not when you tried that Social Darwinism ploy.

You missed the point of argument completely. I think this may be because you spend to much time argue with fundamentalists and are now projecting their ideas upon me without really, closely reading what I'm saying.

I was merely pointing out that science often moves beyond its realm of study to enter philosophical and religious debate. When it does so, it leads to dogma such as social darwinism. This is what is wrong with the Religion vs. Science debate. Religion attempts to enter the field of science (and makes an ass out of itself in the process) while Science stops doing science and starts making dogma out of theory. I was not accusing you of such an activity. I was only pointing out the harmful results of stretching science beyond its quite appropriate limitations.

BTW, reasoned discussion? Is that what you claim to be doing? You would never concede a point, even if it was better argued, simply as a point of pride. Also, the number of times you have resorted to stereotyping me and my perspectives is almost unreal. You frequently claim my positions before I have even presented them myself and all too frequently you are wrong about them. You draw out isolated quacks and fraudelent examples as if they somehow disprove the bible, the supernatural, or my point when I think you can appreciate that it does nothing to substantiate your argument at all. It simply bolsters your reputation with your hero-worshipppers on this board.

[CON'T in NEXT POST]

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Those ARE things that can be studied. Not very precisely of course but nevertheless love is indeed amenable to study. Whether anything concrete can come of the study is another thing. However it has been learned that a good orgasm effects women far more emotionally that it does men. They produce many times the amount of a specific mood altering hormone than men do.

Sounds romantic! I think, however, you have showed that they really can't be studied; at least not for there intrinsic and more important qualities.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Nothing was proven that involved the supernatural.
Placebos also often have remarkable results. Marjo Gortner had remarkable results even though he was a complete and utter fraud. Bad actor too. Great prosyletizer but he later became afflicted with morals.

About the supernatural . . . precisely my point. Scientists did a study of prayer. They have shown that it does in fact work to heal people but it still doesn't prove the supernatural. Why? Because science only studies the natural world. Ultimately, the supernatural can't come under the scrutiny of science to the degree necessary to study it effectively by the very nature of what it is.

About Marjo Gortner . . . see! A perfect example of what I stated above about your claim to reasoned discussion.

Originally posted by Ethelred
That is because you are so vague in your beliefs. You don't seem to have any basis for them. Indeed so far I am not sure you actually have any beliefs. You are avoiding having one on all points.

I'm not here to debate beliefs. I'm here to debate your argumentation, which is flawed. Beliefs don't come to people through argumentation, they come through experience. If you ever accepted Christianity, it would be through experience not because someone convinced you of its validity. People don't typically change worldview on the basis of argument.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Those are not knowledge. They aren't very disiplined either. Science is cross checked and religion avoids that.

I love the way you edited my statement, dropping reference to the other disciplines and then made it appear that the only other discipline I wrote down was religion when in fact I wrote psychiatry, sociology, psychology, theology, history, literature, etc. So, science is the unimpeachable discipline. Interesting?!

Originally posted by Ethelred
Actually I did. You are trying to avoid taking a stand on anything and claiming that I can't either so you can avoid a reality check.

Perhaps you are not aware of what you are doing but you are doing that.

No. I was really wondering if you did not understand something because your answer says I am attempting to muddle up the issue when I was simply providing further explanation of my metaphor.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I have made it very clear what I meant. The Flood never happened. Life did not arise as described in Genesis. These two items are cases where the Bible does not match reality but they are two of the supernatural claims that can be checked. I think you WAY overstate the Bible description of the human condition. It even claims that mankind is inherently evil which is utter nonsense.

Well, as I have pointed out, you misunderstand the Creation and Flood stories by totally disregarding their historical context, genre, setting, and purpose. So, the bible still holds up as far as I can see.

Humanity is inherently evil. I don't expect you to agree on this point but I see it in this world. The world is totally, utterly screwed up. Even the best of human intention amounts to sh!t. Our world is on the brink of catastrophe. We can't feed the hungry or provide for the impoverished. We would rather fight over land than share it simply because of pride. Our prisons are filled with criminals whose actions are grotesque to the point of being unimaginable. Having read many of your posts, are you going to now suggest that this is fault of my God?

Originally posted by Ethelred
The Jehova's witnesses have nothing to do with the spelling. Its that way in the KJV. That is why I use that spelling. I use the name specificly because I want to make it clear that I am only dealing with a specific god. Its amazing to me how many people claim that I have said I have disproved god when I only claim to have disproved the god of the Bible. Many other godly concepts are possible.

I didn't say the Jehovah's Witnesses were responsible for it. I simply said it was used by them and older translations. Here again is an example of your failure to read my posts properly.

I also stated that Jehovah is a mistranslation. It is wrong (along with significant portions of the KJV translation).

Originally posted by Ethelred
You don't want to understand my point. Even you have admited that the Genesis one story is myth. That showst that you too do not believe the world of Genisis matches the world we live in.

Pick one.

The Genisis story is myth and therefor the world described in that story is not ours.

Genisis is an accurate depiction of the world we live in and we simply don't know it.

I don't think that is a false dichotomy. If you think it is please explain. To me you are switching back and forth line by line. One time you say that Genesis one is myth and then you say Genisis does not fail to match reality. Those are contradictory statements. Only one of them can be true.

Myth can match reality in what it purports to tell us; I have not contradicted myself. Let me do a brief case study to give you an idea of what I'm getting at.

For instance, have you seen the movie, Braveheart (as a Civ 3 fan I'd bet you have)? Do you think that the screenwriter believed he was telling the EXACT story of William Wallace? No. He even disclaims as much right at the beginning. Did William Wallace exist? Yes. Is the movie a reflection of the state of technology in the time the movie was made? That is, does it say something about the Hollywood industry in that year? in that decade? What is the central point of the movie? How about "Freedom is worth fighting for"? Do you agree? Does the movie do a good job in presenting that statement as true, "Freedom is worth fighting for"? Is it a coherent message? Are their inconsistencies in its message? If so, when and why are they there? Given the intent and purpose of the movie, is it untrustworthy simply because it does not recount the EXACT story of William Wallace? Well, it is untrustworthy if that is what you are trying to recover from the movie. But, aren't you being unfair to the movie if you are demanding it be something it was never meant to be? Holding it to a standard and a test it was not made to fulfill? That is what you are doing with the bible.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Calling it literature is merely an effort to avoid a scientific study. There is no reason at all that it cannot be checked against the real world. Unless of course you fear the results of such a check.

How do you know which parts are fiction if you refuse to make a reality check?

I don't refuse to make a reality check. Read my previous two posts. I think your missing the point completely.

Originally posted by Ethelred
No I haven't. Crying wolf is a story its not book that claims special knowledge. If the Bible has no special knowledge than it isn't special. Its just myth. Of no more value than what people read into just as with any other myth.

The bible does have "special" knowledge. Depending of course what you mean by that term. It sounds eerily gnostic to me.

Originally posted by Ethelred
You are the claiming expertise regarding the Bible. A simple search for the word Noah shows others Biblical figures mentioning the story. I take it then that you are not the expert you are implying you are with your frequent references to people being or not being profesionals.

I have claimed nothing specific. My frequent reference to professionals is simply a word of caution that you may want to try humility on for size when you approach topics that some people spend 12+ years of intensive undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral work studying just to enter the field. I implied nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by Ethelred However since you asked you will recieve. After all I did the research on that question two months ago. Here it is again. Please keep mind that this was originally written for someone else but the biblical quotes are valid. I just don't feel like rewriting the whole thing to make it specific to you instead of Monkspider.

Thus endeth my self quote from a previous post.

So, you found references to Noah in Lk 17:27, 1 Chr 1:4, Isa 54:9, Ez 14:14, Heb 11:7, 1 Pet 3:20, and 2 Pet 2:5, correct? Of these, perhaps only the references in Hebrews and Peter really demand that the event occurred. Hebrews and Peter were probably written sometime in the period of 90-130 C.E.. You know what, I think it is entirely possible they believed it happened.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Not the Bible.

What an incredibly dumb response to my rhetorical questions!

Originally posted by Ethelred
I suspect the physical evidence that shows which is clealy wrong has a lot more to do with it than internal evidence.

You suspect wrong.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Again you are only making my point for me. You are showing the Bible is a collection of myths, legends, and dubious history. Nothing that makes if special.

No. I'm showing that you are reading it wrong.

Originally posted by Ethelred
The rest of that story is not exactly conducive to my having good thoughts about Jehovah. Thank you for setting my mind at rest that its all just a load of hooey just as any other collection of myth tends to be.

Anything to help an agnostic!

Originally posted by Ethelred
No I haven't. The first two books are more than enough to make it clear the Bible is nothing exceptional. I only have read other parts to check on specifics.

Apparently, you haven't read the first two books either. A vast majority of the well stories come from Genesis and Exodus. Seems you are dishonest about your alleged "research"?

Originally posted by Ethelred
For an expert you sure did miss a lot of them didn't you?

Not asking for my benefit. I'm asking to see if you know or if you are just making outlandish statements you can't support.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Many other religous texts DO have a grounding in history. The Quran for one. We don't know about a lot of them. Christians burned a lot of the texts. Who knows what historicity there was to the tale of the Aztecs. The Spaniards destroyed most of them.

Ah, the good old blame the Christians argument. I like it.

Originally posted by Ethelred
So is your claim of truth. It just feels right to you so its true and you don't want to look too close either so you claim that science cannot apply.

There is equal truth in Shakespeare. There is nothing special in your second point. Its purely subjective and its not unique except in your mind.

I acknowledge such in my point and in the post that followed this discussion.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Exaggeration will get you no where. Try millions. Most christians don't make such a claim so its not billions as there only between one and two billion christians. Testimony based on belief and not reality has no special meaning. It only means that the brainwashing was successfull. Physical evidence has real meaning.

I wasn't exaggerating. Check your stats. Also, read my post again. I didn't qualify the time period. Besides, you even state that there one to two billion Christians?!?!?!

Ah, the brainwashing argument. I like it.

Originally posted by Ethelred
No one claimed that here. Why bring it up. Most christians are in South America. Mostly Amerind and not what is called white. There a nearly a billion mostly Amerind christians.

I brought up to anticipate an objection. Again, you mention "a billion"?!?!? I though you thought there were only "millions". I'm really confused.

Originally posted by Ethelred
False. Islam can make the same claim. There is nearly a billion Moslems that will make similar testimony as well. This is a mere bandwagon arguement. 50 million Frenchman can be wrong.

Islam can not make the same claim as Christianity. Check your stats again.

It is a bandwagon argument but sometimes the bandwagon has it right.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Again this shows nothing special about the Bible. Its just a bandwagon aproach. Billions think that the Flood happened and you disagree with them as does all the evidence. Obviously YOU are also unimpressed by the billions.

I'm rooting my authority in this point in something other than the Bible.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Neither of which is historical nor likely. Only a believer would claim a miracle likely. The is no contemperary source backing those claims outside the Bible. Even the one single historical reference to Jesus was neither contemporary nor did it mention the crucifiction much less the resurection.That reference is in Josephus.

You don't know your historical references very well. But thanks for coming out!

Originally posted by Ethelred
I see nothing to support those alleged events. I can even see how Jesus could have been crucified without actually dying. Especially considering the fact that even the Bible does not have an eyewittness acount of the crucifiction.

Uhh?!?!?

Originally posted by Ethelred
I am denying you claim of likelyhood. Its only based on your belief as there IS NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to support them outside of the biblical claims and its the Bible that is in question. We have allready agreed that much in it is not real.

The belief in them has become important. There is no sign of reality to them.

I differ but I don't think you'll be persuaded. Besides, As I've stated previously, I'm not out to argue my beliefs but rather the form of argumentation. With those points and my response to Aeson, I simply wanted to express some very personal, subjective positions on the issue. But, in reality, there is no reason for you to put one text over the other if that reason is not rooted in personal experience.

[SpencerH]

IMO, science is not entirely based on reproducibility. The idea that scientific results from one group should be reproducible by another is, however, a strong tenet of modern science.

BTW, reasoned discussion? Is that what you claim to be doing? You would never concede a point, even if it was better argued, simply as a point of pride. Also, the number of times you have resorted to stereotyping me and my perspectives is almost unreal. You frequently claim my positions before I have even presented them myself and all too frequently you are wrong about them. You draw out isolated quacks and fraudelent examples as if they somehow disprove the bible, the supernatural, or my point when I think you can appreciate that it does nothing to substantiate your argument at all. It simply bolsters your reputation with your hero-worshipppers on this board.

ckweb

Welcome to the world of "discussion" with Ethylred

[ckweb]

Originally posted by ckweb In my opinion, you are mistaken when you declare that evolution disproves Genesis.

Originally posted by Ethelred
You are mistaken in your assertion that I said that. I have said the Genesis one is does not fit the world we live in as it is written and that is a fact. However evolution itself does not show this. It is the order that things occur in Genesis that shows that. A literal six days is right out of course but that is not what I am talking about nor is Genesis one the most obvious areas to deal with regarding the accuracy of the Bible.

As promised I have found one of the quotes that misled me to believe that you said evolution disproves Genesis. Here it is:

Originally posted by Ethelred That does mean a god is not required but it does not say the one can't exist, in fact it says nothing about god on its own, except of course it does show Genesis wrong but that is unintional and comes from the evidence not from a desire to disprove.

Perhaps I didn't understand the nuance of what you were saying but it seems to me that you are declaring that evolution disproves Genesis (albeit unintentionally). Please correct me if I am wrong.

[chrono353]

Serouisly Im not very religous or anything. But there is an awful lot of archaelogical evidence that proves a massive regional flood wiped out a early, small civilization in the black sea. The survivors dispersed to Asia, Europe, and Mesopotamia and most likely brought the story with them. There is the scientific evidence that may one day reveal the genesis"world" flood was indeed real. Around 10-8,000 years ago the Bosporus straights to the black sea broke and sent water rushing in rising the small lake at the time, 20 feet a day. The Black sea floor, before the flood was actually a fresh water lake about the size of Lake chad. With a river running to the ocean. This would of been perfect land for early humans.

Aftr several expeditions, Ballard found the remnants of an old city harbor. 300 feet below the sea. So to blow off the flood story would be stupid. As it stands, there is enough evidence to indicate a flood did occur in the region. And the stories were passed down. And as soon as Humans learned how to write, we put it down. The Epic of Gilgamesh, Noah Flood, The journey of Xian.

Its not irrational or illogical to think a flood happened. Sure as hell didnt happen "Around the world". But think of it this way. If your city was engulfed by a sudden 50 foot wave of water, wouldnt you think the rest of the world was too? Presuming you didnt travel much, your city is your world.

Please read and take it into consideration ethelred. Its difficult to disprove, cause many Scientists and Geologists say it did happen on a smaller scale. The evidence is there,wether an old man crawled into a boat with 2 of every animal as all the epics suggests. Or wether some old men around a fire added that in a few hundred years later.

Chrono353

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH


ckweb

Welcome to the world of "discussion" with Ethylred

I am fully willing to accept an well reasoned point and evidence. He hasn't had much in that regard. He seems mostly to be complaining about my style in any case and not the substance of what I have said which he has often agreed with.

The catch here is there is no well reasoned point that can support the Bible as being special enough to accept as a truly holy document that has tells us about a real god. So far CK himself has been calling it literture and been comparing it to genres rather than making any effort to show it to have a fundamental and certain text that defines our relationship with a real creator.

In other words he has done for my position than he has for his own. Since his posts are rather large I am going to reply to them after I catch up with everything else.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
As promised I have found one of the quotes that misled me to believe that you said evolution disproves Genesis. Here it is:



Perhaps I didn't understand the nuance of what you were saying but it seems to me that you are declaring that evolution disproves Genesis (albeit unintentionally). Please correct me if I am wrong.

This a short one so I will deal with it now. The big ones come later.

Your wrong. Its not the fact of evolution nor the theory of evolution that shows Genesis ONE wrong although Genesis TWO does have a problem with evolution in general. Its the details in the fossil record that show that Genesis one is wrong. Since you have agreed that Genesis one is not factual in any case you yourself don't think its right so whats the problem?

Just to cover the new base I touched on, Genesis TWO says that kind follows kind which happens to the main reason that Creationists often don't accept evolution to any degree at all. Evolution the theory shows HOW kind does not always follow kind and evolution the fact shows that species do indeed change.

So I suppose you could say that evolution in general does actualy show at least one part of Genesis to be wrong. If that upsets you remember that you don't think Genesis is historical either so you in fact are in agreement with the point I was making. I was talking to a Fundamentalist. He has an entirely different idea of what makes Genesis significant than you do. Evolution does indeed prove HIS concept of Genesis wrong. You concept is sufficiently nebulous to be unasaiable but it is hardly the only concept out there. 25% of Americans think that the Bible is a factual book and not literture. They would consider you a heretic. Fundamentalists do like theologians that are Fundamentalist. Many would say your are doing the devils work. Indeed I have seen them call any English language version of the Bible than the KJV to be Satanic and you think the KJV is full of mistakes.

So wellcome to the land of Satanism. You and I both are members to many believers. Does this sort of thing give you an idea of what my style of discussion regarding the Bible is directed towards. People that say I am immoral not merely for being an Agnostic but even for not being a born again christian.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by chrono353
Please read and take it into consideration ethelred. Its difficult to disprove, cause many Scientists and Geologists say it did happen on a smaller scale. The evidence is there,wether an old man crawled into a boat with 2 of every animal as all the epics suggests. Or wether some old men around a fire added that in a few hundred years later.

Chrono353

I read it. Have a link that I have been posting to these discussion for around two years now.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/bl.../ax/frame.html

I don't see this as evidence to support the Bible. I never said there wasn't a flood that could have been the source of the Gensis story. I am only dealing with the Fundamentlist insistance that not only that the Flood story is true in every detail but their equal insistance that Creationism must be treated as scientific theory and taught alongside evolution in public schools.

Heck I know of a MUCH larger flood but there was a severe shortage of hominids at that time much less Homo Sapiens which had yet to evolve. The same thing as occured in the Black Sea basin happened previously in the entire Mediteranean basin. The Straits of Gibralter once blocked the opening to the basin and it was mostly dry land, most likely it had some very salty lakes that had fresh water rivers spilling in to them. About 5 million years ago the Straits opened up and the Atlantic Ocean poured in. I sure would like to have been able to see the water fall. Biggest ever to say the least.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ethelred

Heck I know of a MUCH larger flood but there was a severe shortage of hominids at that time much less Homo Sapiens which had yet to evolve. The same thing as occured in the Black Sea basin happened previously in the entire Mediteranean basin. The Straits of Gibralter once blocked the opening to the basin and it was mostly dry land, most likely it had some very salty lakes that had fresh water rivers spilling in to them. About 5 million years ago the Straits opened up and the Atlantic Ocean poured in. I sure would like to have been able to see the water fall. Biggest ever to say the least.

If you were a time patrolman you could have been there to see it.

[chrono353]

Ethel I understand your point. I was just pointing out that 99.9% of the myths out there. If you dig deep enough they usually have a grain of truth to them. Unfortunately, over the years things are added to the stories. Just look at the history of Paul Bunyon to see what I mean.

that is all.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I am fully willing to accept an well reasoned point and evidence. He hasn't had much in that regard. He seems mostly to be complaining about my style in any case and not the substance of what I have said which he has often agreed with.

It is true that on many points we are in agreement re: Fundamentalism. My objections as they pertain to your arguments, however, have not only been about style but also about overreaching conclusions based on an apparently spurious understanding of the Bible. There have already been several points on which you could have conceded (and in some cases, though obviously not all, without conceding your overall argument):

(1) Your bastardized use of the divine name, Jehovah, is wrong and so you could stop using it.

(2) Accepting that genre effects reading strategy.

(3) Elohim is a proper name not a description.

(4) Genesis is subjective and personal account.

(5) Science studies the natural world not the supernatural. It can only test the supernatural insofar as those things that are supernatural reveal themselves in the natural world and can serve as variables.

(6) A story does not need to be historical or scientifically accurate in order for it to be relevant.

(7) Scientific method is not a literary theory.

(8) Scientific method can not invalidate faith or the Christian God.

Originally posted by Ethelred
The catch here is there is no well reasoned point that can support the Bible as being special enough to accept as a truly holy document that has tells us about a real god. So far CK himself has been calling it literture and been comparing it to genres rather than making any effort to show it to have a fundamental and certain text that defines our relationship with a real creator.

I have not been arguing the point that the Bible is "special enough to accept as a truly holy document that has (sic) tells us about a real god." I have been arguing that your conclusions made in arguing against Fundamentalism have been too far reaching and some of your claims cannot be substantiated (at least not in the way you have argued up till now) in light of other Christian approaches (such as mine) to the text. As such, you are correct in stating that my central activity has been to demonstrate that the Bible is more appropriately considered literature than science, history, or philosophical treatise.

Originally posted by Ethelred
In other words he has done for my position than he has for his own. Since his posts are rather large I am going to reply to them after I catch up with everything else.

I have supported many aspects of your position against Fundamentalists; that much is obvious in my very first post where I applaud you for keeping "Creationism" theorists on their toes. However, I have also introduced (if not even established) several points of my own that you have not satisfactorily addressed in your posts (see the above list of eight for a sample) except to resort to inflammatory and irrelevant statements that attempt to tar me as a Fundamentalist.