Summoning Ethelred. . . About Genesis

[ckweb]

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

Your wrong.

I'm not wrong. I misunderstood you. There is a difference. Can you not admit that the passage I quoted seems to suggest you agree with the statement: "Evolution disproves Genesis."

Originally posted by Ethelred
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.

It depends how we are using the term "wrong". Do you mean that Genesis does not provide an accurate, scientific explanation of the mechanism for the creation of the world and in that respect, it is wrong? If that is your point, we are agreed. However, if you mean that the fossil record (or evolution, or science in general) proves Genesis is wrong in attributing the creation of the world to God, then we disagree. Genesis 1-11 contains a great deal of factual (and even some historical) information but such information is only discernable when one appreciates the genre of literature you are reading; that is, when you stop reading it as science or history and instead read its various sections according to their genres (i.e. Hebrew Myth, Hebrew Genealogy, Hebrew Poetry, Hebrew Aetiology, etc.). Even then, it still requires diligent study and reflection as one is trying to come to terms with literature nearly 3000 years removed from our present era, culture, and language.

With respect to Fundamentalism, again I will reiterate that I can share many of your views against Fundamentalist and "Creationism" theorists. Christian Fundamentalism, as you know it, however, is a relatively small U.S.A. Bible Belt phenomenon. Most of their views would not be shared by Christians in other parts of the U.S.A. and Canada, and especially not by European Christians.

I appreciate that you have now declared that evolution has proven their concept of Genesis wrong. Because that is precisely it: Science, and more specifically evolution and the fossil record, can be appropriately employed to argue against "Creationism" as espoused by Fundamentalists. I caution you, however, to consider that science cannot necessarily be used to disprove Genesis, Creation, the Supernatural, or the Christian God. Can we agree on that?

[ckweb]

This is not offered as a defense of any point but I thought you might be interested in a summation of many of the Flood Stories that exist:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb

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.

You have your opinion and the Fundamentalists have theirs. The arguements that you looked at involved a discusion with Fundamentalists. I necassarily use THEIR interpretations. I pointed it out when I caught them rewriting the Bible to something that was no longer a Fundamentalist idea. Such as claiming the Black Sea flood and Noah's Flood were somehow fully congruent.

That was pointed out to you even before I saw this thread.

There have already been several points on which you could have conceded (and in some cases, tough obviously not all, without conceding your overall argument):

Perhaps you did not make them as well as you think. This first one for instance.

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

There is no divine name if there is no biblical god in the first place. In the second place I made it very clear EXACTLY why I used that word. You do not seem to understand either of those two points so here is another.

GIVE AN ALTERNATIVE.

You did not do so. Thus leaving me with no choice but to continue to use Jehovah. There is no point on which to concede here. I used the word for a specific reason. If another word will do the same I will use. If you want to consider that yielding on a point you may do so but in fact it will still be me doing the exact same thing only with a word that YOU are comfortable with. The Fundamentlists have no problem with it.

While I am at it YOU are using the spelling 'Jesus'. The same exact complaint you made to me applies. How come you are not using the Hebrew version?

(2) Accepting that genre effects reading strategy.

You still refuse to understand that a discussion that was with fundamentalist is not the same as a discussion with you. Truth is not involved anymore in a discussion about literature. Only style and possible insight. We could just as easily be discussing Shakespeare.

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

That is your opinion. I concede that you hold that opinion. There is evidence that Israelites did indeed at one time have more than one god so I see nothing wrong with the other view.

(4) Genesis is subjective and personal account.

That is your opinion. It is not told in a first person format so it is not in my opinion a personal account. A personal acount has the author's voice. That it is subjective is obvious. However I also showed that biblical figures did indeed believe it to have been a real event. I see no reason to think that the author did not also think that.

You sure haven't given me a reason. You have only given your personal opinion.

(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.

I said that. So why is this enumerated point in here. I specificly said the science CAN study supernatural events that leave evidence. I gave ESP studies as a example of such things. Those studies by the way failed to prove anything.

Yes I have read the studies so don't claim I am overstating things.

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

I never said otherwise. I said TRUE not relevant. Shakespeare told many stories that were relevant without being true stories.

(7) Scientific method is not a literary theory.

I never said it was. Whats your point that you think I must concede here?

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

Depends on what version of the Christian god we are talking about. I have said MANY TIMES that a suficiently nebulous god cannot be disproven. Your version of the Christian god so far is exceedingly nebulous.

So that was eight points and many of them included purely imaginary statements that you have attributed to me. Others are dealing with entirely different discussions. Only one has a situation where I might consider it reasonable to change and even then ONLY when dealing with you as no one else has expressed a problem with the use of the word Jehovah.

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

On the first then I have only one thing to say. "(sic)" looks to have a bit of the sneerative imperitive in an online discusion. Most quotes use cut and paste so there is no need to point out things like that. The second is your are trying to apply YOUR opinions to discusions I have had with Fundamentalists. Your ideas of the Bible are not relevant to those discusions. Only the Fundamentalist ideas are. You are mixing up two entirely different kinds of discusions and that was pointed out to you in the second post on this thread.

(at least not in the way you have argued up till now) in light of other Christian approaches (such as mine) to the text.

Which are completly irrelevant in a discussion with a fundamentalist. Perhaps if you had tried to have discusion with me instead of a discusion about me with Fundamentalists you would get farther. You are mixing two seperate things here.

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.

Which is not what you started with nor is the entirety of you position. You are CLEARLY complaining about my not using YOUR thinking on the Bible in discusions with people that did not include you or anyone that even remotely thought like you.

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.

I never tried to tar you as a fundamentalist. I made it clear however that your position on the Bible is not conducive to convincing an Agnostic that the Bible is a sacred text with a special relationship with a specific and very real god.

If you were to leave the discusion to the present one and quit dragging in things from threads that you were not involved in it would make your position decidedly more clear. Your enumated points were mostly not dealing with anything I have actually said. Others were complaints about things I say to fundamentalists. Only the first point have you a real case and even then it only applys to you. No one else has a problem with that one word.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
I'm not wrong. I misunderstood you. There is a difference. Can you not admit that the passage I quoted seems to suggest you agree with the statement: "Evolution disproves Genesis."

No. I can't agree with that WITH YOU. You need to start talking directly with me about the Bible and stop butting into to past conversations that were NOT with you. Evolution DOES disprove a Fundamentalist version of Genesis. It does not disprove a vague and nebulous interpretation that Genesis is literature. Fundamentalists believe that Evolution would disprove Genesis if it was real. That is their decision not mine nor yours. It is not my decision that evolution disproves Genesis. It is theirs. Argue with them.

It depends how we are using the term "wrong". Do you mean that Genesis does not provide an accurate, scientific explanation of the mechanism for the creation of the world and in that respect, it is wrong? If that is your point, we are agreed. However, if you mean that the fossil record (or evolution, or science in general) proves Genesis is wrong in attributing the creation of the world to God, then we disagree.

You really need to pick a discusion. Go argue with the Fundamentalists. I will back you all the way.

Genesis 1-11 contains a great deal of factual (and even some historical) information but such information is only discernable when one appreciates the genre of literature you are reading;

That goes for any collection of myth and legend mixed with a touch of history. Babel has little of historical value in it. Its a just so story. An explanation for the different languages. A wrong one. Entertaining perhaps but not the real cause of language differences.

that is, when you stop reading it as science or history and instead read its various sections according to their genres (i.e. Hebrew Myth, Hebrew Genealogy, Hebrew Poetry, Hebrew Aetiology, etc.). Even then, it still requires diligent study and reflection as one is trying to come to terms with literature nearly 3000 years removed from our present era, culture, and language.

I don't need that much study to understand its a just so story. Its not exactly a profound observation.

With respect to Fundamentalism, again I will reiterate that I can share many of your views against Fundamentalist and "Creationism" theorists. Christian Fundamentalism, as you know it, however, is a relatively small U.S.A. Bible Belt phenomenon.

Actually 25% of Americans take the Bible literaly. I don't call that small. It is not exclusive to either the Bible Belt or America. Some of the people that I argued with here were from Europe.

Most of their views would not be shared by Christians in other parts of the U.S.A. and Canada, and especially not by European Christians.

Take a better look at those other threads. Fundamentalism is less prevalent in other countries but its still there.

I appreciate that you have now declared that evolution has proven their concept of Genesis wrong. Because that is precisely it: Science, and more specifically evolution and the fossil record, can be appropriately employed to argue against "Creationism" as espoused by Fundamentalists. I caution you, however, to consider that science cannot necessarily be used to disprove Genesis, Creation, the Supernatural, or the Christian God. Can we agree on that?

Only if we are talking about a nebulous version the christian god. You have a rather extreme perception of what I have said.

Now if you start making specifications for your god I may be able to give cause for pause.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
This is not offered as a defense of any point but I thought you might be interested in a summation of many of the Flood Stories that exist:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

To use an old cliche.

Don't teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.

Talk.Origins Archive Home Page
Internet Shortcut
132 bytes (132 bytes)
4.00 KB (4,096 bytes)
Friday, May 05, 2000, 5:43:06 PM

And it goes back a bit farther than that but thats when I lost a bunch of stuff when I accidently formatted the wrong drive. Boy that was dumb stunt. Many many gigbytes went the way of entropy.

[Zylka]

Hey, Eth!!! Want to come play with me after?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred Perhaps you did not make them as well as you think. This first one for instance.

There is no divine name if there is no biblical god in the first place. In the second place I made it very clear EXACTLY why I used that word. You do not seem to understand either of those two points so here is another.

GIVE AN ALTERNATIVE.

You did not do so. Thus leaving me with no choice but to continue to use Jehovah. There is no point on which to concede here. I used the word for a specific reason. If another word will do the same I will use. If you want to consider that yielding on a point you may do so but in fact it will still be me doing the exact same thing only with a word that YOU are comfortable with. The Fundamentlists have no problem with it.

While I am at it YOU are using the spelling 'Jesus'. The same exact complaint you made to me applies. How come you are not using the Hebrew version?

Ok. I just looked over my posts and I realize I didn't explain why Jehovah is a bastardization. My mistake. However, as I think about it, I would hesitate to explain and give the real vocalization of the divine name as its use may offend Jewish members of this board. If you want, you can visit my website and in the essays section, the essay entitled "In the house of Judah, my father's house" has the correct vocalization of the divine name.

Whether or not the biblical god exists has no bearing on whether or not the bible provides a divine name. The Bible does. It is as simple as that.

Why would I use the Hebrew version of Jesus? It isn't used anywhere in the Bible. The Bible only gives his Greek name, which I suppose might be more accurately transliterated Iesous. But, I am using a translation anyways. Jehovah is not a translation of the divine name, it is an attempt to transliterate the divine name and a wrong one at that. Not the same issue at all.

Originally posted by Ethelred
You still refuse to understand that a discussion that was with fundamentalist is not the same as a discussion with you. Truth is not involved anymore in a discussion about literature. Only style and possible insight. We could just as easily be discussing Shakespeare.

Two points here.

(1) I do understand that your discussion was with fundamentalist but it now with me. Furthermore, simply because you are discussing with Fundamentalists doesn't mean that the assertions you made there are things you don't really believe or does it? Were you simply playing devil's advocate? If so, I apologize.

(2) I think you are mixing up the terms "truth" and "history." Shakespeare might not be historical but he is truthful (in at least some respects).

Originally posted by Ethelred
That is your opinion. I concede that you hold that opinion. There is evidence that Israelites did indeed at one time have more than one god so I see nothing wrong with the other view.

It is not an opinion, it is a virtual grammatical certainity. I know monolatry (at least) was practiced by many Israelites in the Ancient Near East. The Bible itself testifies to this fact. But, Genesis 2 is not an instance of a polytheistic use of the word "Elohim." I have indicated why in some depth in previous posts and given suitable examples of how the plural is used in Classical Hebrew. To fail to concede this point is to do exactly what I have stated you do: never concede a point as a point of pride.

Originally posted by Ethelred
That is your opinion. It is not told in a first person format so it is not in my opinion a personal account. A personal acount has the author's voice. That it is subjective is obvious. However I also showed that biblical figures did indeed believe it to have been a real event. I see no reason to think that the author did not also think that.

You sure haven't given me a reason. You have only given your personal opinion.

You have a pretty restrictive view of "personal" story-telling. But, ok, if "personal" for you requires first-person narrative, I will not attempt to forward this point any further.

You have not showed that biblical figures believed the Flood was a real event. You offered passages most of which could easily be appealing to the myth. Moreover, even if subsequent generations did come to believe that the Flood Story happened as a historical event the way in which it was recorded, this would not prove anything.

I have done more than give personal opinion. I have asked pointed questions as well as offered insight into the style and construction of the Flood Story that indicate it is very unlikely that the editor of final form conceived of the Flood Story as it now appears in Genesis as a historical event. Please review my posts if you must.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I said that. So why is this enumerated point in here. I specificly said the science CAN study supernatural events that leave evidence. I gave ESP studies as a example of such things. Those studies by the way failed to prove anything.

Yes I have read the studies so don't claim I am overstating things.

No you have not said that and you prove as much in the second sentence of this quote. You believe science can study the supernatural and there seems to be little indication that you would qualify that statement.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I never said otherwise. I said TRUE not relevant. Shakespeare told many stories that were relevant without being true stories.

Look back at your posts. You have indicated several times that Genesis is not relevant.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I never said it was. Whats your point that you think I must concede here?

It certainly seems to be the drift of many of your statements.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Depends on what version of the Christian god we are talking about. I have said MANY TIMES that a suficiently nebulous god cannot be disproven. Your version of the Christian god so far is exceedingly nebulous.

"nebulous" -- How do you mean? You have never asked me to articulate what I believe about God.

Originally posted by Ethelred
So that was eight points and many of them included purely imaginary statements that you have attributed to me. Others are dealing with entirely different discussions. Only one has a situation where I might consider it reasonable to change and even then ONLY when dealing with you as no one else has expressed a problem with the use of the word Jehovah.

I'm only reflecting on what you have written. If you want to take back things you have said, clarify them, or in some way restate them, feel free. Written communication can easily be misunderstood because it does not convey the non-verbal communicative elements of oral expression that are often critical to understanding. If I have misrepresented your beliefs about Genesis, please state them for me as you would state them to someone with my belief system. I apologize if I assumed that you would represent your belief system the same regardless of audience.

Originally posted by Ethelred
On the first then I have only one thing to say. "(sic)" looks to have a bit of the sneerative imperitive in an online discusion. Most quotes use cut and paste so there is no need to point out things like that. The second is your are trying to apply YOUR opinions to discusions I have had with Fundamentalists. Your ideas of the Bible are not relevant to those discusions. Only the Fundamentalist ideas are. You are mixing up two entirely different kinds of discusions and that was pointed out to you in the second post on this thread.

Which are completly irrelevant in a discussion with a fundamentalist. Perhaps if you had tried to have discusion with me instead of a discusion about me with Fundamentalists you would get farther. You are mixing two seperate things here.

I'm sorry if you have been offended by the use of "(sic)". I use it when I quote in a manner other than the automatic quoting system of these message boards (at least, that has been my intention). I only want to indicate that in my transcription the error was not my own.

I do not believe that I'm mixing up two discussions. I'm addressing statements you made in discussions with Fundamentalists that I believe are inaccurate. In order to show that your statements were inaccurate, I have raised alternate interpretations of the biblical text that show how your statement is inaccurate. I assumed, and perhaps incorrectly, that you would not be misrepresenting your belief system to the Fundamentalist simply to win the argument or in order to raise their ire. As I've stated above, please state your view on Genesis and then I will respond to it.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Which is not what you started with nor is the entirety of you position. You are CLEARLY complaining about my not using YOUR thinking on the Bible in discusions with people that did not include you or anyone that even remotely thought like you.

Sure. It has been the primary way in which I have attempted to show that statements you made to Fundamentalists are inaccurate claims.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I never tried to tar you as a fundamentalist. I made it clear however that your position on the Bible is not conducive to convincing an Agnostic that the Bible is a sacred text with a special relationship with a specific and very real god.

If you were to leave the discusion to the present one and quit dragging in things from threads that you were not involved in it would make your position decidedly more clear. Your enumated points were mostly not dealing with anything I have actually said. Others were complaints about things I say to fundamentalists. Only the first point have you a real case and even then it only applys to you. No one else has a problem with that one word.

First, about tarring me as a Fundamentalist, then why have you tossed in stories about Oral Roberts and other Fundamentalist as if they were representative or relevant to a point I made.

Second, and I have made it clear that I am not trying to proselytize (or convince) you that the Bible is a sacred text.

I believe you have said the things you now deny and I think the previous posts speak for themselves. But, as I've said, please articulate your understanding of Genesis and I will respond.

I don't have personal problem with the word, Jehovah. I have an academic one. It is simply the wrong of vocalization of the divine name. That is it, that is all!

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred


To use an old cliche.

Don't teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.

Talk.Origins Archive Home Page
Internet Shortcut
132 bytes (132 bytes)
4.00 KB (4,096 bytes)
Friday, May 05, 2000, 5:43:06 PM

And it goes back a bit farther than that but thats when I lost a bunch of stuff when I accidently formatted the wrong drive. Boy that was dumb stunt. Many many gigbytes went the way of entropy.

You think to highly of yourself.

I'm glad you are familiar with Talk.Origins. You'll note that they point out Christianity and Evolution are not inconsistent. And they don't say anything about nebulous Christianity.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
No. I can't agree with that WITH YOU. You need to start talking directly with me about the Bible and stop butting into to past conversations that were NOT with you. Evolution DOES disprove a Fundamentalist version of Genesis. It does not disprove a vague and nebulous interpretation that Genesis is literature. Fundamentalists believe that Evolution would disprove Genesis if it was real. That is their decision not mine nor yours. It is not my decision that evolution disproves Genesis. It is theirs. Argue with them.

Ok. You have clarified your statements. Thank-you. Your official position then is that "Evolution disproves a Fundamentalist version of Genesis"?

Originally posted by Ethelred
You really need to pick a discusion. Go argue with the Fundamentalists. I will back you all the way.

Fundamentalists are boring to discuss with as I indicated in my first point.

Originally posted by Ethelred
That goes for any collection of myth and legend mixed with a touch of history. Babel has little of historical value in it. Its a just so story. An explanation for the different languages. A wrong one. Entertaining perhaps but not the real cause of language differences.

The story of Babel is what's called a Hebrew Aetiology.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I don't need that much study to understand its a just so story. Its not exactly a profound observation.

You do need study if you want to understand what Genesis really says as opposed to what Fundamentalists say it says.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Actually 25% of Americans take the Bible literaly. I don't call that small. It is not exclusive to either the Bible Belt or America. Some of the people that I argued with here were from Europe.

Take a better look at those other threads. Fundamentalism is less prevalent in other countries but its still there.

Stats like that would be directly contradicted by the stats indicating how many Americans believe other things inconsistent with a literal reading of the Bible. Most people aren't educated enough to know what they think. Sorry for my cynicism and elitism.

I didn't say it was exclusive and I said it was mainly (NOT entirely) a U.S.A. Bible Belt phenomenon. The father away you get from the Bible Belt, however, the more you'll find Christians that do not think that way. And certainly among the academia and scholarship outside the Bible Belt that would be true.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Only if we are talking about a nebulous version the christian god. You have a rather extreme perception of what I have said.

Now if you start making specifications for your god I may be able to give cause for pause.

I'm not sure I understand three parts of your statement:

(1) What in the hell are you getting at with nebulous?

(2) How do I have a rather extreme perception of what you said?

(3) What sort of specifications are you talking about? I believe in the God of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. I believe he created the universe. I believe he sustains that universe. I believe that he has worked through history. I believe he revealed himself to the Israelites (in particular) but also to all humanity. I believe he spoke through kings and prophets and writers and editors and redactors. I believe he exists in Trinity and that he sent his son to earth. I believe through his son he demonstrated his love for humanity. I believe that many rejected his son and crucified him. I believe that God confirmed his message of love by resurrecting his son from the dead. I believe that God worked through the disciples and apostles to build a church based on the witness to the resurrection. I believe that God continues to work in this world. I believe that some day God will send his son once again to consummate the work that was confirmed at his resurrection. I believe there will be a new heaven and new earth. I believe that a new heaven and new earth will be free of evil and sin. Are these the kind of specifications you desire? Here's some more: I root my beliefs in the community of faith that has written, preserved and passed on the traditions of their experiences with God. The authority of the Bible is not intrinsic to the Bible but rather it is derived from the community of faith. The community of faith receives its authority from the tradition on which it stands as well as the active work of the Holy Spirit in the community's ongoing life and activity. Does this help clarify my position? Are you seeking something else?

[ckweb]

Here's some questions to get the discussion back on the track I intended in the first place:

You say you've read Genesis and Exodus. When you read it, did you read it literally as Fundamentalists do? Do you believe that Genesis 1-11, regardless of whether or not you agree it is true, is meant to be history? Do you think the author meant to make an accurate report of historical even of creation (regardless of whether or not you believe he failed in this task)? If so, on what basis to believe this reading strategy to be the right one?

And, do you believe that scientific theory invalidates belief in the Christian God? How? Why don't you believe in the Christian God? On what basis do you reject or deny the testimony of the community of faith to events such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ or the national revelation at Mount Sinai? How do you account for the growth and evolution () of Judaism and Christianity?

Here's some other questions that can take our discussion in new directions:

You claim to be an agnostic (not an atheist). To what extent do you believe in a god? Do you simply allow for the possibility or is it more than that? If more, what form does that belief take? On what basis, do you have these beliefs?

You deny the idea that humanity is inherently evil (at least, I assume you do based on previous posts). Is humanity essentially good then? Or neutral? How do you derive your sense of morality? Do you believe in moral absolutes? Is it community-based? Is it based on instinct? By what standard should moralities be judge? Or, alternatively, can you judge morality? What is morality to you? Are you a moral nihilist?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
Ok. I just looked over my posts and I realize I didn't explain why Jehovah is a bastardization. My mistake. However, as I think about it, I would hesitate to explain and give the real vocalization of the divine name as its use may offend Jewish members of this board. If you want, you can visit my website and in the essays section, the essay entitled "In the house of Judah, my father's house" has the correct vocalization of the divine name.

So you want to catch the heat instead, from all the Israelis as well as the other Jews around here. They are allready irked enough with me because I said Israel shouldn't have been founded (do not mistake this for saying it should be wiped out). If you don't like Jehovah you will still have to give a replacement you find acceptable.

Whether or not the biblical god exists has no bearing on whether or not the bible provides a divine name. The Bible does. It is as simple as that.

No its not that simple. By that standard Zeuss and Thor are devine names. If you think so then OK I will go along with your definition but I don't agree with it. To me divinity requires a real god.

Why would I use the Hebrew version of Jesus? It isn't used anywhere in the Bible. The Bible only gives his Greek name, which I suppose might be more accurately transliterated Iesous. But, I am using a translation anyways. Jehovah is not a translation of the divine name, it is an attempt to transliterate the divine name and a wrong one at that. Not the same issue at all.

Tis to me. Either way its a transliteration. Just of varying quality. Neither are translations. When a Tacitus called the chief god of the Germans, Jupiter, that was a translation instead of a transliteration as the chief god was either Thor or Wotan. Hard to tell which as it changed over the years. Odin or Wotan was the favorite god of the rulers and Thor of the general folk.

I haven't actually read Tacitus I just ran across that item. Got to get around to it but I hear there are no good translations and I don't read Latin. One man said approximatly "There are no translations of Tacitus and there probably never will be" and he said that in the preface to his translation of Tacitus.

Two points here.

(1) I do understand that your discussion was with fundamentalist but it now with me. Furthermore, simply because you are discussing with Fundamentalists doesn't mean that the assertions you made there are things you don't really believe or does it? Were you simply playing devil's advocate? If so, I apologize.

You allready know the answer to that. I am Agnositic.

When you argue with a person about their religion you must deal with THEIR religion and not some other one. If someone claims the Bible is the literal word of god that is what you deal with. You have to show why it can't be true and that can't be done by using an entirely different concept of the Bible. You are not going to convince a Fundamentalist that YOUR version is the right one by ignoring his point of view.

Now you might be able to convince him by simply by quoting the Bible but I doubt it. You must give a reason why he should not consider it the literal word of god. I admit that I have had little success in this but I HAVE had some success. Mostly I think they were people that had recently moved out of their parents homes but not all of them were. I am talking about a handfull of people at most unless a lurker changed his thinking.

(2) I think you are mixing up the terms "truth" and "history." Shakespeare might not be historical but he is truthful (in at least some respects).

No. I talking about true/false. If its not true its often false or at least fiction which is not the same as false. If its fiction it goes on the shelf next to Carlos Castaneda and Bullfinch's Mythology. It doesn't go next to Digging Up Bones or a Brief History of Time.

It is not an opinion, it is a virtual grammatical certainity. I know monolatry (at least) was practiced by many Israelites in the Ancient Near East. The Bible itself testifies to this fact. But, Genesis 2 is not an instance of a polytheistic use of the word "Elohim." I have indicated why in some depth in previous posts and given suitable examples of how the plural is used in Classical Hebrew. To fail to concede this point is to do exactly what I have stated you do: never concede a point as a point of pride.

Since I do concede points that is not true. I read what you wrote and it was not overwhelming. I can see where it could be the way you say but I can also see where it could be the other way. Its ambiguous. I might also point out that some people use 'Elohim' as way to justify the Trinity. I don't see that myself but others do.

Heck I even agreed to some of Zylka's points about Civ III. . Not many but some. Hi Zylka

You have a pretty restrictive view of "personal" story-telling. But, ok, if "personal" for you requires first-person narrative, I will not attempt to forward this point any further.

It need not be first person. Just have the authors voice. I thought about saying first person and decided that was over restrictive. Lots of stuff in the newspaper has the authors voice yet is in third person. Sometimes it gets a bit stilted that way.

You have not showed that biblical figures believed the Flood was a real event. You offered passages most of which could easily be appealing to the myth.

Didn't look that way to me. Some might have been attempts to buttress a myth of course. The story about Jehovah and Abraham meeting in the prelude to the Sodam and Gommorah story sure looks like that sort of thing.

Moreover, even if subsequent generations did come to believe that the Flood Story happened as a historical event the way in which it was recorded, this would not prove anything.

It would prove the biblical figures thought it was real. Which was my contention. I never claimed it was real after all. The author of that part of the Bible may or may not have thought of it as a story. He could easily have presented it differently if it was a story however. I am fully aware that the idea of keeping fiction and fact seperate came later. That same thinking goes for the New Testament as well. In fact some of the early christians (Eusebious for one) thought it was OK to just plain lie to support their beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses still do when dealing with non-Witnesses.

I have done more than give personal opinion. I have asked pointed questions as well as offered insight into the style and construction of the Flood Story that indicate it is very unlikely that the editor of final form conceived of the Flood Story as it now appears in Genesis as a historical event. Please review my posts if you must.

The author likely didn't have the concept of history in the first place. Story and history was frequently mixed. Much of that type of style is used for history as well. Its an aid to dealing with oral telling. It can be seen in Homer although there it is more obviously an aid to memorization as it is in poetic form. Homer almost certainly had some reality behind the Illiad but mostly it is story.

No you have not said that and you prove as much in the second sentence of this quote. You believe science can study the supernatural and there seems to be little indication that you would qualify that statement.

That was a qualified statement. " I specificly said the science CAN study supernatural events that leave evidence." See that again. "that leave evidence. " Got that. There must be evidence or at least a reasonable expectation that evidence SHOULD be there. The Flood if it had occured would have left evidence. Unless of course there was supernatural coverup. Again, to me, that sort of coverup implies a devious and deceptive god.

Science CANNOT study supernatural event left clearly wouldn't be expected to have left evidence. It is pretty darn clear in my post that there must be evidence.

Now that is just as qualified as before but I have spelled it out for you since you seem to have missed it the previous times.

Look back at your posts. You have indicated several times that Genesis is not relevant.

Its no more relevant than Shakespeare. I may not qualify it every time. Once per discusion should be enough but I do ir fairly often. I am big on weasle words.

Its not relevant to belief in any case if it does not touch on something that could only have come from a higher power and that is after all what we are talking about. A religious belief about a god. If its just stories its no more relevant to that then the Elder Edda is.

It certainly seems to be the drift of many of your statements.

You are the one that wants to call the Bible literature. Science deals with facts not stories. The Bible has no real importance to belief if its just stories. I know that statement upsets you but it is true. I am not saying it is without value. I am saying it has none in convincing people that your god is a real God. The more you insist that it cannot be checked against the real world the less value it has in that regard.

Do not just go prancing around looking for statements that I didn't use all the right weasle words in. In the context of a religious discusion a book of fiction has no value in convincing anyone of the rightness of your belief. The fuzzier your position gets on this the less convincing your beliefs become.

"nebulous" -- How do you mean? You have never asked me to articulate what I believe about God.

Well then I guess even you might think it was nebulous so far in this thread. Lets see, here was an implied question anway.

"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 think I wrote up an explicit question. I must have decided to edit it out.

To precise about 'nebulous' (talk about an oxymoron), if a concept has no hard positions and has none at all that can be tested against the real world than it is too difuse or 'nebulous' to be dealt with by way of reason.

I'm only reflecting on what you have written.

You were inventing things I did not say.

If you want to take back things you have said, clarify them, or in some way restate them, feel free.

Since I didn't say all those things you claimed then I can't take them back.

Written communication can easily be misunderstood because it does not convey the non-verbal communicative elements of oral expression that are often critical to understanding. If I have misrepresented your beliefs about Genesis, please state them for me as you would state them to someone with my belief system.

I am not fully cognizant of your specific belief system. Its easy with a Fundamentalist. Its REALLY hard in cases where you read things I did not say in any case.

I apologize if I assumed that you would represent your belief system the same regardless of audience.

My belief system IS presented the same regardless. Its the other person's belief system that changes. How the heck can I show another person concepts are wrong if I only talk about mine. Thats an absurd idea.

You must have real problems trying to discuss the Bible with Fundamentalists if you can't deal with it the way the do. Want some pointers?

I'm sorry if you have been offended by the use of "(sic)". I use it when I quote in a manner other than the automatic quoting system of these message boards (at least, that has been my intention). I only want to indicate that in my transcription the error was not my own.

I wasn't offended. I assumed that was the case. I was showing what it looks like in an online discusion. They often decend to yammering about spelling errors. I have a really nasty of dealing with people that do that and I didn't want to use it when its not justified.

My spelling is bad. No one has to tell me that. I blame my father. I inherited it. He was an engineer. I carefully neglect to mention that my mother started out in college as an English major. I figure the spelling gene got left behind during meiosis.(meiosis mitosis it would help if I had taken biology at some time)

I do not believe that I'm mixing up two discussions. I'm addressing statements you made in discussions with Fundamentalists that I believe are inaccurate.

Take it up with them then. I don't believe that nonsense. I have said many times that the Bible is a crock.

In order to show that your statements were inaccurate, I have raised alternate interpretations of the biblical text that show how your statement is inaccurate. I assumed, and perhaps incorrectly, that you would not be misrepresenting your belief system to the Fundamentalist simply to win the argument or in order to raise their ire. As I've stated above, please state your view on Genesis and then I will respond to it.

The only misrepresentation is your claim that my belief system is involve when I talk about what the Bible actually says when I am dealing with a Fundamentalist. You have got a very strange conception in your mind going on here.

I did state my view on Genesis. Several times I think. If only once or twice here it is again in full detail.

Its a collection of myths, legends, and some dubious history written by largely ignorant men that knew nothing of science.

Believe it or not I have had people get on me for the science part. They seem to be certain that not only did Moses write the Pentateuch that he also went to Cambridge, Oxford and the Max Plank Institute and got a Phd in several disciplines.

Sure. It has been the primary way in which I have attempted to show that statements you made to Fundamentalists are inaccurate claims.

Which is fundamentally silly. Its the Fundamentalist that make the claim the Bible is the literal word of god. I have to show what that sort of thinking entails. I really don't understand why this so confusing to you. Heck when I point out that it entails showing god as a mass murderer I also say its good to know that its just a story. I gather you just skimmed a bit without seeing the context.

First, about tarring me as a Fundamentalist, then why have you tossed in stories about Oral Roberts and other Fundamentalist as if they were representative or relevant to a point I made.

They were in that instance. You were talking about personal experiences. The only personal experiences that could be construed as evidence of god is a supernatural one. If a total fraud like Marjoe Gortner gets the same results as a sincere believer than that shows the results were likely not supernatural.

By the way, Marjoe did not use any trickery like some that ilk have done. No use of hidden mikes or shills or any setups. It was all real. Pure psychological effects.

Second, and I have made it clear that I am not trying to proselytize (or convince) you that the Bible is a sacred text.

Well then what are you doing? Considering that is that you have some pretty peculiar ideas about me.

I believe you have said the things you now deny and I think the previous posts speak for themselves. But, as I've said, please articulate your understanding of Genesis and I will respond.

I BELIEVE IN MIRACLES.

How about you try some quotes instead of belief. Quotes that you give a link to so I can see what the whole discussion was. You really do have some strange notions regarding the things I have written.

My posts do speak for themselves. That could be why you haven't quoted them when you make strange claims about what I have allegedly said. More likely though it is because you didn't read the whole thread in question and went in with a set of beliefs that colored what you did read.

Otherwise there is no way you could be ragging on me for treating the Bible literaly when dealing with people that believe it to be the literal word of god or at least the literal truth written by men in touch with god. There simply is not other way to talk to them about the Bible since they refuse to think of it any other way.

I don't have personal problem with the word, Jehovah. I have an academic one. It is simply the wrong of vocalization of the divine name. That is it, that is all!

Well then quit complaining about me using it.

In any case I have dealt with enough of this thread today. I wasn't able to get to those three large posts. I did read them so I am pretty sure the substance of them has been dealt with allready today. I may or may not deal with some details later especially if you would prefer that I do so.

It is my impression here that most of you intent on this thread is based on misperception. I cannot talk to fundamentalists without also talking about what a literal interatation of the Bible really entails.

=================================

Just for heck of it and I am aware you are not a literalist I will still ask a question I like to give to literalists.

Has anyone ever seen the face of god?

In the Bible that is. I am not talking about Oral Roberts and his 800 foot Jesus.(do you want a smiley with your fries).

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Zylka
Hey, Eth!!! Want to come play with me after?

Play what? I don't have Civ II multiplayer, just the original version.

I have both the CTP games but I have never even installed them. If I had read the reviews before buying I wouldn't have bought.


Lawyers?! No effing way.



This sort of discussion never really ends. Sometimes they run out of gas. I was in one on the Maximum PC forum that ran over a year and had 6000 posts. New Fundamentalists would keep offering themselves as sacrificial victims on the alter of Darwin.

I still have a link to the monster.

http://forums.prospero.com/maxcommpo...es?msg=21562.1

5/4/2000 through 10/10/2001 and the second and the last post are mine. I never start these threads. I only join them.

[ckweb]

RE: My alleged misquoting or misunderstanding of your position in statements made by you with Fundamentalists.

For the sake of saving myself some time, I'm not going to bother to pull out the quotes. Let it suffice to say that it appears to be that you take the position that the Bible is collection of fictional stories as a result of the fact that after a literal reading of Genesis, you believe the stories to be untrue. In other words, you are using the term "stories" pejoratively rather than stemming from an appreciation of the genre of the literature itself. It seems that you deny the Bible any efficacy or value in religious discussions because you believe the Creation and Flood stories are scientifically inaccurate.

All that I am saying is that the Creation and Flood stories should not be judged according to their scientific accuracy because they were never intended to be scientifically accurate in the first place. In your discussion with Fundamentalists, it appeared to me that you were attempting to deny the Bible its efficacy and value not only for Fundamentalists but for anybody who studies and reads it. I will leave it up to the observers on this thread and the other threads to which you have posted to discern whether or not I am making an accurate criticism of your position.

I do appreciate that you have qualified many of my alleged misconceptions of your position. I have not read all of your posts in the other threads (there are far too many) and so if you have made those qualifications in the past, I apologize for not having read them.

RE: Alternative to Jehovah.

Continue to use it if you want, I don't really care. You should just be aware that scholarly circles do not use it as it is an inaccurate transliteration of the divine name. I don't think your point about divine names is a valid one. Whether the Bible is true or not really doesn't change the fact that the Bible attributes a particular name to divinity it alleges to discuss.

BTW, I just realized something I totally overlooked. Elohim is the divine name used in Genesis 1 and not as often in Genesis 2. In Genesis 2, you have the first appearance of the divine name, the tetragrammaton, used exclusively in Israelite religion.

So, you don't find my evidence convincing about the use of plurals in Classical Hebrew or the fact that the verbs are singular in reference to Elohim?!? Do you simply not trust that I am making accurate statements? Or, do you contest the validity of my explanation on the basis of other evidence? If so, what other evidence can you offer that Elohim functions polytheistically in Genesis 1? To simply allege that Israelites once believed that many gods existed is not sufficient as it really has no grammatical relevance to the passages in question.

As an alternative to Jehovah, you could just use God. Many other religious groups have their own names for the divine that sufficiently differentiate themselves from the Christian God, i.e. Allah is the Muslim god, all Hindu gods have names, the Jewish god could be written as G-d to respect their Orthodox religious traditions, the JW god is Jehovah, and the Mormon god is just wacked .

RE: My understanding of the Bible

The Bible is a cultural and historical artifact. It preserves nearly one and half millenia of cultural history. Many of the places, names, and events of biblical record did occur and some have even been substantiated by extra-biblical sources. These sources include the Tel-Dan inscription, the Amarna Letters, the Merneptah Stele, as well as the result of numerous other archaelogical finds in the Ancient Near East. Historically speaking, we now know the bible contains a great deal of accurate information and in fact, it remains for Christian and non-Christian archaeologists alike, one of the primary sources for information on the 4th-11th centuries B.C.E. in the ANE.

Yet, the Bible is not a history book and therefore, it is wrong to assume that the authors and the audience believed all the events of the Bible were historical. Comparative literature has helped us establish some important contours for the discussion. I will focus in on Genesis:

Portions of the Biblical Text clearly belong to genre best classified as myth (though we are not talking in the sense of Greek and Roman mythology). The prehistory stories of Genesis 1-11, while containing possible historical names, are not strictly speaking history.

The Creation story of Genesis 1 is clearly an artfully constructed polemic against prevailing myths in the Ancient Near East. The Creation story of Genesis 2 appears to consist largely of aetiologies and folklore.

The Genealogies very likely contain real names of real people but there is not necessarily a direct succession between father and son. Often, genealogies gap some descendants. We also know from comparative literature that numbers, such as ages, in the Ancient Near East were not accurate according to our calendar. For instance, Assyrian court documents list their kings as living in the tens of thousands of years, which far exceeds even any age the Bible attributes to humans. The issue of numbers is a very contentious one among scholars. Some suggestions have been that these texts simply employ exaggeration. Some have suggested that the calendar or at least the way of calculating age according to that calendar was sufficiently different as to account for the higher numbers. Many more suggestions have been put forward but the present evidence from the ANE allows few conclusions.

The Flood story is clearly the joining of at least two distinct accounts. It is believed that the accounts may reflect some underlying tradition of some kind of local flood, exaggerated as a universal flood, because this is how it was perceived by the people. It was common to attribute such disasters and the salvation of any to the favour or disfavour of a national deity. It is fallacious to attempt to date this local flood on the basis of the genealogies and numbers for the reasons I have pointed out above; genealogies and numbers are simply unreliable for the purposes of chronological reconstruction. Regardless the redactor that placed the two or more accounts side-by-side could not have believed that the final product was an accurate re-telling of historical events. The redactor was simply preserving parallel traditions within his culture.

The Patriarchal narratives of Genesis 12-50 reflect a collection of traditions and stories about Israel's ancestors. Most of these traditions would have been passed down orally. Although oral transmission was remarkably reliable in many respects, there can be little doubt that the stories evolved over the time. Also, when they were finally brought together in written form and compiled into the book of Genesis, the redactor preserved various inconsistencies. For instance, there are doublets: two virtually identical stories repeated in different places sometimes with different main characters. These doublets may result from the fact that Israel was once divided into a Northern and Southern Kingdom, each preserving and carrying on similar but also distinct religious traditions. Hebrew traditions also seemed to incorporate type stories, such as well stories where the male character meets his bride-to-be at a well. These type stories, while not implausible in of themselves, might possibly be only formulaic ways of introducing certain elements and therefore not necessarily historical in character. The stories themselves seem to be fictionalized re-tellings of plausibly historical events; for instance, it is highly questionable that actual, accurate dialogue was preserved--these things would have change depending on the story-teller. The stories of intereactions with their God, however, are likely to have achieved a certain reverence and remained relatively stable depending on the nature of the story. Also, blessings and a number or poetic sections are likely very accurate reflections of the original spoken words. For all their potential problems, the Patriarchal narratives do exhibit a great deal of cultural authenticity. Unfortunately, one family in the Ancient Near East is not going to leave behind sufficient archaeological evidence to confirm their existence. Therefore, we can not test to what extent the events of the Patriarchal narratives that appear to be historical in nature occurred. Some of the Patriarchal narratives, however, can conform to various anthropological shifts and movements that occurred in the ANE. It is difficult, however, to date the Patriarchal period. In fact, dating anything in the pre-monarchial period of the Bible, which includes Moses, is extremely tenuous.

I hope this gives you something to go on.

RE: Has anyone seen the face of God?

There are traditions in the Hebrew Bible, Jewish and Christian literature that suggest Moses, Elijah, and possibly also Isaiah saw the face of God. A close reading of the relevant passages, however, shows that this is unlikely. Moreover, you have the declaration in the Bible that seeing the face of God would result in death.

Presumably, however, the dead in Christ have seen God face-to-face. And, quite obviously, Jesus has seen God face-to-face. Although, we must be careful here because we are anthropomorphizing. The obvious philosophical question is: Does God even have a face?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by ckweb
I will leave it up to the observers on this thread and the other threads to which you have posted to discern whether or not I am making an accurate criticism of your position.

I've read through all of the religious threads for the past few months (since Jan), so my observations would be confined to discussions during that time period.

I'd have to say you're taking Ethelred's arguments out of context to refute them, and ending up saying much the same thing as he was pointing out in the original context; that the Bible is not literal truth.

You could argue that not everyone Ethelred was addressing was fundamentalist regarding the issue, but his approach was still to refute fundamentalist arguments. As such, his methods are sound.

[SpencerH]

There's more to Ethelreds comments than "the Bible is not literal truth". Whether by intent or not, he is dismissive in this, and in other threads, of the cultural and spiritual importance of the Bible. That's the context of ckwebs argument, not more fundementalist pseudo-science. To be fair, I'm not sure how I could argue against ckweb either since I'm not a theological scholar.

[Aeson]

I don't remember any statements which would suggest that the Bible hasn't affected culture and beliefs. I think everyone would agree that it has had a large effect on the world. The dismissive posts on this subject by Ethelred seem to be directed at the Bible's scientific ability to explain the physical state of our world.

An example from the first page.

quote: 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.

Here we have "relevent to reality". To paraphrase, 'The Bible is not relevent to reality.'

quote: Originally posted by ckweb (in response)
I beg to differ about their relevancy. Many people, including myself, find the biblical stories extremely relevant.

Here we have 'relevent' in the reply. Without the term reality, the paraphrased idea becomes 'The Bible is not relevent'.

Now reality is a qualifier, and a rather nebulous one at that. I can't be sure about how Ethelred meant it, but judging from his other posts I would assume reality means physical evidence, or that which can be proven through physical evidence. Without the qualifier, or even if it is defined differently, the statement can read as a dismissal of the Bibles significance in any aspect of life.

The reader can be just as influential as the author in which point comes across.

[SpencerH]

I think you've picked out an interesting example of Ethel's slant.

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.

Given that the Elder Edda is some norse god-mythos with a giant cow creating the world through licking a ball of ice, I think we can exclude scientific discussion.

For me, its the second part of this quote thats the most interesting "unless a god was involved in the writing. In which case they should have a much better fit to reality. "

Why would that be? Is it even important given cvwebs's original question?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
RE: My alleged misquoting or misunderstanding of your position in statements made by you with Fundamentalists.

Actual not alleged. You make statements that do not include quotes but are actualy your perception of what I have said. This simply created even more misperception. Both in yourself and in others that read it. Things get mixed together over time and your versions of what I say get mixed up with the real thing.

For the sake of saving myself some time, I'm not going to bother to pull out the quotes.

That IS THE CAUSE of the misperceptions. If you would take the time you might start dealing with I actually say instead of the model you have in your mind. I find that I do that if I do not check. I see no reason to think you are immune to this as it seems to be human nature. Please in the future actually post what I realy say and not your restatements as they often change the real meaning.

If you were better at it I wouldn't need to ask that you do this. I am not that good myself either. Its sheer laziness when I do it. Usually its OK but sometimes its not.

Let it suffice to say that it appears to be that you take the position that the Bible is collection of fictional stories as a result of the fact that after a literal reading of Genesis,

YET AGAIN you change the meaning. Again:

"The Bible is a collection of myths legends and often dubious history"

Not once have I claimed it was all fiction. For one thing the people of that time did always make much of a distinction between fiction and fact in books.

you believe the stories to be untrue.

Fictional stories are just fiction. You have a different definition of true than I use. You have this concept of Eternal Truths. I don't. I am thinking true/false or factual/fictional as well as precise/fuzzy.

In other words, you are using the term "stories" pejoratively rather than stemming from an appreciation of the genre of the literature itself.

Again that is entirely your perception. I am using the term stories to denote that its not a true statement about real historical events. You also say many of the things in the Bible are just stories and not real events. The Flood being the most obvious example and I suspect you would treat Job the same why. Its just a story. That is in no way pejoritive. Stories can be good entertainment or even upon occasion insightfull. They are however not a sign from a hypothetical god.

Even in you post about your beliefs you don't claim that the Bible is the source of your beliefs. You beliefs seem to be based largely on the beliefs of others and two events that are only documented in the Bible. Those both could be stories just as the Flood is a story.

It seems that you deny the Bible any efficacy or value in religious discussions because you believe the Creation and Flood stories are scientifically inaccurate.

I give them great value in that regard. Its shows the Bible is a not a good source of information about any hypothetical god. It can't be trusted as so much is wrong. A Flood story that is true is usefull in that respect. A Flood story that is fictional is not. I do not see how it could be usefull if its fiction except in the same way as any other story. Which give the Flood story the same exact usefullness as Gilgamesh.

I am pretty sure you do not consider Gilgamesh usefull in understanding god so why do you find the Flood at all usefull?

All that I am saying is that the Creation and Flood stories should not be judged according to their scientific accuracy because they were never intended to be scientifically accurate in the first place.

So just what are they good for besides entertainment? You seem to be insisting they have some intrinsic value regarding your version of god even though you think they are fiction. Remember the context of the discusion. This is a discusion about religious beliefs in god not compative literature.

In your discussion with Fundamentalists, it appeared to me that you were attempting to deny the Bible its efficacy and value not only for Fundamentalists but for anybody who studies and reads it.

If you want to read for literary purposes that is fine by me. I prefer Irish and Norse myths myself. Less killing but more blood and thunder. Or is that thud and blunder when Thor is involved?

I am still waiting for you to show some religious value to something that even you admit is often fiction. Specificly Genesis. Other parts of the Bible are not fictional although much of it is clearly told through a purely Jewish point of view.

I will leave it up to the observers on this thread and the other threads to which you have posted to discern whether or not I am making an accurate criticism of your position.

Well I have been telling you all along the you are not doing that. I think you got your feathers ruffled and are having hard time looking at what I write except through Believer colored glasses. Your statments claiming I actually believe the Bible to be as the Fundamentalists claim clearly shows this perception on your part. The fact that has taken dozens of posts to get it through to you shows that you do not want to accept that fact that you have strongly colored your reading of what I have written.

Spencer is pissed at me for some discusions about the Civil War so I am not sure how objective he is about me here either.

I do appreciate that you have qualified many of my alleged misconceptions of your position.

Not alleged. Real. Speaking of people that won't concede a point no matter how obvious.

I have not read all of your posts in the other threads (there are far too many) and so if you have made those qualifications in the past, I apologize for not having read them.

Apology accepted. As you say there were MANY posts. It become exceedingly redundant to use all the many weasle words in each every post and on each and every line of each post. My posts are long enough allready. Its why I cut the quotes for space. Often to the bare minimum. I do not cut to change meaning, after all the original is still there and readily available since this is not printed media.

RE: Alternative to Jehovah.

Continue to use it if you want, I don't really care. You should just be aware that scholarly circles do not use it as it is an inaccurate transliteration of the divine name. I don't think your point about divine names is a valid one. Whether the Bible is true or not really doesn't change the fact that the Bible attributes a particular name to divinity it alleges to discuss.

I don't care if its attributed to divinity. I don't accept the claim. Its not divine if the god does not exist.

I note here that you did not address the other part of that. So I will ask again to be sure just how extensive you definition of a divine name is.

Do Thor, Odin, Jupter, and Zuess qualify as divine names?

To me they are not. So neither is the name of the god of the Bible. A name you seem reluctant to use.

BTW, I just realized something I totally overlooked. Elohim is the divine name used in Genesis 1 and not as often in Genesis 2. In Genesis 2, you have the first appearance of the divine name, the tetragrammaton, used exclusively in Israelite religion.

I sometimes mix them up considering the English version does make that kind of distinction most of the time. I only notice when I check the original language. I don't obsess on this. I do it at least partly to annoy the Fundamentalists anyway. Its called trolling.

However it does show that there is more than one author and that is significant consdering how many people think the Pentateuch was entirely the work of Moses. Why they do I cannot fathom since it includes his death. Its darn hard for a corpse to write about its death.

So, you don't find my evidence convincing about the use of plurals in Classical Hebrew or the fact that the verbs are singular in reference to Elohim?!? Do you simply not trust that I am making accurate statements? Or, do you contest the validity of my explanation on the basis of other evidence?

I find it to be less than fully convincing. Its very plausible but not certain since as I said there is evidence that Jews at one time were polytheistic and that could be the cause of some storys using a plural word.

If so, what other evidence can you offer that Elohim functions polytheistically in Genesis 1? To simply allege that Israelites once believed that many gods existed is not sufficient as it really has no grammatical relevance to the passages in question.

It has relevance. I did not simply allege it. The Golden Calf story alone shows the Jews were not far removed from polytheism at one time.

As an alternative to Jehovah, you could just use God.

No. I can't. God capitalized is for a real god only. I know of none. I want to make it clear that I am talking about a specific god. Not all people are christians you know and not all people that join religious discusions are christians even if they think there is a creator.

Frankly I think you are upset over my use of the word Jehovah for religious reason. It used to be a stoning offense to say the name of the Jewish god. Your refusal to offer an alternative shows that there is a hidden agenda here. God capitalized is neither correct for me nor sufficient for my use. It must be a specific god since we are not talking about a general creator. You are not a Deist.

By the way I don't capitalize christian for a reason. Its generic to me. I do capitalize specific christian beliefs. Catholic, Baptist, Marinite and such all get capitalized. Islam is less balkinized so I don't bother with the distinctions there.

Many other religious groups have their own names for the divine that sufficiently differentiate themselves from the Christian God, i.e. Allah is the Muslim god, all Hindu gods have names, the Jewish god could be written as G-d to respect their Orthodox religious traditions, the JW god is Jehovah, and the Mormon god is just wacked .

The Islamic god is the same as your god. Just ask a Moslem.

Now the agenda is no longer hidden. I am not beholden to your religious squemishness. I will not be struck by lightening for saying or writing god. I am not Jewish and the Jews don't do that because of tradition but because its againt their religion. Christians do it too sometimes.

Am I also to deliberatly leave out part of Quetzalcoatal if I talk about Aztec gods as well? Sure would be easier to type anyway.

You sure have some odd ideas up there. The JW god is the same god as you have. So do the Mormons, well the Mormons think so anyway. They are wacked though I will agree with you on that. Calling a 20 year old an Elder is only one minor indication of peculiar thinking.

Oh by the way the Mormons get just as annoyed with me as you do. More so in at least one instance. I can't quote some of Elder UltraJared here. It would be full of asterisks. He never apologized even after he admited that I was telling the truth about a real event. (the massacre in Utah of about 150 non-Morman imigrants by some Mormons).

RE: My understanding of the Bible

The Bible is a cultural and historical artifact. It preserves nearly one and half millenia of cultural history. Many of the places, names, and events of biblical record did occur and some have even been substantiated by extra-biblical sources.

I fully agree. There is however nothing special in that. Nothing unique to the Bible in that.

These sources include the Tel-Dan inscription, the Amarna Letters, the Merneptah Stele, as well as the result of numerous other archaelogical finds in the Ancient Near East.

Stuff in the Hittite diplomatic archives. Surprisingly little in Egypt however. There is some possibilty that the Hicksos were Israelites.

Historically speaking, we now know the bible contains a great deal of accurate information and in fact, it remains for Christian and non-Christian archaeologists alike, one of the primary sources for information on the 4th-11th centuries B.C.E. in the ANE.

Its a good starting point anyway. Much the other information that had been written has been destroyed over the millenia. The destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria was a major loss to history.

Portions of the Biblical Text clearly belong to genre best classified as myth (though we are not talking in the sense of Greek and Roman mythology). The prehistory stories of Genesis 1-11, while containing possible historical names, are not strictly speaking history.

Obviously however it is NOT obvious to many christians.

The Genealogies very likely contain real names of real people but there is not necessarily a direct succession between father and son.

I suspect some are real. Especialy the later ones. Others are likely not. Noah as written for instance. Someone might have been called that but the specific person is pure myth not even legend.

For instance, Assyrian court documents list their kings as living in the tens of thousands of years, which far exceeds even any age the Bible attributes to humans.

Its likely the same name was given to succeeding monarchs. Similar to Ceasar but much more so since the Romans began to use it as a title. However the Assyrians weren't even around that long. Heck no civilization has been. It may be that its kind of like the use of millions or thousands to mean a lot.

To give a real world example of that. For a long time anthropologists thought the Aborigines of Australia had no number higher than three. This is because they would ask them to count as high as they could go. This made no sense to the Aborigne and they would stop at three. They do have words for higher numbers. They just did not understand the idea of mathematics.

The issue of numbers is a very contentious one among scholars. Some suggestions have been that these texts simply employ exaggeration. Some have suggested that the calendar or at least the way of calculating age according to that calendar was sufficiently different as to account for the higher numbers. Many more suggestions have been put forward but the present evidence from the ANE allows few conclusions.

Propaganda is also possible. Making outragious claims to cow the unwary is nothing unusual. Mile grazia does not involve actualy saying thank you a thousand times after all.

The Flood story is clearly the joining of at least two distinct accounts. It is believed that the accounts may reflect some underlying tradition of some kind of local flood, exaggerated as a universal flood, because this is how it was perceived by the people.

This is know as preaching to the choir. That is I know these things. Well I don't know about the two distints accounts but the general idea anyway. It looks a lot like one to me. Perhaps in the Hebrew its more clear.

For instance, there are doublets: two virtually identical stories repeated in different places sometimes with different main characters.

Genesis one and two being one of the more obvious doublets.

These doublets may result from the fact that Israel was once divided into a Northern and Southern Kingdom,

That is believed to be the source of the Elohim/Jehova dichotomy. The doublets have the differing versions of the reference to god.

The stories themselves seem to be fictionalized re-tellings of plausibly historical events;

Often not so plausible as in the Flood, the Tower of Bable and the Exodus slaughter of Egyptians.

The stories of intereactions with their God, however, are likely to have achieved a certain reverence and remained relatively stable depending on the nature of the story.

Stable or not its not evidence that such an interaction ever occured.

In fact, dating anything in the pre-monarchial period of the Bible, which includes Moses, is extremely tenuous.

Precise dating yes. There realy was no such thing as Isreal prior to Moses anyway. Actually prior to Joshua as Moses was a nomad except when in Egypt.

I hope this gives you something to go on.

I knew most of that allready. Its exactly what can be expected of a book written by men of that time wether Jehovah is real or fiction. That is why I say there is nothing special in it.

RE: Has anyone seen the face of God?

There are traditions in the Hebrew Bible, Jewish and Christian literature that suggest Moses, Elijah, and possibly also Isaiah saw the face of God. A close reading of the relevant passages, however, shows that this is unlikely. Moreover, you have the declaration in the Bible that seeing the face of God would result in death.

Oh dear you missed one. True its fiction but is pretty clear that Abraham saw Jehovah in the story. He even washed his feet according to the Bible in Genesis 18.

Presumably, however, the dead in Christ have seen God face-to-face. And, quite obviously, Jesus has seen God face-to-face. Although, we must be careful here because we are anthropomorphizing. The obvious philosophical question is: Does God even have a face?

Accoding to Genesis 18 he must. He ate. Hard to eat without a face.

Genesis 18 looks like a patch job to me. I think it was tacked on later to justify the morals of killing everone in two towns.

No miracle is needed for both the towns to burn down the same night. That happened in the US once. The day of the Chicago fire another city had an even worse one, it was so bad no one knew about it for days after the Chicago fire took over the papers. That other city's fire has a know cause AND the cause could be the same as the cause of the Chicago fire.

The cause was meteor. Fire from the sky.

[Ethelred]

[

Originally posted by SpencerH
There's more to Ethelreds comments than "the Bible is not literal truth". Whether by intent or not, he is dismissive in this, and in other threads, of the cultural and spiritual importance of the Bible.

If the Bible is just a book written by men it remains no more important regarding any god than any other set of religious writings. I am NOT dismissive of its cultural IMPACT. I simply point out those things do not have a thing to do with wether its THE source for information about a real god.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Given that the Elder Edda is some norse god-mythos with a giant cow creating the world through licking a ball of ice, I think we can exclude scientific discussion.

The same could be said for the Flood story EXCEPT that many people think that is not just a story but a factual relating of a real event that included the deaths of all but eight human beings. Hence scientific discussion IS RELEVANT to that sort of thinking. Without real evidence for the supernatural things in the the Bible it remains a Hebrew god-mythos.

For me, its the second part of this quote thats the most interesting "unless a god was involved in the writing. In which case they should have a much better fit to reality. "

Why would that be? Is it even important given cvwebs's original question?

Why wouldn't be more accurate if a god that knows how it created things was involved in the writing. Why would a god that knew how things really happened make up something so clearly divergent with reality.

Ckwebs original questions are based on his misperceptions. I am not claiming the Bible is supposed to be the literal word of god yet he was (still is sometimes in his latest post) going on that perception of his.

Spencer the cultural impact of the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about any god. Other religions have had strong effects as well. None quite so broad but Islam is close in many ways. Budihism in its various forms has effected nearly as many people when you consider that it even older than christianity. None of that makes any of those religions the source for information about a real god. Not unless there is something that shows a special knowledge had be involved. By special I mean knowledge that could only have been attained from a supernatural source.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - Carl Sagan. I don't see ANY proof of the extraordinary claims of the Bible much less extraordinary proof.

[Grandpa Troll]

Eighteen Inches. Thats the difference for those of us whom believe in JESUS CHRIST as our personal Lord and Savior.

Eighteen Inches.........the difference between "Head" knowledge..all you so called experts of science and literature and writings.......and "Heart" knowlege, knowing JESUS CHRIST as your personal Lord and Savior.

But I cant argue the point, because knowing JESUS CHRIST is a matter of Faith, and if you dont have Faith than what He, GOD offered up as an Atonement for our Human Sinfulness, than this is foolishness to man in his own thought process.

I pray, and yes you folks can ridicule me, not a problem, I only offer up a testimony, but one day, sooner than you think, you will appear before the Master, and He will look to his Son, JESUS CHRIST and then He will either say "Well done thou good and faithful servant, or Depart from me you worker of iniquity!

It is sad, those whom try to rationalize to a point, because Faith is what God's plan of Salvation is based upon.

This is indeed a Test, and it is simple to pass, Accept JESUS CHRIST as your personal Lord and Savior or deny him and spend eternity in Hell. Not a halfway house for good behavior or self worth as a count of your deeds performed on earth, or what alms were or were not performed, but simple childlike faith in the One whom died for the ransom of our Sinfulness.

Troll

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ethelred

The same could be said for the Flood story EXCEPT that many people think that is not just a story but a factual relating of a real event that included the deaths of all but eight human beings. Hence scientific discussion IS RELEVANT to that sort of thinking. Without real evidence for the supernatural things in the the Bible it remains a Hebrew god-mythos.

But ckweb was not suggesting that the flood story was scientifically verifiable. Those arguments are perfectly valid when debating with those who dont agree that genesis is an allegory.

Why wouldn't be more accurate if a god that knows how it created things was involved in the writing. Why would a god that knew how things really happened make up something so clearly divergent with reality.

Maybe the concept was more important than the details. Similar things happen in science.

Ckwebs original questions are based on his misperceptions. I am not claiming the Bible is supposed to be the literal word of god yet he was (still is sometimes in his latest post) going on that perception of his.

I dont read either of your comments in that way.

Spencer the cultural impact of the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about any god. Other religions have had strong effects as well. None quite so broad but Islam is close in many ways. Budihism in its various forms has effected nearly as many people when you consider that it even older than christianity. None of that makes any of those religions the source for information about a real god. Not unless there is something that shows a special knowledge had be involved. By special I mean knowledge that could only have been attained from a supernatural source.

I agree again. But again I dont read ckwebs comments in the same way as you do. For example, I dont recall a comment where ckweb stated that the Bible was 'divinely inspired' or something similar.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - Carl Sagan. I don't see ANY proof of the extraordinary claims of the Bible much less extraordinary proof.

"The proof is in the pudding"-Unknown

[SpencerH]

I realize that you're just a troll, but personally I think I'lll pass. Your god (did you think about that god is dog spelled backward) is some kind of psycho killer -ques que c'est (from the song). If the time ever comes, I'll choose another less destructive - like baal maybe.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
Here's some questions to get the discussion back on the track I intended in the first place:

SOME. Hordes is more accurate. Thats why I passed over this to get to the others first.

You say you've read Genesis and Exodus. When you read it, did you read it literally as Fundamentalists do?

Depends on who I am discussing it with at the time. To me its all myth, legend and a possible touch of some history.

Do you believe that Genesis 1-11, regardless of whether or not you agree it is true, is meant to be history? Do you think the author meant to make an accurate report of historical even of creation (regardless of whether or not you believe he failed in this task)? If so, on what basis to believe this reading strategy to be the right one?

I have covered this exceeding well already. Only your stubborn insistence on holding on to a false perception has you continuing with this line. Please try another. I don't like talking to brick walls except to practice my voice impressions.

And, do you believe that scientific theory invalidates belief in the Christian God?

Why do you ask this again since you allready made a post where you seemed to have finally got the right idea. Did you lose your memory between one post and the next?

Why don't you believe in the Christian God?

Why should I? I know why you do but there is no real reasoning involved in your thinking. Most of it is pure bandwagon and the rest is based on unsupported claims in the Bible.

On what basis do you reject or deny the testimony of the community of faith to events such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ or the national revelation at Mount Sinai?

The total lack of evidence for them. You have to believe the Bible to believe it constitutes evidence. Your thinking is circular on this. The Bible says it happened therefor it happened. Thats circular.

By the way that whole of Isreal was not there even if it did happen. Only the Jews from Egypt were. There were Jews that never left the fertile crescent.

How do you account for the growth and evolution () of Judaism and Christianity?

I don't need to account for it as nothing supernatural was involved. All religions evolve for one. Judaism has only grow by population growth and Christianity got lucky in Constantines use of it for political purposes. Often it has spread by axe and sword as in the case of Norway. Or Musket and cannon as in Mexico.

Here's some other questions that can take our discussion in new directions:

Not if you keep on with the same misperceptions about my method of reading the Bible when dealing with fundamentalists. I thought you had decided to get over that.

You claim to be an agnostic (not an atheist). To what extent do you believe in a god?

I take it that the word is new to you.

Agnositcs DON'T believe. At all. Atheists often have a belief about god. Those that don't are really Agnostics that have been cowed into taking a stand they don't actually hold. For some reason there are people that like to sneer at Agnostics as fence sitters. Slowhand for one.

There may be a god but I see no evidence for one. I don't live my life on belief. I like evidence.

Do you simply allow for the possibility or is it more than that?

Simply. No more as there is no evidence.

If more, what form does that belief take? On what basis, do you have these beliefs?

I believe in the church of baseball - Annie Savoy in Bull Durum.

Actually I am a Lakers fan. The team is god and Chick Hearn is the prophet. For another year anyway, at 85 he really can't keep doing the broadcasting much longer. Baseball is ssssllllloooooowwww and I don't like the present Dodger owner so I am sticking with Basketball till he sells.

You deny the idea that humanity is inherently evil (at least, I assume you do based on previous posts).

I answered that allready. Its a silly thing to say. Mankind has inherent self interest and people that don't understand that others might have different interests call the results of the differences evil. Thats not being realistic.

You want evil try Charles Ng or Charly Manson. Don't name your children Charles.

Is humanity essentially good then? Or neutral?

Self interested.

How do you derive your sense of morality?

The same way christians do minus the god part. The golden rule. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Treat those that can't manage to do that themselves as you must to survive.

Do you believe in moral absolutes? Is it community-based? Is it based on instinct?

B and C not A. There is at least some instinct involved in human socialization. Those with less of the instinct make better salesmen. Those with nearly none are very dangerous. The two Charles above for instance.

By what standard should moralities be judge?

The golden rule and survival when dealing with the socialy dangerous.

Or, alternatively, can you judge morality? What is morality to you?

I will point out to you that Agnostics and Atheist are much more prevalent in the general population than in the prison population. Non-believers don't have anywhere near as many problems with acting in a moral manner as christians do or the non-believers would be majority of the prison population or at least of a greater percentage than in the general population.

Are you a moral nihilist?

Thats a contradiction in terms.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I realize that you're just a troll, but personally I think I'lll pass. Your god (did you think about that god is dog spelled backward) is some kind of psycho killer -ques que c'est (from the song). If the time ever comes, I'll choose another less destructive - like baal maybe.

Hmm so your trying somehow to equate some god with spelled backward being dog..ok..you get an "A" for spelling!
..BUT..I was speaking of THE GOD..in Heaven..and ball..well..Elijah had his day with God vs the 450 prophets of baal and the 400 prophets of Asherah in 1 Kings 18:15-40 ...baal -0- God 1..God wins then and God wins Now!


Troll

[SpencerH]

I was reading your signature, would that include red beans and rice ?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH
But ckweb was not suggesting that the flood story was scientifically verifiable. Those arguments are perfectly valid when debating with those who dont agree that genesis is an allegory.

Then why are both you and he protesting my use of them?

Maybe the concept was more important than the details. Similar things happen in science.

Maybe wishes are horseshoes. The concept of the Flood and Creation is misleading at best. This is not a good thing. Not to me anyway.

I agree again. But again I dont read ckwebs comments in the same way as you do. For example, I dont recall a comment where ckweb stated that the Bible was 'divinely inspired' or something similar.

I never said he did. I am asking what makes the Bible a reason for believeing in the god of the Bible if there is no evidence of that god in the real world. Especially when the Bible has that god doing things that never happened. Without some evidence for divine inspiration the Bible is just the word of men. Of no more value for showing any reality of the god in it than for anyother collection of religious writing. Its just the word of men either way.

"The proof is in the pudding"-Unknown

Where is the pudding. The Bible cannot prove itself. It must have external evidence to support its extraordinary claims.


Don't tell me. I get it. Jello is proof of god.

Hallalucination.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I was reading your signature, would that include red beans and rice ?

That is concerning the Bread of Life...and I am sorry that you choose to taunt God..for that is a very dangerous walk..heed what you say..not because what i say..but I am just sharing that you should not tempt God..just a warning..is all..

Troll

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Troll


Hmm so your trying somehow to equate some god with spelled backward being dog..ok..you get an "A" for spelling!Troll

Oh goody an excuse for one of my favorite outlandish phrases.

What if there was cosmic significance in the fact that god is dog spelled backwards? And that live is evil reversed. Massacre and mascara are intriguingly similar Mr. DesCartes so what do you mean when you claim 'I drink therefor I am'?


And for being a troll you get this one as well.


(tm) Liars For Jesus is an unregistered trade mark of a nonexsistent organization of real people. Un authorized use of this trademark will be persecuted to the fullest extent of the Minions of Satan(tm) after you die. Remember even Satan has an important job in Gauwuds plan.


Maybe I should lay off the religious threads. I have these things saved in my Formum Holding folder.

Copyright by me. Free use for quotes is extended as long as the original author (Ethelred) is acknowledged.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ethelred

Then why are both you and he protesting my use of them?

Because its a red-herring. Save it for the fundamentalist types.

Maybe wishes are horseshoes. The concept of the Flood and Creation is misleading at best. This is not a good thing. Not to me anyway.

Well I dont 'get' the flood story either. But is the idea that god exists (without proof) and that it created the universe so antithical to you? I see no proof that god exists, and I dont believe in god either, but "there are stranger things under heaven and earth Horatio". I'm willing to accept a small possibility.

I never said he did. I am asking what makes the Bible a reason for believeing in the god of the Bible if there is no evidence of that god in the real world. Especially when the Bible has that god doing things that never happened. Without some evidence for divine inspiration the Bible is just the word of men. Of no more value for showing any reality of the god in it than for anyother collection of religious writing. Its just the word of men either way.

Now thats a viewpoint that ckweb might argue. I hope he will.

Where is the pudding. The Bible cannot prove itself. It must have external evidence to support its extraordinary claims.

I believe its called faith, some take it to extremes, others dont.