homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Does Creation Science Give Comfort to the Enemy? (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Does Creation Science Give Comfort to the Enemy?
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jamat - when the writer/s of Genesis began to scribe these things, do you imagine that they thought-

"Now then, what genre should this be - I want people 1000s of years in the future to be sure which form I was writing poetry, legend, fable, myth, science or theology"?

...

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
I have read any number of creation mmyths from around the world, mythology is something of a hobby of mine. I haven't noticed a qualitative difference between the Genesis myth and any of the others.

Have another look. Genesis has credible people, a credible human relationship; credible human weakness; no superpowers involved on the part of the humans; a credible human environment as in earth air,water and sky.

Now We also have supernaturalism but the supernatural being is not seeking to explain a human circumstance, He is not capricious, salacious or mendacious. He is a being apart from the human weakness depicted. He has a spiritual opposer, again, explicable in terms of supernaturalism rather than of mythical magic. This being uses the body of an animal. this is not so unusual to a supernaturalist. Jesus sent spirits into a herd of pigs after all....Bottom line? Some very real genre conflict.

Well, as Louise says, you’ve just made up these definitions of myth so they aren't proof of anything to anyone except you. But let’s address them anyway.

Credible people? We have an obvious ‘everyman’ figure whose very name means ‘mankind’ and a companion female created from his rib. Both of these people apparently are immortal – which is a superpower as far as I’m aware! They have no sickness or problems and a just-created Adam can name every animal as it’s brought, having obviously invented language (Ancient Hebrew we assume) all by himself in a very short space of time, and the means to record his decisions or the superpower to remember them all (millions of names) to pass on.

There is credible human weakness of course, hubris, arrogance, disobedience of simple instructions. But this is deeply mythological. Compare the command that everything will be ok except if Adam eats the forbidden fruit with myths the world over; from Persephone being allowed to leave Hades except if she eats one pomegranate seed and is doomed, to the modern-day Pan’s Labyrinth where the child is safe unless she eats the forbidden fruit on the table. It is a simple and widely-used mythological trope that points clearly to the author’s intention that Genesis 2 is not to be taken literally.

And a credible setting? We have a land where no animal eats any other, where there is no rain but everything is fertile and plentiful and water flows freely from the earth, where only two humans exist, without cold, or work, or hint of reality as we know it. This lost ‘golden age’ setting has been imagined by everyone from the Greeks to the modern day. It is as mythological as it gets.

And the supernatural being you describe is certainly different from the myths of the shallow and bickering Greek gods, but that doesn’t prove anything. The ‘God’ of this story is a clear anthropormorphic personification, walking in the garden in the cool of the day, as though the heat of noon is too much for him! Stationing guards at the gates of Eden, as though God needs gates and guards to stop humans going somewhere! This ‘God’ is represented as just an advanced human, a powerful supernatural King, not the all-powerful Lord we know Him to be.

And the spiritual opposer – taking the form of an animal to interact with humans and lead them astray. You claim this isn’t a formula of the myth genre! Have you even read any other myths? They’re packed to bursting with gods and demons taking the form of animals, from Zeus’ bull and swan activities, to Chinese fox-demons.

There is no genre conflict at all. Anyone who knows anything about myths can see the similarities. That’s because they’re supposed to be there. The author wasn’t intending to write a history, he was writing or recording a myth, and intending it to convey deeper and more spiritual truths than mere historical events could.

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
This is just a very obvious circular argument, Jamat. Invent a lot of extra tailor-made qualifications for the definition of myth, and you can pretend that since Genesis doesn't meet your newly-coined definitions (made up specifically to exclude Genesis), it can't be a myth.


If you go around telling people that you can show the truth of the Bible through discredited writers like Velikovsky and monumental twits like whoever came up with that Jonathan Swift idea, all you're going to do is drag the Bible into disrepute by association. Your idea of bolstering the authority of Jesus by deciding anything in the Old testament he gave a mention to must be treated as some sort of fact, actually does the opposite. It ends up making the Bible seem to rest on a tissue of crackpottery.

Luckily for you, you're not doing much damage here, as there can't be many of us who haven't read the Bible and who don't know that it's more worthwhile to read than the sad stuff you are besmirching it with by association.

But if you met someone who'd never read the Bible, and started telling them this sort of thing, they'd be justified in thinking that Jesus must be as dodgy as David Icke, since you keep trying to show his trustworthiness from utterly untrustworthy sources which would make any sensible person think twice.

L

I don't go round telling people anything.

Those, on the other hand, who set themselves up in judgement of the Bible on the grounds that it doesn't suit the liberal humanist agenda cos 'OT Bible God' is sooo judgemental that he can't really be like that, aren't doing any damage?

I don't think God needs me or you or anyone else to justify him. My bottom line is that if we take off the blinkers, he's done that for himself.

If anyone thinks at all! (especially about things like the nature of myth,) surely that is good!Please note, my point is not that Genesis has no mythical elements, just that it is quite different to other mythical stories in some fundamental ways. I don't see how I'm being circular..overstating a point perhaps on the odd occasion...

As stated before, Velikovsky's theory is not the issue, it's his research into ancient stories that is impressive. I don't think he was religious at all.

BTW Croesus, there are many scriptures that suggest cataclysm on the earth in times past if you care to take them at face value. For starters check out Hab 3:3-15. Vs 11 is interesting. Habukkuk was apparently a contemporary of Isaiah and Hezekiah.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Those, on the other hand, who set themselves up in judgement of the Bible on the grounds that it doesn't suit the liberal humanist agenda cos 'OT Bible God' is sooo judgemental that he can't really be like that, aren't doing any damage?



That's a really poor straw man, which also misses the point. If your cartoon-character evil liberal conspirator doesn't believe the OT, it doesn't somehow justify using bogus theories to advocate it.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Please note, my point is not that Genesis has no mythical elements, just that it is quite different to other mythical stories in some fundamental ways. I don't see how I'm being circular..overstating a point perhaps on the odd occasion...



No, it isn't different - try re-reading Hawk's post. You're not only inventing your own meaningless definitions, but even by those standards failing. You would be better off to say 'I just believe it'.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

As stated before, Velikovsky's theory is not the issue, it's his research into ancient stories that is impressive.

No, alas, his research into the ancient world was just as flawed. For example his theories involve getting it badly wrong about the chronology of Egyptian dynasties too, so he's no more well regarded by ancient historians and archaeologists than he is by astrophysicists. Sorry.

cheers,
L.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
BTW Croesus, there are many scriptures that suggest cataclysm on the earth in times past if you care to take them at face value. For starters check out Hab 3:3-15. Vs 11 is interesting. Habukkuk was apparently a contemporary of Isaiah and Hezekiah.

The disaster story is a fairly popular theme and recurs a lot in tale telling. Hollywood devotes considerable resources to tales like that all the time. Doesn't necessarily make them true.

Your citation, detailing a God striding the earth and shooting people with arrows reminded me of something else.

quote:
So he spoke in prayer, and Phœbus Apollo heard him. Down from the peaks of Olympus he strode, angered at heart, bearing on his shoulders his bow and covered quiver. The arrows rattled on the shoulders of the angry god as he moved, and his coming was like the night. Then he sat down apart from the ships and let fly an arrow: terrible was the twang of the silver bow. The mules he assailed first and the swift dogs, but then on the men themselves he let fly his stinging shafts, and struck; and constantly the pyres of the dead burned thick. For nine days the missiles of the god ranged among the host . . .
I guess by your logic this means that Apollo is real, since we've got an ancient account of a disaster attributed to him.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, firstly the 'straw man'. Most who write in this forum have a rationalistic mindset and are deeply suspicious of any supernatural interventionist God. The problem then for them is that the Bible God both intervenes and supervenes. One weapon to discredit this is the character of the OT God. On this thread alone he's been called 'petty' and 'petulant'. In pointing out the presuppositions, sometimes one oversimplifies. Call it a straw man if you want to. However can you honestly deny that what I implied in the comment above is not true? I have come across it on SOF many times.

This brings me to 'myth'. You say I am inventing my own definition of it to exclude Genesis. Well maybe so. There are nevertheless,(and yes I read Hawk's post,) large differences between traditional myth and Genesis and indeed other Biblical stories such as the ascension and resurrection. That is not to say that the two genres, Biblical supernaturalism and Cultural mythology do not have elements in common. I acknowledge those. Genesis 6 to me has the most obvious mythical parallel in fact.

The point though is that the distinctions are also definite as I outlined them above. E.M. Blaiklock was a classical scholar and Professor, at Auckland University and he defines myth 'for Plato', as follows:

"A myth was his means of rendering a truth that evaded abstract or scientific expression."

He goes on after a couple of illustrations:

"The principles of such myth making appear to be that the story must be a good story in its own right, must fill some gaps of knowledge in better and more convincing fashion than could be achieved by direct exposition, and must contain detail of obvious fiction which will mark the story as something other than factual narrative or history."

While he is not dealing directly with Genesis but the NT,the distinction between myth and history, in his view, lies primarily in the author's intention.

The question then is what the writer (or Moses) thought he was doing. Was he making up a story to explain something? or writing history. I know what my answer ir and I suspect the answers of others her will differ but I think those answers are pretty well wholly dependent on ones preconceptions and world view.

Finally, Velikovsky. Well, Louise, In his book 'Ages in Chaos', right at the start on P 2, he actually numbers all the dynasties of Egypt in order. Now you say he is wrong. Can you document that in some way? He lists for instance:
neolithic then Old kingdom (pyramid building period) then he goes on to the first interregnum a dark age that then becomes the middle kingdom, the high point of the culture. This was followed the invasion of the Hyksos and finally the new kingdom which was the times of many of the named pharaohs are listed as part of the 18th dynasty and then the 19th. Where he doesn't know something, he admits it. For instance, he says: "The period of transition from the 19th to the 20th dynasties is obscure."

Perhaps you could look up the book and explain where he gets it wrong in your view.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Finally, Velikovsky. Well, Louise, In his book 'Ages in Chaos', right at the start on P 2, he actually numbers all the dynasties of Egypt in order. Now you say he is wrong. Can you document that in some way? He lists for instance:
neolithic then Old kingdom (pyramid building period) then he goes on to the first interregnum a dark age that then becomes the middle kingdom, the high point of the culture. This was followed the invasion of the Hyksos and finally the new kingdom which was the times of many of the named pharaohs are listed as part of the 18th dynasty and then the 19th. Where he doesn't know something, he admits it. For instance, he says: "The period of transition from the 19th to the 20th dynasties is obscure."

Perhaps you could look up the book and explain where he gets it wrong in your view.

Frankly, seeing as the dynasties are numbered from 1 (or 0 now) to 31, it is hard to see how even the nuttiest of nutjobs could get them out of order.
Amazon would only let me read up to page 28 and I admit that I found very little obviously factually wrong, bearing in mind that he was writing nearly 60 years ago. Nowadays I don't think many Egyptologists (if any) would say that the Hyksos were of an "unknown" race nor that they "ruled over Egypt without mercy", if only because it has been established that they did not rule over the whole country and it is now widely accepted that even the Ancients had imaginations and were capable of creating propaganda. [Eek!]

--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Joanna, Velikovsky starts 'Ages in Chaos' by giving the traditional dynasties and then their dates on pp.2-3. He produces his own bizarre dating system as the volume proceeds. You can get the whole text here and in a better format here.

He tries (and fails) in 'Ages in Chaos' to identify Hatshepsut with the Queen of Sheba (article by Egyptologist, David Lorton). To do that he has to move her chronologically out of place by about 500 years as he dates Solomon to the 10th century BC. He also tries to identify the Amalekites with the Hyksos, which involves a similarly large helping of chronological fudge. He goes for them being expelled from Egypt and turning up in 10th century BC Israel to fight Joab (Ages In Chaos p.99-101). Basically he has to move Egyptian history out by centuries, ignoring the findings of archaeology, to make his fudge work.

quote:
Needless to say, this reconstruction is entirely text-based. There is no stratigraphic evidence from Egypt or the Levant to back up these claims that not only down-date some pharaohs by as much as seven centuries but also reverse the sequence of numerous individuals. Some well-attested pharaohs (such as Ra‘messe VI, 1142-1135 BCE)) are dismissed as controlling only small oases in opposition to the Ptolemies (305-30 BCE); some (such as Psamtik I, 664-610 BCE) are downgraded to Persian satraps.

Even if (like Peter James) we accept that there is something not quite right with Egyptian chronology, it is unlikely to be this fundamentally wrong. Two centuries of archaeology have been devoted to working out the sequence of pharaohs... and although there may be room for squeezing and stretching individual reigns or altering the degree of overlap between contemporaneous rulers, there is not the latitude to make Ra‘messe III (1184-1153 BCE) a contemporary of Philip II of Macedonia (359-336 BCE)!

(Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews and James Doeser website 'Bad Archaeology'

Velikovsky also tries to identify Akhenaton with Oedipus and move him and the 14th century BC Amarna period to the 9th century BC.

Now lets double check a few of those dates in some reference works, in case those naughty bloggers are making them up:

Hatshepsut - 1473-1458 BC Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. Ian Shaw, 2002 not 10th BC as Velikovsky claims.

Hyksos - Velikovsky claims 10th century BC again but in fact the Hyksos period dates roughly 1660-1540 BC, (Charlotte Booth, The Hyksos Period in Egypt, Shire Egyptology 2005 see p.6) with the key date of expulsion at about 1570 BC

Akhenaten -Velikovsky claims 840 BC (Ages in Chaos p.182) the Oxford History of the Biblical world gives ca 1352-1336 BC. (ed. Michael D Coogan 1998)

(To cite journals I'd have to get behind paywalls - so I'm sticking to good reference sources for the moment)

These are just a few examples of how far out Velikovsky is historically. I'll return to other parts of Jamat's posts later since this has been a long one.


L

[ 18. April 2010, 02:29: Message edited by: Louise ]

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Jamat said - The question then is what the writer (or Moses) thought he was doing. Was he making up a story to explain something? or writing history. I know what my answer ir and I suspect the answers of others her will differ but I think those answers are pretty well wholly dependent on ones preconceptions and world view.
Exactly - and you are going into some incredibly tenuous detail to justify your world view.

Why would God hide in such obscure stuff?

I look out of the window and see a marvellous universe.

I feel deep, overpowering awe and wonder at love and life - and I want to give thanks.

I conclude that there is a 'special goodness' behind and through it all - I call this goodness 'God'

Then I look at the way the world works and see that it matches the simplest of scientific explanations in Primary school text books.

So I conclude that the 'God' of love is behind the creation of all things - and that science describes how s/he did it.

That's my world view - and it works well for me.

[Smile]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
"The principles of such myth making appear to be that the story must be a good story in its own right, must fill some gaps of knowledge in better and more convincing fashion than could be achieved by direct exposition, and must contain detail of obvious fiction which will mark the story as something other than factual narrative or history."

Would that perhaps include any of the following, for example:
  • Night and day without a moon or sun?
  • A talking snake?
  • Magic trees?
  • Carnivores who don't eat meat?
  • One of the only two men alive who's afraid of the reaction of other men? And, who managed to find a wife from non-existant people?
  • Men who lived impossibly long lives?
  • Flood waters 1000s of feet deep?
  • Languages being scrambled by divine retribution?


--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Louise,

Many thanks for that. I am aware that Velikovsky is not reliable (to put it mildly), which is why we do not have his books in the house. I was very surprised at how well he began but the index certainly suggested he went haywire later and I did not want to contaminate my computer by looking further.

Reading Jamat's post, I was reminded of David Rohl but V seems to distort things even further and presumably runs into the same problem that you cannot study Ancient Egyptian history in isolation. I only saw Rohl's first TV show yonks back (and my TV only just survived intact) but having moved Rameses II forward by several centuries, he completely failed to mention how this affected Hittite history

Identifying Akhenaten with Oedipus is a new one on me and excitingly batty. Perhaps I should add him to my collection of pyramidologists after all. [Big Grin]

Joanna

--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, firstly the 'straw man'. Most who write in this forum have a rationalistic mindset and are deeply suspicious of any supernatural interventionist God. The problem then for them is that the Bible God both intervenes and supervenes. ... Call it a straw man if you want to. However can you honestly deny that what I implied in the comment above is not true? I have come across it on SOF many times.

To come back to the OP on this thread

quote:
As some of you know by now, I'm trying to foment a rebellion against the evangelical atheists. I thought I'd bring up the topic of creation "science" and the damage it has done to the Christian cause and Christian apologetics
I think we've seen some classic examples of how that can happen. The problem with creation 'science' and as we now see, the kind of pseudo-history and archaeology that follow in its wake, is that you end up with - 'Come and see how good the Bible is - all these really ropey discredited theories support it!'.

The other problem is that education and learning get cast as 'the enemy'. Scientists are 'arch-priests', people who see real problems with the way the OT has been used and interpreted get attacked for a 'liberal humanist agenda' or 'rationalistic mindset'. People on the boards who most certainly do believe in a supernatural interventionist God, get lumped in with the board atheists (who they easily outnumber)- because they know how to work out whether something is bad science or bad history or dodgy theology.

What it ends up doing is opposing research/learning/education to religion - and this is exactly the paradigm which people like Richard Dawkins want to set up too. It plays right into their hands - 'Come and see the ignorance inherent in the religion! Look! Look! They're still citing Crackpot X!' (Remember his ridiculous idea of re-labelling atheists as 'Brights'?)

If people try to back up the veracity of the Bible by supporting the theories of Crackpot X or Y, then it ends up making Dawkins and co look like the guardians of reason and learning and sanity, which is exactly how they think of themselves and exactly how they want other people to see them.

I've often seen the phrase 'fundamentalist atheist', but in fact these people can't prosper without the kind of Biblical literalists they call 'fundamentalists' (and vice versa) - each potentiates the other.

L.

PS. Joanna, Yes, Velikovsky is basically the daddy of Rohl et al!

[ 18. April 2010, 21:45: Message edited by: Louise ]

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I think we've seen some classic examples of how that can happen. The problem with creation 'science' and as we now see, the kind of pseudo-history and archaeology that follow in its wake, is that you end up with - 'Come and see how good the Bible is - all these really ropey discredited theories support it!'.

This is not a new problem for Christianity. St. Augustine commented on it in his own treatment of Genesis.

quote:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The other problem is that education and learning get cast as 'the enemy'. Scientists are 'arch-priests', people who see real problems with the way the OT has been used and interpreted get attacked for a 'liberal humanist agenda' or 'rationalistic mindset'. People on the boards who most certainly do believe in a supernatural interventionist God, get lumped in with the board atheists (who they easily outnumber)- because they know how to work out whether something is bad science or bad history or dodgy theology.

What it ends up doing is opposing research/learning/education to religion - and this is exactly the paradigm which people like Richard Dawkins want to set up too. It plays right into their hands - 'Come and see the ignorance inherent in the religion! Look! Look! They're still citing Crackpot X!' (Remember his ridiculous idea of re-labelling atheists as 'Brights'?)

If people try to back up the veracity of the Bible by supporting the theories of Crackpot X or Y, then it ends up making Dawkins and co look like the guardians of reason and learning and sanity, which is exactly how they think of themselves and exactly how they want other people to see them.

I guess the question is whether Christianity is the sophisticated belief of academic theologians or the beliefs of the Christian masses, many of whom do hold anti-scientific and anti-education views.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or whether Christianity is an intellectual construct at all. I've heard some people who think that matters of doctrine are secondary to being in community. If I know someone who contributes to the church, takes part in the activities and life thereof, serves, and generally sees Jesus as someone worth following; simultaneously being doctrinally vague to the point of agnosticism, is that person a Christian?

I'm not one to say doctrine doesn't matter (obvious to anyone who reads my posting habits,) but I don't think it's really the sine qua non of Christian faith. I think there was a thread not too long ago about whether the ancient &pi&iota&sigma&tau&iota&sigmaf was really about having logical constructions or about being in relationship, and how logical constructions relate to relationship. Or to borrow a line from one Bill Williams (RIP,) I don't think one has to have a doctrine of salvation by doctrine.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Or whether Christianity is an intellectual construct at all. I've heard some people who think that matters of doctrine are secondary to being in community.

Isn't a community an intellectual construct?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Or whether Christianity is an intellectual construct at all. I've heard some people who think that matters of doctrine are secondary to being in community.

Isn't a community an intellectual construct?
I don't think so.

ETA: And if it is (if one thinks that everything is an intellectual construct,) "we relate to each other" is a different manner of thinking than "I think that the world was made in seven days."

[ 19. April 2010, 15:25: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Croesos:

quote:
I guess the question is whether Christianity is the sophisticated belief of academic theologians or the beliefs of the Christian masses, many of whom do hold anti-scientific and anti-education views.

Yes.

[ 19. April 2010, 16:31: Message edited by: Gildas ]

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Or whether Christianity is an intellectual construct at all. I've heard some people who think that matters of doctrine are secondary to being in community.

Isn't a community an intellectual construct?
I don't think so.

ETA: And if it is (if one thinks that everything is an intellectual construct,) "we relate to each other" is a different manner of thinking than "I think that the world was made in seven days."

If that's the case, then why has so much ink been spilled over who is in and who is out of the Christian community, and so much more ink spilled on how Christians should relate to each other? Seems like an awful lot of intellectual effort for something without any intellectual component.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Or whether Christianity is an intellectual construct at all. I've heard some people who think that matters of doctrine are secondary to being in community.

Isn't a community an intellectual construct?
I don't think so.

ETA: And if it is (if one thinks that everything is an intellectual construct,) "we relate to each other" is a different manner of thinking than "I think that the world was made in seven days."

If that's the case, then why has so much ink been spilled over who is in and who is out of the Christian community, and so much more ink spilled on how Christians should relate to each other? Seems like an awful lot of intellectual effort for something without any intellectual component.
People spend all kinds of ink studying nature, yet I don't think atheists think that, for instance, a tornado is an intellectual process.

Just because one can think about something doesn't mean that the thing is reduced to the thought.

Also, the fact that it's not intellectually cut and dried tends to give people more rather than less latitude to think about it.

Finally, I didn't say there was no intellectual component to it, just that it's not totally or fundamentally intellectual. Probably an easy thing to miss for folks who spend nearly all their time in purgatory, but I think that's the reality of it.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If that's the case, then why has so much ink been spilled over who is in and who is out of the Christian community, and so much more ink spilled on how Christians should relate to each other? Seems like an awful lot of intellectual effort for something without any intellectual component.

People spend all kinds of ink studying nature, yet I don't think atheists think that, for instance, a tornado is an intellectual process.
But a tornado isn't created or maintained by a group of like-minded individuals deciding to form a collective community. Pretending that Christians have no more deliberate thought in their heads than air molecules is a degree of ridiucule even I wouldn't stoop to.

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Just because one can think about something doesn't mean that the thing is reduced to the thought.

Also, the fact that it's not intellectually cut and dried tends to give people more rather than less latitude to think about it.

Finally, I didn't say there was no intellectual component to it, just that it's not totally or fundamentally intellectual. Probably an easy thing to miss for folks who spend nearly all their time in purgatory, but I think that's the reality of it.

Once again, we're talking about deliberate human decision-making. How is something produced in that way not an intellectual construct?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If that's the case, then why has so much ink been spilled over who is in and who is out of the Christian community, and so much more ink spilled on how Christians should relate to each other? Seems like an awful lot of intellectual effort for something without any intellectual component.

People spend all kinds of ink studying nature, yet I don't think atheists think that, for instance, a tornado is an intellectual process.
But a tornado isn't created or maintained by a group of like-minded individuals deciding to form a collective community. Pretending that Christians have no more deliberate thought in their heads than air molecules is a degree of ridiucule even I wouldn't stoop to.

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Just because one can think about something doesn't mean that the thing is reduced to the thought.

Also, the fact that it's not intellectually cut and dried tends to give people more rather than less latitude to think about it.

Finally, I didn't say there was no intellectual component to it, just that it's not totally or fundamentally intellectual. Probably an easy thing to miss for folks who spend nearly all their time in purgatory, but I think that's the reality of it.

Once again, we're talking about deliberate human decision-making. How is something produced in that way not an intellectual construct?

Actually, I would. People aren't really logic machines when it comes down to it. Viewed from a certain distance, we may well resemble air molecules or something like that. It depends on where you're observing from.

Maybe I'm lazy or overworked or something, but I don't think every single action taken by my person every single hour of every day is "deliberately decided." Sometimes I just do stuff. Church is like that. It's not that it's completely thoughtless, but it's not like people go through every single thing thinking it out to the last possible detail before acting.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Maybe I'm lazy or overworked or something, but I don't think every single action taken by my person every single hour of every day is "deliberately decided." Sometimes I just do stuff. Church is like that. It's not that it's completely thoughtless, but it's not like people go through every single thing thinking it out to the last possible detail before acting.

I suppose that the difference in opinion is between point of view one (Croesos) that takes it that because humans are rational the rational faculty enters into everything we do, and point of view two (Bullfrog) that divides things we do into primarily intellectual on the one hand and primarily affective on the other.

There's a sense of 'intellectual' in which the decision to marry someone is intellectual (animals don't and can't do it, though some pair for life to a degree) - and a different sense in which the decision to marry might be more or less intellectual and normatively in Western society would be primarily not intellectual.

Both would appear to have a point. It just depends on how you want to use the distinction.

[ 19. April 2010, 20:10: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Actually, I would. People aren't really logic machines when it comes down to it. Viewed from a certain distance, we may well resemble air molecules or something like that. It depends on where you're observing from.

Maybe I'm lazy or overworked or something, but I don't think every single action taken by my person every single hour of every day is "deliberately decided." Sometimes I just do stuff. Church is like that. It's not that it's completely thoughtless, but it's not like people go through every single thing thinking it out to the last possible detail before acting.

Actually, what you're postulating is that it's completely thoughtless. Air molecules don't think, at any level. Under your theory its perfectly plausible for you to get up one day, go to Mosque for prayer services, and not realize until afterwards (if then) "hey wait a minute, aren't I a Methodist?"

Just because something isn't thought out in exact, mathematical detail doesn't mean that it's not an intellectual process.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Actually, I would. People aren't really logic machines when it comes down to it. Viewed from a certain distance, we may well resemble air molecules or something like that. It depends on where you're observing from.

Maybe I'm lazy or overworked or something, but I don't think every single action taken by my person every single hour of every day is "deliberately decided." Sometimes I just do stuff. Church is like that. It's not that it's completely thoughtless, but it's not like people go through every single thing thinking it out to the last possible detail before acting.

Actually, what you're postulating is that it's completely thoughtless. Air molecules don't think, at any level. Under your theory its perfectly plausible for you to get up one day, go to Mosque for prayer services, and not realize until afterwards (if then) "hey wait a minute, aren't I a Methodist?"

Just because something isn't thought out in exact, mathematical detail doesn't mean that it's not an intellectual process.

Point, though the point I made above wasn't that it was totally without intellect, but that doctrine isn't the fundamental reason or reasoning in understanding Christianity. To be honest, I didn't think my way into Christianity, and I know very very few people who have, which leads me to think it's not necessarily about the kind of thinking of "well, there's this logical argument and that logical argument..." There's something else going on.

On another note, since you mention mosques, I definitely know people who are Christians, Methodists even by all external signs who wouldn't mind praying in a mosque that would welcome them. Heck, I've seen it done with my own eyes. Would you say this person was not a Christian? On what grounds?

Doctrine isn't irrelevant. I just don't think it's everything, or as important as you or the fundamentalists opine. A person's exegesis of Genesis 1, however disagreeable, doesn't give me the privilege to say that they are not Christian. The belief may be arguably Christian, and I will say it's not necessary for a Christian to have these beliefs, but I'm not sure having the wrong idea is by itself itself the sign of either Christianity or of non-Christianity.

This could be another thread. I might get around to starting it in a few days. If I post anything involved tomorrow it will be from a lack of discipline.

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just referring to Louise's post above. Thanks for the links, they were very interesting. I took your original comment as suggesting Velikovsky was unaware of Egyptian chronology. You confirmed that as untrue, he just disagreed with it and had his own theory in an attempt to reconcile the history with the Bible chronology. I agree with your link that he pushes it way too far, but then I never was championing his theories.

All I have time for now.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
This could be another thread.

It is now

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
"The principles of such myth making appear to be that the story must be a good story in its own right, must fill some gaps of knowledge in better and more convincing fashion than could be achieved by direct exposition, and must contain detail of obvious fiction which will mark the story as something other than factual narrative or history."

Would that perhaps include any of the following, for example:
  • Night and day without a moon or sun?
  • A talking snake?
  • Magic trees?
  • Carnivores who don't eat meat?
  • One of the only two men alive who's afraid of the reaction of other men? And, who managed to find a wife from non-existant people?
  • Men who lived impossibly long lives?
  • Flood waters 1000s of feet deep?
  • Languages being scrambled by divine retribution?

Well It certainly includes supernatural events. The issue is what Moses thought he was writing. Do you not find it interesting that no other Biblical writer ,in referring to these events, considers them fictional?

[ 22. April 2010, 00:38: Message edited by: Louise ]

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In what way would they show that they consider them fictional? If I say, "Harry Potter went to Hogwart's" have I said one way or another whether I think it's fictional? My lack of saying "but it's just a story innit" doesn't mean I don't realize it's fictional.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue is what Moses thought he was writing.

Well, I don't know how we can know for sure what Moses was thinking. But, I very much doubt he was writing "factual narrative or history" (to quote from your definition of 'myth') in the sense we'd understand that, given that such genre of literature was unknown at the time. Even something like Luke/Acts which states it's written to given an orderly account wouldn't really qualify as a factual historical narrative in the modern sense.

quote:
Do you not find it interesting that no other Biblical writer ,in referring to these events, considers them fictional?
Again, it's difficult to know what other people thought when they wrote. I see little evidence that they considered the events to be factual either. With very few possible exceptions (IMO, Paul referencing the 'trespass of one man' in one of his descriptions of how the sacrifice of Christ saves us being the strongest, as I've said) whether the events referred to are historical fact or fiction (or a combination of both) is irrelevant to the argument developed from them.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I thought that there was dispute as to who wrote Genesis - that and the book is probably an anonymous and composite work.

If that's the case then it could have been quite a mixture of genres anyway.

...

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
spot on Boogie

a composite work as we have it today

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is something of a tangent, but does it actually say anywhere in the Bible that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or any part of it?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is something of a tangent, but does it actually say anywhere in the Bible that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or any part of it?

Would you accept it as fact if it did?

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is something of a tangent, but does it actually say anywhere in the Bible that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or any part of it?

Would you accept it as fact if it did?
Wrong thread.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is something of a tangent, but does it actually say anywhere in the Bible that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or any part of it?

Given that Deuteronomy describes the death of Moses, his secret burial attended by no one but God Himself, and a few events that occurred afterwards I think it's safe to say that at least some parts of the Pentateuch were written by someone else.

Unless you want to postulate zombie Moses as the author.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Biblical references to show that Moses wrote the Pentateuch:

quote:
What are the arguments for Mosaic authorship? First, there are numerous passages in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy that point to Moses as author. For instance, Exodus 34:27 says, "Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.'" In fact, there are references throughout the Old Testament (Joshua, 1 & 2 Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and Malachi) that claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

New Testament writers assumed that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well. In Matthew 19:8 Jesus refers to laws regarding marriage in Deuteronomy and credits Moses with writing them. In John 7:19 Jesus says, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." In Romans 10:5 Paul states that Moses wrote the law. It would be hard not to attribute either deception or error to Christ and the apostles if Moses did not write the Pentateuch.

There are many other internal evidences that point to Mosaic authorship. The writer of Exodus gives eyewitness details of the event that only a participant would know about. The author of Genesis and Exodus also portrays remarkable knowledge of Egyptian names and places. This knowledge is evident even in the style of writing used. One scholar has noted that the writer used "a large number of idioms and terms of speech, which are characteristically Egyptian in origin, even though translated into Hebrew."

Having received training in the most advanced literate culture of the day as well as having access to the Jewish oral tradition make Moses a remarkably able and likely candidate for God to use in documenting the founding of the Jewish nation.

Link

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry to create such a large tangent. I'll create a new thread. Sharks, will you please re-post your post in the new thread once I have created it?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Alan Cresswell: Again, it's difficult to know what other people thought when they wrote. I see little evidence that they considered the events to be factual either.
Well since most references to the creation story are in the prophetic or apocalyptic parts of the bible you may have a point. There are a few references though.
2 Pet 2:4 and Jude 6 are usually connected with Gen 6, the angels' interfering with the human genealogical line which is often connected with the flood judgement.
2Pet 3:5 refers to the waters of creation. 2 Cor 11:3 refers to the deception of Eve by the serpent.
Hos 6:7 refers to Adam's sin as does Job 31;33. ISTM these references are meant literally.
Lk 3;38 takes the geneology of Christ back to Adam.
Ps 104 is often seen as a poetic version of the creation story and you'd have to say it is very like it.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Alan Cresswell: Again, it's difficult to know what other people thought when they wrote. I see little evidence that they considered the events to be factual either.
Well since most references to the creation story are in the prophetic or apocalyptic parts of the bible you may have a point. There are a few references though.
2 Pet 2:4 and Jude 6 are usually connected with Gen 6, the angels' interfering with the human genealogical line which is often connected with the flood judgement.
2Pet 3:5 refers to the waters of creation. 2 Cor 11:3 refers to the deception of Eve by the serpent.
Hos 6:7 refers to Adam's sin as does Job 31;33. ISTM these references are meant literally.
Lk 3;38 takes the geneology of Christ back to Adam.
Ps 104 is often seen as a poetic version of the creation story and you'd have to say it is very like it.

Well, those are pretty spurious. Many of them only refer obliquely to the Genesis stories in order to make a rhetorical point. Just as Jesus used stories to make his points.

In any case the question always boils down to whether we believe that the writers were using divinely-given revelation as to the veracity of the historical fall or whether they were merely using a commonly known cultural story in order to make a rhetorical point. You can prooftext as much as you like but unless the writer explicitly states the literal historicalness of the story, rather than merely mentioning it in order to back up their theological point, you are shooting in the dark and it comes down to your personal pre-assumptions alone. In such cases there is no evidence either way whether the writer believed in the historical fall or not.

Personally though I would agree with you in that I expect the writers and thinkers of the time probably did believe in it, (though not in the same rationalistic way modern Creation Science believes). But whatever they personally thought about such matters we are forced to confront the question of whether their personal belief was divine truth or mere cultural assumption. We accept the apostles’ and prophets’ words on theological matters and questions of the nature of God, since such matters are divinely revealed to them, but they were still human beings and they must have been mistaken in many ways, not least of all to do with science, history and cosmology. They probably thought the world was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe as well since they didn’t know any better at that time. But if they betray these time and culture-bound preconceptions in their theological arguments, that does not lessen the impact of their theology (though their supporting rhetoric isn’t as powerful as it once was) or of the truths about God that they have revealed.

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Hawk: unless the writer explicitly states the literal historicalness of the story, rather than merely mentioning it in order to back up their theological point, you are shooting in the dark and it comes down to your personal pre-assumptions alone.
Well I'd like to know if others agree here. It seems that kind of bar would lead to very restrictive exegesis.
Its almost like you are looking for reasons you don't have to say the text implies something yet there are countless places we infer from the Bible on issues not directly stated.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Psalm 104 is also a pretty direct steal from an Egyptian hymn to the Aten, with some changes to reflect the reality of when it was incorporated into a book of hymns to Yahweh.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Psalm 104 is also a pretty direct steal from an Egyptian hymn to the Aten, with some changes to reflect the reality of when it was incorporated into a book of hymns to Yahweh.

John

Isn't that another chicken and egg claim vis a vis the Genesis flood story is a 'steal' from the Gilgamesh epic?

Who actually knows these things?

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've always wondered about that. How do they date these things? How do we know how long something floated around in the oral tradition(s) before being committed to hide? Is it possible that the Epic of Gilgamesh and the stories in the Tanakh that it has in common are both from a common ancestor, and not one from the other?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Psalm 104 is also a pretty direct steal from an Egyptian hymn to the Aten, with some changes to reflect the reality of when it was incorporated into a book of hymns to Yahweh.

John

Isn't that another chicken and egg claim vis a vis the Genesis flood story is a 'steal' from the Gilgamesh epic?

Who actually knows these things?

How much does it matter which came first?

...

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The argument goes something like this ...

If the Biblical narratives are derived from earlier stories then they're less likely to be 100% factual, objective accounts of what really happened.

On the other hand, if the Biblical narratives can be declared earlier than similar narratives elsewhere then the other narratives can be declared corruptions of what really happened.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Only the most rabid fundamentalist would want to claim that the events recorded in Genesis 1 - X1 are factual and objective accounts of what really happened.

If the writers were concerned with theology rather than history then it doesnt matter a hoot whether the Flood story is rooted in the Sumerian epic or not. It has a very different theological perspective which is the reason for its existence.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is a thread about Creation Science. Which postulates things like the geological layers being the result of deposition in a Global Flood, that the Earth is about 6000 years old etc. I think we can safely assume that people who accept Creation Science would consider the opening chapters of Genesis to be a fairly accurate account of what actually happened.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The origin of Psalm 104 matters because Psalm 104 was cited as evidence that the account in Genesis is more or less literally true.

The Hymn to the Aten dates from at least 400 years before David (not that I personally believe that David wrote more than a few of the psalms, but people who treat Genesis as roughly literal usually do). It also dates from well before the supposed date of Moses and the Exodus.

The Hymn to the Aten originated in Egypt during the 18th dynasty -- it's found on a tomb af one of the last kings of that dynasty. It might, of course be earlier.

If it reflects any creation myth, it's an Egyptian one.

Now you can (I would) accept that the Genesis acoount is not a special revelation to Moses, but the blending together of a number of stories from different civilizations over several centuries. But I rather doubt that's what biblical literalists are willing to accept.

Just as you can accept (I do) that whoever polished up the psalms for use over a period of several centuries gladly borrowed from what was used in Egypt and many other places over several centuries, to add to original work by any number of authors, one of whom may have been David.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997

 - Posted      Profile for pjkirk   Email pjkirk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Only the most rabid fundamentalist would want to claim that the events recorded in Genesis 1 - X1 are factual and objective accounts of what really happened.

Well, that renders a very large percentage of americans into the rabid fundamentalist category. In 2005, more than half of the country (53%) believed that "God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it." 60% in 2004 believed "The story of Noah and the ark in which it rained for 40 days and nights, the entire world was flooded, and only Noah, his family and the animals on their ark survived" was a literal truth. 64% believed "The story about Moses parting the Red Sea so the Jews could escape from Egypt" to be literally true. [pollingreport.com]

Biblical literalism and YECism doesn't necessarily indicate rabid fundamentalism imo. I find them very sad, but many who hold these to be true do so with none of the passion that your words indicate.

--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)

Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would certainly agree that for many it's less about passion than inertia.

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools