How do you decide which parts (if any) of the bible are to be taken literally?

iddy

Obviously figures of speech etc are used in various places but as an example do you take the story of Jonah in the whales belly as literal?

]Mat 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in THE WHALE'S belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."[

What about the ages given for people before the flood? Genesis 5:5- "So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died."

How do you decide which parts (if any) of the bible are to be taken literally?

neuro-praxis

By educating yourself on its genres.

PDN

iddy wrote: »

Obviously figures of speech etc are used in various places but as an example do you take the story of Jonah in the whales belly as literal?

Mat 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in THE WHALE'S belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

What about the ages given for people before the flood? Genesis 5:5- "So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died."

How do you decide which parts (if any) of the bible are to be taken literally?

Good question! With 99% or more of the Bible it's quite easy. Most Westerners are actually very skilled at distinguishing what kind of language is literal and what isn't. Every day we decode oral speech, newspaper articles, books etc. that contain a mixture of metaphors and literal language, yet only vary rarely do we mistake one for the other (such mistakes are a staple of sit-coms).

The problem occurs when 'distance' occurs. If I am having a conversation with a Russian, through an interpreter, then the possibility of such misunderstandings is greater. It is even greater if I am communicating with a Kalahari bushman, and it is even greater when I try to read a text written 3000 years ago by someone from a Semitic culture. This is because the distance (both culturally and chronologically) is greater.

Therefore, it should not be surprising to us that we find it much easier to interpret the New Testament than the Old Testament. It is closer to us chronologically, we know a lot about the culture of the time, and it was originally written in a European language that shares many characteristics, concepts and words with English.

To interpret any biblical text there are several things that can help us such as:
1. As full an understanding as possible of the original Hebrew and Greek languages.
2. Comparison with other texts from a similar culture, to see how they use language.
3. Examples from within the same text of what kind of language is used for different types of literature.

Using these it is fairly easy, even with the later Old Testament books, to distinguish different types of literature. For example, most of the Psalms is obviously poetic, most of 2 Kings is historical narrative, Ezekiel Chapter 23 is an extended parable where two wicked and foolish women represent Jerusalem and Samaria.

But when we get back into the oldest stuff, we find ourselves in an unfamiliar world and culture, the dawn of human history and culture, where it becomes much harder to distinguish one kind of language from another.

So biblical scholars, and individual Christians, will not agree about how some passages are supposed to be interpreted. Just like with historians, lawyers, or any other group, we sometimes use the same critical tools but come to different conclusions.

For what it's worth, on the subjects you refer to, I believe:
1. Jonah was a real person who was swallowed by a real fish and, quite possibly, died inside the fish but was raised to life again by God.
2. People did indeed live to great ages before the Flood, but the genealogies are incomplete and so cannot be used to calculate the dates of the most ancient events.
3. There was a Flood, which probably flooded the entire region of the world inhabited by any kind of civilisation at that time.

However, I am aware that other Christians (some of whom are more godly and more intelligent than me) have come to different conclusions. I content myself with the knowledge that none of these things are essential for salvation, and that we are in agreement on the meaning of over 99% of Scripture.

PDN

neuro-praxis wrote: »

By educating yourself on its genres.

neuro-praxis just expressed in 6 words what took a waffling pastor several paragraphs.

neuro-praxis

PDN wrote: »

neuro-praxis just expressed in 6 words what took a waffling pastor several paragraphs.

Yeah, but your post was kind, thoughtful and helpful. Unlike any of my posts. :pac:

Tim Robbins

To the OP, I am an atheist but like to give my opinion on these issues.
I would abstract your question out to how should one know to ever take anything literally? Misunderstandings happen all the time. How can one ever be very confident their interpretation of anything is correct?

More importantly, since this is really all about truth: how can one be confident they have the truth about anything?

Millions of Christians are convinced they have the truth but so are millions of Muslims. They'll both throw out a long list of reasons why they are right and the other side is wrong.

However, that doesn't answer the abstract question which is how can be confident one has the truth about anything?

Luke Kelly

I have my doubt's about the old testament now that science has debunked almost everthing in it and i agree with science but i think some where along the way christ and god was injected into the earth and the new testament seem's more real to me .

iddy

PDN wrote: »

2. People did indeed live to great ages before the Flood, but the genealogies are incomplete and so cannot be used to calculate the dates of the most ancient events.

am i correct in assuming you mean the X begat Y where there is disagreement whether X was Y's father or grandfather? Does it make much difference when dating events?

PDN wrote: »

3. There was a Flood, which probably flooded the entire region of the world inhabited by any kind of civilisation at that time.

World wide flood so?

PDN wrote: »

none of these things are essential for salvation

I agree but does it weaken the foundation if for example you dont believe the account of the fall? when something reads like a normal account of something, is it better to take it as factual even if it doesnt fit into our modern view of things?

stevejazzx

I would consider this quite an issue for modern theologians. There would be appear to be some level of disagreement about literalism particularly with the advent and rise of creationism in the States. Is Noah's ark a literal story? Adam and Eve is largely allegorical but Women will suffer pains in childbirth and Men will toil the field? There seems to be a problem with certain passages which after being declared almost certainly allegorical would appear to contain passages that are quite which literal. I don't think it as easy therefore as understanding the origins, it appears more a case of understanding how the respective passages have been agreed by the various ruling bodies of Christianity over the years and they are generally accepted and interpreted.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

For what it's worth, on the subjects you refer to, I believe:
1. Jonah was a real person who was swallowed by a real fish and, quite possibly, died inside the fish but was raised to life again by God.
2. People did indeed live to great ages before the Flood, but the genealogies are incomplete and so cannot be used to calculate the dates of the most ancient events.
3. There was a Flood, which probably flooded the entire region of the world inhabited by any kind of civilisation at that time.

PDN could you please expand on these ?

You realise that scientific evidence disproves number 2, or rather the lack thereof of evidence disproves it. And scientific evidence can also very likely disprove number 3 depending on what region you are talking about.

And please explain with number 3 if you are supporting mass extinction etc.

Thank you.

iddy

Luke Kelly wrote: »

I have my doubt's about the old testament now that science has debunked almost everthing in it and i agree with science but i think some where along the way christ and god was injected into the earth and the new testament seem's more real to me .

I think part of the problem is that theoretical science and practical science have become confused in peoples minds today. Practical science has sent people to the moon and given us modern technology and can be repeated/verified by experiments.

theoretical science (including big bang / origins) cant be repeated or verified so it falls into the category of belief - not true science.

There is really no such thing as an unbiased viewpoint - if you agree with science you must automatically discount miracles and find a naturalistic reason for events.

The Roman Catholic Church persecuted and supressed the notion that the earth orbited the sun. this turned out to be false so they have steered clear of any other pronouncement that went against science.

The bible doesnt say that the sun orbits the earth so it was man that was incorrect on that point.

PDN

iddy wrote: »

am i correct in assuming you mean the X begat Y where there is disagreement whether X was Y's father or grandfather? Does it make much difference when dating events?

No, that isn't what I mean. Genealogies in the Ancient Near East typically focused on the most prominent of one's ancestors, often missing out many generations. Being called the 'son' of someone didn't just mean that one generation had been skipped, thereby making them your grandfather rather than your father. Jesus, for example, was called the 'son' of David.

So it is entirely possible that the genalogies miss hundreds of generations or more, making them quite useless for calculating dates.

World wide flood so?

Not at all. Human habitation in some parts of the world is actually pretty recent. For example, genetic information suggests that we only reached the Americas about 18,000 years ago. Our ancestors are estimated to have come out of Africa about 100,000 years ago. The Flood could well have been an event when human civilisation was concentrated in the Fertile Crescent - the geographical bottleneck through which our ancestors had to pass in order to go forth and be fruitful and to populate the world.

I agree but does it weaken the foundation if for example you dont believe the account of the fall? when something reads like a normal account of something, is it better to take it as factual even if it doesnt fit into our modern view of things?

I think you misunderstand me. My view of certain parts of Genesis as possibly being something other than historical narrative is nothing to do with whether they fit our modern way of viewing things. It is everything to do with types of literature. If I was convinced 100% that Genesis Chapter One was intended to be understood as literal historical narrative then I would be a Creationist. As it is there is genuine doubt as to what genre of literature it is, therefore I keep an open mind on the subject.

I believe that a Fall occurred, irrespective of whether I read Genesis 1-3 as historical narrative or as an extended metaphor. The type of literature used to describe it does not alter the truth that it occurred.

To use a modern day example. In wikipedia's account of Sir Francis Drake's 1587 expedition it says: In a pre-emptive strike, Drake "singed the beard of the King of Spain" by sailing a fleet into Cádiz and also La Coruña, two of Spain's main ports, and occupied the harbours, destroying 37 naval and merchant ships.

Now, I recognise that Drake did not literally set fire to the beard of the Spanish king, but the use of a metaphor does not cause me to believe that the underlying historical event it describes is therefore untrue.

monosharp wrote:

You realise that scientific evidence disproves number 2, or rather the lack thereof of evidence disproves it.

No, I don't agree. I am unaware of any scientific evidence that proves that certain individuals (where we don't have access to their skeletons etc) did not live to a particular age. It might seem unlikely to you given your presuppositions, but disproved? I think not.

I would also be interested to know how the lack of evidence can disprove something? For example, I have no evidence that I ate a cheese sandwich on the 14th of June 1994. The lack of evidence means I cannot prove that I ate that sandwich, but no rational person would claim that a lack of evidence disproves that I ate the sandwich.

And scientific evidence can also very likely disprove number 3 depending on what region you are talking about.

So you think scientific evidence can prove that there was never a devastating flood at an unspecified time in an unspecified place?

Best of luck with that one!

And please explain with number 3 if you are supporting mass extinction etc.

I'm open to various possibilities. It could be extinction of all members of homo sapiens. Or it could be extinction of those in whom God had created a spirit, that would be where Adam & Eve are interpreted as being the first individuals among homo sapiens to have a spirit breathed into them by God (but not necessarily the first representatives of the species).

As I've already said, I'm open to various possibilities on this, with no compulsion to be dogmatic as to any one interpretation.

PDN

iddy wrote: »

The Roman Catholic Church persecuted and supressed the notion that the earth orbited the sun. this turned out to be false so they have steered clear of any other pronouncement that went against science.

The bible doesnt say that the sun orbits the earth so it was man that was incorrect on that point.

Indeed, the problem was that the Church was just about the only institution where people had the time, education or equipment to do any kind of scientific thinking. Therefore it was not only a religious institution, but also served as the Royal Academy of its day - determining what was accepted as scientific orthodoxy. An exaggerated respect for classical learning and Greek philosophy caused them to uncritically accept Plato and Aristotle's concepts of a geocentric universe. Therefore we ended up with the daft situation where the Church ended up persecuting Bible believing Christians such as Galileo for daring to disagree with pagans like Plato and Aristotle!

iddy

monosharp wrote: »

And please explain with number 3 if you are supporting mass extinction etc.

We're all looking at the same evidence so it depends on how we interpret it.

For example there is an account in the bible that could explain the evidence for the different ages (stone age, iron age etc) and the reason why some primitive tribes have extraordinary knowledge of the cosmos.

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

PDN could you please expand on these ?

In fairness, and in the spirit of the discussion that emerged from the earlier disruption that I was involved in last week, PDN stated that this is what he believes

He didn't state it as a historical or scientific fact.

I've no issue if PDN wants to believe that there was a flood that wiped out civilisation. The evidence suggests otherwise, but that then is a matter of faith. The trusts the Bible.

The issue should be, as far as I'm concerned, when Christians start representing their faith based beliefs as historical or scientific facts. Then it is correct to pipe up and say Hold on a minute.

iddy

PDN wrote: »

Being called the 'son' of someone didn't just mean that one generation had been skipped, thereby making them your grandfather rather than your father. Jesus, for example, was called the 'son' of David.

So it is entirely possible that the genalogies miss hundreds of generations or more, making them quite useless for calculating dates.

if we take this passage as an example

Gen 5 v3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died

This gives adams age when seth was born, and how long he lived after? so even if there were loads of generations skipped its still possible to work out an accurate timeline

monosharp

iddy wrote: »

I think part of the problem is that theoretical science and practical science have become confused in peoples minds today.

snip

theoretical science (including big bang / origins) cant be repeated or verified so it falls into the category of belief - not true science.

Thats complete rubbish. No part of science relies on belief, if you were a scientist and proposed something that relied on belief you would be laughed out of your career.

Please tell me which part of the big bang theory or origins (what is this btw) relies on 'belief' ?

I hope you are talking about a specific aspect of the theory because there is surmountable evidence that the big bang did occur.

Or do you think it means something other then what it actually means ?

PDN

iddy wrote: »

if we take this passage as an example

Gen 5 v3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died

This gives adams age when seth was born, and how long he lived after? so even if there were loads of generations skipped its still possible to work out an accurate timeline

My field of study is more New Testament studies than Old Testament (my Greek being much better than my Hebrew), but I understand that years ago a guy called William Green demonstrated that 'begat' can also mean 'became the ancestor of'. So the quote you give could refer to the date Adam and Eve gave birth to Seth, or possibly the date they gave birth to the child of theirs that would eventually produce Seth.

Here's some more reading on the subject: http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/miscstudies/chronology.htm

Again, I stress I'm not being dogmatic on the issue. I think we sometimes need to be honest enough to say, "I don't know, and I'm open to various possibilities."

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

snip



Thats complete rubbish. No part of science relies on belief, if you were a scientist and proposed something that relied on belief you would be laughed out of your career.

Please tell me which part of the big bang theory or origins (what is this btw) relies on 'belief' ?

I hope you are talking about a specific aspect of the theory because there is surmountable evidence that the big bang did occur.

Or do you think it means something other then what it actually means ?

In the end everything comes down to belief. If you aren't satisfied with the evidence etc. then there's no belief.

However, I'm requesting you to take discussion of the big bang to either a new thread ot to the Creationism thread if appropriate.

This thread started out discussing biblical interpretation, and it is not going to be dragged down one of the usual off-topic rabbit trails. Any further off topic posts (from Christians or unbelievers) will be deleted.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

So it is entirely possible that the genalogies miss hundreds of generations or more, making them quite useless for calculating dates.

+1

Not at all. Human habitation in some parts of the world is actually pretty recent. For example, genetic information suggests that we only reached the Americas about 18,000 years ago. Our ancestors are estimated to have come out of Africa about 100,000 years ago.

+1 & I'm very happy to be in agreement PDN, lets try do this more often ?

The Flood could well have been an event when human civilisation was concentrated in the Fertile Crescent - the geographical bottleneck through which our ancestors had to pass in order to go forth and be fruitful and to populate the world.

I hope this doesn't result in me 'attacking' the bible but actually I recently seen an interesting documentary on exactly that subject.

Location of Eden;

wikipedia wrote:

Southern Mesopotamia and The Persian Gulf

The mouth of the river Tigris, a proposed location of the Garden of Eden.
Archaeologist Juris Zarins claimed that the Garden of Eden was situated at the head of the Persian Gulf, where the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers run into the sea at 29°47′0″N 48°38′0″E, from his research on this area using information from many different sources, including Landsat images from space.[6] In this theory, the Bible’s Gihon River would correspond with the Al-Qurnah in Iraq, and the Pishon River would correspond to the Wadi Al-Batin river system (also now called the Kuwait River) that 2,500-3000 years ago drained the now dry, but once quite fertile central part of the Arabian Peninsula from the Hijaz mountains 600 miles to the South West.
On the History Channel's Decoding the Past, in the episode "Mysteries of the Garden of Eden", it is noted that circa 6000 BC, ocean levels were rising, and that near the present entry of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to the Persian Gulf there are geological traces of two fossil rivers from that time frame entering from east and west of the Persian Gulf, conjectured to be the Pishon and Gihon. The conjecture was presented that the Garden of Eden referred to a low-lying fertile valley in what is now the Persian Gulf, which was flooded when the seas rose past the level of the lowest passes of the mountains near the present Strait of Hormuz.

I found this very interesting actually, the Biblical information about the rivers seemed to be real (although a little flawed) and it would actually make quite a lot of sense. I recommend watching the aforementioned history channel show.

What makes this more compelling is that this area is close to Sumeria, the oldest known civilisation. Whats even more interesting is that the Sumerians worshiped snakes so the snake in the garden could have historic roots, i.e > The old religion of the Sumerians is the snake.

I think you misunderstand me. My view of certain parts of Genesis as possibly being something other than historical narrative is nothing to do with whether they fit our modern way of viewing things. It is everything to do with types of literature. If I was convinced 100% that Genesis Chapter One was intended to be understood as literal historical narrative then I would be a Creationist. As it is there is genuine doubt as to what genre of literature it is, therefore I keep an open mind on the subject.

Come on PDN, don't go there. How could you reject the overwhelming facts of the situation ? Surely it would be better to consider that there may be errors in the writings then that.

If the Bible told you the sun went around the Earth would you believe that ? You couldn't because you've proven yourself to be too intelligent.
Other idiots might and do believe such rubbish but thats not the point. We still have a flat Earth society, if the Bible said the Earth was flat would you not admit that it was an error ?

I believe that a Fall occurred, irrespective of whether I read Genesis 1-3 as historical narrative or as an extended metaphor. The type of literature used to describe it does not alter the truth that it occurred.

And nothing in science disagrees with it.

No, I don't agree. I am unaware of any scientific evidence that proves that certain individuals (where we don't have access to their skeletons etc) did not live to a particular age. It might seem unlikely to you given your presuppositions, but disproved? I think not.

Ah! Sorry we got our wires crossed, I thought you were doing the 'JC thing' where he believes EVERYONE back then lived to be hundreds of years old.

Of course Science cannot prove Adam didn't live to be 1000(?) or Noah 900(?), my apology.

So you think scientific evidence can prove that there was never a devastating flood at an unspecified time in an unspecified place?

No of course not and I refer you to our above conversation.

I get the feeling we have a communication issue about 50% of the time where you think I mean something I didn't mean and vice versa.

I'm open to various possibilities. It could be extinction of all members of homo sapiens. Or it could be extinction of those in whom God had created a spirit, that would be where Adam & Eve are interpreted as being the first individuals among homo sapiens to have a spirit breathed into them by God (but not necessarily the first representatives of the species).

I just had a mad thought. Has anyone done any 'thinking' into the possibility that Adam & Eve are metaphors for homo sapiens and the other people killed in the flood were Neanderthals or something else ?

monosharp

iddy wrote: »

For example there is an account in the bible that could explain the evidence for the different ages (stone age, iron age etc) and the reason why some primitive tribes have extraordinary knowledge of the cosmos.

Really ? Do tell

faceman

Im just a layman so i offer no theological or scientific opinion in my post. Be warned!

As yourself: Which is easier to accept? That Jonah lived for 3 days and nights in the whale's belly or that Adam lived to be 930 years? Then ask yourself, why does it matter.

I dont think anyone from any side will deny that the bible is full of symbolism and metaphorical passages. Trying to decide which is which, is for the large part unimportant. Its the message that counts.

NUmbers and their meaning play a very interesting part in the bible. For exmaple, there is one school of thought that believe that the Book of Revelation, written by John, was actually moreso a news opinion article on the politics of that time. It is believed that the number 666, was originally written 610 but translated incorrectly. Using some form of numerology, you could associate the numbers into letters and either 666 or 610 translated into Caesar. Therefore the beast, referred to Caesar. But its just a theory.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, the problem was that the Church was just about the only institution where people had the time, education or equipment to do any kind of scientific thinking. Therefore it was not only a religious institution, but also served as the Royal Academy of its day - determining what was accepted as scientific orthodoxy. An exaggerated respect for classical learning and Greek philosophy caused them to uncritically accept Plato and Aristotle's concepts of a geocentric universe. Therefore we ended up with the daft situation where the Church ended up persecuting Bible believing Christians such as Galileo for daring to disagree with pagans like Plato and Aristotle!

Can you tell me why you believe the Earth goes around the Sun?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Can you tell me why you believe the Earth goes around the Sun?

Because that appears to be the best explanation for the physical phenomena that Copernicus, Galileo and many others since have observed.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Because that appears to be the best explanation for the physical phenomena that Copernicus, Galileo and many others since have observed.

The same way that the big bang theory is the best explanation we have for the physical phenomena that scientists today observe ? (In no way discounting it was god that 'set the firecracker' so to speak)

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

I hope this doesn't result in me 'attacking' the bible but actually I recently seen an interesting documentary on exactly that subject.

Location of Eden;

I found this very interesting actually, the Biblical information about the rivers seemed to be real (although a little flawed) and it would actually make quite a lot of sense. I recommend watching the aforementioned history channel show.

The calculations seem to be based on a Young Earth Creationism timeline where Eden was 6000 years ago. I would think that untold millenia and a big flood or two probably means there is little chance of having a clue where rivers originally ran.

I normally enjoy watching Discovery Channel, Nat Geo & History Channel - but when they deal with biblical themes and religion they usually dumb it down and ham it up. (Maybe they do that with other subjects but I'm too ill informed to realise how it's being dumbed down for my benefit ).

Come on PDN, don't go there. How could you reject the overwhelming facts of the situation ? Surely it would be better to consider that there may be errors in the writings then that.

I remain theoretically open to the possiblity of errors in the Bible, and also to the possibility that scientific orthodoxy sometimes goes down a blind alley and has to backtrack later.

As it is, I don't see any conflict between the two.

If the Bible told you the sun went around the Earth would you believe that ? You couldn't because you've proven yourself to be too intelligent.
Other idiots might and do believe such rubbish but thats not the point. We still have a flat Earth society, if the Bible said the Earth was flat would you not admit that it was an error ?

I don't see the point in discussing nonsensical hypothetical arguments.

The Bible doesn't say the sun goes round the earth, or that the earth is flat - so discuss that is like discussing what you would do if you discovered you were really a unicorn and your mother was a pink hippopotamos.
My concern, and the subject of this thread, is what the Bible does actuallly say.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

The same way that the big bang theory is the best explanation we have for the physical phenomena that scientists today observe ? (In no way discounting it was god that 'set the firecracker' so to speak)

It may well be. I've not argued against the big bang.

But, like I already said, if you want to discuss the big bang then don't do it in this thread and so drag things off topic.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Because that appears to be the best explanation for the physical phenomena that Copernicus, Galileo and many others since have observed.

You believe because of scientific inference. Scientific inference shows that you can live in whales or live to be 900.

Do you see the inconsistency?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

The calculations seem to be based on a Young Earth Creationism timeline where Eden was 6000 years ago. I would think that untold millenia and a big flood or two probably means there is little chance of having a clue where rivers originally ran.

Thats assuming Eden was millenia ago whereas the show proposed Eden was a metaphor for a hunter-gatherer society before agriculture was discovered.

And actually no, they actually can show quite accurately where rivers 'used' to flow in the past through geology, topography etc.

I normally enjoy watching Discovery Channel, Nat Geo & History Channel - but when they deal with biblical themes and religion they usually dumb it down and ham it up. (Maybe they do that with other subjects but I'm too ill informed to realise how it's being dumbed down for my benefit ).

I agree and your right about other themes too. The history ones, while extremely interesting, sometimes make me want to punch the archeologists interviewed in the face (although its probably more the editing then them).

But its better then X Factor or whatever other rubbish is currently on.

I remain theoretically open to the possiblity of errors in the Bible, and also to the possibility that scientific orthodoxy sometimes goes down a blind alley and has to backtrack later.

Which was the point of my previous (now locked) thread. Science makes mistakes and then it corrects them when new evidence is presented. Whats what science is.

For example gravity is a fact, the 'how' of gravity is a theory and is always changing according to the evidence and it will always continue to change.
Evolution is a fact, the 'how' of evolution is a theory and is always changing according to the evidence and it will always continue to change.

But Christians here seem incapable of accepting an 'error' in the bible regardless of the evidence to support such a view. Which was only supported by your own previous statement that you would become a creationist if you took genesis literally

As it is, I don't see any conflict between the two.

Neither do I. (unless your a fundamentalist literal)

I don't see the point in discussing nonsensical hypothetical arguments.

Its just a question.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

It may well be. I've not argued against the big bang.

But, like I already said, if you want to discuss the big bang then don't do it in this thread and so drag things off topic.

No but I was interested in your opinion.

Ok no more 'big banging' for me here.

iddy

monosharp wrote: »

Really ? Do tell

The account of the tower of babel and the confusion of languages.

Think of what would happen if modern humans had to leave the normal world we live in (and most of what it contains) and move into a wilderness. Shelter would be the first priority so caves would be a good home until we could build something else, so it could be expected that artifacts supporting this would be found by future generations.

If caves became the permanent home we would probably try to decorate (!) them to make them more homely (painting on the walls showing what we know existed but which we dont have the wherewithal to produce now)

Even if we have the knowledge of how to do something (eg how to extract and work ore etc) our first priority would be survival so flint tools would come first.

iddy

PDN wrote: »

I believe that a Fall occurred, irrespective of whether I read Genesis 1-3 as historical narrative or as an extended metaphor. The type of literature used to describe it does not alter the truth that it occurred.

When you read Genesis do you see a difference between the first 3 chapters of Genesis and the rest of the book?

This is really what my original post was about. Aside from the subject discussed there, what is it in the text that leads you to that conclusion?

Zombrex

iddy wrote: »

The account of the tower of babel and the confusion of languages.

Not sure if this is going off topic again (PDN feel free to delete this post), but the issue with taking Babel literally is that we have evidence of different languages emerging at different points, rather than evidence of a single language and then the instant appearance of all other languages.

It would seem difficult therefore to take the story of Babel literally as an historical event. By the time the Babylonians (Babel is the Hebrew for Babylon as far as I know) were on the scene other languages had emerged. The Biblical account that all of humanity were united under one language conflicts with historical evidence.

iddy

monosharp wrote: »

Thats complete rubbish. No part of science relies on belief, if you were a scientist and proposed something that relied on belief you would be laughed out of your career.

The way i see it is somebody starts out observing something and forms a theory on how it works then experiments to prove their theory?

what else would you call that theory but a belief? it may turn out that its correct but it starts with an idea.

PDN

Guys, I've had to delete a number of posts here. This is not a discussion of science. Let's keep it on topic.

iddy

PDN wrote: »

Guys, I've had to delete a number of posts here. This is not a discussion of science. Let's keep it on topic.

Sorry folks, this is my fault. i should have said in original post that this thread was for Christians only.

Luke Kelly

I am christian but some where along the way science came into the frame and i was attacked for partly believing in science and the new testament .

monosharp

Luke Kelly wrote: »

I am christian but some where along the way science came into the frame and i was attacked for partly believing in science and the new testament .

That happens. :pac:

PDN

iddy wrote: »

Sorry folks, this is my fault. i should have said in original post that this thread was for Christians only.

It would be nice to think that non-Christians could also participate in such a discussion without dragging us off-topic. Unfortunately that has not proved possible so far, but I live in hope.