The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

pauldla · 31-10-2012 02:35PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Have you considered that God's views on matters literary may not coincide with yours?:)

Well, if Gods attitdue to matters literary includes "I'll throw in a few fishermans tales, what harm, they'll get the picture", then I have one more axe to grind with Him when I get to the Pearly Gates.

Zombrex · 31-10-2012 07:42PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, we're looking at the whole story here. Is it beyond the bounds of possiblity that particular details could be literary embellishments or hyperbole, and yet the story might have a factual grounding in an actual, but local, flood?

Are you suggesting that the people who wrote the Bible made up what God is directly quoted as saying based on something else he said?

You don't see that as an issue for a Christian?

Peregrinus · 01-11-2012 02:40AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the people who wrote the Bible made up what God is directly quoted as saying based on something else he said?

No. I’m suggesting something a bit more radical than that.

Zombrex wrote: »

You don't see that as an issue for a Christian?

It’s only an issue for a simplistic biblical literalist. Or, it rather curiously seems, for a sceptic.

In the Christian tradition, we read and reflect on scripture prayerfully, collectively, and in the light of reason and experience. And it doesn’t take a great deal of reason, or very much experience, to realize that, in the the expression “God said”, the word “said” means something different to what it means in the expression “Zombrex said”. I can’t converse with God in the way that I can converse with Zombrex.

And this is just a special case of a wider general truth. Everything we say about God is true only in an analogical sense. Human language is constructed upon human experience, and human experience is of the material, empirical world. Hence human language is not well adapted to spiritual realities, and we struggle to find language apt for divinity.

This is not some spacy postmodern sh*t; it goes back to Aquinas, who states explicitly that everything we say about God can be true only in an analogical sense. In fact we can see that it goes back much further. In the Hebrew scriptures God is constantly spoken of as a “father”. Obviously, God is not my actual father; my actual father is a retired accountant who lives in Dundrum. And I think we should accept that when the ancient Hebrews called God “father” they, too, knew that this language was analogical. Similarly, the Hebrew scriptures attribute to God a variety of body parts - hands, a face, even an arse - and they attribute to him concrete actions like walking. And the Hebrews were comfortable with this language while at the same time insisting that God was pure spirit.

So, back to the phrase “God said”. The scriptures very often signal that God saying things is not like anyone else saying things with elaborate turns of phrase - “and the word of the Lord came unto Samuel, saying . . .”. But even where this is not done, it’s still the case that “God said” is analogical language, because it has to be.

In the context of the flood narrative, “God said” is essentially a claim that Noah discerned that God’s purpose being worked out in the flood was revealed to him. Exactly how was it revealed, given that it was unlikely to have been in a conventional conversation? It’s not the author’s purpose to tell us that and, in fact, he almost certainly doesn’t know, given that by the time this text was produced the flood story was already an ancient story. As far as he’s concerned, the question of how God’s purpose was revealed is neither interesting nor important, which is why he skips over it with “God said” (though elsewhere in scripture the ways in which revelation is encountered are sometimes dealt with at some length). The claim he’s making with the “God said” language is that God’s purpose was discerned to have been revealed, and what follows is what was discerned to have been God’s purpose - a discernment necessarily shaped by human knowledge, culture, etc, and expressed in ways which employ human language and therefore human literary and linguistic conventions.

Zombrex · 01-11-2012 12:39PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. I’m suggesting something a bit more radical than that.

It’s only an issue for a simplistic biblical literalist. Or, it rather curiously seems, for a sceptic.

In the Christian tradition, we read and reflect on scripture prayerfully, collectively, and in the light of reason and experience. And it doesn’t take a great deal of reason, or very much experience, to realize that, in the the expression “God said”, the word “said” means something different to what it means in the expression “Zombrex said”. I can’t converse with God in the way that I can converse with Zombrex.

And this is just a special case of a wider general truth. Everything we say about God is true only in an analogical sense. Human language is constructed upon human experience, and human experience is of the material, empirical world. Hence human language is not well adapted to spiritual realities, and we struggle to find language apt for divinity.

This is not some spacy postmodern sh*t; it goes back to Aquinas, who states explicitly that everything we say about God can be true only in an analogical sense. In fact we can see that it goes back much further. In the Hebrew scriptures God is constantly spoken of as a “father”. Obviously, God is not my actual father; my actual father is a retired accountant who lives in Dundrum. And I think we should accept that when the ancient Hebrews called God “father” they, too, knew that this language was analogical. Similarly, the Hebrew scriptures attribute to God a variety of body parts - hands, a face, even an arse - and they attribute to him concrete actions like walking. And the Hebrews were comfortable with this language while at the same time insisting that God was pure spirit.

So, back to the phrase “God said”. The scriptures very often signal that God saying things is not like anyone else saying things with elaborate turns of phrase - “and the word of the Lord came unto Samuel, saying . . .”. But even where this is not done, it’s still the case that “God said” is analogical language, because it has to be.

In the context of the flood narrative, “God said” is essentially a claim that Noah discerned that God’s purpose being worked out in the flood was revealed to him. Exactly how was it revealed, given that it was unlikely to have been in a conventional conversation? It’s not the author’s purpose to tell us that and, in fact, he almost certainly doesn’t know, given that by the time this text was produced the flood story was already an ancient story. As far as he’s concerned, the question of how God’s purpose was revealed is neither interesting nor important, which is why he skips over it with “God said” (though elsewhere in scripture the ways in which revelation is encountered are sometimes dealt with at some length). The claim he’s making with the “God said” language is that God’s purpose was discerned to have been revealed, and what follows is what was discerned to have been God’s purpose - a discernment necessarily shaped by human knowledge, culture, etc, and expressed in ways which employ human language and therefore human literary and linguistic conventions.

That is missing the point. I'm not talking about the physical manner in which the words were uttered (I don't imagine Christians believe, or are supposed to believe, that God speaks by vibrating air).

The point is the meaning. If the meaning of quotes by God are changed, exaggerated, altered, expanded by the human authors of the Bible writing things that were not said then you could say that about anything God says. After all language is simply a way of communicating meaning.

What reason is there to think that when God says he is going to wipe out all land life on Earth (what ever way that message is physically communicated) he isn't actually going to wipe out all land life on Earth?

And why can't we use that same reason to suppose that when he says a man lying with another man is an abomination he doesn't actually mean a man lying with another man is an abomination.

Gerry T · 01-11-2012 12:52PM

Very eloquent Peregrinus but your post goes around in a circle. We can appreciate that the language used in the bible was of that time and era but what are you saying ? is it a record of events or just mish mash ? In simple language are you saying that we shouldn't take the bible literally, but more the meaning from the stories within? So the great flood was a way of conveying God was "cleansing" the world and allowing mankind to have a second chance. Or do you believe the great food was an actual event and there was a boat with two of every animal on board and that all other animals died in the flood. God being God I can understand how he kept salt water from fresh water and how he deposited so much water in 40 days and then after the event took it away. But how did all those animals fit onto a boat made by Noah? Did God build the Ark? Because without power tools it would have taken tens of years to build that Ark, maybe even longer. Did God place all the animals on the boat or did they have to walk there by themselves, polar bears, snakes, insects....... again that’s some journey. Why go to all that trouble, why not just remove from the planet all living creatures bar 2 of each kind? It just doesn't make any sense; archaeologists would have found at some ground level a mass of bones and fossils but if that had been found it would show some evidence.

PDN · 01-11-2012 01:16PM

Gerry T wrote: »

In simple language are you saying that we shouldn't take the bible literally, but more the meaning from the stories within?

Nobody takes all of the Bible literally. Christians, even of the most fundamentalist stripe, recognise that the Bible includes poetry, parables, metaphors and figures of speech. That's how any communication in written language (except maybe a scientific treatise or a legal contract) works.

We all talk about the sun rising and setting without thereby endorsing geocentrism, we refer to kettles boiling (when it's really the water in them that boils), and we make comments about 'everybody' knowing who David and Victoria Beckham are without expecting our hearers to interpret that as denying the existence of communities in the Amazon who have the immense privilege of never having heard of the Beckhams.

Heck, everyone

knows that the French even use the phrase 'tout le monde' when they want to refer to 'everyone'.

tommy2bad · 01-11-2012 01:20PM

We can appreciate that the language used in the bible was of that time and era but what are you saying ? is it a record of events or just mish mash ? In simple language are you saying that we shouldn't take the bible literally, but more the meaning from the stories within?

Gerry thats my take on it, the message is whats important. As the bible, including the gospels, is a collection of books, some history, some poetry some myth, all bound together by being the story of a relationship with God. It's not and never was a running commentary of what happened.

Peregrinus, excellent post, and I would quote it again just because it's so good but I'v nothing to add or disagree with so I just be wasting space.

Gerry T · 01-11-2012 02:39PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Gerry thats my take on it, the message is whats important. As the bible, including the gospels, is a collection of books, some history, some poetry some myth, all bound together by being the story of a relationship with God. It's not and never was a running commentary of what happened.

Ok so people generalise now and again, but when Noah brought 2 of every animal on board was it all the animals he could get his hands on? Say 40 or so? Then I can see him building the boat in time and carrying food for the journey, now it all makes sense. Or was it just a story to portray God’s intention to wipe the slate clean, there was no actual genocide.
But how come God only jumped in thousands of years ago when Humans were primitive in comparison to today? Why didn't he help out with human mass murders? MAO and Stalin took out 120million between them, the Belgium’s ruled the Congo and managed to wipe out 20million there and Hitler who has a worse reputation only killed 10million roughly, not counting the war efforts.
Consider the bible is just a collection of stories, intent on portraying a message; it’s conceivable that the bible was just a work of fiction, not directed by God. Put together by men that wanted a means to control the population of the day, through the vehicle of religion. Plenty of money in doing that, you just have to look at the humble Church today; the Vatican is not short of a few bob. And as recent history has shown God doesn’t jump in to say stop or help out, he seems to leave us to our own devices no matter how cruel or grotesque the acts we perform. So why would he stop men manipulating the population through the rewriting of the bible for their own gains. God probably expects us to choose how we live our lives through the 10 commandments, not the bible. The Church today has vast wealth, hard to get the actual figures but it’s estimated at 10 to 15Billion. What’s that all about??? SO I would say it’s best to judge the custodians of the Bible by what they do not by what they write, it doesn’t offer a compelling argument that God ever existed but is merely a tool to control the population and gather wealth.

Zombrex · 01-11-2012 05:27PM

PDN wrote: »

Nobody takes all of the Bible literally.

Ok, lets put it another way. Should we take nothing in the Bible literally?

When God is quoted as saying he is going to kill all creatures on the surface of the Earth with a big flood what reason is there to not take such a quote literally?

Zombrex · 01-11-2012 05:33PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Gerry thats my take on it, the message is whats important. As the bible, including the gospels, is a collection of books, some history, some poetry some myth, all bound together by being the story of a relationship with God. It's not and never was a running commentary of what happened.

But the message will change significantly based on how literal the passages are.

If a man should not lie with another man is not literal, if fornicating is a sin is not literally, it thou shall not murder not literal, etc then that significantly changes the meaning of these passages.

If the way to salvation is through Jesus is not to be taken literally, then what is the basis of Christianity?

If Moses did not literally exist as described, Jesus did not literally exist as described, if they did not literally say what he said etc then surely the "message" is as meaningful as Star Wars.

tommy2bad · 01-11-2012 05:49PM

OK, maybe Star Wars isn't that far from a good analogy. No actually it's not. SW reflects the culture that it came from, the bible reflects the cultures, plural, that it came from. SW and say Genessis now that might be closer, the bible and a collection of sifi books on the theme of robots having souls, maybe.
Your right that it's hard to know which bits are literal and which bits are metaphor but no harder than knowing the same about any other set of books. Reading is more than just knowing the words.

PDN · 01-11-2012 07:38PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Ok, lets put it another way. Should we take nothing in the Bible literally?

When God is quoted as saying he is going to kill all creatures on the surface of the Earth with a big flood what reason is there to not take such a quote literally?

You would be better to remove that capital E that you slipped in - and simply spell it as 'the earth'.

God is quoted as saying that he would kill all the creatures on kol eret (literally 'the whole land'). It is the same phrase that is used to denote a localised area elsewhere in scripture. For example, the famine in the story of Joseph was throughout the whole land (kol eret) and Saul was ordered to blow a trumpet that would be heard throughout the whole land (kol eret).

The same Hebrew phrase is also used to denote 'everyone' just like the French tout le monde.

So the Genesis account tells how the whole land in which Noah dwelt - everything that he could see around him - would be flooded. And this meant that all the animals that lived on that land, everything that breathed under the sky that he could see, would die.

It is really rather silly to try to artificially force that as if it were making a claim about North America being flooded, or about koala bears being drowned in Australia. The Bible, quite simply, doesn't address such matters.

J C · 02-11-2012 12:54AM

Genesis 6

New International Version (NIV)

Wickedness in the World

6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Noah and the Flood

9 This is the account of Noah and his family.

Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress[c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.[d] 16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit[e] high all around.[f] Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.

I hate to disagree with you ... PDN ... but it sounds like the whole earth was involved ... and indeed the physical evidence for a worldwide extinction and water-based catastrophy ... is to be found all over the earth today ... in the fossiliferous sedimentary and metamorphic rocks that cover about 80% of the surface of the entire Earth!!!:)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_of_the_Earth's_surface_is_covered_by_sedimentary_rocks

Jesus also indicates that the flood was universal (and not local) as he compared His universal return to Earth to the Flood in Mt 24:38-39 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Gerry T · 02-11-2012 02:07AM

Can I suggest that's the 80% of land that's under the oceans :rolleyes:

pauldla · 02-11-2012 03:04AM

JC, maybe some of that is just hyperbole and embellishment...?

Peregrinus · 02-11-2012 04:42AM

Zombrex wrote: »

That is missing the point. I'm not talking about the physical manner in which the words were uttered (I don't imagine Christians believe, or are supposed to believe, that God speaks by vibrating air).

The point is the meaning. If the meaning of quotes by God are changed, exaggerated, altered, expanded by the human authors of the Bible writing things that were not said then you could say that about anything God says. After all language is simply a way of communicating meaning.

What reason is there to think that when God says he is going to wipe out all land life on Earth (what ever way that message is physically communicated) he isn't actually going to wipe out all land life on Earth?

And why can't we use that same reason to suppose that when he says a man lying with another man is an abomination he doesn't actually mean a man lying with another man is an abomination.

I think you’re missing my point. When the Bible says that “God said X” about, e.g., the flood, what that means is that the narrator(s)/writer(s)/editor(s)/compiler(s) of the text are telling us that the subject of the text (who may be, and in the case of Noah probably is, a literary character) discerned God’s purpose in this way. And, on top of that, the way in which the discerned purpose is expressed is culturally mediated.

The purpose may have been imperfectly discerned. Or, the way in which the discernment is expressed may be imperfect, or it may be imperfect to us.

Plus, you need to read this story with a modest degree of thought and intelligence, and as a whole. At the beginning of the story God basically says “You guys are giving me the sh*ts. I’m going to destroy all life on earth”, but at the end he says “I’m never going to do that again. Look, here’s a rainbow.” Now, God is conceived as perfect and immutable, so it’s impossible that God should change his mind. How are we to reconcile this with a story in which God, apparently, changes his mind?

What has changed, in fact, is the discernment of God’s purpose. At the start, God is presented as destroying his own creation because it hasn’t worked out as he had hoped. At the end, God affirms that he’s not going to do this. What this story records is a developing discernment of God, in which the Jewish (or proto-Jewish) people start out by seeing God as a nature God, and a pretty cross one at that, who sends storms and floods and such, but they arrive at a point where they see no, that’s wrong, whatever else natural disasters may be, they are not God having a tantrum.

And this pattern of understanding God in apparently contradictory ways comes up more than once in the Bible. The powerful-nature-God idea is again presented and then rejected in the story of Elijah looking to encounter God in storms, and then earthquakes, and then fires, and not finding him in any of those places before finding him in “a still small voice”. In the same way, the well-known story of Abraham not quite sacrificing his son Isaac when God countermands his own order, is a mythic story to remind the Jews that (unlike their neighbours) they have entertained and then rejected the idea that God demands or accepts human sacrifice. This narrative structure is quite a common literary trope in the Old Testament texts.

The point is the meaning, as you rightly say. And my point is that you can’t hope to arrive at the meaning unless you are going to read the text coherently, and n a way which takes account of genre, culture, function, context, etc. Any attempt to read the flood story which involves picking out a single verse and reading in a way which takes no account of the rest of the story, and in particular of its conclusion, is unlikely to be a fruitful way of finding the meaning.

Peregrinus · 02-11-2012 04:45AM

Gerry T wrote: »

Very eloquent Peregrinus but your post goes around in a circle. We can appreciate that the language used in the bible was of that time and era but what are you saying ? is it a record of events or just mish mash? . . .

This is a false dichotomy. It’s neither of these things. Why would an intelligent, critical, skeptical person think it has to be one or the other?

Peregrinus · 02-11-2012 04:54AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Ok, lets put it another way. Should we take nothing in the Bible literally?

Well, maybe you should interrogate critically your own need to ask that question.
This is a modern obsession. It didn’t preoccupy either the authors or the intended readership of these texts to anything like the extent that it preoccupies the curious alliance of biblical literalists and new atheists. Every time you feel tempted to ask this question, maybe you should engage your meta-critical faculties and instead ask yourself “does it matter whether we take this literally and, if so, why? Does it affect the meaning of the text?”
Should you take things in the bible literally? Much of the time I don’t know, and much of the time I don’t think it greatly matters. But you should take it all as literature.

Peregrinus · 02-11-2012 05:03AM

Zombrex wrote: »

But the message will change significantly based on how literal the passages are.

If a man should not lie with another man is not literal, if fornicating is a sin is not literally, it thou shall not murder not literal, etc then that significantly changes the meaning of these passages.

Oh, right, I see where you’re going with this. You’re not just talking about the history books.

When it comes to the Law, I think this is generally meant to be taken (and was taken) in a fairly straightforward sense. A passage which tells the Jews not to eat blood, lie with another man as with a woman, oppress the widow and the orphan, etc, means pretty much what is says on the can. That’s certainly how it would have been understood by its audience.

But this is subject to an important qualification; these moral codes were practical guides to right living, but that’s not to say that they couldn’t contain symbolic elements. In particular the penalties were there to signify and express social disapproval. In much they way that Irish law imposes a mandatory life sentence for murder but few, if any, murderers spend the rest of their lives in prison, so it’s unlikely that many adulterers or blasphemers were stoned to death under the OT moral codes.

Lantus · 02-11-2012 10:01AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you’re missing my point. When the Bible says that “God said X” about, e.g., the flood, what that means is that the narrator(s)/writer(s)/editor(s)/compiler(s) of the text are telling us that the subject of the text (who may be, and in the case of Noah probably is, a literary character) discerned God’s purpose in this way. And, on top of that, the way in which the discerned purpose is expressed is culturally mediated.

The purpose may have been imperfectly discerned. Or, the way in which the discernment is expressed may be imperfect, or it may be imperfect to us.

Plus, you need to read this story with a modest degree of thought and intelligence, and as a whole. At the beginning of the story God basically says “You guys are giving me the sh*ts. I’m going to destroy all life on earth”, but at the end he says “I’m never going to do that again. Look, here’s a rainbow.” Now, God is conceived as perfect and immutable, so it’s impossible that God should change his mind. How are we to reconcile this with a story in which God, apparently, changes his mind?

What has changed, in fact, is the discernment of God’s purpose. At the start, God is presented as destroying his own creation because it hasn’t worked out as he had hoped. At the end, God affirms that he’s not going to do this. What this story records is a developing discernment of God, in which the Jewish (or proto-Jewish) people start out by seeing God as a nature God, and a pretty cross one at that, who sends storms and floods and such, but they arrive at a point where they see no, that’s wrong, whatever else natural disasters may be, they are not God having a tantrum.

And this pattern of understanding God in apparently contradictory ways comes up more than once in the Bible. The powerful-nature-God idea is again presented and then rejected in the story of Elijah looking to encounter God in storms, and then earthquakes, and then fires, and not finding him in any of those places before finding him in “a still small voice”. In the same way, the well-known story of Abraham not quite sacrificing his son Isaac when God countermands his own order, is a mythic story to remind the Jews that (unlike their neighbours) they have entertained and then rejected the idea that God demands or accepts human sacrifice. This narrative structure is quite a common literary trope in the Old Testament texts.

The point is the meaning, as you rightly say. And my point is that you can’t hope to arrive at the meaning unless you are going to read the text coherently, and n a way which takes account of genre, culture, function, context, etc. Any attempt to read the flood story which involves picking out a single verse and reading in a way which takes no account of the rest of the story, and in particular of its conclusion, is unlikely to be a fruitful way of finding the meaning.

Firstly, both this and your previous post are good +1.

However, you seem to be saying that the words can all be subject to interpretation. The last paragraph is quite interesting. I think you are talking about the story but dont forget that the readers culture and values and ideas and the meaning that certain words have will greatly affect their interpretation of the bible.

At the last count wiki believed that there were around 41,000 distinct branches of christianity. Many people interpreting the bible in very different ways. Thats a huge problem for a message that is meant to be delivered from an absolute entity.

On a side note the idea that an intelligent being can effect such murder on a local/regional/continental/planetary scale (delete as appropriate subject to interpretation) and then give a rainbow as way of saying sorry is quite disturbing. Hardly a hallmark moment.

Peregrinus · 02-11-2012 10:30AM

Lantus wrote: »

Firstly, both this and your previous post are good +1.

Thanks!

Lantus wrote: »

However, you seem to be saying that the words can all be subject to interpretation. The last paragraph is quite interesting. I think you are talking about the story but dont forget that the readers culture and values and ideas and the meaning that certain words have will greatly affect their interpretation of the bible.

Of course. How could it be otherwise?

Lantus wrote: »

At the last count wiki believed that there were around 41,000 distinct branches of Christianity. . .

And the Old Testament texts weren’t written for any of them!

Lantus wrote: »

Many people interpreting the bible in very different ways. Thats a huge problem for a message that is meant to be delivered from an absolute entity.

Well, first of all I don’t think the bible is “a message that is meant to be delivered from an absolute entity”. It’s a record - written from one side of the relationship, and it’s not God’s side - of how a particular people understood their developing relationship with God.

Secondly, yes, the bible is capable of multiple interpretations. That’s inevitable with a multivalent text.

You can go into any newsagent and buy small square books with titles like The Little Book of Ineffable Wisdom which contain trite and simple one-line aphorisms, one per page, for about €2.95. Or you can get page-a-day desk calendars which serve the same function. Whether you’re a believer or not, both experience and common sense should lead you to think it unlikely that a major and enduring world religion believes that fundamental truths about the human and cosmic condition can be reduced to this sh*te. It is unreasonable, unrealistic and irrational to expect scripture to look like that, or to function like that. The scriptures of any religion are going to recognize the depth, complexity and variety of the questions that the human religious impulse addresses.

Lantus wrote: »

On a side note the idea that an intelligent being can effect such murder on a local/regional/continental/planetary scale (delete as appropriate subject to interpretation) and then give a rainbow as way of saying sorry is quite disturbing. Hardly a hallmark moment.

Well, yes. Which is why a simplistic reading of the text is also an improbable one.

J C · 02-11-2012 11:08AM

Gerry T wrote: »

Can I suggest that's the 80% of land that's under the oceans :rolleyes:

You could suggest that ... but you'd be wrong ... sedimentary rocks cover 70-80% of the dry land surfaces as well ... and they can be as deep as 12,000 feet in places ... which indicates that they could only have resulted from water based activity on a worldwide scale.
They are not just found in the Middle East ... they are widespread across all continents ... the limestones and sandstones of Ireland ... the sandstones and shales of North America ... the limestones of Central America ... the sandstones of Australia and North Africa are some of the more obvious examples.

The only places where you don't find Sedimentary rocks are where volcanic rocks were thrust up by enormous lava movements in the later stages of the Flood - to form some of our highest mountain ranges.

PDN · 02-11-2012 11:10AM

Lantus wrote: »

At the last count wiki believed that there were around 41,000 distinct branches of christianity. Many people interpreting the bible in very different ways. Thats a huge problem for a message that is meant to be delivered from an absolute entity.

First off, we've repeatedly nailed on this forum the New Atheist urban legend that there are thousands of denominations each with a differing interpretation of the Bible. In fact most denominations differ from each other in matters of geography history, not in doctrine. So, while it makes an exciting soundbite for rabid anti-religionists, it's probably time to lay that particular untruth to rest.

There are differing interpretations of the Bible among denominations, certainly, and they probably run into the hundreds. And I fail to see why that is a problem.

Human beings are different, and if we all believed everything exactly the same then the world would be a boring place. The Bible fulfills its purpose - which is to tell people about God's love for mankind, and to enable the honest seeker after the truth to be saved. It's hardly the end of the world if people then choose to differ over non-essential details.

Gerry T · 02-11-2012 11:37AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is a false dichotomy. It’s neither of these things. Why would an intelligent, critical, skeptical person think it has to be one or the other?

If the bible is neither "a record of events or just mish mash ?" or put a better way, it’s either an accurate written account of events or someone’s version after the event which they wish to portray in a certain light. There may be many reasons for doing this, and we will never know what the true motive was for their writings, but one theory would be they wrote the version to better suit themselves.
So I can only see two versions the truth or not the truth. It’s either writings by man guided by God or someone’s version of historical events passed down by word of mouth and stories. What other option is there?
If it’s the truth then I find it hard to believe how an all mighty being would create creatures that follow their nature, for this they get eternal damnation in the fires of hell ?? God is all knowing so he knows who will sin and who won't - it just doesn't add up.

Gerry T · 02-11-2012 12:09PM

J C wrote: »

You could suggest that ... but you'd be wrong ... sedimentary rocks cover 70-80% of the dry land surfaces as well ... and they can be as deep as 12,000 feet in places ... which indicates that they could only have resulted from water based activity on a worldwide scale.
They are not just found in the Middle East ... they are widespread across all continents ... the limestones and sandstones of Ireland ... the sandstones and shales of North America ... the limestones of Central America ... the sandstones of Australia and North Africa are some of the more obvious examples.

The only places where you don't find Sedimentary rocks are where volcanic rocks were thrust up by enormous lava movements in the later stages of the Flood - to form some of our highest mountain ranges.

I'm no expert in geology, but my basic understanding would be for fossils and rocks to form they need to be placed under enormous pressure over thousands or milions of years - would the ice age be a more plausable reason for finding such things or am I way of the mark?http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/climate-change/?ar_a=1 These time scales wouldn't really work in the creationist time scales I'm guessing. The last Ice Age is estimated about 2 million years ago, glacial sediment or "till" forms mounds called moraines and elongated oval hills or drumlins, these sedimental deposits were caused by Glacial Ice over millions of years not six months of flooding.

PDN · 02-11-2012 12:10PM

Gerry T wrote: »

If the bible is neither "a record of events or just mish mash ?" or put a better way, it’s either an accurate written account of events or someone’s version after the event which they wish to portray in a certain light. There may be many reasons for doing this, and we will never know what the true motive was for their writings, but one theory would be they wrote the version to better suit themselves.
So I can only see two versions the truth or not the truth. It’s either writings by man guided by God or someone’s version of historical events passed down by word of mouth and stories. What other option is there?

Here's a third option. It is a collection of God-inspired poems, recollections, songs and letters that, when taken together, give a wonderful picture of a relationship between God and His followers.

Try thinking of it as being like the collection of things that a long-married couple share to remind themselves of how precious their marriage is. For example, my wife and I have boxes of letters we've written to each other, ornaments I've bought her while on overseas trips, photographs, stubs of theatre tickets, CDs of music that means a lot to us etc. Take these things altogether and they provide an accurate record of our relationship that we treasure.

But it would foolishness of the highest order to try to examine these items as if my wife and I were recording scientific statements about the universe. Was my statement that "my heart was about to burst" on our first date really an accurate contribution to our understanding of cardiology? Can it be objectively proven that I was "the most handsome man in the world" on our wedding day? As a statement of economics, did I really not "have a penny to my name" when I proposed to her? And how on earth shall we scientifically verify the claim, recorded quite clearly on CD, that I found my thrill on Blueberry Hill?

It seems incredibly anal to me how both Young Earth Creationists and the New Atheists want to pretend that the Bible is somehow making scientific claims that must be either maintained or debunked at all costs. That's one very good reason why such nonsense should be contained in this Megathread where most people will ignore it.

Most Christians believe that the Bible is true and accurate in the subjects that it speaks to. And those subjects are the Nature of God, the problem of human sinfulness, how people can be saved, the building of the Church, and the kind of morals and ethics that God wants His followers to live by.

tommy2bad · 02-11-2012 12:13PM

Gerry T;
it’s either an accurate written account of events or someone’s version after the event which they wish to portray in a certain light.

Or it's an acount of what was learned from events....

So I can only see two versions the truth or not the truth.

Havn't seen Rashomon then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_(film)

If it’s the truth then I find it hard to believe how an all mighty being would create creatures that follow their nature, for this they get eternal damnation in the fires of hell ??

Acording to the bible our nature has been corupted and so we do things that werent in the orignal plan. Begging the question 'so how all powerfull is this God..'
And on it goes.

J C · 02-11-2012 12:51PM

Gerry T wrote: »

I'm no expert in geology, but my basic understanding would be for fossils and rocks to form they need to be placed under enormous pressure over thousands or milions of years - would the ice age be a more plausable reason for finding such things or am I way of the mark?

You are way off the mark ... no amount of pressure or time will form a sedimentary rock in the absence of a cementing agent. It will remain dry sand or mud or whatever.
The cementing agents found in all sedimentary rock are different chemical combinations of Calcium Carbonate (or lime) ... which are the exact chemicals found in man-made hydraulic cement ... which sets rapidly (measured in hours) even under water ... and without any need for heat or pressure!!!
If you want to create an artificial fossil ... just take a leaf and encase it in some freshly made concrete ... leave it a week ... and break it open ... and voila ... you have a leaf imprinted 'fossil' that any fossil humter would be proud of!!!
... leave it a few years ... or add some caustic solution before 'entombing' it ... and the leaf will have completely petrified when you break open the concrete!!

Gerry T wrote: »

http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/climate-change/?ar_a=1 These time scales wouldn't really work in the creationist time scales I'm guessing. The last Ice Age is estimated about 2 million years ago, glacial sediment or "till" forms mounds called moraines and elongated oval hills or drumlins, these sedimental deposits were caused by Glacial Ice over millions of years not six months of flooding.

The lce Age is accepted, even by Evolutionists, as happening less than 10,000 years ago.
They're out by a few thousand years ... but that is a significant improvement on their (in)accuracy in relation to the ages of rocks, for example!!!:)
The ice fomed very rapidly due to massive snow storms precipitated in the steam-filled atmosphere following the Flood and the 'nuclear winter' conditions in the higher latitudes due to all of the dust, volcanic smoke, etc released by the tectonic processes that accompanied the Flood.

You seriously do need to study Creation Geology.:)
Creation Geologists Rock!!!:D

J C · 02-11-2012 01:27PM

PDN wrote: »

Here's a third option. It is a collection of God-inspired poems, recollections, songs and letters that, when taken together, give a wonderful picture of a relationship between God and His followers.

Try thinking of it as being like the collection of things that a long-married couple share to remind themselves of how precious their marriage is. For example, my wife and I have boxes of letters we've written to each other, ornaments I've bought her while on overseas trips, photographs, stubs of theatre tickets, CDs of music that means a lot to us etc. Take these things altogether and they provide an accurate record of our relationship that we treasure.

... a stub of a theatre ticket may trigger great memories of 'fun and games' with your wife ... for you ... but anybody else discovering it would throw it in the bin as a piece of useless litter!!
I don't mean to be dismissive of your obvious romantic tendencies ... I'm merely pointing out that these things are only meaningful to yourself and your wife ... and they are completely meaningless to anybody else.
The Bible is written to be meaningful to everybody who reads it.

The historical accounts in the Bible are written for people to read about these events who weren't there at the time i.e. every one of us!! Therefore the original writer cannot logically assume that we will take any other meaning from it, than what it plainly says!!!
A plain reading of the Bible should therefore be made ... reading historical narrative as historical narrative ... poetry as poetry ... letters as letters ... parables as parables ... etc. etc.

PDN wrote: »

It seems incredibly anal to me how both Young Earth Creationists and the New Atheists want to pretend that the Bible is somehow making scientific claims that must be either maintained or debunked at all costs. That's one very good reason why such nonsense should be contained in this Megathread where most people will ignore it.

The Bible does recount a worldwide flood that was a mass-extinction event ... and we have substantial physical evidence, that such an event did occur, (in the billions of dead things found in sedimentary rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth).
The credibility of the Bible does indeed rest on whether we can trust what it says about the things that we can check ... because if we can't trust it on what we can check ... then why should we trust it on what we cannot check??
... and that is why the Young Earth Creationists and the New Atheists are stuck in a titanic battle over whether the claims that are made in the Bible that we can physically check are proven or can be debunked.
The 'stakes are very high' for both sides ... if the Bible can be verifed on these physical issues that we can check ... then it can be trusted on other issues that we cannot scientifically check ... like the resurrection and the miracles of Jesus, for example ... and the Atheistic position is therefore in deep trouble, as a result.
If the Bible is verified as lying about the Flood or Creation, then it can only be regarded as a menaingless work of fiction written by men with too much time on their hands for the deception of other people ... and the Christian Faith is in deep trouble as a result

The attitude that dismisses serious questions about the accuracy of physical things like Creation and the Flood ... that it is possible to check using forensic scientific methods ... is the main reason why young people raised in Christian homes are abandoning their Faith ... and I wouldn't blame them.

PDN wrote: »

That's one very good reason why such nonsense should be contained in this Megathread where most people will ignore it.

... love it or hate it ... this thread isn't ignored ... this Megathread is contributed to and viewed by so many people that it had to be spit into two threads to avoid the Boards.ie computer 'melting down' under the pressure ...
... with views well over a million (1,210,681 views on the first part and over 30,000 views on this part) ... while most other threads come and go in a few days ... it certainly isn't ignored!!!

PDN wrote: »

Most Christians believe that the Bible is true and accurate in the subjects that it speaks to. And those subjects are the Nature of God, the problem of human sinfulness, how people can be saved, the building of the Church, and the kind of morals and ethics that God wants His followers to live by.

What are the accounts of Creation, The Flood and the various actions, battles, etc recorded in the Bible all about then ... are they fairy stories or downright lies?

Gerry T · 02-11-2012 01:38PM

PDN wrote: »

Here's a third option. It is a collection of God-inspired poems, recollections, songs and letters that, when taken together, give a wonderful picture of a relationship between God and His followers.

I would find this argument more plausible where the stories within the bible are just that, stories conveying a message or lesson rather than true accounts of happenings. Some may have happened others may not. If people wish to follow that faith and lead their life in a way where respect and love are cherished then that’s great and on a side note it's nice to hear you found your "soul mate" if you don't mind me saying. And if someone said that God made the Universe millions of years ago and that he left mankind to evolve from this primordial soup then that would tie in with our understanding of science today. But this tread has debated at length creationism v's evolution and the arguments for evolution seem to look for support from modern day science understanding. The rebuttal from creationist supporters seems to only come from quotations in the bible, which doesn't really help the argument. What’s wrong with living your life, dying and that’s the end of it, why does there have to be an afterlife? This would seem to be a human aspiration, to attach some meaning to their existence. Just as infinity is difficult to understand so too is the finality of death. I came from a catholic upbringing and I hope I still carry core beliefs such as Love, Respect and Charity. You don’t need a God to live your life that way, but if having that faith helps and comforts then I see nothing wrong in that, but was it creation or evolution – I lean towards evolution until the next great flood !

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments