DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: jammindude on April 08, 2012, 12:00:50 PM
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289136/Jesus-died-cross-Christian-scholar-claims.html
I've believed this for quite some time....but I was wondering about everyone else's thoughts on this subject in light of evidence. The article is a year and a half old...but still relevant.
Something that was brought up in another thread just reminded me of how much public opinion and tradition about what happened to Jesus (and even what he looked like) is formed on artwork that was created *CENTURIES* after the fact, and not from the original writings of the Bible. (which, even if you don't believe were *personal* eyewitnesses, you would have to admit that *at the very least, they are not as far removed from the original event)
-
Isn't Dailymail the National Enquire of England?
-
He said: 'The overwhelming number of texts only offer a noun "stauros" or a verb "anastauroun" or "anaskolopizein". In almost every dictionary these terms are said to mean "cross" or "to crucify".
'But as I show in my thesis they are used in a much wider sense than that. The verbs refer to some kind of suspension of a human being - living or dead - while the noun refer to the suspension device used in such suspension.'
Eh. This is the classic word mincing you see in a lot of these discussions, where people try to elevate commonplace words into semi-mythical concepts. Look at the "this generation will not have passed" discussion, or the 6 days of Creation. The internet is littered with supposed alternate meanings of the words, in the faint hope that the author's belief system can remain intact.
rumborak
-
I probably should have made the title more broad. I do want to discuss this specifically...but I was also hoping it would springboard into the other ideas about what people hold onto as tradition vs. what the earliest writings actually say. (i.e...Jesus was not, in fact, a frail Caucasian waif with long hair...)
-
There's definitely a giant layer of doctrine and tradition that only begrudgingly gets admitted to. E.g. the fact that all of those "gospel according to X" were just assigned to disciples at some point later. The texts never claim themselves to be from those authors. When I heard that one the first time my jaw essentially fell to the floor.
rumborak
-
There's definitely a giant layer of doctrine and tradition that only begrudgingly gets admitted to. E.g. the fact that all of those "gospel according to X" were just assigned to disciples at some point later. The texts never claim themselves to be from those authors. When I heard that one the first time my jaw essentially fell to the floor.
rumborak
See, and I would have *never* expected them to. When I read about Jesus' teachings and the example of the angels, I would be suspect if they *did* claim authorship. It would not have fit into the theme of what Jesus taught, and the example we are given.
I look at the work as a whole, but it's not the standard for any Bible writer to claim authorship....because it's immaterial. The Bible writers aren't trying to put the focus on themselves, they are giving all glory (and authorship) to God. Even when a writer does claim authorship, it's a side note. It's not completely UNimportant (I'm not that black and white) but I do think that the "claiming" of "I WROTE THIS" is against the very spirit of what the rest of God's Word is all about.
-
Then why mention who wrote the Gospels? If they didn't matter at all, there wouldn't be names attached to them through tradition.
-
Weeeell, I kinda have to disagree about that. Using the names of prominent disciples for the authorship of the gospels will have made a world of a difference in the early days. There was a very wide range of interpretations of purported events, and even the events themselves, and if you showed up with a gospel that most likely offered a different course of events or the interpretation thereof, the natural question would be "says who?". If you can say "well, says Luke", that's a big plus in terms of veracity.
Your point, that that is immaterial, is spoken from a position where the majority of doctrine and tradition is written in stone essentially, and has been for almost 2000 years. But even then, I would think that if you tell the average churchgoer that the gospels aren't by whom they claim to be, I think the majority would do a double-take, just like I did.
rumborak
-
That's a good point. But my point was more that a lack of a claim should not immediate cause any questions to come to mind. The attitude of those that followed Christ (after some pointed correction) was the opposite of self proclamation. It was more an attitude of "I need not to be figured into the equation"...
I did say that it wasn't completely UNimportant....I was only trying to make the point that not calling attention to oneself is *exactly* what the mark of a follower of Christ was all about.
-
Well on account of what Jesus looked like. He was a Jew so he most likely looked like one. And all that really should matter are his teachings. Basically saying live simple and prosper under a good heart.
-
That's a good point. But my point was more that a lack of a claim should not immediate cause any questions to come to mind. The attitude of those that followed Christ (after some pointed correction) was the opposite of self proclamation. It was more an attitude of "I need not to be figured into the equation"...
I did say that it wasn't completely UNimportant....I was only trying to make the point that not calling attention to oneself is *exactly* what the mark of a follower of Christ was all about.
Oh, I agree, and it was most likely the reason why the gospels have no names attached to them. On the other hand, it's not as easy either; the gospels are written with the intent to persuade their target group and even demarkate themselves from different, "heretical" interpretations. So, one can equally as easy see the gospels as a "weapon" in order to assert one particular group's validity of interpretation. I don't think it's as easy and benign as some guy just sitting down to pay homage to Jesus' life by writing it down. Oral tradition had been in long standing; I think partially the point of writing down a gospel was to put one's particular oral tradition on the same level of authority as something like the Torah. If you got a piece of paper to show you have a very different authority than someone whose knowledge just derives from hearing it.
rumborak
-
I skimmed. I saw rumby's "six days" and being taken literally. I find that I don't know what a day is to God, therefore, it isn't my business to know.
-
"Day" is a rather specific word, with exactly one meaning. Had the writer wanted to get across that it was some obscure "godly timespan", a lot of words could have been chosen.
Same thing with "generation". I can't think of any other meaningful definition of the word than that 20-odd year span. Again, many other words could have been chosen.
Again, the wider point here is that I think it's a testament to some people's desperate attempts to maintain literal integrity of their belief system, by coming forth with linguistic contortions.
rumborak
-
"Day" is a rather specific word, with exactly one meaning.
So, the phrase "...back in my day..." is considered to be a single 24 hour day?
EDIT: from the World English Dictionary - 4th definition: "4. ( sometimes plural ) a period or point in time: he was a good singer in his day ; in days gone by ; any day now."
Your statement is incorrect.
Besides that, statements in Paul's letter's make clear that the seventh day was *still* ongoing in his time (some 4,000 years after it started)... So even within the context of the Bible itself, there is no basis for the teaching that the creative days were literal 24 hour days.
On top of that, you are looking at a single definition of an English word that is a translation for a Hebrew word. The Hebrew word is "yohm" and it's Greek equivalent is "he me' ra". Both of these words have much broader definitions, and can be used figuratively, or even symbolically.
-
Are you really making the argument that "on the first day", "on the second day" is some kind of idiom? Seriously? :lol
And using Paul to argue Genesis, OK.
I dunno, as I said, I'm not sure what it says about a religion if linguistic acrobatics are required to make it work.
rumborak
-
Are you really making the argument that "on the first day", "on the second day" is some kind of idiom? Seriously? :lol
And using Paul to argue Genesis, OK.
rumborak
Yes...I am. And I just presented evidence to back it up. If you wish to laugh it off...more power to you. To me the evidence is pretty black and white.
-
What do you say to the fact that up until recently (or more specificalky, when modern cosmology came around) the passage was interpreted to mean actual days? All of them wrong, for 2000 years?
Besides, seeing you're arguing these points I take it you're a Young Earther, why do you even bother trying to make it work? Can't you just stick to the days? It's never gonna be in line with modern cosmology anyway.
rumborak
-
What do you say to the fact that up until recently (or more specificalky, when modern cosmology came around) the passage was interpreted to mean actual days? All of them wrong, for 2000 years?
Besides, seeing you're arguing these points I take it you're a Young Earther, why do you even bother trying to make it work? Can't you just stick to the days? It's never gonna be in line with modern cosmology anyway.
rumborak
I thought "Young Earthers" were the ones who take the "days" to mean 24 hour days. I'm arguing exactly the opposite.
I don't know why people overlook the fact that Paul points out that we *ARE STILL* in the "day of rest" (the seventh day). But religious leaders have kept the common people ignorant of what God's word has said for *CENTURIES*....so that's really nothing new.
The Bible teaches that we are still living in the seventh day....and it's been going on for 6000 plus years. Who knows how long the other six creative "days" were...but as science has shown, they were obviously very, very long. The earth has been around for millions of years, and the Genesis account does NOT contradict that fact.
-
What I mean is, why all these alternate explanations in the first place? Whether you're arguing that God created Earth in 6 days or 6,000 years, it doesn't matter because it still flies in the face of what modern cosmology says (Earth coalesced out of a stellar gas cloud). So, why bother coming up with these alternate interpretations of passages? If you reject empirical evidence altogether anyway, then you might as well stick to the interpretation that's been valid for the last 2000 years, I.e. that God created the world in 6 literal days.
rumborak
-
What I mean is, why all these alternate explanations in the first place? Whether you're arguing that God created Earth in 7 days or 6,000, it doesn't matter because it still flies in the face of what modern cosmology says (Earth coalesced out of a stellar gas cloud). So, why bother coming up with these alternate interpretations of passages? If you reject empirical evidence altogether anyway, then you might as well stick to the interpretation that's been valid for the last 2000 years, I.e. that God created the world in 6 literal days.
rumborak
You're still not understanding me. By the Bible's own definition, "day" can be an unspecified amount of time in which something specific took place. The second "day" was however long it took for land to appear. The third "day" was however long it took before grass and trees started to form...etc...etc..etc... The Bible is not specific about how long these "days" were. So I don't see how it could contradict science's time frame in any way. They could have been millions of years long. "Day" simply points to the unspecific period of time in which a specific event happened.
-
Err, do you know how science says Earth came about? Even with the "day fix" Genesis is still totally at odds with it. So, the question remains, who are you doing this for? Yourself, so you can think your interpretation jibes with science? Well, it never will. You can't ever reinterpret Genesis enough to make that work. That's why I'm saying you might as well stick with the traditional interpretation.
rumborak
-
Did the Bible actually define "day" as an unspecific amount of time? I thought, like rumborak is saying, that if the word day was being used then it means a 24 hour day because that is how a normal human would interpret such. I mean it's not slang or anything, it's a very real, common term with a very real, common definition.
-
Are you really making the argument that "on the first day", "on the second day" is some kind of idiom? Seriously? :lol
And using Paul to argue Genesis, OK.
I dunno, as I said, I'm not sure what it says about a religion if linguistic acrobatics are required to make it work.
rumborak
Actually, rumby, the Hebrew word yom has many meanings outside of the traditional 24-hour day: it could mean a period of light, or a year, or a vague period of time. Your argument relies on the Hebrew word for day having the same meaning as the English word for day, which is fallacious, because entirely accurate translation is never really possible.
There are a lot of articles on this topic; do a search on Google. (Of course, this doesn't mean that Genesis' days were anything other than literal 24-hour days, but you could argue for each day's being thousands of years if you wanted to.)
-
Err, do you know how science says Earth came about? Even with the "day fix" Genesis is still totally at odds with it. So, the question remains, who are you doing this for? Yourself, so you can think your interpretation jibes with science? Well, it never will. You can't ever reinterpret Genesis enough to make that work.
rumborak
In what way? Does science disagree that small life forms came before larger ones? Not the last time I checked.
I'm trying to say that the Genesis account is actually very vague. *MEN* have tried to make it specific (the 6 literal day people, for example) but they are just claiming that the Bible said things that it never said.
The primary theme of the Bible is NOT a detailed account of creation. Millions of years are summed up in a few paragraphs on page one. I think if you're looking for specific things for the Bible to be "wrong" about, you'll have a tough time...because it doesn't really give enough information to be wrong about.
So what is it you're saying...that the order in which things appeared is out of harmony with science???
-
Did the Bible actually define "day" as an unspecific amount of time? I thought, like rumborak is saying, that if the word day was being used then it means a 24 hour day because that is how a normal human would interpret such. I mean it's not slang or anything, it's a very real, common term with a very real, common definition.
See theseoafs' post. He's spot on with your answer.
-
Jammin, I can only conclude that you either haven't read Genesis in a long time, or a lack of knowledge about cosmology. Genesis is very specific about things that are these days known to not be true. For example Genesis states the stars came after Earth. Totally wrong, no matter your interpretation.
rumborak
-
Jammin, I can only conclude that you either haven't read Genesis in a long time, or a lack of knowledge about cosmology. Genesis is very specific about things that are these days known to not be true.
rumborak
Rummy my friend...I read the Bible every day.
The only thing the Genesis account really does is give us an order in which things appeared...and then I asked you if that's what your scientific research disagrees with.
If it does, we have have to agree to disagree, and that's fine. But I'm actually looking at the book of Genesis as I read this, and I really don't see anything *that* terribly specific other than the order in which things happened.
-
What am I missing here? Genesis says the stars came into being after Earth. And that's obviously wrong. It also says fish came after land animals. Wrong again.
rumborak
-
What am I missing here? Genesis says the stars came into being after Earth. And that's obviously wrong. It also says fish came after land animals. Wrong again.
rumborak
No....it doesn't. It never says the stars came into being after the earth AT ALL.
The fish were created in Genesis 1:20 on the fifth "day"...and land animals were created in verse 24 during the course of the sixth "day".... I'm reading it right now.
-
It does give us a time period in which the heavenly bodies *became visible* from the earth....is that what you're talking about???
-
Sorry, misread the land animals one. Still says birds came before land animals, which is wrong. And the stars are obviously 1:14, by which Earth already has plants. The stars have been around since time immemorial, long before Earth formed.
Also, apparently "light" came after Earth was created. How does that work with science? The sun had been around long before Earth, and light itself, well, since spacetime began.
rumborak
-
Genesis 1:10 - "God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good."
........
Genesis 1:16 - "And God made the two great lights-the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night-and the stars.
So yeah, if you follow the Bible, Earth before the stars.
-
And how can you not say there isn't evidence in the Gospels that he was crucified? All four Gospels say that he was condemned in front of Roman officials to be crucified according to the will of the people. Unless there's some other meaning for crucify, which I don't believe there is.
-
In conclusion, if you want Genesis to be a flowery *but accurate* account, you have to reject cosmology. Which brings me back to the point of why bother inventing those alternate interpretations. We're long past the point where Genesis could be considered an accurate account. If you still want to believe in it you have to reject all empirical evidence, at which point you might as well stay all literal.
rumborak
-
And how can you not say there isn't evidence in the Gospels that he was crucified? All four Gospels say that he was condemned in front of Roman officials to be crucified according to the will of the people. Unless there's some other meaning for crucify, which I don't believe there is.
Read the article. The original Greek word that is translated "cross" in English is "Stauros"
From the Greek Lexicon:
1. an upright stake, esp. a pointed one
-
Here's my question... God spent 6 "days" creating Earth, but he creates the heavens in a blink of an eye? There's billions upon billions of "Earths" out there, and seeing as how this creation story centers solely upon Earth, I think it's fair to say it's a creation story written by people who thought the sun revolved around the Earth, or some other idea which cosmology has thoroughly disproven.
-
Sorry, misread the land animals one. Still says birds came before land animals, which is wrong. And the stars are obviously 1:14, by which Earth already has plants. The stars have been around since time immemorial, long before Earth formed.
Also, apparently "light" came after Earth was created. How does that work with science? The sun had been around long before Earth, and light itself, well, since spacetime began.
rumborak
To me, from the moment "let there be light" is spoken...it is self evident that we are talking about light being visible on the earth. I don't see how people leap to the conclusion that there was no light in existence, at all, anywhere in the universe. I mean....duh. So obviously, the account is talking about light as it is visible from the earth. (I mean, how basic do you wanna make this) So it follows that since we have that foundation of things as they appear from the earth, it follows that the other creative days point out when the sun, moon and stars became visible from the earth.
If you really want to go back to where EVERYTHING was created (as in, earth, moon, sun, stars, universe..."the big bang") you need only look at Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning, God created the heavens [sun, moon, stars, universe] and the earth." Then we start getting into the earth being turned into someplace that life could form....starting with just a general "light", and then actual visible luminaries by the fourth "day.
-
Here's my question... God spent 6 "days" creating Earth, but he creates the heavens in a blink of an eye? There's billions upon billions of "Earths" out there, and seeing as how this creation story centers solely upon Earth, I think it's fair to say it's a creation story written by people who thought the sun revolved around the Earth, or some other idea which cosmology has thoroughly disproven.
Doesn't science teach "the big bang" or something akin to it?
The creation account does focus solely on the earth...so that part of your statement is correct. But the Bible NEVER says that "the sun revolved around the earth"...so that is pure conjecture. Actually, during a time when most humans (and all religions) taught that the earth was flat and riding on the back of a giant sea turtle, the Bible said that the earth was a sphere (English "circle" but the original Hebrew "chugh" meant a spherical circle) and that it was "hanging on nothing"...
-
Trying to pretend that ancient Hebrews knew jack shit about modern cosmology is a huuuuuuuuge stretch.
-
Trying to pretend that ancient Hebrews knew jack shit about modern cosmology is a huuuuuuuuge stretch.
I don't claim they knew anything...as a matter of fact, I'm claiming they *COULDN'T* have....there's no way they could possibly know. If they were writing down what *their* knowledge was, it wouldn't be God's Word...it would be men's.
-
Jammin, do you not feel like you need to twist and knead every single passage to make it work? Every of your responses has required uncommon meanings of words, inferrals ("oh, that part refers to light reaching Earth, not light per se", "the word 'Heavens' here included everything" ) etc etc.
Dunno, but i would expect a supposedly divinely inspired text to not require linguistic resuscitation at every turn.
I'm dying to hear your explanation how the birds came before the land animals.
rumborak
-
The evidence is not absolutely conclusive...
In the book Evolution by biologist Colin Patterson (pg 132) there is a theory that birds may have come before.
But I'm not saying that's conclusive...I'm just saying that it's not an absolute forgone conclusion that *everyone* agrees on.
Add to that that the term used at Genesis 1:20 is "flying creature"...the Hebrew word here is "ohph"...which is another very general term that could mean any number of flying creatures....including insects and all forms of membrane types of flying creatures like the pterosaur.
The most important thing is this. *ALL* (without exception) *ALL* of the claims to the Bible's inaccuracy are based on preconceived notions as to its meaning. NOT what it actually and factually says.
-
OK, this has made the transition from linguistic contortions to plain ridiculousness about membrane creatures that emerged straight out of the sea. Which is the point where I'm going to bed and am happy to be a heathen.
rumborak
-
OK, this has made the transition from linguistic contortions to plain ridiculousness about membrane creatures that emerged straight out of the sea. Which is the point where I'm going to bed and am happy to be a heathen.
rumborak
*This* is your counterargument?
-
Here's my question... God spent 6 "days" creating Earth, but he creates the heavens in a blink of an eye? There's billions upon billions of "Earths" out there, and seeing as how this creation story centers solely upon Earth, I think it's fair to say it's a creation story written by people who thought the sun revolved around the Earth, or some other idea which cosmology has thoroughly disproven.
Doesn't science teach "the big bang" or something akin to it?
Not talking about the big bang, I'm talking about recent plant hunting missions that basically say there's billions of planets in our galaxy alone, and there's billions of galaxies. This is the result of just looking up at the sky.
The creation account does focus solely on the earth...so that part of your statement is correct. But the Bible NEVER says that "the sun revolved around the earth"...so that is pure conjecture. Actually, during a time when most humans (and all religions) taught that the earth was flat and riding on the back of a giant sea turtle, the Bible said that the earth was a sphere (English "circle" but the original Hebrew "chugh" meant a spherical circle) and that it was "hanging on nothing"...
My point wasn't meant to be literal, just that people at that time knew nothing of modern cosmology, and it's evident in the creation story they created. It makes the Earth out to be far more important than it actually is, and humans far more important than they actually are.
Under no scientific theory that I've ever heard about, has the Earth been "hanging on nothing;" if Einstein corrects, it's more like it's lying on something, but even that's a crude pigeonholing to human experience.
Also, for learned people at the time, it was fairly accepted to posit that the earth was round. The circumference had already been calculated pretty accurately, 200 years previously in Egypt. Your claim that they couldn't have known otherwise, is factually wrong. The people who wrote the Bible were more educated than most people at the time, nothing more.
-
Scheavo:
Part 1 - I agree in every respect. To me, the possibly quadrillions of stars and planets only testify to the awesome power of God. But...no one has actually found another "earth"...so it's still just a theory. There are no "class M" planets yet. Only a theory that "there *must* be"...
Part 2 - I find this argument one of the most disturbing lines of thought in the scientific community (not science as a whole). God dignifies people (I'm speaking of God as a separate entity from religion and/or theology, which does precisely the opposite)...whereas the theory of evolution, from my own observation, degrades the human race.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by degrading, but it seems to me it's most accurately putting us in our place. What makes humans "special"? It's not our intelligence. Many whales and Orcas are arguably more intelligent, they just can't build anything with the bodies their given. Cuttlefish show extreme intelligence and creativity, but they have such a short life span (~2-3 years iirc), limiting what they could possibly do. Language? Birds have languages, whales have languages, other primates have languages, dogs have language . Even crows use tools, and pass on culture and teaching to their offspring. What humans are is a species with a unique set of traits, and perhaps one of the more advanced cultures/languages, but I don't think that makes us "better" than other animals.
The extent to which I "degrade" humans, is also the extent to which I "dignify" animals. Other animals are truly fascinating.
-
To me, from the moment "let there be light" is spoken...it is self evident that we are talking about light being visible on the earth. I don't see how people leap to the conclusion that there was no light in existence, at all, anywhere in the universe. I mean....duh. So obviously, the account is talking about light as it is visible from the earth. (I mean, how basic do you wanna make this) So it follows that since we have that foundation of things as they appear from the earth, it follows that the other creative days point out when the sun, moon and stars became visible from the earth.
You are taking liberties with the text and assuming things that it isn't saying.
And whether or not you believe what Genesis says, it is talking about 24-hour days. "The evening and the morning were the first day", "The evening and the morning were the second day", etc. The word for "day" CAN mean other things, but context is used to make that determination. The context here is pretty clear.
-
To me, from the moment "let there be light" is spoken...it is self evident that we are talking about light being visible on the earth. I don't see how people leap to the conclusion that there was no light in existence, at all, anywhere in the universe. I mean....duh. So obviously, the account is talking about light as it is visible from the earth. (I mean, how basic do you wanna make this) So it follows that since we have that foundation of things as they appear from the earth, it follows that the other creative days point out when the sun, moon and stars became visible from the earth.
You are taking liberties with the text and assuming things that it isn't saying.
And whether or not you believe what Genesis says, it is talking about 24-hour days. "The evening and the morning were the first day", "The evening and the morning were the second day", etc. The word for "day" CAN mean other things, but context is used to make that determination. The context here is pretty clear.
With Paul's explanation of still being in the seventh day, God is elaborating on his earlier word. I'm not the one saying those terms are figurative... God's Word's explains itself. Hebrews 4:1-10 makes it pretty clear that the seventh day is thousands of years long. So this isn't a teaching any man came up with...this is straight from God's Word. If you choose to believe that Genesis is talking about 24 hour days, that's your right...but it isn't what the Bible teaches.
-
That is not what Hebrews 4 teaches. There is nothing in there about us presently being in "the seventh day."
-
If you choose to believe that Genesis is talking about 24 hour days, that's your right...but it isn't what the Bible teaches.
It is rather remarkable how you dismiss 2000 years of theology. That the 7 days of Creation were 7 literal days had never been in doubt up until modern cosmology. Then again, nobody has ever questioned that the word "crucify" ever meant anything else but being nailed on a cross.
rumborak
-
Then again, nobody has ever questioned that the word "crucify" ever meant anything else but being nailed on a cross.
rumborak
I'm still kind of wondering exactly what that article is trying to say. The main points seems to be simply that whatever Jesus died on, we shouldn't necessarily assume that it was what we think of as a "cross" today. At least, I think that's what he was saying. And that's probably true. Jesus himself referred to a "cross," as did the NT writers after him. But should we assume it was the kind of "cross" commonly depicted in art and literature? Not necessarily. How would we know?
But there was at least one thing I found troublesome with the argument. The author also seemed to say that Biblical text is silent about how Jesus was attached to whatever he was crucified on, and so we shouldn't assume he was "nailed" to it. That isn't really true either. While there aren't many references, as John records Thomas' infamous skepticism about Jesus having arisen, Thomas wanted as proof to touch the marks of the nails on Jesus' flesh. (John 20:24-26) The think the implication is pretty straightforward. Paul, in making a point about the Jewish law becoming obsolete once Jesus died, makes the point, "This [the Jewish law] he set aside, nailing it to the cross." (Col 2:24) While it is true that this text is not directly addressing how Jesus was crucified, it seems clear enough that Paul is trying to draw a very visual parallel between Jesus death and the passing away of the law, so it would not really make sense for him to reference being nailed to a cross if that was not what in fact happened to Jesus. I'm not really sure what the author was trying to say here.
-
With Paul's explanation of still being in the seventh day, God is elaborating on his earlier word. I'm not the one saying those terms are figurative... God's Word's explains itself. Hebrews 4:1-10 makes it pretty clear that the seventh day is thousands of years long. So this isn't a teaching any man came up with...this is straight from God's Word. If you choose to believe that Genesis is talking about 24 hour days, that's your right...but it isn't what the Bible teaches.
Hebrews 4:10 doesn't say any such thing. And Paul didn't write Hebrews anyway.
And yes, the Bible most certainly does teach that Genesis is talking about 24-hour days. It's right there in Genesis. No linguistic gymnastics required.
What I was taking issue was your explanation that Genesis was dealing with when various forms of light were visible from earth. That is where you are taking liberties with the text.
-
Although most of Genesis is, for obvious reasons, intended by the writers not to be taken literally, it actually makes some claims that are remarkably consistent with modern cosmology.
For example, in accordance with modern cosmology, it accurately predicts that the universe began to exist (there was no word for "universe" in Hebrew and so it is stated as "the heavens and the earth."
Also, in stating that light came into existence before the sun and the moon and the stars, it actually coincides with the Big Bang theory which postulates that light existed before stars formed.
Just thought I'd add that. Don't think too much of it.
-
Although most of Genesis is, for obvious reasons, intended by the writers not to be taken literally, it actually makes some claims that are remarkably consistent with modern cosmology.
For example, in accordance with modern cosmology, it accurately predicts that the universe began to exist (there was no word for "universe" in Hebrew and so it is stated as "the heavens and the earth."
Also, in stating that light came into existence before the sun and the moon and the stars, it actually coincides with the Big Bang theory which postulates that light existed before stars formed.
Just thought I'd add that. Don't think too much of it.
Genesis, like my broken watch, can be appear to be accurate in a couple rare instances too. Like my watch, genesis just doesnt work (or isnt even meant to), and when it appears to be accurate, it is just dumb luck.
-
...Yes...uh
Good one, eric.
-
Cmon, you didnt think that someone wouldnt call out how silly that post was?
Although my watch is, for obvious reasons, not working, and not intended to be used to literally tell what time it is, it actually makes some claims that are remarkably consistent with cronology.
For example, in accordance with modern cronology, my watch accurately predicts the exact correct time, not once, but TWICE, every single day
:lol
-
Boy, I can feel the love, can't you? :P
-
:heart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0_rb3bmYIs&feature=fvst
-
Then again, nobody has ever questioned that the word "crucify" ever meant anything else but being nailed on a cross.
rumborak
I'm still kind of wondering exactly what that article is trying to say. The main points seems to be simply that whatever Jesus died on, we shouldn't necessarily assume that it was what we think of as a "cross" today. At least, I think that's what he was saying. And that's probably true. Jesus himself referred to a "cross," as did the NT writers after him. But should we assume it was the kind of "cross" commonly depicted in art and literature? Not necessarily. How would we know?
But there was at least one thing I found troublesome with the argument. The author also seemed to say that Biblical text is silent about how Jesus was attached to whatever he was crucified on, and so we shouldn't assume he was "nailed" to it. That isn't really true either. While there aren't many references, as John records Thomas' infamous skepticism about Jesus having arisen, Thomas wanted as proof to touch the marks of the nails on Jesus' flesh. (John 20:24-26) The think the implication is pretty straightforward. Paul, in making a point about the Jewish law becoming obsolete once Jesus died, makes the point, "This [the Jewish law] he set aside, nailing it to the cross." (Col 2:24) While it is true that this text is not directly addressing how Jesus was crucified, it seems clear enough that Paul is trying to draw a very visual parallel between Jesus death and the passing away of the law, so it would not really make sense for him to reference being nailed to a cross if that was not what in fact happened to Jesus. I'm not really sure what the author was trying to say here.
Excellent post bosk.
-
Why are people talking about creationism when this thread has nothing to do with creationism?
-
Why are people talking about creationism when this thread has nothing to do with creationism?
The thread topic has nothing to do with creationism, but the content, direction, and discussion of the thread itself obviously does.
-
For example, in accordance with modern cosmology, it accurately predicts that the universe began to exist (there was no word for "universe" in Hebrew and so it is stated as "the heavens and the earth."
To take modern cosmology as saying this, you have to inappropriately use different definitions of the word "universe." At least to make it coherent with Christian theology.
-
I would also say that it's not exactly an intellectual achievement to predict that the universe began to exist.
rumborak
-
My watch is correctly postulating that it will be 5:31 sometime today.
-
My watch is correctly postulating that it will be 5:31 sometime today.
Twice, most likely.
-
Although most of Genesis is, for obvious reasons, intended by the writers not to be taken literally,
Why would you say that?
-
Although most of Genesis is, for obvious reasons, intended by the writers not to be taken literally,
Why would you say that?
It's either that, or you claim that Genesis is literal, in which case there is little choice (without some major hoop jumping) but to make a decision between faith and science, and that's a choice most people are not willing to make.
-
Although most of Genesis is, for obvious reasons, intended by the writers not to be taken literally,
Why would you say that?
It's either that, or you claim that Genesis is literal, in which case there is little choice (without some major hoop jumping) but to make a decision between faith and science, and that's a choice most people are not willing to make.
I dont think he was asking about the reader today taking it literally, but why he thinks the writers of Genesis did not intend it to be taken literally.
-
Yes.
-
Although most of Genesis is, for obvious reasons, intended by the writers not to be taken literally,
Why would you say that?
Are we to believe that days existed before planets and stars existed? Or that God was somehow limited in his power to create existence in an instant and have to create it over a matter of "days"? Or extrapolate that humans lived alongside dinosaurs? And on top of that, which creation account are we to choose?
Genesis 1-11 is actually considered what is referred to as mythological writing. And by that, I do not mean that it is a myth -- I mean that the writers wanted to convey theological and philosophical truths without much care for obeying historical or scientific laws. They were more concerned with conveying truth than historical or scientific details.
-
Are we to believe that days existed before planets and stars existed?
I don't, but apparently the author(s) of Genesis did.
Or that God was somehow limited in his power to create existence in an instant and have to create it over a matter of "days"?
That seems to be the intent of the author of Genesis 1, since God had to rest on the 7th day. That sounds like a limit.
Or extrapolate that humans lived alongside dinosaurs?
What do dinosaurs have to do with Genesis? The author of Genesis didn't know anything about dinosaurs.
And on top of that, which creation account are we to choose?
Well, there are certainly two given in Genesis. Choose whichever one you want, or accept the truth of both.
Genesis 1-11 is actually considered what is referred to as mythological writing. And by that, I do not mean that it is a myth -- I mean that the writers wanted to convey theological and philosophical truths without much care for obeying historical or scientific laws. They were more concerned with conveying truth than historical or scientific details.
The authors wouldn't have differentiated between theological truths and historical truths as we do, and scientific laws or details simply didn't enter into the discussion, as they had no conception of "science."
-
I can believe that Hebrews 2500 years ago weren't as scientifically literate as we are today.
Occam's Razor is your friend.
-
Are we to believe that days existed before planets and stars existed?
I don't, but apparently the author(s) of Genesis did.
Or that God was somehow limited in his power to create existence in an instant and have to create it over a matter of "days"?
That seems to be the intent of the author of Genesis 1, since God had to rest on the 7th day. That sounds like a limit.
Or extrapolate that humans lived alongside dinosaurs?
What do dinosaurs have to do with Genesis? The author of Genesis didn't know anything about dinosaurs.
And on top of that, which creation account are we to choose?
Well, there are certainly two given in Genesis. Choose whichever one you want, or accept the truth of both.
Genesis 1-11 is actually considered what is referred to as mythological writing. And by that, I do not mean that it is a myth -- I mean that the writers wanted to convey theological and philosophical truths without much care for obeying historical or scientific laws. They were more concerned with conveying truth than historical or scientific details.
The authors wouldn't have differentiated between theological truths and historical truths as we do, and scientific laws or details simply didn't enter into the discussion, as they had no conception of "science."
Then it seems that we largely agree. It's not necessary to interpret Genesis literally in order to be called a Christian though (as you may or may not agree).
-
Yes, I agree. I don't believe it literally, although I certainly believe the Truth that it conveys. Something can be true without being LITERALLY true.
For example, if an artist created a sculpture depicting Abraham Lincoln holding an axe over the ankle fetters of a slave, would that sculpture be depicting truth? Of course. But not literally.
So also with the beginning chapters of Genesis.
-
Who decides what is literal and what is not?
-
I also have to say that once Adam and Eve are freed from literal interpretation, it becomes a far more interesting story. A misogynist one, but nonetheless interesting.
rumborak
-
Who decides what is literal and what is not?
apparently DTF does
-
Like with every other book, the reader does. They're stories, and everybody interprets them through their personal context.
rumborak
-
Yes, I agree. I don't believe it literally, although I certainly believe the Truth that it conveys. Something can be true without being LITERALLY true.
For example, if an artist created a sculpture depicting Abraham Lincoln holding an axe over the ankle fetters of a slave, would that sculpture be depicting truth? Of course. But not literally.
So also with the beginning chapters of Genesis.
I agree.
-
Like with every other book, the reader does. They're stories, and everybody interprets them through their personal context.
rumborak
Okay, but if every single person can determine what is true and what is not strictly true how can we have any organized religion? In Catholicism especially I figure there has to be an authority on such things.
-
I would argue that organized religion is the worst kind. The Catholic Church has kept its members in the dark for millennia.
rumborak
-
I would tend to agree, but I'm assuming that most religious folk from the forum will tend to claim to be of a particular faith, and as a matter of their churches I would be interested to know who is in charge of saying what is the literal word of god and what needs to be interpreted a certain way.
-
The guy whose giving all those speeches.
-
in my reading of Scripture, it seems pretty obvious what is literal and what is figurative. I can't think of any right now, but I trust there are exceptions. but in general, the context seems pretty clear
-
Who decides what is literal and what is not?
Some of that does depend on the reader. Which makes many, many interpretations possible.
However, at a certain point it is most beneficial to simply set aside the literal/figurative question. You say, "regardless of whether or not the events of this story actually happened exactly as depicted, what is the point of the story? What is the story saying?"
-
I understand that, but if I say that Jesus being the son of god is figurative, that kinda throws a bit of a monkey wrench into everything, hence why I feel there is some need to an authority on the subject. To me how literal you take the bible can make it anything from the literal word of god to a collection of fairy tales, and that's a bit broad of a brush for such an important work.
I suppose though that what I'm getting at is probably dragging things a bit off topic, so maybe I'll get my thoughts together and make another thread at some point.
-
I see your point, and it gets especially tricky when a section is obviously not meant figuratively, but nonetheless wrong.
rumborak
-
it gets especially tricky when a section is obviously not meant figuratively, but nonetheless wrong.
rumborak
I notice you like to throw things like that out there a lot as if they're true. Care to share any examples of these "not meant figuratively, but nonetheless wrong" sections?
-
I don't see a discussion between the two of us going anywhere else than me pointing out examples, and you quoting the usual stretched explanations. I think we've both been there one too many times.
rumborak
-
it gets especially tricky when a section is obviously not meant figuratively, but nonetheless wrong.
rumborak
I notice you like to throw things like that out there a lot as if they're true. Care to share any examples of these "not meant figuratively, but nonetheless wrong" sections?
Well, stuff like Exodus isn't meant to be figurative. It's supposed to be a history of the nation of Israel. An account that doesn't mesh with actual history.
-
I think geological records could also tell if the Earth was at some point completely submerged in water. Or that all organisms got into a bottleneck of only a few survivors and the repopulated the Earth. Problem is, the flood story is hardly meant figuratively.
rumborak
-
it gets especially tricky when a section is obviously not meant figuratively, but nonetheless wrong.
rumborak
I notice you like to throw things like that out there a lot as if they're true. Care to share any examples of these "not meant figuratively, but nonetheless wrong" sections?
Well, stuff like Exodus isn't meant to be figurative. It's supposed to be a history of the nation of Israel. An account that doesn't mesh with actual history.
If I recall, your argument boils down to, "we haven't found evidence of the Hebrew people at Goshen, so Exodus must be wrong." Lack of discovery of physical evidence of one part of the narrative does not render it "wrong." Got anything new?
-
I think geological records could also tell if the Earth was at some point completely submerged in water.
They sure seem to. E.g., fossils of sea creatures on most of the highest mountain tops of the world (saw some for myself at the top of the Rockies not long ago). Or, e.g., strata of the earth being layered exactly like the layers we saw formed at Spirit Lake in Washington when Mt. St. Helens erupted and caused the lake waters to violently change the strata on some of the surrounding land to change dramatically, laying down layers of strata and causing a petrified forest, which we had previously assumed would have taken millennia to occur naturally.
-
bosk, I think your understanding of geology is severely lacking if you think that's what the records indicate. Seriously, you can't just brush away the rest and just take the stuff you like.
rumborak
-
Or that he apparently doesn't believe in plate tectonics.
-
Seriously, you can't just brush away the rest and just take the stuff you like.
You might do well to think on this statement.
-
I think geological records could also tell if the Earth was at some point completely submerged in water.
They sure seem to. E.g., fossils of sea creatures on most of the highest mountain tops of the world (saw some for myself at the top of the Rockies not long ago). Or, e.g., strata of the earth being layered exactly like the layers we saw formed at Spirit Lake in Washington when Mt. St. Helens erupted and caused the lake waters to violently change the strata on some of the surrounding land to change dramatically, laying down layers of strata and causing a petrified forest, which we had previously assumed would have taken millennia to occur naturally.
Those fossils got on the highest mountains cause those highest mountains used to be the sea floor. The evidence points towards that, it does not point towards the entire earth being under water.
Besides, there's not enough water on the planet to do what you suggest.
-
On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything. I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat. It just is extremely illogical. But a region of a place? Yeah I could see that possibly.
-
On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything. I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat. It just is extremely illogical. But a region of a place? Yeah I could see that possibly.
This is still illogical. There's no physical process for non-eustatic sea level change on that sort of time-scale.
Besides, you'd still need a big-ass boat (bigger than is feasible) to get all the species of even a comparatively poor region, bio-diversity wise. Nevermind that for obvious reasons they wouldn't co-operate or get along.
-
On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything. I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat. It just is extremely illogical. But a region of a place? Yeah I could see that possibly.
This is still illogical. There's no physical process for non-eustatic sea level change on that sort of time-scale.
Besides, you'd still need a big-ass boat (bigger than is feasible) to get all the species of even a comparatively poor region, bio-diversity wise. Nevermind that for obvious reasons they wouldn't co-operate or get along.
Very true. It'd make for a great sitcom though lol.
-
On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything. I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat. It just is extremely illogical. But a region of a place? Yeah I could see that possibly.
This is still illogical. There's no physical process for non-eustatic sea level change on that sort of time-scale.
Besides, you'd still need a big-ass boat (bigger than is feasible) to get all the species of even a comparatively poor region, bio-diversity wise. Nevermind that for obvious reasons they wouldn't co-operate or get along.
Weeelll, the Mediterranean Sea has seen rise and falls of the sea level because it's modulated by the strait of Gibraltar. If I lived on some Greek island surrounded by water and saw the water level rise steadily over a few years, I would look for an explanation.
rumborak
-
On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything. I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat. It just is extremely illogical. But a region of a place? Yeah I could see that possibly.
This is still illogical. There's no physical process for non-eustatic sea level change on that sort of time-scale.
Besides, you'd still need a big-ass boat (bigger than is feasible) to get all the species of even a comparatively poor region, bio-diversity wise. Nevermind that for obvious reasons they wouldn't co-operate or get along.
Weeelll, the Mediterranean Sea has seen rise and falls of the sea level because it's modulated by the strait of Gibraltar. If I lived on some Greek island surrounded by water and saw the water level rise steadily over a few years, I would look for an explanation.
rumborak
But not on the scale that the myth suggests. We're not talking several meters, or dozens. We're talking at the very least hundreds. There's no way that could be limited to a single basin.
Besides, we'd know if an event like that happened.
-
On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything. I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat. It just is extremely illogical. But a region of a place? Yeah I could see that possibly.
This is still illogical. There's no physical process for non-eustatic sea level change on that sort of time-scale.
Besides, you'd still need a big-ass boat (bigger than is feasible) to get all the species of even a comparatively poor region, bio-diversity wise. Nevermind that for obvious reasons they wouldn't co-operate or get along.
Weeelll, the Mediterranean Sea has seen rise and falls of the sea level because it's modulated by the strait of Gibraltar. If I lived on some Greek island surrounded by water and saw the water level rise steadily over a few years, I would look for an explanation.
rumborak
But not on the scale that the myth suggests. We're not talking several meters, or dozens. We're talking at the very least hundreds. There's no way that could be limited to a single basin.
Besides, we'd know if an event like that happened.
Tsunamis, huge flash floods, perhaps the breaking of a glacier damn. Exaggerated? Ya, and it hardly proves "Noah's Flood" true, but it's possible imagine known events that could be unsettling to someone thousands of years ago, who has even less of an idea about whats going on than we do.
-
I think geological records could also tell if the Earth was at some point completely submerged in water. Or that all organisms got into a bottleneck of only a few survivors and the repopulated the Earth. Problem is, the flood story is hardly meant figuratively.
rumborak
Genesis 1-11 is actually considered what is referred to as mythological writing. And by that, I do not mean that it is a myth -- I mean that the writers wanted to convey theological and philosophical truths without much care for obeying historical or scientific laws. They were more concerned with conveying truth than historical or scientific details.
Also to note of the Flood narrative is that it is clearly inspired by the Epic of Gilgamesh of Ancient Babylon. Still even more interesting that geological research suggests that at some point in time about 7000 years ago, as the last ice age began to thaw, the Aegean sea rose to such a level that it carved into the Black sea suddenly, flooding over 60,000 square miles of land in as little as 300 days. Such a cataclysmic event would have killed thousands who settled the area and must have replaced countless more. It would have also inspired countless of stories of a seemingly global flood.
-
I havn't disappeared....I havn't even read all the responses. I just got back from a two day trip to Portland (saw Gotye) and I'm exhausted. Hard to respond when you get *this far* behind.
But I am happy that it apparently led to some lively discussion.
More to come.
-
On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything. I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat. It just is extremely illogical. But a region of a place? Yeah I could see that possibly.
This is still illogical. There's no physical process for non-eustatic sea level change on that sort of time-scale.
Besides, you'd still need a big-ass boat (bigger than is feasible) to get all the species of even a comparatively poor region, bio-diversity wise. Nevermind that for obvious reasons they wouldn't co-operate or get along.
Weeelll, the Mediterranean Sea has seen rise and falls of the sea level because it's modulated by the strait of Gibraltar. If I lived on some Greek island surrounded by water and saw the water level rise steadily over a few years, I would look for an explanation.
rumborak
But not on the scale that the myth suggests. We're not talking several meters, or dozens. We're talking at the very least hundreds. There's no way that could be limited to a single basin.
Besides, we'd know if an event like that happened.
grandcanyontheory
-
Genesis 1-11 is actually considered what is referred to as mythological writing. And by that, I do not mean that it is a myth -- I mean that the writers wanted to convey theological and philosophical truths without much care for obeying historical or scientific laws. They were more concerned with conveying truth than historical or scientific details.
I take a similar stance to Hef's, in that I find it rather nonsensical to talk about whether the writers of Genesis were concerned about "scientific details". The writers were just coming out of the Stone Age. The Stone Age. "History" were stories told, and they were considered as factual as the stories of Ginnungagap for the Norse tribes. I find your particular wording a bit troublesome in that it sounds a lot like a justification for something that can no longer be maintained. Kinda in a "attack is the best defense way": It can't be considered factual, so clearly the writers didn't mean to!
rumborak
-
The idea of crucifixion for a Roman was a penalty only for a serious offense and it almost always was served on traitors. It was used between 6BC and 4AD when Constantine put a stop to it. Also there are Roman documents, again one of Tacitus that does explicitly mention a man by the name of Christus who was executed through crucifixion.
I would argue that organized religion is the worst kind. The Catholic Church has kept its members in the dark for millennia.
What exactly are you basing this one? What is your thesis for The RCC keeping members in the dark or do you like throwing statements out there that are about as useless as a Fox News Report?
-
I take a similar stance to Hef's, in that I find it rather nonsensical to talk about whether the writers of Genesis were concerned about "scientific details". The writers were just coming out of the Stone Age. The Stone Age. "History" were stories told, and they were considered as factual as the stories of Ginnungagap for the Norse tribes. I find your particular wording a bit troublesome in that it sounds a lot like a justification for something that can no longer be maintained. Kinda in a "attack is the best defense way": It can't be considered factual, so clearly the writers didn't mean to!
I think your idea of history and your idea of Biblical writers is quite limited here. Are you implying that literary writers of the Pentatuch did not employ various literary styles but instead told history in a particular "literalistic" style? I hate to tell you but this is not only wrong but has already been shown by historical research to be as distorted as our views on what we think the Dark Ages were all about.
-
I would argue that organized religion is the worst kind. The Catholic Church has kept its members in the dark for millennia.
What exactly are you basing this one? What is your thesis for The RCC keeping members in the dark or do you like throwing statements out there that are about as useless as a Fox News Report?
You might not know this, but I grew up Roman Catholic and was an altar boy for several years. So, I've had Confirmation class and scores of masses under my belt. At no point was it ever pointed out that we're not reading the actual words of Luke and Matthew, but rather documents that were later attributed to those people.
Same with the Spanish Inquisition. The CC tried and killed people left and right in order to maintain their version of things, despite the fact that they well knew those other views were most likely true.
I think your idea of history and your idea of Biblical writers is quite limited here. Are you implying that literary writers of the Pentatuch did not employ various literary styles but instead told history in a particular "literalistic" style? I hate to tell you but this is not only wrong but has already been shown by historical research to be as distorted as our views on what we think the Dark Ages were all about.
And it is a mighty convenient tool to pick out the disproved parts of the Bible and then say "oh, they were meant figuratively". Of course people back in the day were capable of literary devices. But, the most obvious examples (Genesis, The Flood) were not meant figuratively, it's pretty obvious when you read them.
Oh, and BTW, I wasn't talking about the Dark Ages. The OT wasn't written in the Dark Ages, it was written in the Stone Age.
rumborak
-
Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
-
Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
Well, it's as close to bliss as we are likely to get.
-
Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
Well, it's as close to bliss as we are likely to get.
Definitions of bliss must differ greatly then. :)
-
And how can you not say there isn't evidence in the Gospels that he was crucified? All four Gospels say that he was condemned in front of Roman officials to be crucified according to the will of the people. Unless there's some other meaning for crucify, which I don't believe there is.
The Gospels are oral traditions that were written down many years after the events that they are purported to record, and have been modified to suit different audiences in different countries. They are evidence of what people believed to be the truth rather than evidence of any events themselves.
Actually, during a time when most humans (and all religions) taught that the earth was flat and riding on the back of a giant sea turtle, the Bible said that the earth was a sphere (English "circle" but the original Hebrew "chugh" meant a spherical circle) and that it was "hanging on nothing"...
Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_astronomy
The universe of the Hebrew Bible was made up of a flat disc-shaped earth floating on water, heaven above, underworld below.[1] Only in Hellenistic times (after c. 330 BCE) was the older three-level cosmology widely replaced by the Greek concept of a spherical earth suspended in space at the centre of a number of concentric heavens.[1]
On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything. I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat. It just is extremely illogical. But a region of a place? Yeah I could see that possibly.
The Noah story was a direct rip from the Epic Of Gilgamesh with Utnapishtim and a polytheistic religious view being replaced by Noah and a monotheistic view. In order to attract converts to your new, funky monotheistic faith you need to use familiar themes and stories.
Although most of Genesis is, for obvious reasons, intended by the writers not to be taken literally,
Why would you say that?
Because Genesis is largely a PR exercise using familiar Near Eastern stories, themes and motifs an a monotheistic framework.
-
The Gospels are oral traditions that were written down many years after the events that they are purported to record...
Maybe and maybe not. But that is largely irrelevant.
...and have been modified to suit different audiences in different countries.
No, there's not really any evidence for that at all.
Actually, during a time when most humans (and all religions) taught that the earth was flat and riding on the back of a giant sea turtle, the Bible said that the earth was a sphere (English "circle" but the original Hebrew "chugh" meant a spherical circle) and that it was "hanging on nothing"...
Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_astronomy
Um...
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject.
Obviously, given that the references in the article are extremely sketchy. Personally, I'll take the language in a primary source over an article in a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone with a computer.
The Noah story was a direct rip from the Epic Of Gilgamesh
Actually, probably the opposite, given that the flood occurred LONG before the Epic of Gilgamesh was thought up.
Because Genesis is largely a PR exercise using familiar Near Eastern stories, themes and motifs an a monotheistic framework.
See response re Gilgamesh above.
-
...and have been modified to suit different audiences in different countries.
No, there's not really any evidence for that at all.
The gospels are written for specific audiences. You usually claim they just show different aspects of the same thing, but at least Paul and Peter couldn't agree on basic tenets (does one have to be a Jew to be a Christian?), which flies against that. Gospels were tailored and modified to appeal to the target audience.
The Noah story was a direct rip from the Epic Of Gilgamesh
Actually, probably the opposite, given that the flood occurred LONG before the Epic of Gilgamesh was thought up.
There is a difference between when a document was written and the time it plays in.
rumborak
-
The gospels are written for specific audiences.
Of course. But that is not quite the same as:
Gospels were tailored and modified to appeal to the target audience.
...but at least Paul and Peter couldn't agree on basic tenets (does one have to be a Jew to be a Christian?), which flies against that.
Since neither Peter nor Paul claim to have written any of the gospels, I'm not sure how that is relevant even if it were true (which it isn't--Peter and Paul did in fact agree on not only "basic tenets," but on much deeper doctrine as well).
There is a difference between when a document was written and the time it plays in.
Of course. But, for example, if aprocryphal tales suddenly began arising right around now about various types of extreme idealists ramming flying machines into large buildings, and then years later, someone undertook to write a factual description on the 9/11 attacks based on eyewitness reports, it would be silly to infer that the later narrative of 9/11 was based on random the apocryphal tales just because they appear to have been written earlier than the 9/11 narrative. Rather, it makes much more sense to look to the common event that seems to have inspired both and to see which, if any, is the most accurate account of the actual event.
-
When talking about an actual event, your example seems logical. When talking about a common themed myth, the early bird gets the worm.
-
The Gospels are oral traditions that were written down many years after the events that they are purported to record...
Maybe and maybe not. But that is largely irrelevant.
That is the view of your very own Christian and Jewish scholars. Otherwise why would there be large discrepancies in what are purported to be eyewitness accounts? Changes of focus for changes af audience.
...and have been modified to suit different audiences in different countries.
No, there's not really any evidence for that at all
Sorry, your very own scholars disagree. But the irony of a biblical fundamentalist calling for evidence is rather delicious. Thankyou.
Actually, during a time when most humans (and all religions) taught that the earth was flat and riding on the back of a giant sea turtle, the Bible said that the earth was a sphere (English "circle" but the original Hebrew "chugh" meant a spherical circle) and that it was "hanging on nothing"...
Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_astronomy
Um...
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject.
Obviously, given that the references in the article are extremely sketchy. Personally, I'll take the language in a primary source over an article in a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone with a computer.
Plenty of other sources will tell you exactly the same thing. Maybe you just don't want your boat rocked?
https://ncse.com/image/ancient-hebrew-cosmology
The Noah story was a direct rip from the Epic Of Gilgamesh
Actually, probably the opposite, given that the flood occurred LONG before the Epic of Gilgamesh was thought up.
The Noah story is a direct rip from Gilgamesh. Google them and compare. Plate tectonics explain any apparent (ahem!) 'evidence' for a global flood, as you've already been informed.
Because Genesis is largely a PR exercise using familiar Near Eastern stories, themes and motifs an a monotheistic framework.
See response re Gilgamesh above.
Try doing a degree-level theology module on Old Testament biblical literary criticism. You wouldn't last a semester with your flagrant disregard for objective scholarship.
Only since the 19th century have many people even imagined that Genesis was a factual account of the origins of life. For centuries, Jews and Christians used highly allegorical exegesis - literal interpretation was neither possible nor desirable. The oral traditions written down as scripture were supposed to be subjected to an ongoing exegesis - revelation was supposed to be an ongoing process with new meaning being suited to new situations in each generation. To a genuine believer, exegesis is intended to be a spiritual discipline rather than an academic one. To miss that point is to miss the intention of these early writings entirely. I'm surprised that someone as pious as yourself was unaware of this.
-
When talking about an actual event, your example seems logical. When talking about a common themed myth, the early bird gets the worm.
Precisely.
[Lots of unsupported argument]
Not sure who you think "my" Christian and Jewish scholars are, but I have to inform you that I don't have any.
In terms of critical reading and analysis of the source texts and other historical documents, if you want to try to converse about what they and other actual evidence has to say, terrific. If the best you can do is find some secondary, tertiary, or worse source that argues some slick theory you happen to agree with, sorry, not interested. I don't really have the time to debunk every silly theory out there or engage everyone who thinks they wrote a cool paper about something somebody cares about.
I do have to confess, however, that every time I look at your avatar, I halfway feel compelled to just say, "yes, my master," and sit quietly in a corner waiting to do your bidding. :itpoe:
-
When talking about an actual event, your example seems logical. When talking about a common themed myth, the early bird gets the worm.
Precisely.
:lol @ Noah & Flood being actual event.
oh well.....Whatever floats your boat. ;)
-
When talking about an actual event, your example seems logical. When talking about a common themed myth, the early bird gets the worm.
Precisely.
:lol @ Noah & Flood being actual event.
oh well.....Whatever floats your boat. ;)
:clap: Nicely done.
-
When talking about an actual event, your example seems logical. When talking about a common themed myth, the early bird gets the worm.
Precisely.
Indeed - Gilgamesh has been dated by some as being around circa 3000BCE, quite some time before Noah.
The proto Jews had many stories like this handed down through oral tradition that represented eternal truths, not necessarily literal truths. In a subsistence environment your main bugbears are likely to be drought, flood, famine, pestilence, war and the nature of the gods. Not surprisingly many of the stories involve these themes, with the nature of the gods being the primary difference in this example during the difficult transition form polytheism to monotheism.
As eminent scholar Haym Soloveitchik says: translation from oral tradition to written texts can lead to religious stridency by giving the reader an unrealistic certainty over essentially ineffable matters. Too true.
In terms of critical reading and analysis of the source texts and other historical documents, if you want to try to converse about what they and other actual evidence has to say, terrific. If the best you can do is find some secondary, tertiary, or worse source that argues some slick theory you happen to agree with, sorry, not interested.
And what would you call a primary source? The bible? - that copy of a copy of a copy that has been redacted many times over? Heh... why not?
Anyway... let's play:
COMPARISON OF GENESIS AND GILGAMESH
event Genesis / Gilgamesh
Extent of flood - Global / Global
Cause - Man's wickedness / Man's sins
Intended for whom? - All mankind / One city & all mankind
Sender - Yahweh / Assembly of "gods"
Name of hero - Noah / Utnapishtim
Hero's character - Righteous / Righteous
Means of announcement - Direct from / God In a dream
Ordered to build boat? - Yes - Yes
Did hero complain? - Yes / Yes
Height of boat - Several stories (3) - Several stories (6)
Compartments inside? - Many / Many
Doors - One / One
Windows - At least one / At least one
Outside coating - Pitch / Pitch
Shape of boat - Rectangular / Square
Human passengers - Family members only / Family & few others
Other passengers - All species of animals / All species of animals
Means of flood - Ground water & heavy rain / Heavy rain
Duration of flood Long - (40 days & nights plus) / Short (6 days & nights)
Test to find land - Release of birds / Release of birds
Types of birds - Raven & three doves / Dove, swallow, raven
Ark landing spot Mountain -Mt. Ararat Mountain / Mt. Nisir
Sacrificed after flood? - Yes, by Noah / Yes, by Utnapishtim
Blessed after flood? Yes / Yes
Still want to argue that Noah isn't based on Gilgamesh? Even some fundie sites have accepted that.
Not sure who you think "my" Christian and Jewish scholars are, but I have to inform you that I don't have any.
Evidently. Jewish and Christian scholars have been studying the texts you venerate for centuries trying to get closer to the word of God by establishing who wrote what and when, who were the intended audiences and what the interpretations were as well as how they changed through time.
Your attempts to nail potentially ongoing exegesis to a Bronze Age cosmology with 6 inch nails is intellectually bankrupt as well as missing the point altogether.
I don't really have the time to debunk every silly theory out there or engage everyone who thinks they wrote a cool paper about something somebody cares about.
..or the ability, per chance?
Physician, heal thyself. Fundie America is about the only place where anyone will give a literal interpretation of Genesis the time of day. However, I guess there is little point in trying to reason you out of a position that you didn't reason yourself into.
Whatever it takes to get you through the night and all that... It's a great shame you're not prepared to ask questions - you seem like an otherwise smart dude.
Peace.
-
Mostly good post, but the mild ad hominems are unnecessary. Seriously, vigorous discussion is fine, but tone that stuff down. Thanks.
Honestly, you raise some good points, but I simply do not have time to address them. Just a couple of quick shots...
First off, great summary comparison of Gilgamesh vs. the Noah's flood narrative. And, yes, I am aware. I have in fact read both.
Jewish and Christian scholars have been studying the texts you venerate for centuries trying to get closer to the word of God by establishing who wrote what and when, who were the intended audiences and what the interpretations were as well as how they changed through time.
Your attempts to nail potentially ongoing exegesis to a Bronze Age cosmology with 6 inch nails is intellectually bankrupt as well as missing the point altogether.
I do not disagree at all with what you say in the first paragraph. However, there is a subtle yet large scope shift in your argument. I do not disagree with vigorous and careful textual analysis and textual exegesis. However, as is true in any historical/sociological discussion about "what people in time X and place X believed," the answer to what people may have believed is not necessarily the same thing as what a text that may have been authored by someone with a different belief system may have believed. Specifically, what got us started on this subtopic in the first place was mainly jammindude's summary of two biblical passes (one is in Job, and I believe the other is either in Isaiah or Jeremiah, but I can't remember). There have been various sects of Judaism that believed various different things. What they may or may not have believed is not necessarily relevant to textual analysis or exegesis. For purposes of the original point, it is largely irrelevant what scholars think Jews as a whole thought. The point is what the author(s) of the texts in question thought.
..or the ability, per chance?
Depends on the issue. I don't claim to be an expert on all aspects of the much larger topic we are discussing. But, again, that's beside the point. Since we've had a P/R forum on various iterations of these forums (which I believe started in...2005 or so? rumborak, help me out on my dates), we've had tons of such discussions. Ultimately, I don't claim any special credentials and it really doesn't matter whether you respect where I am coming from or not. But for the record, I have in fact spent years studying both the texts in question and the historical, anthropological, sociological, archaeological, etcetriological (I just coined that because it sounded cool :) ) evidence that goes along with it, and have used that in arriving at my conclusions. But that's for me. For the most part, I don't really find it very fun or interesting to re-hash those debates. There was a time when they were interesting and fun, but now I feel like they just mostly miss the point.
Whatever it takes to get you through the night and all that... It's a great shame you're not prepared to ask questions
Again, I've asked a great deal of questions, and continue to do so. But I really don't have the time or inclination to go back over foundational stuff just for the sake of having a debate with someone who isn't really open to other positions. That's not meant to be a shot at you personally or a shot at the discussion process. Just a picking and choosing of where I want to spent the time I have.
-
Again, I've asked a great deal of questions, and continue to do so. But I really don't have the time or inclination to go back over foundational stuff just for the sake of having a debate with someone who isn't really open to other positions. That's not meant to be a shot at you personally or a shot at the discussion process. Just a picking and choosing of where I want to spent the time I have.
In all honesty, who here is actually willing to listen to the other side's opinions when it comes to religion? As a viewer more than a poster on this side of the forum, I notice you all dodge points and questions all of the time. It is then usually written off as "I'm not going to bother explaining so simple that you simply can't seem to understand". More often that not, the other person raises a fair counterpoint and dismissing that seems to be a pretty juvenille approach imo. And I've seen this from both sides on a lot of different issues, and to me it makes this forum more frustrating than interesting to read.
-
Again, I've asked a great deal of questions, and continue to do so. But I really don't have the time or inclination to go back over foundational stuff just for the sake of having a debate with someone who isn't really open to other positions. That's not meant to be a shot at you personally or a shot at the discussion process. Just a picking and choosing of where I want to spent the time I have.
Denying a literal Genesis isn't not being open to other positions. The weight of the evidence against it makes it impossible to defend.
-
Mostly good post, but the mild ad hominems are unnecessary. Seriously, vigorous discussion is fine, but tone that stuff down. Thanks.
You're no fun, you do know that, don't you?
I do not disagree with vigorous and careful textual analysis and textual exegesis. However, as is true in any historical/sociological discussion about "what people in time X and place X believed," the answer to what people may have believed is not necessarily the same thing as what a text that may have been authored by someone with a different belief system may have believed.
You come across as if you believe that the bible was written in isolation from the history and traditions of the peoples who came to be known as the jews. Is that your position? I'm not quite sure.
There came a point when religious writings became more than an attempt to explain why things are the way they are, and moved into the realm of being a rather good way to control the peasants. With the arrival of the city state and 'established' religion, scriptural texts became one of the most powerful social control mechanisms around, and scripture became even more important when jewish people became exiled from their countries and temples where they believed their deities resided.
As far as OT goes, one of the interesting points for me is that Genesis, particularly, involves the weaving of prior sagas into a common framework to appeal to a broad spectrum of proto-Jews. We need to bear in mind that it took a fair old time for the transition from polytheism to monotheism to occur and for the religious journey to arrive at something that we today would recognise as Judaism. Many people were fine with having a tribal war god such as Yahweh supplanting El and his consort Asherah as the head of the pantheon of gods, but many started to drift back towards Baal and the old familiar fertility rituals when crops were tight (much to Hosea's disgust!) - Baal was a fertility God unlike Yahweh, and old traditions run deep. It's no great surprise that these traditions should be hung onto as stories of value and incorporated into a new theology.
There have been various sects of Judaism that believed various different things. What they may or may not have believed is not necessarily relevant to textual analysis or exegesis.
OK. Agreed with the first point as already discussed. I'd say that a full scriptural study covers trying to ascertain what the authors believed, what they wanted to achieve with their writings, and also how exegesis may or may not apprehend these writings as time went on in terms of their continuing relevance to life (or not), as well as what can be said to be literally true based on supporting evidence, if possible.
I don't know whether I have your position right on this, but it appears that you don't allow any facility for the biblical exegesis to be carried on out of its literalist interpretation, regardless of whether or not the text was initially intended to be apprehended literally. I was quite surprised by some of your posting in that you seem to rail against the common idea that biblical stories will speak to people in different ways depending on the area and circumstances in which the stories are read. For me, that beggars the idea of realistic longevity of religious text altogether. 21st century America is a world that would be completely alien to the desert tribes that formulated early biblical texts, and yet we are supposed not to interpret the texts for our own situation? That seems very very odd.
For purposes of the original point, it is largely irrelevant what scholars think Jews as a whole thought. The point is what the author(s) of the texts in question thought..
Indeed. I'd say 'Jews as a whole' isn't really a relevant concept until well after the pentateuch was written. Before then the individual tribes were sufficiently disparate to treated more as a loose collection of tribes with both similarities and differences.
..or the ability, per chance?
Depends on the issue. I don't claim to be an expert on all aspects of the much larger topic we are discussing. But, again, that's beside the point. Since we've had a P/R forum on various iterations of these forums (which I believe started in...2005 or so? rumborak, help me out on my dates), we've had tons of such discussions. Ultimately, I don't claim any special credentials and it really doesn't matter whether you respect where I am coming from or not. But for the record, I have in fact spent years studying both the texts in question and the historical, anthropological, sociological, archaeological, etcetriological (I just coined that because it sounded cool :) ) evidence that goes along with it, and have used that in arriving at my conclusions. But that's for me. For the most part, I don't really find it very fun or interesting to re-hash those debates. There was a time when they were interesting and fun, but now I feel like they just mostly miss the point.
Hmm... would it be a fair assessment to say that you will only countenance the 'evidence' and arguments that argue for a literal interpretation of the bible, and any other arguments will be bent to fit your prior conclusions or otherwise jettisoned altogether? That is the way you come across.
Hell, that's your call, you can believe what you want as far as I'm concerned.
Whatever it takes to get you through the night and all that... It's a great shame you're not prepared to ask questions
Again, I've asked a great deal of questions, and continue to do so. But I really don't have the time or inclination to go back over foundational stuff just for the sake of having a debate with someone who isn't really open to other positions. That's not meant to be a shot at you personally or a shot at the discussion process. Just a picking and choosing of where I want to spent the time I have.
Take your shot, I'm cool with it. Your point about not being open to other positions is a little rich given your propensity for fundamentalism. As a de facto atheist I was open enough to other positions to study some theology at degree level. Are you?
I don't believe in god because there is no good reason to, and because the bible is a human document that reflected certain beliefs during certain times. That said it does contain 'allegorical truths' which don't require the characters in the stories to be true in order to understand the message intended. Having been a teacher of small kids for a few years, they seem to get this more easily that adults do. I think we lose something as we grow up.... in fact I'd say we lose quite a few things!
Personally, I'd say that all knowledge is provisional and subject to review in the light of new evidence and logical reasoning. That is conspicuously absent from a fundamentalist religious belief system.
Again, as far as questions go, you don't appear to ask any questions that may be answered with something that is at odds with a biblical literalist interpretation. But then... that's your call I guess.
..etcetriological (I just coined that because it sounded cool :) )
I quite like that. Mind if I steal it?.. ;D
-
I have a question!
If we are all god's children, then what is so special about Jesus?
-
I have a question!
If we are all god's children, then what is so special about Jesus?
Jesus is like God's kid with the second, hotter, and cooler wife....not the first wife who wears ill-fitting stretch pants who is our Mom. And Jesus is the kid who is better than his first kids (us) at everything, like the sports God grew up playing. And Jesus is a zombie.
-
I have a question!
If we are all god's children, then what is so special about Jesus?
Something about God Incarnate or something...
-
Difference between natural born and adopted
-
Aight, thanks for clearing that up for me guys.
-
Aight, thanks for clearing that up for me guys.
It didnt seem like a serious question.
Serious answer. There is no difference in that he was a regular human being just like everyone else. Obvioulsy a more influential person than the average, but a regular human nonetheless.
Unless you believe in christianity, then you likely already have your answer.
-
Aight, thanks for clearing that up for me guys.
It didnt seem like a serious question.
More of a joke than anything. I probably didn't add too much to the conversation, sorry :P
-
I have a question!
If we are all god's children, then what is so special about Jesus?
Very little until Paul came along and decided that belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus was to be the focus of religion rather than the Jewish Law that was taught by Jesus himself. Were it not for Paul's writings and the later conversion of Roman Emperor to Christianity, followed by Roman Emperor Theodocius making Christianity the official Roman religion, then it is more than likely that Jesus, or should we say Y'shua bin Youssef, would have been just one more defunct apocalyptic prophet amongst many.
-
I don't think it's that simple. Paul was certainly influential, and certainly put the main importance of Jesus as his resurrection rather than his actual teachings, but he wasn't the only one spreading such teachings. For example, there was an active body of Christians in Rome long before he ever got there.
-
I don't think it's that simple. Paul was certainly influential, and certainly put the main importance of Jesus as his resurrection rather than his actual teachings, but he wasn't the only one spreading such teachings. For example, there was an active body of Christians in Rome long before he ever got there.
Oh yes, there's certainly a lot more to it than what I posted there for sure. I'd say Paul was probably the biggest of the movers and shakers though.
-
I don't think it's that simple. Paul was certainly influential, and certainly put the main importance of Jesus as his resurrection rather than his actual teachings, but he wasn't the only one spreading such teachings. For example, there was an active body of Christians in Rome long before he ever got there.
Oh yes, there's certainly a lot more to it than what I posted there for sure. I'd say Paul was probably the biggest of the movers and shakers though.
He's certainly the one that gets the most press, since we still have his writings. But even those indicate that he had rough dealings with other early Christians, including Peter and James, as well as falling-outs with others. I'm not sure that his influence during his lifetime was anything near what it became later.
-
He's certainly the one that gets the most press, since we still have his writings. But even those indicate that he had rough dealings with other early Christians, including Peter and James, as well as falling-outs with others.
Yes indeed, and not surprising given his proposed change of focus.
I'm not sure that his influence during his lifetime was anything near what it became later.
Of course. It took Christianity quite a while to attain a decent foothold and Paul's influence would grow commensurately with that.
-
:tup