Freethought & Rationalism Archive

FunkyRes · 07-15-2002, 08:35 PM

<a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=28609695&m=9960902315" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=28609695&m=9960902315</a>

That's my topic over at arstechnica.
Basically I went over a page posted here and made an attempt to debunk certain alleged contradictions in the bible.

It's a lot of reading, but if anyone here would like to discuss them, it's only fair to give the forum of the site I accuse of posting rubbish a chance to defend itself.

My preference would be to keep discussion to the alleged contradictions and my responses to them, there should be more than enough meat.

I'm html-izing my arguement now, and will post a link for those who prefer not to read it at arstechnica.

Peace <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Vorkosigan · 07-15-2002, 08:58 PM

Are you resedit? If so, you were already answered in that thread. None of the theists posting here are literalists. If you want to argue about literalism, move to Rants, Raves, and Preaching. There you will find many, who will respond to you. Alternatively, <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/index.shtml" target="_blank">The Skeptical Review</a> is a bimonthly on literalism published by Farrell Till, who will be happy to entertain your arguments.

If you want to narrow it down, simply pick a few of the more egregious skeptical errors that you see, and post them here. I am sure a few people will respond.

Frankly most people don't even bother with Biblical literalism -- I assume you mean as modern dispensationalists/fundamentalists practice it -- because it has already been shown by modern scholarship that the Bible is a human construction containing contradictions, errors, rewritings, interpolations, deletions, and just plain nonsense. I genuine respect those who do argue with literalists, because I feel that it is important to do so for reasons I state below.

For example, looking at your response on genesis 1 & 2:

"The very fact that both are recorded right next to each other seems to be a pretty strong indication that the original author didn't have a problem with the conflict, which is the best argument I know of against a literal interpretation of the creation of man."

FunkyRes, Scholars believe that there is no "original author." Genesis 1 & 2 come from two different writers who were combined and redacted by a third. Second, it contains a logical flaw: the fact that some putative author saw no contradiction does not mean that there is no contradiction. Application of simple logic reveals a contradiction; either man came first, or the animals came first, but both cannot be true.

You apparently believe the story is not to be taken literally; that's fine. However, many people do believe that this is not a metaphor or allegory, but literal history, and they make our laws, attempt to rewrite history, turn back science, and in general oppose social progress in the name of their religious facism. One way of combatting them is undermining their assumptions. For people who take the passages literally, pointing out such contradictions may spark a rethinking of their views, and movement toward a more tolerant, progressive, and inclusive social attitude.

Vorkosigan

FunkyRes · 07-15-2002, 09:05 PM

Quote:

FunkyRes, Scholars believe that there is no "original author." Genesis 1 & 2 come from two different writers who were combined and redacted by a third. Second, it contains a logical flaw: the fact that some putative author saw no contradiction does not mean that there is no contradiction. Application of simple logic reveals a contradiction; either man came first, or the animals came first, but both cannot be true.

JEDP is not as well accepted as it use to be.
With regards to the logical flaws- that is an indication that they were never meant to be taken literally, but are different perspectives of the same story.

Vorkosigan · 07-15-2002, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FunkyRes:

JEDP is not as well accepted as it use to be.

Of course, the history is always evolving, and there is quibbling over who wrote what, but nobody serious believes one person wrote both those stories. The Documentary Hypothesis is fundamentally sound, supported by strong methodology, evidence and argument, and scholarly consensus.

[b]With regards to the logical flaws- that is an indication that they were never meant to be taken literally, but are different perspectives of the same story.[/QB]

That's fine. What's your standard for determining when something is to be taken literally and when allegorically?

Vorkosigan

FunkyRes · 07-15-2002, 09:43 PM

Most of the time it is pretty obvious.

Other times require a look into the culture, and we know semitic cultures often encorporated numbers into their stories to convey meaning-

The Epic of Gilgamesh has a flood story that is almost identical to Genesis.

It is actually closer than most people think- gilgamesh uses 7 a lot where Genesis uses 40, both are a number of completion- 40 usually has a cleansing connotation or implies a change (hence 40 years is a generation)

7 is the number in both the creation accounts, which gives us a clue to the point that God completely created, if they are taken as stories.

There is not always agreement on what is literal and what is not, it's a fascinating area of study- but Hebrew as a language loved to employ metaphors in their style of conveying messages.

philechat · 07-15-2002, 10:15 PM

7 as a calender system is found in Chinese and Balinese culture as well. Coincidence? No.

7 is related to the moon cycle. In Chinese funeral, head-7 (first week after death), 4-7 (a luner month), and 7-7 (simple multiplication of basic number 7) were important days in mourning rituals.

It takes new moon 7 days to become half-moon, then another 7 days to become full moon. A knowledge of luner calender would make perfect sense of 7 days being treated as a divinely sanctioned unit.

FunkyRes · 07-15-2002, 10:50 PM

Yes- that fits with Hebrew as well, since they used a lunar calendar !

Vorkosigan · 07-15-2002, 11:24 PM

Most of the time it is pretty obvious.

No doubt this is why there are thousands of Christian denominations, each with a different interpretation. Just think how many there would be if it wasn't obvious.

Other times require a look into the culture, and we know semitic cultures often encorporated numbers into their stories to convey meaning-

The Epic of Gilgamesh has a flood story that is almost identical to Genesis.

Indeed, it is where the hebrews got the story.

There is not always agreement on what is literal and what is not, it's a fascinating area of study- but Hebrew as a language loved to employ metaphors in their style of conveying messages.

Well, sure, there's not always agreement. But you still haven't told me by what principle I am to know which stories are supposed to be taken literally and which allegorically.

RufusAtticus · 07-16-2002, 12:05 AM

Hey, Funky, we are already aware of you Ars thread. (<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=001128" target="_blank">link</a>).

FunkyRes · 07-16-2002, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
Most of the time it is pretty obvious.

No doubt this is why there are thousands of Christian denominations, each with a different interpretation. Just think how many there would be if it wasn't obvious.

You'll find that many of the denominational differences in interpretation are how to interpret the allegory- not wether or not it is allegory.

Quote:

Other times require a look into the culture, and we know semitic cultures often encorporated numbers into their stories to convey meaning-

The Epic of Gilgamesh has a flood story that is almost identical to Genesis.

Indeed, it is where the hebrews got the story.

Can you prove this?
Just because Gilgamesh is dated earlier and is not a work of a religion you need to debunk does not make them the originator of the story.

It is quite possible they got the story from an earlier source, and that the Hebrews also got it from an earlier source (or from someone else who did).

Assumption is bad.
A and B being similar does not prove a took from B, you need more evidence- and other than that they are extremely similar, I have not seen such evidence.

Quote:

There is not always agreement on what is literal and what is not, it's a fascinating area of study- but Hebrew as a language loved to employ metaphors in their style of conveying messages.

Well, sure, there's not always agreement. But you still haven't told me by what principle I am to know which stories are supposed to be taken literally and which allegorically.

Very often it is extremely obvious.
Extremely obvious.

If you want to look at some cases, feel free to post a reference, and I'll give my current view on it and why.

07-15-2002, 08:35 PM	#1
FunkyRes Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Antioch, CA Posts: 173	Problems in the Bible <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=28609695&m=9960902315" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=28609695&m=9960902315</a> That's my topic over at arstechnica. Basically I went over a page posted here and made an attempt to debunk certain alleged contradictions in the bible. It's a lot of reading, but if anyone here would like to discuss them, it's only fair to give the forum of the site I accuse of posting rubbish a chance to defend itself. My preference would be to keep discussion to the alleged contradictions and my responses to them, there should be more than enough meat. I'm html-izing my arguement now, and will post a link for those who prefer not to read it at arstechnica. Peace <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-15-2002, 08:58 PM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Are you resedit? If so, you were already answered in that thread. None of the theists posting here are literalists. If you want to argue about literalism, move to Rants, Raves, and Preaching. There you will find many, who will respond to you. Alternatively, <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/index.shtml" target="_blank">The Skeptical Review</a> is a bimonthly on literalism published by Farrell Till, who will be happy to entertain your arguments. If you want to narrow it down, simply pick a few of the more egregious skeptical errors that you see, and post them here. I am sure a few people will respond. Frankly most people don't even bother with Biblical literalism -- I assume you mean as modern dispensationalists/fundamentalists practice it -- because it has already been shown by modern scholarship that the Bible is a human construction containing contradictions, errors, rewritings, interpolations, deletions, and just plain nonsense. I genuine respect those who do argue with literalists, because I feel that it is important to do so for reasons I state below. For example, looking at your response on genesis 1 & 2: "The very fact that both are recorded right next to each other seems to be a pretty strong indication that the original author didn't have a problem with the conflict, which is the best argument I know of against a literal interpretation of the creation of man." FunkyRes, Scholars believe that there is no "original author." Genesis 1 & 2 come from two different writers who were combined and redacted by a third. Second, it contains a logical flaw: the fact that some putative author saw no contradiction does not mean that there is no contradiction. Application of simple logic reveals a contradiction; either man came first, or the animals came first, but both cannot be true. You apparently believe the story is not to be taken literally; that's fine. However, many people do believe that this is not a metaphor or allegory, but literal history, and they make our laws, attempt to rewrite history, turn back science, and in general oppose social progress in the name of their religious facism. One way of combatting them is undermining their assumptions. For people who take the passages literally, pointing out such contradictions may spark a rethinking of their views, and movement toward a more tolerant, progressive, and inclusive social attitude. Vorkosigan

07-15-2002, 09:43 PM	#5
FunkyRes Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Antioch, CA Posts: 173	Most of the time it is pretty obvious. Other times require a look into the culture, and we know semitic cultures often encorporated numbers into their stories to convey meaning- The Epic of Gilgamesh has a flood story that is almost identical to Genesis. It is actually closer than most people think- gilgamesh uses 7 a lot where Genesis uses 40, both are a number of completion- 40 usually has a cleansing connotation or implies a change (hence 40 years is a generation) 7 is the number in both the creation accounts, which gives us a clue to the point that God completely created, if they are taken as stories. There is not always agreement on what is literal and what is not, it's a fascinating area of study- but Hebrew as a language loved to employ metaphors in their style of conveying messages.

07-15-2002, 10:15 PM	#6
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	7 as a calender system is found in Chinese and Balinese culture as well. Coincidence? No. 7 is related to the moon cycle. In Chinese funeral, head-7 (first week after death), 4-7 (a luner month), and 7-7 (simple multiplication of basic number 7) were important days in mourning rituals. It takes new moon 7 days to become half-moon, then another 7 days to become full moon. A knowledge of luner calender would make perfect sense of 7 days being treated as a divinely sanctioned unit.

07-15-2002, 10:50 PM	#7
FunkyRes Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Antioch, CA Posts: 173	Yes- that fits with Hebrew as well, since they used a lunar calendar !

07-15-2002, 11:24 PM	#8
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Most of the time it is pretty obvious. No doubt this is why there are thousands of Christian denominations, each with a different interpretation. Just think how many there would be if it wasn't obvious. Other times require a look into the culture, and we know semitic cultures often encorporated numbers into their stories to convey meaning- The Epic of Gilgamesh has a flood story that is almost identical to Genesis. Indeed, it is where the hebrews got the story. There is not always agreement on what is literal and what is not, it's a fascinating area of study- but Hebrew as a language loved to employ metaphors in their style of conveying messages. Well, sure, there's not always agreement. But you still haven't told me by what principle I am to know which stories are supposed to be taken literally and which allegorically.

07-16-2002, 12:05 AM	#9
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Hey, Funky, we are already aware of you Ars thread. (<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=001128" target="_blank">link</a>).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.