bacht

afaik the bible writers didn't claim to be natural philosophers. By Hellenistic times there was scientific discussion of things like a heliocentric solar system and a spherical earth. The old Mesopotamian stories that Genesis 2 cribbed from were mythology. Genesis 1 is a theological apology for monotheism, emphasizing that every thing in the cosmos was created by the one and only God, and nothing should be idolized as the gentiles did.

I agree that people who read these stories literally are totally off-target.

spin

Actually it was Gen 1 that bears strong connections with Mesopotamian literature, especially the Enuma Elish. Gen 2 is very probably a locally grown creation story, as it is a creation out of a dry sterile earth. Gen 1 is a creation out of the dangerous waters, understandably so, if you lived in Mesopotamia and faced the dramatic floods that infrequently swept down the rivers.

Gen 1 is certainly centered on the Hebrew god, but I don't know if it is a work of monotheism: remember that Marduk created the world, while the other gods basically looked on. It is certainly doing many important religious tasks, enforcing the shabbat, explaining how the world came to be, what god's role was and how powerful he was. The fight between the creator and the chaotic waters, which found center-stage in the Enuma Elish, was sublimated into Gen 1:2 and is barely hinted at elsewhere in the Hebrew bible.

The notion though that the people who wrote the creation stories in Genesis were bumbing goat-herders is crassly ridiculous. We are dealing with people who were well educated in the cultural traditions of the fertile crescent of the time. They were scientifically off the wall, but so were the pre-Socratic philosophers. Then again, the notion of a round earth wasn't particularly rocket scientists, when you consider that sailors who sailed far enough south must have noticed the change in disposition of the stars and of the passage of the planets.


spin

bacht

damn, I think you're right - but yes, these were not illiterate pastoralists - and there are two stories, probably separated in time and origin

angelo

No one is claiming these authors were illiterate, after all they authored the scrolls and what ever.
What I'm saying is that ''scientifically'' they were little more literate than a modern 8 year old school kid.
They may have been well educated in cultural and tribal laws, but knew precious little of the workings of physics. They knew nothing of what caused the rain to fall, let alone that the Earth was a globe orbiting the sun. All that knowledge came centuries after the babble was written.

bacht

No argument from me. If you're referring to Intelligent Design/Creationist "young earth" proponents then yes, there is no reason to parse Genesis as if it were a physics text.

This is closer to Bibliolatry, worshipping the text more than the Author. And I still think that N Americans have a greater reverence for the ancients than people in the Old World.

angelo

Some people say that the bible is word of god, but not one has produced evidence that this is so. It's not word of god, but word of man claiming to speak for their god.
What are they? Ventriloquists? Is that all man is? It appears so doesn't it.
What has happened to god's tongue, eaten by the cat?
In the O/T, he always appeared to have something to say, to his chosen ventriloquist.
What has happened between then and now?
What has happened is that man had started to not believe that nonsense.
If some crackpot today claimed to be able to speak to god, most people would ignore the person as been delusional and walk away.
Yet they don't do so with the babble.
The delusional person who claimed to be guided by god then, is still the same person today, difference been, today we laugh at such outrages claims.

jbarntt

Some people say a lot of things, some even say that the Bible is not the word of God. Some people have offered no evidence for what they say, and you are one of those people who say things but offer nothing other than what you say.

Your post is a waste of pixels.

angelo

jbarntt, what proof do you bring to this discussion? I presume you have something to prove that what's written in the babble is a word of some god?
I await with bated breath.

spin

You're in the wrong forum. We do BC&H here, not apprentice bible-slagging.

We actually try to deal with the text and its meanings. We don't froth at the mouth here about a text being, or not being, the word of a god. Most people here are infidels and do not take the bible to be anything other than an old book reflecting two cultures' traditions, a book which is being misused these days by people, who are too busy believing to read it for what it says and is. You also appear to be too busy to read it for what it is. You don't seem to be interested in the book at all. Hence you're in the wrong forum. Why don't you look elsewhere for some christians to bait -- which is what you want to do --, rather than this display of your lack of interest in BC&H?

Your target isn't really the book: it's the believers. I don't see you bleeding at the ears about the babble in Greek, Roman or Egyptian religious writings. It's plainly not the book. So get over it.


spin

jbarntt

First of all we are discussing the Bible, your reference to it as "the babble" is juvenile. I am not religious, I am not a Jew or a Christian. I assume you will appreciate the significance of that statement, as it is one that no believer would make.

Further the historical accuracy of the Bible is not an all or nothing proposition. It is quite possible and indeed highly likely that some parts are accurate, some are just myth, and some are somewhere in between.