Dean Anderson

Your "reminder" is a joke.

As anyone (except, apparently, you) can see; the portion of my text you quote is talking about the idiolect of the author of the book of Isaiah - i.e. how his writing style is recognisable based on the way he uses words in different contexts to the other writers of the Bible.

This was in no way any kind of attempt to argue about the ideas and beliefs that the author had.

Once again, you appear to have completely misunderstood what I was talking about.

The Christian Inerrantist reading retroactively ascribes its own belief system to the Hebrew writers, rather than looking at what the writers' actual beliefs were.

Of course, having forced its own interpretation based on its beliefs onto the texts, it then proclaims that the that the original writers' beliefs must match its own beliefs because of this interpretation.

This circular logic (Christianity is true, therefore the Hebrew Bible must have been written with the Christian God and mythology in mind, therefore the correct way to interpret the Hebrew Bible is as a foreward to the New Testament, therefore the Hebrew Bible supports the New Testament when interpreted "correctly", therefore the Bible supports Christianity, therefore Christianity is true...) underlies Christian theology.

No. I am making the well evidenced assumption that the beliefs of the Hebrew writers were influenced by the society that they lived in - the society that produced the Enuma Elish.

Because the whole premise of the debate was that the Bible was literally true - not symbolically or metaphorically true.

I was comparing Gap Theology to an Inerrantist view of the Genesis text - not a realistic view of what the Author of Genesis meant. The Inerrantist view (as explicitly specified in the Chicago Statement) does not allow for "symbolic" truth - only "literal historic" truth.

He has no need to - in the same manner that he has no need to provide evidence to back up his assumption that the Genesis account was written before last Thursday.

This is not a beginners' class in Biblical Criticism and the history of the texts - if you want one of those then it can be done in a new thread. Spin is assuming that you know the basics and that they don't need proving from first principles.


I know several million Jews who would disagree with you - and they appear to have prior claim, I'm afraid.

Other than the whole title of the debate mentioning it, and the whole of the debate being a result of discussion of your modern Innerantist position, you mean?

No matter how many times you repeat this, it will not become true - no matter how much you want it to be.

re-interpretation 1 = Gap Theory
re-interpretation 2 = Innerancy

The point of the debate was to show that they are mutually exclusive.

Part 3b of the debate rules: "For the purposes of this debate, both participants will assume the Bible to be Inerrant in the original languages [...]"

There you are. I explicitly said that we would both assume Inerrancy - hypothetically in my case since I don't really hold that view, and truly in yours as far as I know - for the purposes of the debate.

Circular again. According to Inerrantism, the authors themselves are re-interpreted as having believed in Inerrantism - therefore it is not a "re-interpretation" because the authors believed in Inerrantism.

Yes, yes, yes. I know. Because you disagree with common scholarship, you call it "garbage". Your attitude to Biblical Criticism seems to match your attitude to Science... if it doesn't agree with your theology then it must be incorrect, and you will not accept it.

Oh - and "we" is people (whether professional scholars or laymen like myself - I don't know which category Spin falls into) who have taken the trouble to learn about the Hebrew Bible itself, rather than just look at it superficially through Christianity-tinted spectacles.

DavidfromTexas

[QUOTE=Pervy]

Have you not read the scriptures, Pervy?

John 5:46-47 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? (KJV)

Matthew 19:7-8 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Matthew 22:29-33 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Matthew 22:41-46 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Therefore, Jesus Christ is the person who established that the Hebrew Bible is the forward to the New Testament. Jesus Christ is the person who criticized and chastized the Jewish religious authorities for not reading their Hebrew scriptures correctly. Jesus Christ is the person who clarified what the authors of the Hebrew scriptures had in mind when the scriptures were written.

Are you claiming that Jesus Christ is using circular logic?



Disagree.

Your assumption is not "well evidenced." The converse argument is equally valid... The writers of the Enuma Elish were influenced by the society that they live in - the society contained beliefs of the Hebrew writers.

Your bias is causing you to believe the wrong side of the argument.


Really?

If the WHOLE premise of the debate was as you have claimed above, then why did you drift away from the so-called premise when you argued that Isaiah's use of the word Tohu was metaphorical?

A strict literal interpretation of the Bible is impossible, Pervy. Otherwise, we have to assume that the face of the waters spoken of in Genesis 1:2 was literally a face which contained a nose, ears, mouth, etc.



???

Where in the Chicago Statement does it not allow for "symbolic" truth? Where in the Chicago Statement does it allow only "literal historic" truth. It seems to me, Pervy, that you have a misunderstanding as to what the Chicago Statement actually says...

Consider the following excerpts from the Chicago Statement...

Article VIII

We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XVIII

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historicaI exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizlng, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

I do not understand where you are getting this "literal historic" verses "symbolic" dichotomy from the Chicago Statement.



If he does not want to be taken seriously, then perhaps you are correct. There is no need for him to back up such foolish statements.


Spin should not make such an assumption. Authors at the highest levels have obligations to back up their assertions when asked. Providing a link or two as a courtesy takes minimal effort. This is not a matter of lack of knowledge or familiarity on my part. His reluctance and repeated failure to provide evidence of his assertions speaks volumes.



Would you like for me to interpret your statement above literally or figuratively, Pervy?



I do not doubt that you know many people, but to know millions of people personally, I know that such is a stretch.



I do not recall the word "modern" in the whole title of the debate.

Is my memory faulty, Pervy, or are you embellishing again?



You are comparing apples to oranges, Pervy.

The topic of the debate centered around whether the gap was compatible with a Biblical Inerrancy hermeneutic... not whether it was a differing interpretation!

The Chicago Statement on Innerrancy takes no theological position on creationism that would contradict the gap. The following is what the Chicago Statement says about creationism...

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

One could argue that the Chicago Statement more closely supports the gap rather than other forms of creationism! It is well known that the signers of the Chicago Statement held widely varying views on a variety of theological topics. Creationism was probably no exception. Carl F.H. Henry probably held to some views consistent with the gap. He said the following...

Earl Radmacher, another signer of the Chicago Statement, is a dispensationalist. Gap theology, in some respects, is almost synomynous with dispensationalism.



If Biblical Inerrancy is a so-called "re-interpretation" of creationism, then yes, your argument stands... But it is clear that this is not the case.

Notice that Part 3b indicates that BOTH participants will assume the Bible to be Inerrant... If you are saying that Biblical Inerrany itself is a "re-interpretation", then why would you even agree to the debate when Part 3b states that BOTH participants assume the Bible to be Inerrant? In other words, it would have been impossible for both of us to assume that the Bible is Inerrant if you are taking the position that the gap conflicts with Inerrancy. Do you see the problem?


???

Circular!

If you define Inerrancy as being a "re-interpretation", and that BOTH of us had to assume that Inerrancy was true prior to the debate, then you are saying that I would have had to assume that your "re-interpretation" of creationism was correct! There would have been no reason to debate if we had both agreed on the same "re-interpretation" of creationism.

You are not making any sense here, Pervy.



???

What?

Now, you are talking in circles.

Is this what you guys do when you lose a point? (by trying to confuse the opposition with such circular garbage that nothing anymore makes any sense).

This is deteriorating into garbage that makes no sense.

Face it, Pervy. You lost the debate. Admit your losses. Be a man.



Textual criticism is a great friend to Christianity.

You are referring to higher criticism, which is full of garbage. The fact that you guys accept their garbage with open arms is evidence of how far gone your minds and heart are from seeking and knowing the truth.


Actually, I am taking the trouble to learn Hebrew... and much of what Spin says is garbage. He provides no evidence for his assertions.

gregor

You're right DfT. We've all seen spin's poor linguistic skills over the past five years here.


I think a few comments are warranted:

'VARVES'
'Wake Up People'
'New paradigm'
'The earth is inflating'

cajela

spin & pervy (or other sane folks): am I correctly gathering that the genesis creation is not ex nihilo, but rather out of some prior existing formless matter? There was always universe-stuff, but god shaped it into a universe? If so, when did the idea of ceation ex nihilo turn up? Is it a modern idea, responding to a Newtonian idea of space, or the discovery of the idea of gasses & vacuum - or even more recently, the Big Bang??

spin

I know you are prepared to say anything to try to keep face, but the ridiculousness of this statement above should even reach through your protective eye-wear. Firstly, the text used for the common version of the Enuma Elish was one found in the palace of Ashurbanipal, ie from a time prior to when the Jerusalemites were deported to Babylon.

However, the language of the text being a form of Akkadian which comes from the 12th C. BCE -- a fact you can glean from any well prefaced translation, such as that of NK Sandars. They'll also tell you that the text is actually much older. When we consider the bible, which was written in Hebrew, we need to remember that that language was only emerging from the pack of Canaanite languages, as Phoenician had not long prior done. One of the earliest texts in Hebrew is something called the Gezer Calendar from the 9th C. BCE, but its relation to biblical Hebrew is still difficult, as at least one scholar, Garbini, sees the text as a dialect of Phoenician. If Hebrew cannot be said to have existed at the time the Enuma Elish was written, it's very hard for even you to try to claim that "The writers of the Enuma Elish were influenced by the society that they live in - the society contained beliefs of the Hebrew writers."

You know nothing about the history of the Hebrew texts before the first exemplars we have from Qumran, but you know for cetain none of them could have been written in a language which didn't exist prior to the latter half of the 2nd millennium BCE.

But having said all that, I must point out, as is typical of your efforts, the statement is based on no evidence. It is merely a bald assertion, which is beyond your knowledge to attempt to justify. Then you have the audacity to top off your apparent gross display of ignorance with this ironic statement:

How do you know what the wrong side of the argument is? You have shown no meaningful way for you to discern, yet you have an a priori commitment to what is the wrong side of the argument. If Pervy were like you he might say exactly the same thing: "Your bias is causing you to believe the wrong side of the argument." Arguments, however, are decided by evidence, not one's commitments. Please try to avoid such rash displays of unreason.

This statement merely shows why one needs to know something about the original language so that they don't say ill-informed claptrap like this. Words are used so differently that your understandings of English word usage are of little help in understanding Hebrew. One example in English: "past" can be a noun, an adjective, a past tense verb, a past participle, and even a preposition. PNYM, which is translated as "face" for you can be found elsewhere as adjectival and prepositional, with meanings ranging from "face" to "surface", from "presence" to "before", etc. Literal understandings of Hebrew are eminently possible when you know the semantic fields of the words, but you don't expect those semantic fields to be anything like the ones you use in English.

Good luck with your study of Hebrew.


spin

Awmte

Oooooh... Smackdown. Total. Devastation. :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

Dean Anderson

The anonymous Christian authors of the Gospels who put those words into the mouth of Jesus nearly a century after the supposed time of his death are the ones who re-interpreted (not "established") the Hebrew Bible as the forward to the New Testament.

Personally I think it unlikely that he even existed. But even if he did, it was the authors of the Gospels who said those words - not him.

As Spin has already pointed out, for the Babylonians and Sumerians to have been influences by the Hebrews, they would have needed a time machine - since we have portions of the Enuma Elish and the myths that it contains going back a thousand years before the Genesis account was written.

Only if you define the "right" side of the argument to be trusting blind faith and the "wrong" side of the argument to be trusting historical and archaeological evidence.

But I freely admit to be biased towards the latter rather than the former.

Oh - come on! You know as well as I do that there is a vast difference between someone using a word in a metaphorical manner during a literally historical account and someone telling a metaphorical story that is not meant to be read as an historical account.

Are you seriously suggesting that if I had argued in the debate that the Genesis account was never intended to be an historical account of the creation of the world but rather a metaphorical story, then you would not have cried foul and complained that I was going against the principles of Inerrancy?

Neither.

When we talk about computers, we need not talk about "modern" computers as opposed to neolithic ones, because (unless you count Stonehenge!) there were no neolithic computers.

The debate was specifically about your modern inerrantist viewpoint - and specifically references the Chicago Statement which was written in 1978.

Since we both know that the standard we both agreed to use was written in 1978, how can you quibble that I did not use the word "modern" in the title and still keep a straight face?

Really, David - it does sometimes appear that you are willing to clutch at any straw, no matter how small or irrelevant and no matter how you have to creatively reinterpret your opposition's words and apparent intent, in order to make your opposition look inconsistent.

The whole concept of testing whether A is compatible with B inherently assumes that A and B are different things.

It does not, and I never said it did. It does, however, take a position on whether the Bible is inerrant - and that by proxy is a position on the Gap.

After all, the Chicago Statement also does not take a theological position on whether Mary was the mother of Jesus or not - but that does not mean that a theological position denying that she was would be compatible with it. Again, it takes a position by proxy by taking a position on whether or not the Bible is inerrant.

This, folks, is a classic example of a Denial of the Antecendent fallacy.

Notice, though, that David does not actually say that my argument fails because his proposition (which, I might add is not something that anyone has ever actually claimed - in itself it is a Strawman) is not true. He merely implies it in his wording.

Because when testing whether A is compatible with B, the standard way to do this is to hypothetically assume the truth of A, and then examine the consequences that this has for B.

Have you never done this when testing mathematical properties or scientific hypotheses?

There's no problem at all. My position was that there is a conflict. Your position was that there is not a conflict.

Therefore my position was that if we assume A then we will find flaws in B.

Your position was that if we assume A then we will find that B fits with no flaws.

Both positions required that we assume A - so there is no problem with the debate parameters requiring that we both assume A.

Why, are you arguing that the setup of the debate was such that it made it impossible to argue your case?

What the fuck are you talking about? No-one has said that Inerrancy is a re-interpretation of Creationism.

Of course I am. I am discussing (and showing) a piece of Circular Logic!

I'm glad you agree that it is cicular.

Projection, anyone?

Face it, David. You are the only person who thinks I lost the debate. Admit your bias. Be a man.

I agree. It helps the more realistic and liberal strains point out the egregious errors of the Fundamentalists and Inerrantists.

Ah yes - the usual dismissal of any scholarship that disagrees with your purely faith based position as "garbage" coupled with the usual claim that we only accept it because we wish to avoid "the truth". By the way - you forgot to capitalise "Truth". I thought that was de rigour in Fundamentalist circles...

xaxxat

Let me see here... spin, who can actually read Hebrew, gets it wrong, while DfT, who can't read Hebrew, gets it right? :huh:

It seems DfT has preternatural knowledge of everything...

Sven

I see. David not even understood what the debate was about. And how basic logic works. But he nevertheless still thinks he won.

I really should turn off my irony meters before reading this stuff. :banghead:

Lixma

Ahhh, there we are....

Christian fundamentalists never leave home without the argumentum ad wait till your father gets home.