Jack the Bodiless

..."Minor" errors and discrepancies? You've been making a big deal about a supposed 600-year error in Egyptian chronology, but apparently a 4.5 billion year error in Genesis is only "minor".

And the "spiritual message" has changed over the years too. This sort of thing is what actual Biblical scholars take note of: the development of the Hebrew religion from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism, the abandonment of human sacrifice, and so forth.

And you won't find many Christians (or Jews) arguing that Judaism is merely a denomination within Christianity. That was quite a change in the "spiritual message" there!

I think you'll find that Christian Biblical scholars tend to place the historical veracity of the Exodus in the "not an important issue for my faith" box, along with those "minor errors and discrepancies".

funinspace

A world wide flood fantasy is a minor scientific error? Very weird.

Another minor note beyond the Flood fantasies and Joshua's Solar object magic show. If this canon is all "inerrant in its spiritual message", then why are there thousands of differing sects squabbling as to what the faith is defined by? Sounds more like a potpourri of offerings that no one can make a cohesive message out of for all to agree with.

gregor

While I was being somewhat general, I really mean about 300 years worth of struggle, between 65 CE when Paul was writing of one brand of Judiaism to around 367 CE when Athanasius compiled the western canon.

MiddleMan

Not only that, but if there are errors in matters that can be checked for validation (historical errors), then how can you be confident there are no errors in matters that cannot be checked?

Nonsense.

Magdlyn

Ah. Well. The struggle didn't exactly end then, did it tho?

Hydarnes

Jack,

You know, maybe if you say it with a little bit more confidence you can actually convince yourself that the dating methods used to yield these "billion" year scenarios are actually reliable.

You're not really expecting me to take you seriously?

Please support your claim.

Funinspace,

If you're half as intelligent as I think you are then we can recognize that major issues such as the Flood have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific "errors" and "discrepancies" I was referring to.

It goes without saying that our ideological dissonance is directly related to the fact that I believe in a global Flood, whilst you don't. Your pretensions to making a sound argumentative deduction nonetheless.

And would you have us believe that your smorgasbord of secularist comrades are in "cohesive" agreement? :rolling: I think we can both concur that there is a deficiency for unanimity in just about anything philosophically. This arrogance of yours doesn't help you.

funinspace

Ok, then just what do you think a "minor scientific error" consists of then? This statement combined with your earlier one, now renders your point meaningless as far as I can tell. Maybe you can expand a little on just what you really do mean? And why do you think the Deluge is not contradictory with sciences such as anthropology, geology, archeology, dendrochronology, and oceanography? Your right in a way, it's not a "minor" scientific error. It's a major scientific error. But, so not to steal this thread with such arguments, why don't you go where all other fundamentalists, inerrantists, conservative Christians, or Bible believers have so far feared to go, and explain just where I am confused:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=90188

I made a short sarcastic comment to a short statement of unsupported opinion. I don't need someone's agreement, I'm not proffering a deity and dogma. Yes there's lots of disunity on most anything in general.

gregor

Hy
This thread was about archeology - if you want to start a thread about scientific evidence of a global flood, I'd love to participate.

If you want to start a thread on the theological implications of a global flood, I'd love to participate.

However, you'll understand how much credence I place in your opinions of OT archeology when you believe that a global flood not only could happen (physically) but that it did happen (historically) and it was justifiable (theologically).

Vorkosigan

For posts on the scientific validity of the Flood please start a new thread in E/C. This forum is for BCH issues only.

Vorkosigan
moderator

Hydarnes

“Scientific discrepancies� such as in how many Wells were in a particular city, or the amount of horses located at a certain Stable.


How so? Please do tell me.

Why…, because it disagrees with your fundamental beliefs, I should have known!

If you're meaning to tell me that a worldwide Flood is not possible in purely naturalistic circumstances, then I can assure you right now that we are in complete agreement. (And I can be pretty sure that scientists during Noah’s time insisted the same)


Bah, such an appropriation is solely confined to your imagination. Reasons for not participating in a discussion are a dime a dozen. It's even likely that we aren't particularly fond of banging our heads against a brick wall, fortified by your secularist religion.

And in very poor taste I might add. But as for your abrupt accusation, what "unsupported" opinion are you referring to? Certainly you wouldn't be talking about my reference to "minor scientific errors" in the Biblical text?

If you want to get off on unsubstantiated assertions, I’m sure I could point out a handful in just the last several posts alone, but if you don’t mind, I motion that we stay on-topic with the issues being discussed in regard to archaeology.

(Apart from your pretensions to not espousing a form of dogma) This point we can agree on.

Gregor,

I’m glad you noticed! So continue to be our inspiration. And if you must know, my intentions were never to discuss the Flood (at this juncture at least), so you might want to remind our good ol’ friend funinspace here of your concerns, as he initiated the diversion in topic, not yours truly.

Certainly, if you find in yourself such an overriding burden to reiterate that we are in philosophical discord, I guess it’s not especially in my interest to impede upon your ability to express yourself, but please, for your own sake, refrain from such disingenuous measures as arbitrarily aggrandizing your own ideological beliefs to the point of postured authority, even if it is only to spare us from the free amusement.

--------

Now back to the relevant topic...