Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sven · 02-05-2007, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mihilz

I'm sure it's possible to be a theist without being a creationist. I just wanted to distinguish between creationists and non-creationists rather than theists and atheists.

Problem is of course: There are far more varieties of creationism than only the one in Genesis.

Mihilz · 02-05-2007, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Problem is of course: There are far more varieties of creationism than only the one in Genesis.

Like what?

Atheos · 02-05-2007, 08:00 AM

MagicTails.com has links to about 40 or so different creation myths from different cultures around the world. This page, evidently assembled by a high school latin student, explores various creation myths categorically and thematically. Another collection can be found at the Uranus - Deity of the Heavens page. Yahweh isn't the only god on the block trying to claim credit for this universe.

Gamera · 02-05-2007, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What about physically close, literally.
.

Physically close isn't one flesh. Are you really arguing that married people are one flesh!!! It's the clearest statement of metaphor in the whole Bible, and it's right there embedded in the creation story.

Gamera · 02-05-2007, 01:48 PM

[QUOTE=spin;4143271]

Quote:

It's only ungrounded when one attempts to misunderstand it. Gamera, why do you have to make things hard on yourself?

Words mean the most usual meaning unless there are signs that that is not the case. This is called communication. A word will carry its common meaning, because a reader will not understand the intended content if it didn't. If I say,

I went for a run yesterday.

Given nothing else you should assume that I was moving on my legs faster than walking. More information might change your understanding,

I bought a new Ferrari on the weekend. I went for a run yesterday.

Here the run referred to is probably in the Ferrari, but without the extra information, you cannot reasonably get to the new interpretation. The text will indicate its most common meanings.

There are those linguistic wonders who have to think that a text doesn't say what it appears to because the content doesn't adhere to their presuppositions. This is eisegesis. A writer usually attempts to communicate an idea rather than obscure it. This means we should take the text to say what it appears to say, at least while trying to come to terms with its apparent content. Once that fails you look for other ways of interpreting the text.

The text of course can work on more than one level, but you first have to deal with what it literally says. As I said,

The general rule is: read the text literally until you can't.

It's a good rule. Any other approach cannot succeed.

This is ingenuous. Most text works at least on the literal level and you must deal with it first.

Rubbish, as usual: you want to misrepresent through oversimplification. Of course most texts are at least literal. But you are generally missing the point. The overdetermination of texts, for I think that's what you'd prefer to be dealing with rather than confusedly going on as you do, requires that the literal text works, but that the implications of what is contained in the literal texts reverberate. A simple story of god creating the world in six days, of course it's literal, leads to the notion of the sabbath, for we rest on the seventh day. Had the notion of day not been literal then the institution of the sabbath would be meaningless, but the text is about more than a simple creation. So the text is both literal and says more. Yet my rule holds good. The words mean what they say until shown otherwise.

However, my initial rule is a good rule of thumb. You cannot take obscure meanings of terms without the text justifying those meanings.

Of course they're meant to be taken literally. They wouldn't work otherwise. Literal meaning is necessary, but it is not the only meaning in the communication.

Rubbish once again. You are stuck pushing obscurantist claptrap onto texts. If you don't deal with the literal text you'll never understand it. Once you've done so -- and only then --, you can look for what it does with the communication.

Again, no grounding here in empirical facts about discourse: just speculation that supports your conclusion You have no idea what percentage of discourse is metaphoric vs. literal, do you?

Quote:

If you refuse to read the text, then you can make "day" mean whatever your whim wants.

Day clearly doesn't mean what we mean in Genesis, since the first day is before the sun is created. Describe in detail what makes it a day if there is no sun?

Quote:

See where your refusal to read the text takes you? You misunderstand it from the beginning. God separated light from darkness at the beginning of day one, hence it's all been dealt with. But as you don't understand the text you won't see how it works. The sun only populates the light as the moon and stars populate the darkness and the birds populate the sky and the fish populate the sea. Read the text, not what you want the text to say.

Explain to us using literal language how a day can mean a day before the sun existed?

Quote:

You won't read the text for what it says because you fall over other texts not to get there.

Rest, ie he didn't do any work. He ceased or desisted from work. Get it? Don't rely on the English because you're bound to get it wrong.

Rest means desisted in English too (hence the translation). But if it means desisted then the whole purposes of the Sabbath makes no sense. Hence the translation, rested, because that's what the word means in the context. You don't desist from work on the Sabbath, you rest. Then you go back to work the next day. See the meaning now? Language mystics (which apparently you are one) believe that words can't be translated. But the can. Nothing can't be said in English that was said in Hebrew. And the meaning here is clearly rested in the common sense notion of taking time off from working.

Quote:

This is the closest you get to having an example, but look at what I said:

The general rule is: read the text literally until you can't.

So there's metaphorical language (or "close to it" -- whatever that means) smack dab in the middle of an account that talks about creation and days, and you don't see the relevance of that. OK.

Quote:

You're so muddled about this I can understand that you're still christian.

Literalists, whether Christian or nonchristian, have the same cognitive disabilities.

Quote:

It is a no-boner to say that you must deal with the literal content of a statement first. Unless you do, you have no way at all of approaching the text. If a text doesn't function literally, then you must find some other way of dealing with it. Usually the writer will try to help the reader understand.

What does it mean to "deal with" and "function." The creation story is embedded with metaphorical statements about God and man, and related an ambiguous story about creating the world where a day exists before the sun. And you think you need to assume literalness to get to the metaphorical meaning.

Quote:

Treating a text literally doesn't mean to ignore any other content in a statement

You're assuming an exegetical perspective that arguable didn't exists when Genesis was written. You're retrojecting. Near as I can tell the earliest instance of an exegetical approach to Hebrew scriptures is Philo (and Jesus and Paul of course) Why do you beleive otherwise.

EarlOfLade · 02-05-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mihilz

Some creationists claim that the word day as used in Genesis refers to a much longer period of time.

I noticed that Genesis actually says that "and there was evening and there was morning - the first day" or "and the evening and the morning were the first day" etc. This sounds a lot like a 24 hour period to me!

Can it really be this simple to prove the day-age creationists wrong?

Another issue I have, is how it could be morning and evening when no light existed?

Mihilz · 02-05-2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlOfLade

Another issue I have, is how it could be morning and evening when no light existed?

Actually God had already created light at this point. It's the things that produce that light, stars, that he hadn't created yet. lol.

Dean Anderson · 02-05-2007, 02:24 PM

Please ignore my vote - I clicked the wrong option.

I swear, it's only a matter of time before I do that on the Admin Control Panel and end up accidentally deleting the board...

spamandham · 02-05-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlOfLade

Another issue I have, is how it could be morning and evening when no light existed?

Genesis 1:3
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Apparently the inventors of this story realized even god needed light to see what he was doing, and so they worked it in at the start of the story.

spin · 02-05-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

You're assuming an exegetical perspective that arguable didn't exists when Genesis was written. You're retrojecting.

Thing is, you wouldn't know. You don't have any criteria for dealing with the text.

spin

View Poll Results: What do you make of the word "day" in Genesis chapter 1?
I'm a creationist and "day" means day	2	3.08%
I'm not a creationist and "day" means day	53	81.54%
I'm a creationist and "day" means age	1	1.54%
I'm not a creationist and "day" means age	9	13.85%
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll

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

02-05-2007, 08:00 AM	#33
Atheos Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Heart of the Bible Belt Posts: 5,807	MagicTails.com has links to about 40 or so different creation myths from different cultures around the world. This page, evidently assembled by a high school latin student, explores various creation myths categorically and thematically. Another collection can be found at the Uranus - Deity of the Heavens page. Yahweh isn't the only god on the block trying to claim credit for this universe.

02-05-2007, 02:24 PM	#38
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	Please ignore my vote - I clicked the wrong option. I swear, it's only a matter of time before I do that on the Admin Control Panel and end up accidentally deleting the board...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.