Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-28-2005, 12:35 PM

spin - could you explain the significance of the order of the text? It obviously did not anticipate modern scientific theories.

Amaleq13 · 02-28-2005, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

Ty is reading the text; he's pointing out that it doesn't match the world as we understand it. What's the problem with that?

It is true but irrelevant to a consideration of the text as a piece of ancient literature.

As spin indicates, it is ridiculous to claim that the contents represent a "scientifically accurate" depiction of the universe but it is also ridiculous criticize it for failing to do so.

RGD · 02-28-2005, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

It is true but irrelevant to a consideration of the text as a piece of ancient literature.

As spin indicates, it is ridiculous to claim that the contents represent a "scientifically accurate" depiction of the universe but it is also ridiculous criticize it for failing to do so.

Both ty and I were reacting to the OP, which does attempt to present the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge. Note

Quote:

But, seeing as how His people didn't comprehend concepts such as 1x10-43 or 12 billion (let alone General Relativity, atoms and solar systems), He had Moses write Genesis in a more 'easier-to-read' format that basically says the same thing.

This is demonstrably false, and the order of creation is part of that demonstration. It is not ridiculous to criticize the Bible for not being scientifically accurate - if responding to someone who claims it is.

Phishfood · 02-28-2005, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

It is true but irrelevant to a consideration of the text as a piece of ancient literature.

As spin indicates, it is ridiculous to claim that the contents represent a "scientifically accurate" depiction of the universe but it is also ridiculous criticize it for failing to do so.

agreed, on its own. but when TBT states that genesis is the only cosmology book one needs to ever read, then its credibility and accuracy should be taken into account. I dont know of anyone who begrudges the writers of genesis for not knowing what's up. but it is certainly prudent to point out that the writers did in fact not have a clue, when statements are made implying that, not only did they indeed have a clue, but that genesis is so accurate that we would not need to refer to another cosmology book ever. this, i believe, is the context TySixtus had in mind, and criticizing him/her for holding a scientific candle to the genesis account misses the context of this thread.

-Pf

spin · 02-28-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

spin - could you explain the significance of the order of the text? It obviously did not anticipate modern scientific theories.

I have pointed out often on this forum that the creation was about remedying the fact that the world was waste and void, ie without form and empty.

Code:

cycle     forming      | filling
---------------------------------------------
days      1st three    | 2nd three
=============================================
          1 light      | 4 sun/moon & stars
            day/night  |
---------------------------------------------
          2 water/sky  | 5 fish/birds
---------------------------------------------
          3 land       | 6 animals (& humans)

You'll note that light and darkness are thought of as form, giving us day and night, and these are populated with the sun and the moon & stars. These cosmological entities actually populate day and night. Obviously, this is not a very scientific view, but then the author didn't have science available to him.

Vegetation was created on the third day as part of the form of land. To our writer it was not of the same nature as individual entities such as animals and heavenly bodies.

If you look on the creation as forming and filling, you'll see that the creation is highly ordered, amongst other things providing six days of work to establish the sabbath. Giving form means that there was something there originally to be formed. The first act of creation is that of speaking light into existence.

As anyone can see the world view is very different from ours and the reader's expectations were very different. It's fine on EvC to point out that the world view doesn't reflect the phenomenal world we observe, but that has no real place when criticizing the text. The only reason to attack the text for its lack of scientific correctness is that there are people who purvey the book as if its literal (scuientific) correctness was without doubt. Those people are certainly not in touch with the text or its world.

spin

spin · 02-28-2005, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

Both ty and I were reacting to the OP, which does attempt to present the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge.

Science didn't exist, so it's a meaningless consideration here. Do science on EvC. (And see my reaction to the OP.)

spin

spin · 02-28-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phishfood

but it is certainly prudent to point out that the writers did in fact not have a clue, when statements are made implying that, not only did they indeed have a clue, but that genesis is so accurate that we would not need to refer to another cosmology book ever.

This is definitely a case where it is necessary to shoot the messenger rather than the message. The messenger is tarting the message up, so that it doesn't reflect the original.

spin

Toto · 02-28-2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

. . .shoot the messenger . . .

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Phishfood · 02-28-2005, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This is definitely a case where it is necessary to shoot the messenger rather than the message. The messenger is tarting the message up, so that it doesn't reflect the original.

spin

well, if you mean the message as being the genesis account and the messenger as being TBT, ok. that's what Ty was doing, and the means chosen to 'shoot' TBT is to show him that his assertion is false.

im not really sure if you're arguing or what's going on. i dont know if i fully understand your comment.

-Pf

spin · 02-28-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phishfood

well, if you mean the message as being the genesis account and the messenger as being TBT, ok. that's what Ty was doing, and the means chosen to 'shoot' TBT is to show him that his assertion is false.

im not really sure if you're arguing or what's going on. i dont know if i fully understand your comment.

TBT is in a dilemma: being a modern he is indoctrinated in scientific assumptions, but being a believer of sorts, he is indoctrinated to believe that the text is in some way perfect. Hence his attempt to repackage Genesis to deal with both sets of indoctrination. He thus does injustice to the text.

To analyse an ancient text, you need to leave behind as much modern indoctrination as possible in order to have any slim hope of appreciating the work on its own merits. As I said, it's fine on EvC to point out the scientific lack of sense in such a text, but it is absurd here, where the job is to understand the text for what it is attempting to communicate.

spin

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

02-28-2005, 12:35 PM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	spin - could you explain the significance of the order of the text? It obviously did not anticipate modern scientific theories.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.