Freethought & Rationalism Archive

diana · 02-12-2002, 03:49 PM

Something Kosh said:
IF you want to claim they are accounts of the same incident, then somebody is lying about who it happened to! IF (and that's a big IF), it happened to the Babylonians first (since the tablets pre-date the Jewish ones), the Bible is LYING about YHWH talking to this specific person (Noah) and saving the Jewish race while killing all others.

I'd say a strong argument against the "why can't the Epic of Gilgamesh be seen as corroboration?" one is that only eight souls were saved by water (Heb 11, I forget which verse). Those were Noah, wife, three sons and three daughters-in-law.

There's really no scriptural room for a second boat to be out there floating around. But hey...the Noah story is so full of holes, it submerges in a car park puddle. If you want to read some of why it's such a long stretch, just do a search. You'll be pleased that we spared you the humiliation.

d

ex-preacher · 02-12-2002, 03:58 PM

In sorting through the David and Goliath story, don't forget to look at 2 Samuel 21:19, which reads: "In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."

In an apparent attempt to clear up this embarassing contradiction, the writer of 1 Chronicles 20:5 developed a whole new theory: "In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear like a weaver's rod."

The standard apologetic explanation of 2 Sam 21:19 is to suggest a copyist error. The problem with this strategy is that it is totally without textual foundation. It is fairly easy to make any book inerrant if any contradiction can be blamed on an imagined textual error. By this means every book ever written can be shown to be perfectly without error.

The main problem I see with your argument, Ron, is that you never explain why you believe in God. You only give lots of rationalizations which try to defend the Bible. Is your entire faith built on the perfection of the Bible? If so, you're in trouble.

diana · 02-13-2002, 04:23 AM

Thanks, ex-preacher. I'd forgotten about that one. (Haven't brushed up on my contradictions lately.)

And your point about why "copyist error" is inadequate is dead on--and nicely put.

But I've gotten the impression that, as much as he struggles to provide a logical, naturalistic explanation of biblical stories, Ron doesn't really believe the bible is infallible. He seems to base his belief on something else (although what that something else is eludes me).

d

CX · 02-13-2002, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh:


The only thing in the Bible that the DNA evidence co-oborates is that all women are descended from a single woman.

Correction. All people share a common female ancestor from whom we get our mitochondrial DNA which is passed only through women. Likewise all men share a common ancestor called y-chromosome Adam. What people who wish to use this information to support the biblical account of creation fail to recognize is:

A)Mitochondrial Eve was not the first human nor the first woman, just the most recent common female ancestor of all living people.

B)Despite the goofy names there is an infinitescimally small possibility (approaching 0) that these two ancestors were a couple. More likely they are seperated by tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

CX · 02-13-2002, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh:

You also stated that the Genesis account (myth) is "stolen" from the
Babylonians and Sumerians. By what evidence do you have to support
this?

I'm unable to locate any of the articles I've
read right now. Thought for sure there was stuff
in the lib but I can't find it. Anybody got a
reference?

This best site for research on early world cultures is at <a href="http://eawc.evansville.edu/" target="_blank">Exploring Ancient World Cultures</a> hosted at the Evansville University site.

As to the story of the global flood in babylonian mythology it is recounted in the Epic Of Gilgamesh by Utnapishtim the bablyonian analog to Noah. What is of note is that the babylonian and and Hebrew accounts are startlingly similar, but the differences are significant enough that they cannot both be literally true. Secondly tablets found with this story inscribed on them predate the biblical accounts by at least 1500 years. The are similar situations with ancient sumerian legend. Do some research and you can see a clear picture emerging.

diana · 02-13-2002, 09:27 AM

Ron, I just got a message from devnet. He can't join our discussion at this time. So...I thought I'd check to see what Strong's had to say.

To reiterate, you said: Ok, taking the verses literally, you got me on that (so far)...I'll have to go to the "original" script to see what it really says. My suspection is that the same phrase describing "knocking out" and killing are close...or the script is talking about the stone killing him (he was dying, but not dead yet?), and the sword used as a finishing touch. Stretches I admit until I can see the story in Hebrew. On face value there appears a conflict, but are we not getting into semantics just a bit? The author may have been just describing how it appeared. Or it could have been a mis-translation.

I will point out, first, that if there's a possible alternate translation to any particular verse, that alternate usually shows up in different translations. Such is not the case here. All those I've checked so far agree, which lends a great deal of support to the idea that there was only one way to interpret the original.

Strong's, on muwth:

Quote:

04191 muwth {mooth}

a primitive root; TWOT - 1169; v

AV - die 424, dead 130, slay 100, death 83, surely 50, kill 31,
dead man 3, dead body 2, in no wise 2, misc 10; 835

1) to die, kill, have one executed
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to die
1a2) to die (as penalty), be put to death
1a3) to die, perish (of a nation)
1a4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
1b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
1c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
1d) (Hophal)
1d1) to be killed, be put to death
1d1a) to die prematurely

This word appears three times in the verses under discussion, twice as "slew" and once as "dead." Strong's doesn't even offer the possibility that it might mean "knocked out."

So you're suggesting that the observer who was writing this down (which is a fetch, as well, as there's a miniscule chance indeed that the person who wrote this had actually seen the incident in question) "saw" Goliath die twice? It's a miracle!

Your own explanation is internally inconsistent.

d

Bait · 02-13-2002, 11:17 AM

Hi Diana, Kosh, big d., Ipetrich, and all,

Sorry it's took me so long to get back...got to do some work around here sometime. I'm going to try to answer some of your questions, hopefully not posting too much or too long:-)

Answering right off on one of Diana's questions...I read and believed the Bible as God's word AFTER I became a Christian. You should also know, that I'm probably NOT what you call a "Fundamentalist" because I prefer to apply REASON to historical writings, such as the scriptures, and not take everything as absolutely literal. To take everything so literal, especially when many were not meant to be taken that way, is not logical IMHO...and is where and why so many people miss the message the scriptures are trying to relate, and why so many people get turned off of religion. What that means is I believe that the scriptures are the INSPIRED word of God, and that they are inerrant in it's religious message to mankind, and that it's lessons are perfect for our instruction, correction, etc.

>>And I don't know how "good," I am, but I'm downright anal about doing my homework.

>>Before I begin, I thought I'd mention that I've invited devnet, our local native Hebrew speaker, to share his thoughts on the passage under discussion. He's usually quite helpful in pointing out the nuances of the language that are inherent to its structure which you won't find in a concordance.

Concerning devnet, good, glad to have him aboard, because a Hebrew scholar is definately needed here.

As to doing you homework...yes, I admit you caught me off guard for a moment. BUT you said:

>>"Scripture says it sank into his forehead. If you think a rock hitting a rabbit's head has any bearing on a rock sinking into the frontal bone of a Giant, I suspect a refresher course in basic anatomy is in order."

I think it is YOU who needs to do the homework here. According to Henry Gray's book on anatomy I quote:

" 5a. 3. The Frontal Bone
+
Squama (squama frontalis).—Surfaces.—The external surface (Fig. 134) of this portion is convex and usually exhibits, in the lower part of the middle line, the remains of the frontal or metopic suture; in infancy this suture divides the bone into two, a condition which may persist throughout life..."

This means there is a natural "crack" right in the spot the bible says the stone sank, a weak spot...meaning it is entirely possible for that event to happen. This "crack" (separation of bone) sometimes doesn't heal totally (close up)...and since this "Giant" was probably the result of an abnormal petuitary gland, it is entirely possible that he had this condition.

Also, FROM EXPERIENCE, I've seen how hard a sling (two pieces of leather strings ties to a leather pouch, swung overhead, then one string released)can send a smooth stone to it's target. If it struck in the right place (such as described above), it could very easily "sink into his head"...it does not take that much force to crack a skull, even a normal one. If you took a regular, everyday hammer, and struck someone on the forehead hard with it...IT WOULD PROBABLY STICK, AND SINK INTO THE FOREHEAD (go ahead and do it to a wall). A stone from a sling hits harder than that hammer could. I can even do it with the heel of a womans spike heeled shoe...the hole looks like a .38 hit it. (Don't believe me, take a spike heeled shoe, and hit it into the drywall of your house).

>>>Here we may tangent wildly into a discussion of "literal" or "figurative," as it's beginning to look like this is the root of our problem. I am obviously a literalist. You clearly prefer a >>>figurative interpretation.

Right!!! I don't do either, I look at texts using reason...could this have happened as described (generally) But lets look at some meanings here so we can get literal for you:
From "The American Heritage Dictionary, second College Edition"

Inspire: 1. To affect , guide, or arouse by divine influence...
Inspiration: 1. a. Stimulation of the mind or emotions to a high level of feeling or activity. The condition of being so stimulated. 2. An agency, as a person or work of art, that moves the intellect or emotions or that prompts action or invention...Theol. Divine guidance or INFLUENCE exerted directly upon the mind and soul of man..."

Now lets look at II Timothy 3:16 (which you tried to insult me with)
"All scripture is given by the INSPIRATION of God, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

So going by the definitions from a dictionary, and the scripture YOU quoted, the purpose of the scriptures is to instruct you in righteousness...to teach you the proper way to live. It DOES NOT say anything about EVERY SINGLE WORD being ABSOLUTLY correct...ESPECIALLY translations of the original text. What's amazing to me though, is how accurate even the translations are...even with their minor errors.

Oh yea, lets look something else up while we are at it in the dictionary.
Scripture: 1.a. A sacred writing or book.
3. A statement regarded as authoritative

So, the purpose of the Bible is in the message, and the bible as scripture is supposed to be "authoritative", as in the proper means to instruct (or it is supposed to be the authority when it comes to matters concerning the way we are to live and conduct ourselves). The "old testament", the Torah, is mostly written history, written and preserved by HUMANS, when INSPIRED (prompted) to do so by God.

>>>How do you know which parts are figurative and which are literal?

Look at the message, the forest if you will, what is the lesson it is trying to tell...is it correcting you? Is it instructing you? Is it giving you hope? If it is describing a historical event, the event probably actually happened, but is told from the viewpoint of the writer.

Look, You can ask a hundred people what they saw on tv when planes crashed into the trade towers. You'll get a hundred different, though similar, variations...of an event that actually happened. Are 99 of them wrong? No, just different vantage points. Same with the Bible. It's their (the writers) vantage point of an event. Quit getting so hung up on semantics.

>>>Is there some scripture that I've missed that says we should read the bible figuratively and not literally?

No, you misread or misinterpreted the very verse you gave me. Besides, there is no verse that says you ARE to take every single word literally. It says you are to use them to LEARN, to IMPROVE, for CORRECTION.

>>>Or more to the point: did you decide the bible was the word of God before or after you read it? If before, you will always read it so that you'll find SOME way to make the pieces fit, because you then won't read it to see what it really says; you'll read it with a determination to make it make some sort of sense, no matter what.

Answered this right up front. If it don't make sense, then I ask myself WHY...is there something I'm missing? Has something been left out? Is there a lesson here? Is this not making sense because of some Hebrew neuance, or mis-translation? I don't go and trash the entire bible just because I personally cannot understand why the writer of a certain text doesn't make sense to me if I take it literally. That would be a rather conceited and self-righteous attitude to take is it not? I admit I do not know everything, so who am I to say this or that is absolutely wrong...without absolute proof the translation(s) is absolutely correct, and that the "proof" is also absolutely correct. Too many "if's" for me. Naw, I'd rather try to find out what the lesson is, what truth is it trying to convey.

>>If, however, you're willing to view the bible as a collection of stories compiled by well-meaning but fallible and possibly misguided believers, then...you wouldn't be fetching so much to make the stories make sense.

I'm not fetching, just pointing out that some of the things I've seen put down, ridiculed, etc. on this (and other) lists does not usually take into account REASON...rather I see nit picking to see just how WRONG you can prove the bible to be...while at the same time trying to put down people who do believe, trying to show them how stupid you think they are. All that while leaving out and ignoring obvious items that lends credence to it's historical nature and the validity of its message.

>>>New word alert. I suspect the words aren't that close. The reason I referenced two different translations is to check how different scholars with different agendas interpreted the original. While the words were different, the >>>meanings were identical.

Identical or not, the lesson of the story is that "Gods people (the Hebrew army)" were afraid to tackle this large man (giant)...soldiers who were supposed to be hardened warriors who believed in the strength of God...those not new to battle. Then along comes this lowly boy, who because of his strong FAITH in God, had enough courage to go out with only a sling (no "modern weapons such as armor, swords, sheilds) face and kill this large (giant) man who was known for his fighting abilities and murderous tendencies. How he (David) did it (defeated him) was by cracking the dude in the head with a rock, then taking the "large man's" OWN sword...cut off his head. The rock was thrown so hard, and it hit in just the right spot, that it stuck in the forehead, and would have probably killed the large man all by itself. The purpose of the story IS NOT whether he killed Goliath twice, but that he was able to kill him at all because of his faith in God.

>>>Of course we're getting into semantics. Surely you aren't suggesting that God is incapable of inspiring people to say exactly what he meant, now are you?

Incapable?...no. Did he make (force)the writer to write down everything, word for word, as God dictated to him (like one would to a secretary)?I doubt it...and especially not on translations.

>>>When you start allowing "room for error" because of human fallibility (which undermines the whole "inspired" thing, so let's just toss that "all scripture is inspired of God" thing out the window, shall we?),

WHY? It doesn't undermine anything...if anything it supports it, especially when you look at how well the scriptures have been preserved, and believed for thousands of years. Look again at the definition of "inspired". The writer was "prompted" to write historical event. If he made mistakes in grammer, spelling, etc...so what? If he wrote it from his vantage point...so what? The event still happened. The lesson is still the same...and from a religious point of view, the lesson itself, Inerrant (perfect).

>>you undermine the entire storybook. If you're willing to admit it's corrupted, then how can you say in the same breath that it's still trustworthy at least a little bit? Which part can we trust, then? How do you know? And why would God Almighty Creator of the Universe Et Cetera Ad Nauseum allow this to happen to his only will and testament to mankind, our only hope of salvation?

I've underminded NOTHING...just opened it more up for you. It's not corrupted, the message is still true, and that is what is important, not whether Noah had a dozen names. You can trust the message, the lessons..the corrections, because that is what is inspired. How do I know? Because of the historical evidences I've read about that supports many of the stories of the bible...almost exactly. And also faith, for the things I cannot yet explain (I'm still researching). Why would he do what? Have humans write stuff down? He wrote the ten commandments with his own hand, and we humans trashed them (Moses broke them in anger), so why should he? Why do you trash everything just because someone (a human)mis-translated, or didn't use proper grammer or spelling? Why do you trash the whole thing because some of the Hebrew writings are in ancient Hebrew, a dead language, that we may not have all of the true meanings of each word as it was intended at the time of the writing? So we are forced to assume what it meant based on modern Hebrew language, and WE could be WRONG in OUR interpretations.

>>You're standing in quicksand there, Ron.

Not really,...you've not proven the lessons wrong, nor have you proven the scriptures wrong. Your taking things literal, that may not have been meant to be literal. 'Tis you I think, that is stretching so hard to prove me wrong, that you have to resort to picking on "literal" grammatical errors found in translations...or yes, I'll even give you original text may have grammatical errors. Grammatical error does not invalidate the historical account, not the intent, nor the lesson it is providing.

>>>You're the one giving excuses for why God's infallible word is fallible. If God can't get such a simple story right, how can you even begin to buy the whole omniscient, omnipresent, omni-everything bit?

God is Omniscient, etc...yes, but man is not. I'm not giving excuses, you are, your trying to excuse why you don't believe, to the extent that you are not willing to reasonably look at a text to see if the message is valid and reasonable, if the account COULD be historically accurate. Instead you look for something,anything, any reason, such as a grammatical error,or mispelled word (even in translations) to throw out the entire lesson, the entire book. God's word, his lessons, his corrections, ARE infallable. And II Tim. 3:16 is absolutely correct. The general message that there is a supernatural being that is called God, and that he cares for us puny humans, IS infallable. The messages that there are certain consequences for certain actions...is infallable. The script itself may contain some error, but not the religious message it contains. Because "God" does not fit into the very small box you have made for him, does not mean he does not exist, nor that the Bible is fallable.

Now as to the 6,000 year old earth thing. Again, why does no one even consider the way Hebrews write their genealogy? You cannot determine the amount of time by their genealogy alone. THAT is a really dumb way to try to trace a timeline. It can't be done. This priest, scholar, or whoever it was that proposed this method...was wrong, incorrect in his assumptions. For the record, that is NOT the way I believe, and the bible NEVER even hints that is what you are supposed to do with it's genealogy.

To quote Luke Wadel, who wrote "On Bible "Errors" and "Contradictions" (who says it much better than I could)

"What is at issue here is the Hebrew way of tracing genealogical lines. Two aspects need to be commented upon. First, the Hebrew "yalad" recurring in the "begats" is not as properly translated "beget" as "bring forth" according to the B-D-B-G Hebrew Lexicon. The bringing forth of children can be quite indirectly done; even midwives are said to "yalad" those children which were not their own. Frequently the relationship is not one of begetting, but of being great, great, great grandfather (or greater) the one "begotten." Accordingly, this charge applies only to translations of Scripture, insofar as they mistranslate these verses. The same goes for cases of the Hebrew "ben" being translated "son." It means "descendant," as is evident again from the lexicon. Second, it is a historical fact that the Jews in their geneologies often skipped generations for brevity."

This means folks that there is no way of knowing EXACTLY how old the earth is...in fact, it could very well be 200,000 years old plus. So archeology does not disagree with the scriptures here. I don't know...nor does anyone else how old the earth is. Even Jesus was called "the son of David"...meaning he decended from David, not that he was Davids literal son.

Even my own name...van de Sandt, in dutch literally means "of the Sands"...and because the "S" is capitalized, it is inferred as the "HOUSE of Sands"...meaning a family who owned (lived on, came from)a piece of property that was sandy in nature (in our case along the banks of the Rhine). That is the way europeans do (did)their genealogy. Common knowledge in europe, part of their culture. There at one time was a person called "Sandt", (Ruttgart Sandt to be exact)...all of his decendants are therefore called "van de Sandt" - or some form thereof. Not every generation is named, but we know where we came from.

So then logically, the comments and supposed "proofs" concerning China, Egypt, etc. then does not wash because the "flood" could then have been well older than those civilizations. (and I'm not yet ready to get into that flood debate as of yet...yea, I'd probably get drowned, I know).

Bottom line, yes, I believe that the Bible is true in it's nature, and historically accurate. I believe it is God's INSPIRED word (see definition), in that God told people to write down events in order to instruct us, and make us perfect in the faith (That's II Timothy 3:17 Diana). I also believe that it may contain some human error in speech, translation, etc., and it may even have some APPARENT contradictions that I have not adressed yet. But I do not think that the HUMAN errors, etc. disproves, or makes null and void the message it is intending to present, nor the validity of the religion, or the validity of God. If you look at it, that in itself proves it is Gods word...that even us puny, prone to error, humans couldn't screw up the overall "message", even though we've had several thousand years to try.
Bests to all,
Ron v.

lpetrich · 02-13-2002, 12:07 PM

I read 2 Timothy 3:16 and the verses around it, and I could find no hint on what the author considered to be divinely-inspired scripture; either a listing of writings or some test for divine inspiration.

Bait · 02-13-2002, 12:20 PM

Hi Diana,
Ron v. here, for those wondering, D. suggested I call myself "bait"...I liked it, so....(seemed fitting amonst all you sharks out here) :-)
oops, I mispelled amongst...this post must not be my valid opinion then.(sarcasm)

D. says, >>I will point out, first, that if there's a possible alternate translation to any particular verse, that alternate usually shows up in different translations. Such is not the case here. All those I've checked so far agree, which lends a great deal of support to the idea that there was only one way to interpret the >>original.

Ok, ok....I'll concede that in a literal sense there appears to be a conflict in verbage, but to me it does not change the story. However, for the sake of debate, and using your own evidence... Notice 1b) "put to death...DISPATCH
So David could have dispatched him, then killed him with the sword.

Ok, a stretch, had to try :-) No more on this, ok? I bow to your logic.
Seriously, my point is that it could be a valid historical account, with a lesson attached, and Goliath died at the hands of David..that's all.

>>>04191 muwth {mooth}
a primitive root; TWOT - 1169; v
AV - die 424, dead 130, slay 100, death 83, surely 50, kill 31,
dead man 3, dead body 2, in no wise 2, misc 10; 835
1) to die, kill, have one executed
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to die
1a2) to die (as penalty), be put to death
1a3) to die, perish (of a nation)
1a4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
1b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
1c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
1d) (Hophal)
1d1) to be killed, be put to death
>>>1d1a) to die prematurely

R.

Bait · 02-13-2002, 12:27 PM

Thanks Ipetrich,
Diana was the one who tried to use that verse against me (the toilet paper crack). But in defense (just a little) it's a fact since Timothy was a Jew, so I think he probably did consider the Torah as God's divinly inspired scripture (an assumtion on my part), but since the new testament had not been compiled yet, it could not come into play, and since the modern translations had not been done yet, neither could they.
R.

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
I read 2 Timothy 3:16 and the verses around it, and I could find no hint on what the author considered to be divinely-inspired scripture; either a listing of writings or some test for divine inspiration.

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

02-12-2002, 03:49 PM	#41
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	Something Kosh said: IF you want to claim they are accounts of the same incident, then somebody is lying about who it happened to! IF (and that's a big IF), it happened to the Babylonians first (since the tablets pre-date the Jewish ones), the Bible is LYING about YHWH talking to this specific person (Noah) and saving the Jewish race while killing all others. I'd say a strong argument against the "why can't the Epic of Gilgamesh be seen as corroboration?" one is that only eight souls were saved by water (Heb 11, I forget which verse). Those were Noah, wife, three sons and three daughters-in-law. There's really no scriptural room for a second boat to be out there floating around. But hey...the Noah story is so full of holes, it submerges in a car park puddle. If you want to read some of why it's such a long stretch, just do a search. You'll be pleased that we spared you the humiliation. d

02-12-2002, 03:58 PM	#42
ex-preacher Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: University of Arkansas Posts: 1,033	In sorting through the David and Goliath story, don't forget to look at 2 Samuel 21:19, which reads: "In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." In an apparent attempt to clear up this embarassing contradiction, the writer of 1 Chronicles 20:5 developed a whole new theory: "In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear like a weaver's rod." The standard apologetic explanation of 2 Sam 21:19 is to suggest a copyist error. The problem with this strategy is that it is totally without textual foundation. It is fairly easy to make any book inerrant if any contradiction can be blamed on an imagined textual error. By this means every book ever written can be shown to be perfectly without error. The main problem I see with your argument, Ron, is that you never explain why you believe in God. You only give lots of rationalizations which try to defend the Bible. Is your entire faith built on the perfection of the Bible? If so, you're in trouble.

02-13-2002, 04:23 AM	#43
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	Thanks, ex-preacher. I'd forgotten about that one. (Haven't brushed up on my contradictions lately.) And your point about why "copyist error" is inadequate is dead on--and nicely put. But I've gotten the impression that, as much as he struggles to provide a logical, naturalistic explanation of biblical stories, Ron doesn't really believe the bible is infallible. He seems to base his belief on something else (although what that something else is eludes me). d

02-13-2002, 11:17 AM	#47
Bait Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 119	Hi Diana, Kosh, big d., Ipetrich, and all, Sorry it's took me so long to get back...got to do some work around here sometime. I'm going to try to answer some of your questions, hopefully not posting too much or too long:-) Answering right off on one of Diana's questions...I read and believed the Bible as God's word AFTER I became a Christian. You should also know, that I'm probably NOT what you call a "Fundamentalist" because I prefer to apply REASON to historical writings, such as the scriptures, and not take everything as absolutely literal. To take everything so literal, especially when many were not meant to be taken that way, is not logical IMHO...and is where and why so many people miss the message the scriptures are trying to relate, and why so many people get turned off of religion. What that means is I believe that the scriptures are the INSPIRED word of God, and that they are inerrant in it's religious message to mankind, and that it's lessons are perfect for our instruction, correction, etc. >>And I don't know how "good," I am, but I'm downright anal about doing my homework. >>Before I begin, I thought I'd mention that I've invited devnet, our local native Hebrew speaker, to share his thoughts on the passage under discussion. He's usually quite helpful in pointing out the nuances of the language that are inherent to its structure which you won't find in a concordance. Concerning devnet, good, glad to have him aboard, because a Hebrew scholar is definately needed here. As to doing you homework...yes, I admit you caught me off guard for a moment. BUT you said: >>"Scripture says it sank into his forehead. If you think a rock hitting a rabbit's head has any bearing on a rock sinking into the frontal bone of a Giant, I suspect a refresher course in basic anatomy is in order." I think it is YOU who needs to do the homework here. According to Henry Gray's book on anatomy I quote: " 5a. 3. The Frontal Bone + Squama (squama frontalis).—Surfaces.—The external surface (Fig. 134) of this portion is convex and usually exhibits, in the lower part of the middle line, the remains of the frontal or metopic suture; in infancy this suture divides the bone into two, a condition which may persist throughout life..." This means there is a natural "crack" right in the spot the bible says the stone sank, a weak spot...meaning it is entirely possible for that event to happen. This "crack" (separation of bone) sometimes doesn't heal totally (close up)...and since this "Giant" was probably the result of an abnormal petuitary gland, it is entirely possible that he had this condition. Also, FROM EXPERIENCE, I've seen how hard a sling (two pieces of leather strings ties to a leather pouch, swung overhead, then one string released)can send a smooth stone to it's target. If it struck in the right place (such as described above), it could very easily "sink into his head"...it does not take that much force to crack a skull, even a normal one. If you took a regular, everyday hammer, and struck someone on the forehead hard with it...IT WOULD PROBABLY STICK, AND SINK INTO THE FOREHEAD (go ahead and do it to a wall). A stone from a sling hits harder than that hammer could. I can even do it with the heel of a womans spike heeled shoe...the hole looks like a .38 hit it. (Don't believe me, take a spike heeled shoe, and hit it into the drywall of your house). >>>Here we may tangent wildly into a discussion of "literal" or "figurative," as it's beginning to look like this is the root of our problem. I am obviously a literalist. You clearly prefer a >>>figurative interpretation. Right!!! I don't do either, I look at texts using reason...could this have happened as described (generally) But lets look at some meanings here so we can get literal for you: From "The American Heritage Dictionary, second College Edition" Inspire: 1. To affect , guide, or arouse by divine influence... Inspiration: 1. a. Stimulation of the mind or emotions to a high level of feeling or activity. The condition of being so stimulated. 2. An agency, as a person or work of art, that moves the intellect or emotions or that prompts action or invention...Theol. Divine guidance or INFLUENCE exerted directly upon the mind and soul of man..." Now lets look at II Timothy 3:16 (which you tried to insult me with) "All scripture is given by the INSPIRATION of God, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." So going by the definitions from a dictionary, and the scripture YOU quoted, the purpose of the scriptures is to instruct you in righteousness...to teach you the proper way to live. It DOES NOT say anything about EVERY SINGLE WORD being ABSOLUTLY correct...ESPECIALLY translations of the original text. What's amazing to me though, is how accurate even the translations are...even with their minor errors. Oh yea, lets look something else up while we are at it in the dictionary. Scripture: 1.a. A sacred writing or book. 3. A statement regarded as authoritative So, the purpose of the Bible is in the message, and the bible as scripture is supposed to be "authoritative", as in the proper means to instruct (or it is supposed to be the authority when it comes to matters concerning the way we are to live and conduct ourselves). The "old testament", the Torah, is mostly written history, written and preserved by HUMANS, when INSPIRED (prompted) to do so by God. >>>How do you know which parts are figurative and which are literal? Look at the message, the forest if you will, what is the lesson it is trying to tell...is it correcting you? Is it instructing you? Is it giving you hope? If it is describing a historical event, the event probably actually happened, but is told from the viewpoint of the writer. Look, You can ask a hundred people what they saw on tv when planes crashed into the trade towers. You'll get a hundred different, though similar, variations...of an event that actually happened. Are 99 of them wrong? No, just different vantage points. Same with the Bible. It's their (the writers) vantage point of an event. Quit getting so hung up on semantics. >>>Is there some scripture that I've missed that says we should read the bible figuratively and not literally? No, you misread or misinterpreted the very verse you gave me. Besides, there is no verse that says you ARE to take every single word literally. It says you are to use them to LEARN, to IMPROVE, for CORRECTION. >>>Or more to the point: did you decide the bible was the word of God before or after you read it? If before, you will always read it so that you'll find SOME way to make the pieces fit, because you then won't read it to see what it really says; you'll read it with a determination to make it make some sort of sense, no matter what. Answered this right up front. If it don't make sense, then I ask myself WHY...is there something I'm missing? Has something been left out? Is there a lesson here? Is this not making sense because of some Hebrew neuance, or mis-translation? I don't go and trash the entire bible just because I personally cannot understand why the writer of a certain text doesn't make sense to me if I take it literally. That would be a rather conceited and self-righteous attitude to take is it not? I admit I do not know everything, so who am I to say this or that is absolutely wrong...without absolute proof the translation(s) is absolutely correct, and that the "proof" is also absolutely correct. Too many "if's" for me. Naw, I'd rather try to find out what the lesson is, what truth is it trying to convey. >>If, however, you're willing to view the bible as a collection of stories compiled by well-meaning but fallible and possibly misguided believers, then...you wouldn't be fetching so much to make the stories make sense. I'm not fetching, just pointing out that some of the things I've seen put down, ridiculed, etc. on this (and other) lists does not usually take into account REASON...rather I see nit picking to see just how WRONG you can prove the bible to be...while at the same time trying to put down people who do believe, trying to show them how stupid you think they are. All that while leaving out and ignoring obvious items that lends credence to it's historical nature and the validity of its message. >>>New word alert. I suspect the words aren't that close. The reason I referenced two different translations is to check how different scholars with different agendas interpreted the original. While the words were different, the >>>meanings were identical. Identical or not, the lesson of the story is that "Gods people (the Hebrew army)" were afraid to tackle this large man (giant)...soldiers who were supposed to be hardened warriors who believed in the strength of God...those not new to battle. Then along comes this lowly boy, who because of his strong FAITH in God, had enough courage to go out with only a sling (no "modern weapons such as armor, swords, sheilds) face and kill this large (giant) man who was known for his fighting abilities and murderous tendencies. How he (David) did it (defeated him) was by cracking the dude in the head with a rock, then taking the "large man's" OWN sword...cut off his head. The rock was thrown so hard, and it hit in just the right spot, that it stuck in the forehead, and would have probably killed the large man all by itself. The purpose of the story IS NOT whether he killed Goliath twice, but that he was able to kill him at all because of his faith in God. >>>Of course we're getting into semantics. Surely you aren't suggesting that God is incapable of inspiring people to say exactly what he meant, now are you? Incapable?...no. Did he make (force)the writer to write down everything, word for word, as God dictated to him (like one would to a secretary)?I doubt it...and especially not on translations. >>>When you start allowing "room for error" because of human fallibility (which undermines the whole "inspired" thing, so let's just toss that "all scripture is inspired of God" thing out the window, shall we?), WHY? It doesn't undermine anything...if anything it supports it, especially when you look at how well the scriptures have been preserved, and believed for thousands of years. Look again at the definition of "inspired". The writer was "prompted" to write historical event. If he made mistakes in grammer, spelling, etc...so what? If he wrote it from his vantage point...so what? The event still happened. The lesson is still the same...and from a religious point of view, the lesson itself, Inerrant (perfect). >>you undermine the entire storybook. If you're willing to admit it's corrupted, then how can you say in the same breath that it's still trustworthy at least a little bit? Which part can we trust, then? How do you know? And why would God Almighty Creator of the Universe Et Cetera Ad Nauseum allow this to happen to his only will and testament to mankind, our only hope of salvation? I've underminded NOTHING...just opened it more up for you. It's not corrupted, the message is still true, and that is what is important, not whether Noah had a dozen names. You can trust the message, the lessons..the corrections, because that is what is inspired. How do I know? Because of the historical evidences I've read about that supports many of the stories of the bible...almost exactly. And also faith, for the things I cannot yet explain (I'm still researching). Why would he do what? Have humans write stuff down? He wrote the ten commandments with his own hand, and we humans trashed them (Moses broke them in anger), so why should he? Why do you trash everything just because someone (a human)mis-translated, or didn't use proper grammer or spelling? Why do you trash the whole thing because some of the Hebrew writings are in ancient Hebrew, a dead language, that we may not have all of the true meanings of each word as it was intended at the time of the writing? So we are forced to assume what it meant based on modern Hebrew language, and WE could be WRONG in OUR interpretations. >>You're standing in quicksand there, Ron. Not really,...you've not proven the lessons wrong, nor have you proven the scriptures wrong. Your taking things literal, that may not have been meant to be literal. 'Tis you I think, that is stretching so hard to prove me wrong, that you have to resort to picking on "literal" grammatical errors found in translations...or yes, I'll even give you original text may have grammatical errors. Grammatical error does not invalidate the historical account, not the intent, nor the lesson it is providing. >>>You're the one giving excuses for why God's infallible word is fallible. If God can't get such a simple story right, how can you even begin to buy the whole omniscient, omnipresent, omni-everything bit? God is Omniscient, etc...yes, but man is not. I'm not giving excuses, you are, your trying to excuse why you don't believe, to the extent that you are not willing to reasonably look at a text to see if the message is valid and reasonable, if the account COULD be historically accurate. Instead you look for something,anything, any reason, such as a grammatical error,or mispelled word (even in translations) to throw out the entire lesson, the entire book. God's word, his lessons, his corrections, ARE infallable. And II Tim. 3:16 is absolutely correct. The general message that there is a supernatural being that is called God, and that he cares for us puny humans, IS infallable. The messages that there are certain consequences for certain actions...is infallable. The script itself may contain some error, but not the religious message it contains. Because "God" does not fit into the very small box you have made for him, does not mean he does not exist, nor that the Bible is fallable. Now as to the 6,000 year old earth thing. Again, why does no one even consider the way Hebrews write their genealogy? You cannot determine the amount of time by their genealogy alone. THAT is a really dumb way to try to trace a timeline. It can't be done. This priest, scholar, or whoever it was that proposed this method...was wrong, incorrect in his assumptions. For the record, that is NOT the way I believe, and the bible NEVER even hints that is what you are supposed to do with it's genealogy. To quote Luke Wadel, who wrote "On Bible "Errors" and "Contradictions" (who says it much better than I could) "What is at issue here is the Hebrew way of tracing genealogical lines. Two aspects need to be commented upon. First, the Hebrew "yalad" recurring in the "begats" is not as properly translated "beget" as "bring forth" according to the B-D-B-G Hebrew Lexicon. The bringing forth of children can be quite indirectly done; even midwives are said to "yalad" those children which were not their own. Frequently the relationship is not one of begetting, but of being great, great, great grandfather (or greater) the one "begotten." Accordingly, this charge applies only to translations of Scripture, insofar as they mistranslate these verses. The same goes for cases of the Hebrew "ben" being translated "son." It means "descendant," as is evident again from the lexicon. Second, it is a historical fact that the Jews in their geneologies often skipped generations for brevity." This means folks that there is no way of knowing EXACTLY how old the earth is...in fact, it could very well be 200,000 years old plus. So archeology does not disagree with the scriptures here. I don't know...nor does anyone else how old the earth is. Even Jesus was called "the son of David"...meaning he decended from David, not that he was Davids literal son. Even my own name...van de Sandt, in dutch literally means "of the Sands"...and because the "S" is capitalized, it is inferred as the "HOUSE of Sands"...meaning a family who owned (lived on, came from)a piece of property that was sandy in nature (in our case along the banks of the Rhine). That is the way europeans do (did)their genealogy. Common knowledge in europe, part of their culture. There at one time was a person called "Sandt", (Ruttgart Sandt to be exact)...all of his decendants are therefore called "van de Sandt" - or some form thereof. Not every generation is named, but we know where we came from. So then logically, the comments and supposed "proofs" concerning China, Egypt, etc. then does not wash because the "flood" could then have been well older than those civilizations. (and I'm not yet ready to get into that flood debate as of yet...yea, I'd probably get drowned, I know). Bottom line, yes, I believe that the Bible is true in it's nature, and historically accurate. I believe it is God's INSPIRED word (see definition), in that God told people to write down events in order to instruct us, and make us perfect in the faith (That's II Timothy 3:17 Diana). I also believe that it may contain some human error in speech, translation, etc., and it may even have some APPARENT contradictions that I have not adressed yet. But I do not think that the HUMAN errors, etc. disproves, or makes null and void the message it is intending to present, nor the validity of the religion, or the validity of God. If you look at it, that in itself proves it is Gods word...that even us puny, prone to error, humans couldn't screw up the overall "message", even though we've had several thousand years to try. Bests to all, Ron v.

02-13-2002, 12:07 PM	#48
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I read 2 Timothy 3:16 and the verses around it, and I could find no hint on what the author considered to be divinely-inspired scripture; either a listing of writings or some test for divine inspiration.

02-13-2002, 12:20 PM	#49
Bait Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 119	Hi Diana, Ron v. here, for those wondering, D. suggested I call myself "bait"...I liked it, so....(seemed fitting amonst all you sharks out here) :-) oops, I mispelled amongst...this post must not be my valid opinion then.(sarcasm) D. says, >>I will point out, first, that if there's a possible alternate translation to any particular verse, that alternate usually shows up in different translations. Such is not the case here. All those I've checked so far agree, which lends a great deal of support to the idea that there was only one way to interpret the >>original. Ok, ok....I'll concede that in a literal sense there appears to be a conflict in verbage, but to me it does not change the story. However, for the sake of debate, and using your own evidence... Notice 1b) "put to death...DISPATCH So David could have dispatched him, then killed him with the sword. Ok, a stretch, had to try :-) No more on this, ok? I bow to your logic. Seriously, my point is that it could be a valid historical account, with a lesson attached, and Goliath died at the hands of David..that's all. >>>04191 muwth {mooth} a primitive root; TWOT - 1169; v AV - die 424, dead 130, slay 100, death 83, surely 50, kill 31, dead man 3, dead body 2, in no wise 2, misc 10; 835 1) to die, kill, have one executed 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to die 1a2) to die (as penalty), be put to death 1a3) to die, perish (of a nation) 1a4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct) 1b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch 1c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death 1d) (Hophal) 1d1) to be killed, be put to death >>>1d1a) to die prematurely R.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.