Freethought & Rationalism Archive

agnawstick · 06-18-2003, 06:31 AM

I think alot of the problem here on the dietary problems is that you have all these unclean animals. They are filthy and disgusting. God does not like them touched.

Question: Who created these filthy animals? Who created the fly, the mosquito, the cud eaters, the shell fish? Could it be........ SATAN? Nah, it was the big guy upstairs.

Celsus · 06-18-2003, 06:38 AM

This thread has been split from here. Carry on, but please let's not goad any posters.

Joel

wordsmyth · 06-18-2003, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
Or, finally (and most probable to me), is that this could simply be a translational problem.

Yeah, if it hadn't been for that whole Tower of Babel incident there wouldn't have been a translation problem. God shoulda (fore)seen that one coming.

lpetrich · 06-18-2003, 01:49 PM

Magus55:
Bats aren't called birds, they are called fowls ...

That's from the King James translation, where "fowl" was the typical word for "bird" back then.

Trying to get a bigger picture of Leviticus 11, it starts out by using what are nowadays called taxonomic keys, features used to identify various animals, like whether they ruminate or have split hooves. However, it soon becomes rather disappointingly careless, listing various kinds of birds without telling how to identify them. And carelessness is a legitimate indictment, because that book goes into lots of precise details, and tells the story of some gentlemen who got zapped for burning incorrect incense.

I think that its authors may only have expected fellow Israelite priests to be the main readers, which would mean that they would know what all these kinds of birds are. It might be like one of us thinking it not worthwhile to describe how to identify a dog or a cat. But this means that if Leviticus 11 was inspired, then its inspirer showed a curious lack of foresight.

Finally, as to rabbits, it would be a simple thing to say in Biblical Hebrew, "rabbits eat their own dung".

Kosh · 06-18-2003, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by YHWHtruth
The Scriptural reference to the hare as a cud chewer has frequently been doubted by some critics of the Bible. (Le 11:4,_6; De 14:7) It should not be overlooked, however, that the modern, scientific classification of what constitutes chewing of the cud provides no basis for judging what the Bible says, as such classification did not exist in the time of Moses.

Good point. I think I understand what you're saying YHWHtruth.

So.....when they said that Jesus was "resurrected", maybe they meant something different from what we think of today...

<Glances at Doherty and Crossan, who give Kosh a big thumbs up>

Family Man · 06-19-2003, 12:11 AM

I really don't understand why theists have so much trouble with the very simple concept skeptics hold about the bible. I think I can safely say most skeptics believe that the bible is a human, not divine document. As such, there is no particular reason to believe the divine claims contained therein are true.

When you concede that rabbits don't chew cud, whether it was because people at the time were mistaken, or because they were classifying things differently, or because there were translational errors, you've conceded the very point of our criticism -- that this is a human document. If you're arguing from the literalist, inerrant position, you've then destroyed the very basis of your claim.

Of course, liberal Christians will tell me I'm right, that it is a human document, but that it nevertheless contains divine insights. But then the question becomes on what grounds is that claim being made? If you look skeptically upon divine claims of the Koran or the Book of Mormon, how can you accept the divine claims of the bible without commiting the fallacy of special pleading? And if you accept all claims of divine inspiration, is it your position that a mere claim automatically makes a document inspired?

The bottom line is that while little errors like this wouldn't be significant in a normal ancient document, it really hurts the claims of divine inspiration that is held out for the bible. And while I've seen theists defend the details of these problems (such as in this thread), the larger issues that I've outlined above always seem to be ignored.

Secular Pinoy · 06-19-2003, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
I hardly consider that a valid biblical error

So, what do you consider to be a valid biblical error? What is your criteria for saying that a particular passage would be evidence of biblical errancy? Or is there no criteria, and there would never be evidence that you would accept for biblical errancy?

Spaz · 06-19-2003, 08:11 AM

Magus, you should read "the age of reason" Paine does a pretty good job of pointing out the contradictions and other inconsitencies in the bible without going anywhere outside of the bible itself. And he did this 208 years ago too...

CALDONIA · 06-19-2003, 03:54 PM

Thanks to Magus55 we now learn that the Bible is not a science textbook. We already knew it is not a history book.

What does that leave us. Fiction or "science" fiction? Fantasy works, but it does not quite fit the romantic novel genre.

There is a Superhero theme, at least in the NT.

At any rate, God can always point to any error in the text to being the fault of his (Holy) Ghost writer.

mark9950 · 06-21-2003, 03:48 PM

Where is solomons temple and or artifacts that prove it once existed.

If you go to iraqs museum(before the war and and sadam) and many other middle eastern museums you will find artifacts that prove the city of UR and the babylonians,sumerians and others once existed.

There is significant proof that these ancient cities and peoples once existed.

http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/archaeology/...e_east/ur.html

06-21-2003, 03:48 PM	#50
mark9950 Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: midwest usa Posts: 1,203	The question should be Where is solomons temple and or artifacts that prove it once existed. If you go to iraqs museum(before the war and and sadam) and many other middle eastern museums you will find artifacts that prove the city of UR and the babylonians,sumerians and others once existed. There is significant proof that these ancient cities and peoples once existed. http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/archaeology/...e_east/ur.html

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

06-18-2003, 06:31 AM	#41
agnawstick Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: arcadia California Posts: 65	I think alot of the problem here on the dietary problems is that you have all these unclean animals. They are filthy and disgusting. God does not like them touched. Question: Who created these filthy animals? Who created the fly, the mosquito, the cud eaters, the shell fish? Could it be........ SATAN? Nah, it was the big guy upstairs.

06-18-2003, 06:38 AM	#42
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	This thread has been split from here. Carry on, but please let's not goad any posters. Joel

06-18-2003, 01:49 PM	#44
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Magus55: Bats aren't called birds, they are called fowls ... That's from the King James translation, where "fowl" was the typical word for "bird" back then. Trying to get a bigger picture of Leviticus 11, it starts out by using what are nowadays called taxonomic keys, features used to identify various animals, like whether they ruminate or have split hooves. However, it soon becomes rather disappointingly careless, listing various kinds of birds without telling how to identify them. And carelessness is a legitimate indictment, because that book goes into lots of precise details, and tells the story of some gentlemen who got zapped for burning incorrect incense. I think that its authors may only have expected fellow Israelite priests to be the main readers, which would mean that they would know what all these kinds of birds are. It might be like one of us thinking it not worthwhile to describe how to identify a dog or a cat. But this means that if Leviticus 11 was inspired, then its inspirer showed a curious lack of foresight. Finally, as to rabbits, it would be a simple thing to say in Biblical Hebrew, "rabbits eat their own dung".

06-19-2003, 12:11 AM	#46
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	I really don't understand why theists have so much trouble with the very simple concept skeptics hold about the bible. I think I can safely say most skeptics believe that the bible is a human, not divine document. As such, there is no particular reason to believe the divine claims contained therein are true. When you concede that rabbits don't chew cud, whether it was because people at the time were mistaken, or because they were classifying things differently, or because there were translational errors, you've conceded the very point of our criticism -- that this is a human document. If you're arguing from the literalist, inerrant position, you've then destroyed the very basis of your claim. Of course, liberal Christians will tell me I'm right, that it is a human document, but that it nevertheless contains divine insights. But then the question becomes on what grounds is that claim being made? If you look skeptically upon divine claims of the Koran or the Book of Mormon, how can you accept the divine claims of the bible without commiting the fallacy of special pleading? And if you accept all claims of divine inspiration, is it your position that a mere claim automatically makes a document inspired? The bottom line is that while little errors like this wouldn't be significant in a normal ancient document, it really hurts the claims of divine inspiration that is held out for the bible. And while I've seen theists defend the details of these problems (such as in this thread), the larger issues that I've outlined above always seem to be ignored.

06-19-2003, 08:11 AM	#48
Spaz Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: 6th Circle of Hell Posts: 1,093	Magus, you should read "the age of reason" Paine does a pretty good job of pointing out the contradictions and other inconsitencies in the bible without going anywhere outside of the bible itself. And he did this 208 years ago too...

06-19-2003, 03:54 PM	#49
CALDONIA Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sunnyvale,CA Posts: 371	Thanks to Magus55 we now learn that the Bible is not a science textbook. We already knew it is not a history book. What does that leave us. Fiction or "science" fiction? Fantasy works, but it does not quite fit the romantic novel genre. There is a Superhero theme, at least in the NT. At any rate, God can always point to any error in the text to being the fault of his (Holy) Ghost writer.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.