emotional

They had the word kaddur for denoting a ball, as GakuseiDon says. They also had the word merhab to denote an expanse of open space. But they did not choose to use kaddur for the earth, nor merhab for the sky.

Note that the Bible has no concept of outer Space. Genesis 1 begins with a creation of the heavens and the earth. Now if it were more accurate, according to what we know, then it would be "in the beginning God created the heavens". Then God would have created the lights, among them the Sun. And then God would have created the stones that circle the Sun, with the Earth among them. It's so easy to describe modern cosmology using Biblical vocabulary, but that's not what we read.

Instead, God creates the earth, then light, then separates the upper waters from the lower waters using a layer of beaten metal. And then, on the fourth day, He creates the Sun and the moon (the "two great lights" -- never mind that they're not very great, and only one of them is a light!), and then, as an afterthought, those little lights on the ceiling known as stars. That the Sun should be a star doesn't cross the Biblical author's mind.

I repeat: is it any trouble for the Bible to say, "God created the stones that circle the Sun, and the Earth among them"? That really would have boosted Bible credibility.

CJD

Butters, it seems you have missed the point entirely (if you haven't already, go here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread....25&pagenumber=1).

I'll try to be as clear as possible:

1. None of the authors/editors of sacred Scripture had the intent to teach us astronomy. Rather, their intent was purely theological. Their views on the cosmos just naturally factor in to their writings (be they narrative, poetry, etc.).

2. Their views on the cosmos, as you correctly point, were wrong (compared to modern science). But their 'scientific' views on the cosmos, you must understand, are in no way relevant to the message therein.

3. The thinking Xian does not force an ancient text like the Scriptures into a modern scientific mold, like, for example, Turkel tries to do. That's the fundamentalist's biggest mistake, i.e., playing ball according to your atheistic assumptions.

4. Your challenge is really no challenge at all. The bible does not answer the things you want it to. And the only thing tortured is your presumption to fault my faith based on your faulty reading of the text. Engage my hermeneutic point-by-point or just shut up. Casting aspersions shows you have a few pimples to pop.

5. There is no doubt the authors held the views of their time regarding the cosmos. Those Xians who had the gall to persecute others for holding other 'scientific' views than what they thought the bible taught, made the same error as you are making now, namely, presupposing that the bible teaches anything conclusive regarding the cosmos, and in such a way that that teaching must be enforced with excommunication, etc. In other words, astronomy is not the point, and was never the point, and many Xians get that wrong, just as you are getting it wrong right now.

5. You wrote: "If God inspired the bible to show the true nature of the cosmos . . ." This, I cannot accept. He did not inspire authors to show the true nature of the cosmos scientifically (as your question implies), but theologically, that is, God inspired the bible to show that there is an almighty, all-sustaing Creator who lovingly calls people out to be his own.

6. Finally, even if "the bible had said: 'The Earth is round, it orbits around the sun, which is just another star, seen close up, etc. etc.,'" you would still look for some other reason to remain in unbelief. Don't peddle that hypothetical junk around here. The hang-ups you have with Scripture, God, faith, etc. are just that: your hang-ups. You hate the notion. Let's not be so coy.

emotional

This is so old. Robert Green Ingersoll already answered that, in "Some Mistakes of Moses":



Being wrong about the cosmos makes the Bible suspect of being wrong about metaphysical matters as well.



You mean, modern xians don't read the ancient text literally. But up until the scientific discoveries, Christians did just that (as some do now). Luther, for example, read Joshua 10:13 literally, as a geocentrist. And until 1830, with the advent of Lyell's new geological theories, all Christians followed the Bible's lead in believing the earth to be only about 6000 years old.



Give me a break! Generations upon generations of believers think the Bible means what it says, and all of a sudden comes Mr Smarter Xian here and says they were all wrong. When the Bible says "and the Sun stood still" (Joshua 10:13), straight from the mouth of the Holy Ghost itself, what other meaning can it have? When the Bible talks about God creating the two great lamps, what's there to philosophise? It means there is a God and that He created the two great lights you see in the sky and that He stuck them onto the firmament. Nothing so plainer.



If that's all the Bible was meant to do, then it should have said so right away, without all the Genesis balderdash. If all this creation account is not a literal recounting of what really happened, then it's much ado about nothing -- a waste of words.

The Bible is wrong about origins, so it's also wrong about matters beyond the grave. In other words: the eternal torture chamber it speaks of does not exist. That's the important thing to know. I believe in life after death, but not in what the Bible says about that matter.

CJD

Emotional, let us not be.

[responses to emotional in respective order]:

1. Knowing one's argument does not defeat that argument. In your specific opinion, what is wrong with the notion that I posit regarding the Scripture's intent? If you adopt Ingersoll's rebuttal, then I must ask you for specifics. What portions of the text are stating things as scientific fact?

2. Emotional: "Being wrong about the cosmos makes the Bible suspect of being wrong about metaphysical matters as well."

Suspect, maybe, IF you buy the notion that the authors had any intent to teach us pedantic science. But flat wrong? Now you are begging the question.

3 and 4. What you say is largely true (especially the bit about "Mr. Smarter Xian" ). But can you deny the fact that just as our scientific understanding of the cosmos has increased, so, too, has our understanding of Ancient Near Eastern culture via archaeology, etc.? Do you see my point? We are in a better position today to understand the Tanak in ways my forefathers in the faith were not. I am not saying we are privy to deeper spiritual insight, but I am saying that our knowledge of ANE culture is by far more penetrating, and subsequently renders better interpretations at times. Let me put it in simpler terms. When Luther argued (in passing) as a geocentrist, it was not the autographa that was at fault, but Luther. The same goes for anybody who attempts to force into the text (scientific, et al.) meanings that are not there.

5. Emotional: "If that's all the Bible was meant to do, then it should have said so right away . . . ." What would you prefer?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. By the way, the reader should note that what follows is not a modern scientific description of the creation account, but rather a theological one that seeks to emphasize the fact that YHWH is the Lord of all creation, and that as my people, Israel should keep their Sabbath rest and refrain from any and all idolatry."

Puh-lease.

Hawkingfan

That is colloquial language. If someone was writing a document describing the sun, they wouldn't and shouldn't say that. In a poem, maybe, but there is no evidence to suggest that every time the bible implies a flat earth, it is poetic.

Goliath

malookiemaloo,

Who said that it was still? I'm no physicist, but if I recall correctly, the sun is moving, just like the rest of the stuff in the universe.

Sincerely,

Goliath

emotional

Genesis doesn't have the earmarks of an allegorical text, it sounds and reads like a literal text. "And God did so and so" is not a metaphor.



The rationale behind my thinking is this: I see that the Bible contains the notions of its own day regarding the cosmos, therefore it was written without divine inspiration (if it had, it would have talked about the "stones circling the Sun", for example). So if the notions of the day, and not inspiration, brought writers to write about cosmology in the Bible, so also they would write about metaphysical matters. That is, since I already disbelieve the Bible when it says what it says about the creation, I also disbelieve the Bible about its notions of God, reward and punishment and the afterlife.



But if you need insights about ANE culture to understand the Bible more fully, then it means the Bible is bound in culture and time. I thought the whole point was that the Bible was a timeless and universal scripture. Your attitude towards the text means people of the past were at a distinct disadvantage.



Luther just argued the plain meaning of the text. What can you make of a passage like "and the Sun stood still"? Of course you can accommodate the Bible to the modern picture of the cosmos, but this means that the first chapters of Genesis waste a lot of words on things that didn't really happen. "On the first day, light; on the second day, the firmament; on the third day, the plants" -- what's all this in aid of?! If it didn't really happen (and I think the writers of the Bible sincerely believed it did), then why waste so much ink on the papyrus?

You know, the standard Jewish commentary to the Tanakh begins with a question as to why the book begins with Genesis instead of beginning with the first law (the command of Passover). The commentators thus admitted that the Bible could begin with the "important stuff", God's laws, instead of Genesis. For Christianity this may be harder, since there is a linking between the First Adam and the Last Adam, but still, it's not an insurmountable object. If Genesis is just an allegory, not a real history of things that did occur, then it's again much ado about nothing, and -- especially in our day and age, when it causes so many people to stumble -- it gets in the way of the important theological message of the Bible.

CJD

Once more . . .

1. Emotional: "Genesis doesn't have the earmarks of an allegorical text, it sounds and reads like a literal text. "And God did so and so" is not a metaphor."

I do not wish to argue for either allegory or metaphor. And I must admit that our current translations can be read strictly chronological, but I sincerely think that the ancient text does not pull us in this direction. So, I disagree. It does have the earmarks of poetic narrative over against some kind of rigid record of literal events. The result is not allegory or metaphor, the result is theology over science, because the latter is in no way the point.

2. I think your rationale breaks down here: "I . . . ." How about forgetting what you see for a time and go consult the Hebraists on this issue?

Somewhat more seriously, though, you demand too much from the Scriptures in that you disallow the authors' being kept from theological error merely because their erroneous scientific views eek into their writings. "Inspiration" of the text has never meant for orthodox Xian scholarship "direct dictation" (only those prophets engage in "Thus sayeth the Lord . . ."); rather, everyday people used everyday language to convey, universally speaking, repentance and restoration. The way I see it, you ought to question as to whether your reasons for disbelieving the theological issues of the Scriptures are substantial.

3. Emotional: "But if you need insights about ANE culture to understand the Bible more fully, then it means the Bible is bound in culture and time."

It is a text of its time, no denying that. It would be unwise to do so.

Emotional: "I thought the whole point was that the Bible was a timeless and universal scripture."

Actually, in my opinion, the extraordinary thing about the bible is that despite its culture confines, it speaks dramatically to all ages.

Emotional: "Your attitude towards the text means people of the past were at a distinct disadvantage."

But not, I repeat, not in matters of faith (salvation, obedience, etc.). So, then, the issues in which I believe they erred were tertiary at best. In other words, they have no 'salvific' ramifications.

4. Emotional: "Luther just argued the plain meaning of the text." But it was convenient that the prevailing cosmology of the day agreed, no?

Emotional: "What can you make of a passage like "and the Sun stood still"?"

I have absolutely no idea whatsoever. But shall my faith suffer under the weight of such magnanimous pressure? May it never be! Really, though, if my faith was that weak to where it melted underneath the sun standing still, I would be forced to question whether my faith was genuine faith to begin with.

5. In sum, no doubt the authors did believe that God created the heavens and the earth. I believe the same thing. But I do not know (and I dare say, none of us do) their thoughts on how that was actually accomplished. I do know that the first chapter of Genesis displays a literary pattern that we should not ignore. As such, it communicates a theology, just like every other word in Scripture. Never pedantic science. Even the historical narratives are theological narratives. That's why, for example, if the Hebrews left Egypt with the Hyksos, the Scriptures speak of it as a great victory just as the Egyptian literature speaks of it as a great victory for them. It's all perspective, Emotional. And I choose the bible's.

Finally, I think I have already answered your recurring question, "Why waste so much ink on the papyrus?" If the point of the creation was, as I mentioned above, "the fact that YHWH is the Lord of all creation, and that as his people, Israel should keep their Sabbath rest and refrain from any and all idolatry," then the ink has not been wasted. It is not much ado about nothing. Do you follow me?

Finally, x2, I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest to you, emotional, that the text causes no one to stumble; rather, people stumble over the text. Put it this way, people will do just about anything to disbelieve the Scriptures (just as Xians will do just about anything to believe them). We have far too much invested to feign objectivity.

Regards,

mike_decock

I think that's a weak limb to crawl out on. I tried to maintain my belief in the scriptures but could no longer believe that they were inspired. Not because they weren't scientifically accurate, but because they are theologically and morally ambiguous at best and downright reprehensible at worst.

-Mike...

CJD

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CJD
Finally, x2, I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest to you, emotional, that the text causes no one to stumble; rather, people stumble over the text. Put it this way, people will do just about anything to disbelieve the Scriptures (just as Xians will do just about anything to believe them). We have far too much invested to feign objectivity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Decock: "I think that's a weak limb to crawl out on. I tried to maintain my belief in the scriptures but could no longer believe that they were inspired. Not because they weren't scientifically accurate, but because they are theologically and morally ambiguous at best and downright reprehensible at worst."


* Here, let me prove my point real quick: Says You!