Bible Humper

This challenge was given to me by Jason at Challenging Atheism, but as I'm trying to discuss solipsism over there, I'm passing this tangent on to you people.

<a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/fgwnnfrm12.showMessageRange?topicID=391.topic&star t=21&stop=25" target="_blank"> Here's the thread.</a>

I'm going to send him over here to deal with this biblical criticism stuff. Give your number one favourite, the first five responses will be my official answer to Jason.

You can choose any of these things:

Contradictions
Absurdities
Atrocities(by Yahweh)
Injustice
False prophecies

Have at it!

svensky

Just make sure the ones you cite aren't simply a result of applying inappropriate context to a passage. For example, don't cite poetry as mistaken in a context where the error/aburdity results from reading it literally.

Also don't just cite the verse, make sure you actually go to the trouble to explain why the verse is a problem in the appropriate literary, social and historic context (Yeah as if any of you will bother, please disappoint me), or else you'll probably just end up wasting the 5.

Jason

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: svensky ]</p>

semyaza

OK - I'm going to give you two. I chose these because they tell us something about the origin and transmission of the texts involved:

A quotation from Psalm 40:6. Problem: the Hebrew text does not say that.

Hebrews 10:5 is actually quoted from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text. The problem is that the phrase 'a body thou hast prepared' is integral to the author's argument (read Heb 10:5 in context). So, which is correct? If the Hebrew text is correct, the the author of Hebrews 10 quoted an erroneous translation as the basis of his argument. If the Septuagint is correct, then what are we to make of the literally hundreds of passages wherein the Septuagint differs significantly from the MT? Most of the solutions offered by conservative scholars revolve around an attempt to show that the phrases 'opened my ear' and 'a body prepared' are related via some wierd version of the Kevin Bacon game. I don't buy it.

Number 2.

Problem: the Old Testament begs to differ...

This text is interesting, because it points to the hypothesis that the Pentateuch may have had more than one author. One of these authors does not use God's personal name until Exodus; the other author(s) used the name from the beginning.

Again, the usual apologetic response is to obfuscate the plain meaning of the word 'name'. I don't buy this, either.

Echo

Jason,

Before I consider sending a list, I'd like to ask a few questions and, hopefully, receive a little clarification.

How "absurd" does an alleged event need to be before it qualifies as an absurdity? "absurdity" seems to be like "pornography"; it's hard to pin down a definition, but people like to think they know it when they see it (although they often disagree). You and I might agree that pseudepigraphic tales of Jesus making sparrows out of clay or playing with dragons are absurdities; we probably would not agree that tales of dead men rising from their graves en masse and wandering through jerusalm are absurdities.

Also, can an otherwise absurd event be made "not absurd" by simply tagging with the label of "miracle" or "supernatural event?" If I point out an absurdity and you respond with something along the lines of "If God exists, he can do anything, thus this is not an absurdity," then there is really no point in my bothering with it.

Could you also tell me the extent to which you accept the idea that there are folk tales and legends in the bible that should not be taken literally? I don't want to waste my time mentioning something like talking serpents only to have you agree that the bible contains some legends and fables; nor do I want to waste my time if you're going to tell me that my examples of absurdities are all part of stories that were never meant to be taken literally or were meant to "explain things to the ancient Hebrews in a way they could understand."

I need some guidelines here. Can you provide me with a brief list of the kinds of acts that, were God to do, order, or condone them, would qualify as "atrocities."

See above.I don't want to waste my time only to have you say "that's not injustice." We need some criteria here.

A few questions. Does an unfulfilled prophecy count as a false prophecy? If not, why not? If yes, is there any kind of deadline after which we are justified in calling the unfulfilled prophecy false? Are we justified in deeming a prophecy to be false or unfulfilled if the claimed fulfiller of that prophecy does not fulfill it within his lifetime but is alleged to have returned later, after death, to have fulfilled it?

Also, how do we deal with disagreement over how a particular prophecy is to be interpreted? There is widespread disagreement between Jews and Christians over certain prophecies that Jews interpret literally and Christians interpret figuratively or spiritually. There is also a great deal of disagreement between christians and non-christians over such prophecies as "some of you standing here shall not taste death until you see the son of man coming with his kingdom (don't have a bible handy, so I'm just paraphrasing here.)There is disagreement over what "some of you," "here", "death", and "coming with his kingdom" mean - all from just one prophecy!

Okay, before I waste time going any further with this, would you agree that the Genesis story of the talking snake or the randy angels is poetry? The story of the mass resurrection of dead people who wander through jerusalem? I foresee that you are going to respond to a lot of people's lists of absurdities with cries of "you're not interpretting that correctly.."

Do you also accept that some absurdities, such as the turning of the Nile to blood or Moses' staff-to-snake trick, were the equivalent of modern day magic tricks? If so, we'd be in agreement there so there would be no need in my going in further with those types of events.

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Echo ]</p>

lugotorix

Might as well start at the beginning, with the 3rd chapter of Genesis.
When I first read this as a teenager aspiring to be a fundamentalist minister, I found this very troubling. Basically, God lies to Adam and Eve, and the serpent tells the truth. And turning them out of the Garden for it seemed wrong, like they were being punished because they caught God in a lie. Just who is supposed to be the bad guy here?

Years later, when I heard the <a href="http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/genesis.html" target="_blank">Gnostic retelling</a> of the story, it made a lot more sense; but by that time, the idea of God had been dead to me for too long to revive it.

lugotorix

Hawkingfan

It's best to get them with a math problem. This is my favorite (compiled by Donald Morgan at the Secular Web Modern Library):

GE 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
GE 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
GE 12:4, AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years.

svensky

Perhaps. It depends what you wish to make of it.

The problem with "absudities" in the bible that I have seen is that they all revovle around things as you mentioned. "Well we know that is just plain stupid" seems to be the thought process behind it. The problem of course is that most of the time they beg the question. So those probably aren't worth the trouble.
No I would say more likey, that your begging the question to call it absurd. An example of an absurdity that stems from gross mishandling of the text is
You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands. Isaiah 55:12
If you where to insist that trees can't clap and hills can't actually sing. At the very least if you where going to suggest that this must be read literally you would need to provide reasons why it must be read literally. To claim this is absurd is a perfect example of "read the book properly".

As for atrocities and injustice. If you wish to cite examples don't just go, "Well this event is unjustice, or how could God order this event". You need to provide reasons why it is unjust or unfair in the context. Just saying something to the effect of, "Well we moderns think this is unjust/an atrocity" doesn't make it so. Everytime I have looked at these sorts of things the alleged injsutice/atrocity stems from ignoring the social and historical context of the nation of israel at the time. My experience has been that when you look at the events and everything that leads up to them, the inevitable conclusion is not, "how could God kill all those innocent people", but "how could he possibly wait so long to do something about this". You see mercy and patience in the cases i've looked at in detail.

For unjust laws and the like, make reference to other ANE cultures that where more enlightened and more just in this fashion.

As for prophecy, this is a hard one. I'm happy to discuss them, but you'd need to demonstrate that it hasn't been fulfilled and can never be fulfilled. An example I encoutnered recently of doing the wrong thing with prophecy was as follows.

Christ claimed that the temple would be compltely destroyed yet the east wall stands (is it the east ?) to this day. This is hardly unfulfilled apart from a ridiculously over precise reading of the text. It seems about on par with claiming the WTC was not completely destroyed because there where still a few walls standing.

Does that clear it up ?

Jason

Mageth

Christ claimed that the temple would be compltely destroyed yet the east wall stands (is it the east ?) to this day.

Actually, there are remains of more than one wall. The Wailing Wall is just the most famous.

This is hardly unfulfilled apart from a ridiculously over precise reading of the text.

You mean the part where Jesus said:

Matt 21:1 (NIV) And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to [him] for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily [truly] I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Just curious, but how is it a "ridiculously over precise reading of the text" to claim that there are still walls standing, which doesn't match what Jesus predicted (that there would not be one stone left standing upon another that would not be thrown down)?

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

svensky

I'm guilty of hyperbole it would appear. But in a way you are making my point for me.

Apart from the need to demonstrate that christ wasn't using hyperbole here look at it with reference to the example i suggested before.

Some guy : "There is was not one brick left standing upon another at the WTC site after the attack"
Skeptic : "No your wrong, wrong, wrong, there where sections of building standing, you just don't know what the hell your talking about !!!!"

Ok that is a little over the top, but you can see how silly this would sound.

Jason

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: svensky ]</p>

Jeremy Pallant

Okay, so trees that applaud singing mountains is an absurd concept if taken literally. I agree with you. However the problem when theists of a certain stripe, and atheists, debate is that standards of what is and what is not absurd are diametrically opposed to each other.

If I were to walk up to you and say "I just had a conversation with a talking snake", you probably wouldn't believe me, and if I were adamant enough, would probably demand evidence. It's an absurd concept in the real world. However you, or those that believe the story, expect us to believe that the concept of a talking snake is quite reasonable. Likewise talking bushes (while burning), or asses.

[DIGRESSION]

Incidentally, if someone's ass is burning, I suggest cutting back on the steak picado, and if it's talking, I contratulate you on your cheek control.

[/DIGRESSION]

My question to you, therefore, is by what yardstick do you judge what is absurd when reading the Bible, and why is that yardstick so different from how you view reality?

You appear to be arguing that morality three thousand years ago isn't the same as morality now. An act of genocide (say the Amalakites), is moral in the context of the time, correct? Why?

Why was it moral to massacre the Amalakites, but it is not moral to massacre, say, the Iraqis?

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Jeremy Pallant ]</p>