|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: jcl]
#100797
12/04/06 17:01
12/04/06 17:01
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
While the two creation stories probably stem from different sources, they were at least put together to the book Genesis by one final editor.
read this article.
This has some good analysis i think. And can shed some actual light on the interesting problems of Geneis. There is no need for half-baked theories about hidden meanings. The final version of genesis comes, as i said, from diferent traditions, times, and authors.
The idea of one final "editor' making all the decisions is frankly unsupported by the text itself, history, and comparative methods.
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#100798
12/04/06 17:06
12/04/06 17:06
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
The idea of one final "editor' making all the decisions is frankly unsupported by the text itself, history, and comparative methods.
Would this still be true when a small 'council' would have decided as being one final "editor"? Inconsistencies would be possible perhaps even logical. Still strange that they didn't check or perhaps doublecheck for contradictions.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: PHeMoX]
#100799
12/04/06 19:39
12/04/06 19:39
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Matt, the author of that essay is so devoid of any rational argument, he doesn't deserve the time of day. To put it in perspective. Isaac Asimov appears in his bibliography, with his book "Isaac Asimov's guide to the bible." That right there would be a giant red flag not to take anything this guy says seriously. He's parroting fundy atheists, which is apparently the only time its ok to be a fundy. Quote:
The second objection was a link to a website that claimed that there is no contradiction. Well, the only arguments presented were a theory that the second creation story was not referring to all plants and animals, but only to a few that were created after Man as a sort of late add-on. The bible does not mention that they were an add-on, to the only reason for that theory is that otherwise we had a contradiction.
You're missing the point. The bible doesn't have to imply that they were a late add on, since the word they use (erets), refers to small scale plots of land. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, not the inerrentist, to prove that there were no plants on the entire earth. But the bible doesn't say that, does it? Since you've already established that you can't put words in the bible's mouth, your argument is out the window.
There is a word for earth, by the way, that they could have used and would have made more sense if that's what they meant.
So now the only reason you can claim certainty is that otherwise there is no contradiction and your theory begins to lose footing before we even hear what it is.
Quote:
owever, the first creation story clearly refers to all plants and animals, and the second one introduced a different creation order not only in tempus but also in causality.
Ok, so you admit it could make sense as long as they use a different tempus?
In that case, there is a consistent explanation in the timing of the writing. Number one, you're making an assumption. That these creatures were created due to the lack of a helpmeet. Let's look at the verse from my bible:
Quote:
And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." Out of the ground the Lord God [had] formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a halper comparable to him.
Blah, blah, blah Eve is created and becomes the perfect 'helpmeet.'
From the context of this passage, let's assume not that the animals were created to find a helpmeet, but that instead only eve was created as the helpmeet. She is the focus of this little ditty anyway, so why not?
If you reread it in that light, then it could just as well be said that God did not create the beasts at that time for a helpmeet, but that they were already created and in the context of finding a helpmeet (which is what the first sentence is establishing), they were brought before Adam to be named, and it is this naming process, not the creation process, that is part of the causal link.
So what makes more sense? They purposely threw in a completely contradictory account? Or they knew what they were doing, and you're just trying to find a contradiction? I know what makes more sense to me. I know that anyone studying the bible would have noticed a clear contradiction, which would have been rather hard to cover up. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
Quote:
In fact the contradiction in the two Genesis stories is even more obvious in the original Hebraic text (where the number of involved gods also differs).
Elohim is used to refer to 'lesser beings' than God. So I could just as well argue that elohim encompasses God and the angels, and to go along with that further, when God says "we" and "us", He's referring to Himself and the angels (or better yet the trinity)(I personally think it makes sense in the context of angels).
Of course, your assertive language ("You had to be a very fanatic believer not to see it.") is probably a ruse to hide the fact that your argument is based on assumptions, and none of what you offer as an argument is unequivocal.
Quote:
However the bible was not written for fanatic YECs that believe everything literally, but for educated, normal people with an open mind.
You would have to have a pretty open mind to believe in multiple gods, one of which claims to be the only true God. Actually I believe the name for that is 'stupid.'
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 12/04/06 19:40.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#100800
12/04/06 20:31
12/04/06 20:31
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Matt, the author of that essay is so devoid of any rational argument, he doesn't deserve the time of day.
To put it in perspective. Isaac Asimov appears in his bibliography, with his book "Isaac Asimov's guide to the bible." That right there would be a giant red flag not to take anything this guy says seriously. He's parroting fundy atheists, which is apparently the only time its ok to be a fundy.
I dont think you read the article, and if you did you apparently arent able to follow it.
Isaac Asimov was a respected physicist and writer on many subjects.
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#100801
12/04/06 22:52
12/04/06 22:52
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
You would have to have a pretty open mind to believe in multiple gods, one of which claims to be the only true God. Actually I believe the name for that is 'stupid.'
Perhaps there's one God with an ego problem? Calling multiple Gods stupid is just as narrow minded eventhough saying that is kinda easy off course, because thinking the exact opposite as unlikely, may be just as narrow minded.
However since the bible is generally considered 'truth', what about those 'facts'?? If it's not really a contradiction, then I really wish to know why it's written like this. I don't mind errors in a text at all, as long as they can be explained in a realistic way. The angels argument fails, the 'plural gods but singular verbs' also fails although it's better than the angels argument. What other explanations would be possible?
Quote:
"Isaac Asimov's guide to the bible."
Perhaps he wanted to make a point. 
Quote:
The bible doesn't have to imply that they were a late add on, since the word they use (erets), refers to small scale plots of land.
The famous a sparrow is a bird yet not every bird is a sparrow kind of reasoning fails in this case. It's causality and context that matters too, revealing the 'problem'. You're right, in itself the sentence makes sense and they probably didn't litterally mean earth but wanted to be a tad more specific, however in this context what they mean for sure is 'land'. Something was created on the land, what other land could they possibly mean than earth?
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: PHeMoX]
#100802
12/05/06 03:45
12/05/06 03:45
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
I dont think you read the article, and if you did you apparently arent able to follow it.
I was able to follow it, but the conclusions aren't worth two cents. I'm sure you'll follow this up with some intelligent reposte like, "But you're wrong because someone disagrees with you."
Such is the state of the intelligence of atheist argumentation.
Quote:
Isaac Asimov was a respected physicist and writer on many subjects.
Agreed, but he was not a historian, nor a biblical scholar. He had an anti-religious agenda and there is no reason to take him seriously. He was out of his field.
Quote:
Perhaps there's one God with an ego problem? Calling multiple Gods stupid is just as narrow minded eventhough saying that is kinda easy off course, because thinking the exact opposite as unlikely, may be just as narrow minded.
I'm not calling polytheism stupid. I'm calling a person stupid who believes in multiple gods when one God claims to be the true God.
Quote:
However since the bible is generally considered 'truth', what about those 'facts'?? If it's not really a contradiction, then I really wish to know why it's written like this. I don't mind errors in a text at all, as long as they can be explained in a realistic way. The angels argument fails, the 'plural gods but singular verbs' also fails although it's better than the angels argument. What other explanations would be possible?
I've already given explanations and you failed to address them specifically.
Quote:
The famous a sparrow is a bird yet not every bird is a sparrow kind of reasoning fails in this case. It's causality and context that matters too, revealing the 'problem'. You're right, in itself the sentence makes sense and they probably didn't litterally mean earth but wanted to be a tad more specific, however in this context what they mean for sure is 'land'. Something was created on the land, what other land could they possibly mean than earth?
In every other context, the word erets refers to specific plots of land on a much smaller scale than the earth. You have to provide some other reasoning for assuming erets is referring to the earth in its entirety besides, "I believe that's what it means."
Also, I apologize to Dan Silverman for jumping to conclusions about his abilities to address matters of contradictions in the bible. I admit that I don't know fully his ability to address biblical contradictions, and I admit that his abilities are more than I gave him credit for. I didn't mean to imply anything derogatory about Dan, but I admit that it probably came off that way due to me being a poor communicator also I did misjudge him based on faulty assumptions.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 12/05/06 03:51.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#100803
12/05/06 04:46
12/05/06 04:46
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
You have to provide some other reasoning for assuming erets is referring to the earth in its entirety besides, "I believe that's what it means."
Yeah, like, why don't you just buy yourself a book on Ancient Hebrew and check it out yourself. I'm actually not making these things up. Apart from that, read my previous reply again please, because I wasn't saying what you've stated I had said. I've said they clearly meant 'land', as in earth below your feet.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/bookstore/ahlb.html
Quote:
I'm not calling polytheism stupid. I'm calling a person stupid who believes in multiple gods when one God claims to be the true God.
Yeah, but still, why the heck would that be stupid?! In polytheistic religions it's a constant battle between the Gods actually, not so much as in real fighting mostly, but definately in status.
Man, you should read up on some literature about for example South-East Asian religions sometime. In their religions there are whole stories, legends and myths about one God messing around with another God, turning it into something not so nice, pissing off one of the greater Gods because it was done without permission and so on and so forth. Some inscriptions even mention Gods claiming to be the number one God stating the others are pathetic non-god losers and weak ...
I'm not saying I myself believe in Asian religion, but as we've just discovered you are infact narrow minded when it comes to what's written in a book.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#100805
12/05/06 08:29
12/05/06 08:29
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
William
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
|
Quote:
However the bible was not written for fanatic YECs that believe everything literally, but for educated, normal people with an open mind.
Sometimes I wish the bible was 100% literal, meaning no confusion, no studies, just read it and thats it, take it or leave it. Would solve lots, like religions based around it fighting other religions based around it, and fighting outside of it. 
|
|
|
|
