|
|
The Bible Mystery: Solved
[Re: William]
#100807
12/05/06 11:29
12/05/06 11:29
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
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.
Irish_farmer, ad hominem arguments won't give you advantage in a discussion. On the contrary, they hint that you're out of arguments against the message, and thus had to retreat to attacking the messenger instead. If you think that Asimov is wrong, just read his writings and disprove them. Claiming he can't be taken seriously because he's not a member of your sect is not working.
But do not worry: We'll see in the following that the contradiction between the two Genesis stories is indeed not a real contradiction. However not for the reasons that YECs are so desperately clinging to.
Remember that Genesis 1 gives an abstract creation account from the simple to the complex. When we replace "the gods" by "the forces of nature" and "six days" by "some billion years" we almost (but not quite) end up with a rather modern overview of the Big Bang and the evolution.
Genesis 2 describes a totally different scenario. The creator is not "the gods" but only one particular god, who is in the following referred to with the Hebraic letters JHWH (and in the King James bible with THE LORD). Not one heaven was created, but several heavens (we'll learn later in the bible that there are three). Unlike in Genesis 1, there are no plants growing yet because it had not rained. JHWH makes a single human (not many as the "them" in Genesis 1) from dust and inflates him with his Holy Breath. Afterwards he lets the plants grow and creates the animals. Now Adam gets a task: He has to name all existing animals. When Adam has done his deed, he gets his sexual reward, with which the creation is finished.
Note the different time scale. The gods can create something within the blink of an eye, but the second creation took a lot more time than the first one due to Adam's naming task. While a man can indeed do this in his lifetime, it certainly takes many years.
Apparently, Genesis 1 is more a scientific account, while Genesis 2 looks more like a folk's tale. Now what wanted the bible editor, or the editing committee or whoever, tell the posterity with those incompatible accounts?
Back then (2600 years ago) Genesis 1 was the state of the art in creation theories. It was the Babylonian equivalent of Quantum Theory. Educated people believed that the world really began this way. So the Torah started with a scientific theory, and the religious part only started on the second page!
The apparent contradiction is just an instruction how to correctly read the Torah. The message is: "Always keep in mind that this is a religious book. Do not confuse it with science. The rest of this book tells you of the god JHWH and his little problems to get correctly worshipped by humans. But you can always go back to page 1 and see the difference to how creation really happened according to modern Babylonian science."
Of course, this theory is a speculation and the contradictions could as well have been caused by sloppy editing and simple mistakes. But somehow I like the idea more that there's an intention behind it.
Did the message reach its goal? I guess so, as today science is the main source of human knowledge, and is separated from religion. Only some sects, like extreme Islamic fundamentalists or YECs, seem not to have received that message yet. But I'm confident that they will some day. 
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: Damocles]
#100808
12/05/06 19:33
12/05/06 19:33
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Somehow people unconciously want polytheism.
Even in a monotheistic religion like chistianity, there are
some "Additional lesser Gods", that not called God, but instead
angels, human saints, the devil.
Seams to be hard for people to just have one God, and not any other additional
"supernatural beeing".
Exactly, I think it's simply in our mind's nature. Which only adds more suspicion and confusion to the whole 'illusion' in my opinion.
I think it's hard to deny that we all have certain thoughts or hopes for something in the direction of a concept like 'heaven'. At least I have, eventhough I'm sure it's some sort of illusion. Perhaps it's part of the psychological struggle for survival deep within?
@JCL: Yeah, that theory sounds somewhat reasonable indeed. It makes sense, perhaps after all the times it has been re-written or translated the separation between the two pages has become less apparent, like it is now. Eventhough it may seem, well perhaps far fetched, it definately fits the picture in my opinion. Taken there has been a reason why they didn't take care of the contradiction, something like you've said must have been it. Perhaps they didn't dare to rewrite something a very important person had written before them? The people who could write back then definately were the smarter and higher educated ones, so it's legit to assume there has infact been a reason for it,
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: PHeMoX]
#100809
12/06/06 07:20
12/06/06 07:20
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Wow! I'm absolutely amazed. Atheists have to be the most arrogant, condescending people on this planet. Quote:
I wish Irish would go away, he just takes a topic and screws it in the rear.
The only difference between your mouth and a horse's butt is that at least a horse's butt stops spewing crap every now and again. Zing!
Quote:
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 ...
So, Phemox your reasoning that I'm wrong about it being stupid is that some people actually believe it? Your grasp of logic is astounding.
Just because some people actually believe it, doesn't make it less stupid. Though it could be argued that they don't believe in the exact thing that I called stupid.
Also, in light of those religions, that makes any comparison to the hebrew texts even more ridiculous.
Quote:
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.
Oh! Well case closed. Next time I need to figure something out about the bible I'll make sure to check atheists.net like you guys to find apparent contradictions that professional scholars just so happen to ignore because they're fanatics and they just aren't open minded like atheists that will believe anything, no matter how stupid, as long as it conforms to their worldview. One day, I hope to acheive enlightenment akin to what I've observed here.
Quote:
Somehow people want unconciously want polytheism.
Even in a monotheistic religion like chistianity, there are
some "Additional lesser Gods", that not called God, but instead
angels, human saints, the devil.
Seams to be hard for people to just have one God, and not any other additional
"supernatural beeing".
That's illogical. By their nature, angels aren't God, or gods. Do the math.
Quote:
Irish_farmer, ad hominem arguments won't give you advantage in a discussion. On the contrary, they hint that you're out of arguments against the message, and thus had to retreat to attacking the messenger instead.
Then what does that say about you repeatedly calling anyone who would possibly offer a counterargument, no matter how reasoned, a fanatic? The fact of the matter is, you have nothing but bitter anti-religious ramblings going for you. You're so closed minded that you can do nothing but belittle anyone who would disagree, not on the basis of their arguments, but solely on the fact that they disagree with you. As if in some ironic attempt to cop yourself out, you then outline exactly why nothing you say should be taken seriously.
Quote:
If you think that Asimov is wrong, just read his writings and disprove them.
How about you give me a good reason to take a physicist, writing about the bible, seriously. As if he knows better than people who devote their entire lives to studying religious texts.
"I can't pretend that in writing this book, I am making any significant original contribution to Biblical scholarship; indeed, I am not competent to do so."
Sounds like he was pretty confident in his abilities.
That aside, I'm not berating his book for its content, but just the fact that an article critical of the bible would reference someone who has little to no business being used as any kind of credible source. You're reading way too far into what I said. I don't really care that he wrote the book. What's pathetic is that his unscholarly book is used as if it was scholarly.
If you want me to take him seriously, then tell me what his qualifications are. Tell me what, in his book, is so damning to the bible that it simply can't be ignored?
Also, if you adore him so much, then your polytheism charge is out the window. He provides a way (right in the beginning of vol 1) in which elohim could be interpreted only as one God. Are you going to charge him with not knowing what he's talking about, or admit that your hypothesis is based on faulty exegesis and/or assumptions?
Quote:
When Adam has done his deed, he gets his sexual reward, with which the creation is finished.
Based on the fact that you just pulled this out of your butt, that says more about your view of women than it does the bible.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 12/06/06 07:24.
"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: Solved
[Re: jcl]
#100811
12/06/06 11:50
12/06/06 11:50
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
William
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
|
If one were to believe that the bible is both a scientific study, and a religous study, pulled into one book, where would you draw the line? I think that is the problem shared by many people who believe in modern science mixed with the bible, and those who only take bits and peices of the book as truth. The more one blurs the lines, the more uncertain things become. Which of course degrades the bible and it's authority over time, which eventually, it will not be regarded as anything resembling truth at all. However, this is not to say that the YEC base has problems of it's own, as scripture can still be interpreted differently, even while taking things literally.
In the end, we all have to realize that there will always be some major and some minor changes to the bibles meanings, based on how we want it. I think it's best though, to minimize this whenever possible, as if you dont, whats the point of believing the bible in the first place? Of course, if you dont agree with the bible, and believe it needs major changes, the next step would be to write your own version of the bible, and this, i'm sure, will become more common as time goes on.
On a lighter note, ahem, which bible should we follow?
The bible for...
A) The fighting Irish?
B) Jcl's Science Extravaganza?
C) Bible Evolved, by Matt?
D) The eMoxPH?
F) My guide to the universe and stuff, by Tom Cruise
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved
[Re: William]
#100812
12/06/06 23:59
12/06/06 23:59
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Irish_farmer, in the past your discussion contributions had some quality and contained some real, serious arguments. I have the impression that this is currently lacking. You're mostly concentrating on insulting people. There is a lot of bitterness in your posts. I don't know what happened to you in the last months, maybe you crossed the border or something, or you're just too offended when someone discusses the bible in some critical way. In that case however you're free to walk away from such a discussion.
On the surface, you're right. I'm just trying to have a little fun at other's expense (for instance, the Matt thing), and so on. If you were to read my posts more literally than I meant it, then it would probably come off the wrong way. Also, if you were to read my posts the way I meant then it would still come off the same way. I'm mostly just trying to be sarcastic and whatnot, though.
I think if you knew me in real life, you would get it. I'm very opinionated, and though I don't mean to offend others, it definately can come off that way.
Also, I'm not here for serious in depth discussion anymore. My obsessional drive to go as in depth with the evolution topic as possible has ended. Now, I'm just trying to add my two cents whenever a topic piques my curiosity.
Quote:
I indeed sort of admire Asimov because I think he was one of the great creative minds of the 20th century.
I have no doubt he's a smart guy. I'd bet money on him being much much smarter than myself. In fact, to call his book 'anti-religious', as I put it, is...incorrect. He was writing his book from the perspective of a non-religious person. Which doesn't necessarily mean he was trying to bash it.
Quote:
And what you're telling here disdainfully about the view of women is not my view but the bible's view.
Well, the only reason I said that is because you're reading into it. There's no where in the bible that it says eve was created for his sexual pleasure. In fact, the initial way the bible describes her is as a helpmeet.
Women, while required for procreation, also serve many other useful purposes. Which is why I found it strange that you jumped right onto the sexual thing, out of all the other possibilities.
Either way, the important thing is that the bible doesn't say, "Adam named the animals and therefore got to have a sexual toy." He named the animals, found none that suited him as a proper companion and so Eve was created. That they have sex is basically coincidental in the grand scheme of things, as far as I see it.
"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: Solved
[Re: jcl]
#100814
12/07/06 12:00
12/07/06 12:00
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Quote:
You're mostly concentrating on insulting people.
Irish reaction has been rather harsh but he has been also insulted, you should admit it, and it was not the first time
Getting back to the topic
One possible answer and a further question
The answer
The contracdiction is evident, but , well it may happen...as simple as that unless you assume that bible has been written by God rather than men , which is not your case ,as far as I know
One of the greatest logic and mathematician ever Mr Godel applied for U.S.A. citzin
He started arguing with the comitee about the several ridicouls contradictions of American costitution
Fortunatly the president of the comitee realized what kind of guy he was dealing with
The answer ( for bible expert )
It it true that Bible is full of atrocities which are not taught at school ?
Apart from the sacrifice of the son, which can have a meaning , I mean somethig like:
King David returned to jerusalem after defeating the enemies
"You did not fulfill God's will "
"Yes I did "
"No you did not, women and kids are still alive "
"Why should God want the death of women and kids ?"
"How do you dare to comment God's will ?"
King David got back and the Lord's will was fulfilled
Is it true ? I so how can religious people justifiy something like that ?
Unless Bible have ben written by wild people in a wild world
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved
[Re: PHeMoX]
#100816
12/08/06 03:24
12/08/06 03:24
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
found none that suited him as a proper companion
At the moment I can't check the exact lines in the bible, so perhaps it's a bit more vague indeed. However, they didn't even discover they were actually naked but did have sex right? (they had not eaten from the apples?) I'd say 'companion' does indicate 'sexual partner'.
I'm not saying they didn't have sex, or that they weren't created with the purpose of sex in mind. What I'm saying is that there's nothing in the text to indicate that eve was created primarily as a sexual reward.
The first time the bible indicates them 'knowing' each other is some unspecified time after the curse. So, perhaps Adam's sexual reward is associated with cursing the entire creation.
Quote:
Well, I know from my experience that sex is never coincidental. Besides that, weren't they going crazy like rabbits anyways, judging from the huge amount of children they must have created? (one thing that's clearly impossible gene-wise)
The bible speaks of Cain and Abel directly (later on Seth). However, there's no way they didn't have more children, and the bible even says he had more kids. The question is, how many children did they have? There's no real way to know, at least from a plain reading of the bible.
I just don't get what's impossible about that, gene-wise, though.
Quote:
King David returned to jerusalem after defeating the enemies
"You did not fulfill God's will "
"Yes I did "
"No you did not, women and kids are still alive "
"Why should God want the death of women and kids ?"
"How do you dare to comment God's will ?"
King David got back and the Lord's will was fulfilled
Is it true ? I so how can religious people justifiy something like that ?
Unless Bible have ben written by wild people in a wild world
From what I understand, and I would have to research this more fully myself, it was written in a wild world. The general consensus appears to be that the ancient world (around those times) was largely on the edge of descending into chaos, unlike now where there's relative stability.
That being said, you have to ask yourself a question. Is there ever a time when its permissable (not necessarily good, however) to kill children?
You also have to ask yourself if it is God's will, does that mean its necessarily a 'good' thing?
I don't know the specifics of the event offhand, but just some general things to keep in mind. Many nations were in the nasty habit of harrassing the Jews repeatedly, attacking them and other nations, stealing their people to live in servitude or whatnot. If the Jews were justified in destroying the armies of those nations, as perhaps the case can be made, they may not have had any choice but to destroy ALL of the people in those nations in order to secure a safe future. In other words, it doesn't do much good to have the children growing up and wanting revenge. Perhaps a bit of unpleasant bloodshed early on can save more bloodshed later in time?
I wouldn't look at these events just on the surface, with our modern societies in mind. I had a problem with some of these things too, but they begin to make some sense when you consider the historical and social background.
Unfortunately, I've barely had time to barely scratch the surface.
JCL, upon reflection, its interesting to note how your view of modern society has been reflected in your 'theory.' I could perhaps be wrong, this is just my theory. However, you refer to there being one account of creation for the enlightened, what you would consider the Theory of Evolution for its time. Then there's the creation account for the 'ignorants', if you will.
It seems to me you've imposed your own ideas of the 'enlightened' darwinists and the 'ignorant' religious folks of the modern day, onto the Genesis account. The parallel, to me, seems too obvious to ignore.
I'm not trying to ridicule your idea, but it seemed to me like a subconscious (or perhaps conscious) way for you to reassert how you feel about the differences between, perhaps, evolutionists and 'anti-evolutionists.'
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 12/08/06 03:42.
"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."
|
|
|
|
