Well, people discuss sci-fi books and movies all the time with the upmost seriousness. Why not the Bible, even if just academically.
Heh. Very interesting a parallel you draw. ... Pretty much eg. Alien, Predator, Star Trek and Star Wars, from what I see, people get pretty heavy into the "Universes" and "Alternate Universes" and how these are constructed.
I guess with the Bible, the discussion is centered around "Our" Universe.
Frank's DNA theory is interesting. It however raises some serious problems with Genesis?. If you believe in bloodlines and DNA, then you have to give evolution some thought. But I suppose DNA is covered by "intelligent design" theory, and very interventionist aspects of God's actions in the human/ physical/ earthly realm. (?)
...There are a billion ways an all-powerful God, who created everything in the first place, could have pulled this off...
Bingo. Intelligent Design and "God did everything" covers all explanations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
....One of the maddening things about Scripture is that sometimes it gives only as much information as one needs to know, and doesn't go into detail into things that distract from the main point the text is trying to convey....It's almost like the Bible expects the reader to learn to trust God along the way.
I could say that about any Book or Person or Whatever that claims to be the Word of God.
But indeed our Trust is something that needs cultivation no matter what we believe.
So it comes down to faith. And faith = belief and = trust in yourself about what *one believes to be true*.
Then the 5th meaning of the Flood could be that the message is, whatever the stories are in the Old/New Testament, it is about learning to trust God? ....???
It's almost like the Bible expects the reader to learn to trust God along the way.
Or doubt it more and more because it has so many hole in it.
If this God was so powerful that he could create everything in six days, then it would not have taken months to destroy only the surface. It would have taken a day or less. He could have put all the "good" living things in a force field, wiped out everything and then released the force field after first regenerating all the crops needed for life.
Also, why was this God only active at that time? What about now, with all the sin we have around us? Is another flood coming?
I guess I can't join the NAC club, so I'll just be a plain old cuckoo.
Add me to the NAC crowd. I think I'm more in line with MarkUK's thinking, though I say I pity the fundie xians rather than merely hate them... and Sego's obviously the most knowledgable on the subject.
But Sego is Agnostic while Marc and I are Atheist... correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
Actually it kicks off by contradicting itself (again) and stating that God created man and woman at the same time.
The second creation story in Genesis 2 (which is held to be a retelling of a very much older myth than the opening Genesis account) contradicts this by claiming God create Adam alone and Eve later on as a 'helper'.
The contradiction is interesting not only for its being evidence of tampering - albeit at a very early stage of the Book's development - but also it clearly shows the two conflicting attitudes that still tear and divide Christianity and Judaism from within; equality versus patriarchy or - if you prefer - liberality and tolerance versus right-wing subjugation.
Both accounts have the Woman being created on Day Six, the second account simply goes into more detail. Where do you see otherwise?
But let's humour your constant "the Bible was edited" suggestion. I see you covered yourself nicely by saying it took place "at a very early stage of the Book's development."
However, that's still nonsense. Just about every scholar on the planet will agree with the fact that there was no "equality versus patriarchy" debate in the earliest stages of the Bible's history. Genesis was written in a very patriarchical culture, end of story.
As always, you are superimposing your own culture and ideas on a text where they are clearly not stated or implied. Your last paragraph exposes this bias for all the (created) world to see.
So all I am saying is that opposition existed at that time. Some of that opposition was from peoples who were more tolerant and liberal.
As ever, when a tolerant liberal society is attacked by an extreme intolerant one then the latter wins. ANd then they get to (re) write the history books. And after millennia - they get followers and supporters who believe their version.
You for example.
You are saying that the Creation account in Genesis was edited by someone on the distant past because they thought the initial version was too "tolerant and liberal."
All I am asking for is some kind of proof of that. Any proof at all.
One of these was the Patriarchal 'Jehovah-kill' paradigm of the Israelites.
Nobody gets killed in Genesis 2. You said that Genesis 2 contained a contradiction that showed evidence of tampering "at a very early stage of the Book's development".
You then said that the text was tampered with because of a conflict of "equality versus patriarchy or - if you prefer - liberality and tolerance versus right-wing subjugation."
Again, I am just asking for the evidence you say you have of this tampering.
Genesis 1 is in my view very clearly a more Pagan-oriented view of heaven, earth, night, day and coming to some sort of understanding of explaining why things are. To take "day" as in a 24-hour period and any other literal interpretation is pretty senseless, since before God made night and day, what is Day One? A 24-hour period? ...So of course Day 1, 2, etc. must be some abstract time period.
That it does have meaning, yes, meaning can be interpreted from it. Various theories could be, God is our Self that has created this "illusion" of night/day heaven/earth in our "separation" from God. Or, less radical, is simply, well, a realisation that we currently live in a world where there seems to be a continuous opposition of two different points, good/evil, night/day, man/woman, etc.
Genesis 2 is more "problematic" in the sense at it refers specifically to locations, and the union of man and woman. That it is taken literally would be more relevant in the few hundred years (?) around the time it was written as a way of documenting/ preaching/ consolidating the culture of the time. Who the frack cares, in this day and age, whether Ethiopia over there has gold, or there is Eden in *that* particular location of the Earth where the rivers meet or whatever the frack ever.
That it does have meaning, yes, meaning can be interpreted from it. This would require more complex/ abstract thought about "rib/part of Man" and "Woman as companion", "Gold" to the West, "Rivers Meeting" and so on.
Again, I am not slamming the Bible outright here just because Genesis 1 and 2 seems to not make sense to me. As a whole, or maybe in certain passages, parts that one has read, that it is significant as a Spiritual Text of some sort, I am Happy that people learn and get to experience Divinity in various means.
It *is* in this day and age pretty bloody cryptic though, in my view, and what with the Judaeo-Christian split through Old and New Testament and the "conflicting views" of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
You might as well take other texts, and believe what you want to believe.
I don't think modern Christianity is actually strongly based on the Bible. It is based on Church doctrine and interpretation of Protestant/Catholic leaders... Historical and current doctrines, interpretations. Christianity appears to be more a "momentum" of spiritual movements "based" on the Bible, but any full reading and understanding of it would take years and years of research, reflecting on what it is trying to say, etc, etc. Jesus and his Disciples and who said what and what Jesus said and did, is also highly complex, given that the New Testament is pretty much an effort to document Jesus' teachings in the few hundred years **following** his death/ resurrection/ whatever...
You are not offending me in the slightest... my family left the church many years ago because things were, well, not that believeable and there were too many people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell running around creating a ruckus.
I now live in Japan, where many people follow (?) many religions, in a sense. Weddings are shinto and Christian (often one followed by the other), funerals are often Buddhist. They sort of pick and choose whatever religion suits the occasion best, which one shinto priest actually said was possibly the truest form of religion.
Though given a bad rep during WWII by a few madmen, and a lack of understanding of it is currently causing a debate about Yasukuni shringe, shinto is actually quite interesting.
I found this site interesting. Briefly discusses the differences in Bible versions and translations.
Quote:
The contents of "the Bible" are different in different religions. Different numbers of books are included, or the books are included in different order. In addition, there are many different translations of the Bible, some of which are considered authoritative by some religions.
And we know this because we have made historic discoveries that show the Bible's historic statements to be false.
For example, Luke's Gospel states that Herod was 'King of Judea' during the time that Qurinius was governor of Syria. We know now as an absolute fact from historical records that Herod died 10 years before Quirinius was governor and the two were not (and could not have been) contemporaries.
That's a pretty murky passage to get too cut and dry on. It has more to do with which census/tax/administration Luke was referring to than anything else. The tax that Quirinius concluded? At any rate there is a lot of argument over, along with some fairly reasonable resolutions to, the 'problem'. (The same goes for holding too hard and fast with the Egyptian chronology [something of an oxymoron] issues.)
Also, were the genealogies general, or were they specific in all cases? Why would Noah look for the largest possible animals he could find to put in the ark?
Edit: but then I have a problem believing the Athenians turned out something like over 100 triremes in four months -- but Thucydides never exaggerated, so I know it has to be true.
Comments
Well, people discuss sci-fi books and movies all the time with the upmost seriousness. Why not the Bible, even if just academically.
Heh. Very interesting a parallel you draw.
I guess with the Bible, the discussion is centered around "Our" Universe.
Frank's DNA theory is interesting. It however raises some serious problems with Genesis?. If you believe in bloodlines and DNA, then you have to give evolution some thought. But I suppose DNA is covered by "intelligent design" theory, and very interventionist aspects of God's actions in the human/ physical/ earthly realm. (?)
...There are a billion ways an all-powerful God, who created everything in the first place, could have pulled this off...
Bingo. Intelligent Design and "God did everything" covers all explanations.
....One of the maddening things about Scripture is that sometimes it gives only as much information as one needs to know, and doesn't go into detail into things that distract from the main point the text is trying to convey....It's almost like the Bible expects the reader to learn to trust God along the way.
I could say that about any Book or Person or Whatever that claims to be the Word of God.
But indeed our Trust is something that needs cultivation no matter what we believe.
So it comes down to faith. And faith = belief and = trust in yourself about what *one believes to be true*.
Then the 5th meaning of the Flood could be that the message is, whatever the stories are in the Old/New Testament, it is about learning to trust God? ....???
It's almost like the Bible expects the reader to learn to trust God along the way.
Or doubt it more and more because it has so many hole in it.
If this God was so powerful that he could create everything in six days, then it would not have taken months to destroy only the surface. It would have taken a day or less. He could have put all the "good" living things in a force field, wiped out everything and then released the force field after first regenerating all the crops needed for life.
Also, why was this God only active at that time? What about now, with all the sin we have around us? Is another flood coming?
I guess I can't join the NAC club, so I'll just be a plain old cuckoo.
Add me to the NAC crowd. I think I'm more in line with MarkUK's thinking, though I say I pity the fundie xians rather than merely hate them... and Sego's obviously the most knowledgable on the subject.
But Sego is Agnostic while Marc and I are Atheist... correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
stand corrected! but dont ask!
What is Nephilim?
An example of 4000 year old Jewish apartheid and racism
Actually it kicks off by contradicting itself (again) and stating that God created man and woman at the same time.
The second creation story in Genesis 2 (which is held to be a retelling of a very much older myth than the opening Genesis account) contradicts this by claiming God create Adam alone and Eve later on as a 'helper'.
The contradiction is interesting not only for its being evidence of tampering - albeit at a very early stage of the Book's development - but also it clearly shows the two conflicting attitudes that still tear and divide Christianity and Judaism from within; equality versus patriarchy or - if you prefer - liberality and tolerance versus right-wing subjugation.
Interesting link on this stuff here.
Both accounts have the Woman being created on Day Six, the second account simply goes into more detail. Where do you see otherwise?
But let's humour your constant "the Bible was edited" suggestion. I see you covered yourself nicely by saying it took place "at a very early stage of the Book's development."
However, that's still nonsense. Just about every scholar on the planet will agree with the fact that there was no "equality versus patriarchy" debate in the earliest stages of the Bible's history. Genesis was written in a very patriarchical culture, end of story.
As always, you are superimposing your own culture and ideas on a text where they are clearly not stated or implied. Your last paragraph exposes this bias for all the (created) world to see.
So all I am saying is that opposition existed at that time. Some of that opposition was from peoples who were more tolerant and liberal.
As ever, when a tolerant liberal society is attacked by an extreme intolerant one then the latter wins. ANd then they get to (re) write the history books. And after millennia - they get followers and supporters who believe their version.
You for example.
You are saying that the Creation account in Genesis was edited by someone on the distant past because they thought the initial version was too "tolerant and liberal."
All I am asking for is some kind of proof of that. Any proof at all.
One of these was the Patriarchal 'Jehovah-kill' paradigm of the Israelites.
Nobody gets killed in Genesis 2. You said that Genesis 2 contained a contradiction that showed evidence of tampering "at a very early stage of the Book's development".
You then said that the text was tampered with because of a conflict of "equality versus patriarchy or - if you prefer - liberality and tolerance versus right-wing subjugation."
Again, I am just asking for the evidence you say you have of this tampering.
Genesis 1 is in my view very clearly a more Pagan-oriented view of heaven, earth, night, day and coming to some sort of understanding of explaining why things are. To take "day" as in a 24-hour period and any other literal interpretation is pretty senseless, since before God made night and day, what is Day One? A 24-hour period?
That it does have meaning, yes, meaning can be interpreted from it. Various theories could be, God is our Self that has created this "illusion" of night/day heaven/earth in our "separation" from God. Or, less radical, is simply, well, a realisation that we currently live in a world where there seems to be a continuous opposition of two different points, good/evil, night/day, man/woman, etc.
Genesis 2 is more "problematic" in the sense at it refers specifically to locations, and the union of man and woman. That it is taken literally would be more relevant in the few hundred years (?) around the time it was written as a way of documenting/ preaching/ consolidating the culture of the time. Who the frack cares, in this day and age, whether Ethiopia over there has gold, or there is Eden in *that* particular location of the Earth where the rivers meet or whatever the frack ever.
That it does have meaning, yes, meaning can be interpreted from it. This would require more complex/ abstract thought about "rib/part of Man" and "Woman as companion", "Gold" to the West, "Rivers Meeting" and so on.
It *is* in this day and age pretty bloody cryptic though, in my view, and what with the Judaeo-Christian split through Old and New Testament and the "conflicting views" of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
You might as well take other texts, and believe what you want to believe.
I don't think modern Christianity is actually strongly based on the Bible. It is based on Church doctrine and interpretation of Protestant/Catholic leaders... Historical and current doctrines, interpretations. Christianity appears to be more a "momentum" of spiritual movements "based" on the Bible, but any full reading and understanding of it would take years and years of research, reflecting on what it is trying to say, etc, etc. Jesus and his Disciples and who said what and what Jesus said and did, is also highly complex, given that the New Testament is pretty much an effort to document Jesus' teachings in the few hundred years **following** his death/ resurrection/ whatever...
When I started this thread I had no idea what it was going to evolve into.
Oh, don't be coy.
...Creationism/Evolution is one of the hottest topics in Theology today.
I now live in Japan, where many people follow (?) many religions, in a sense. Weddings are shinto and Christian (often one followed by the other), funerals are often Buddhist. They sort of pick and choose whatever religion suits the occasion best, which one shinto priest actually said was possibly the truest form of religion.
Though given a bad rep during WWII by a few madmen, and a lack of understanding of it is currently causing a debate about Yasukuni shringe, shinto is actually quite interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto
The contents of "the Bible" are different in different religions. Different numbers of books are included, or the books are included in different order. In addition, there are many different translations of the Bible, some of which are considered authoritative by some religions.
And we know this because we have made historic discoveries that show the Bible's historic statements to be false.
For example, Luke's Gospel states that Herod was 'King of Judea' during the time that Qurinius was governor of Syria. We know now as an absolute fact from historical records that Herod died 10 years before Quirinius was governor and the two were not (and could not have been) contemporaries.
That's a pretty murky passage to get too cut and dry on. It has more to do with which census/tax/administration Luke was referring to than anything else. The tax that Quirinius concluded? At any rate there is a lot of argument over, along with some fairly reasonable resolutions to, the 'problem'. (The same goes for holding too hard and fast with the Egyptian chronology [something of an oxymoron] issues.)
Also, were the genealogies general, or were they specific in all cases? Why would Noah look for the largest possible animals he could find to put in the ark?
Edit: but then I have a problem believing the Athenians turned out something like over 100 triremes in four months -- but Thucydides never exaggerated, so I know it has to be true.