Summoning Ethelred. . . About Genesis

[ckweb]

Hi Ethelred!

I was reading some of your posts in Evolution vs. Creationism threads. Personally, I find that debate relatively uninteresting as often the proponents of one side or the other speak to things they actually have very little professional knowledge about. For myself, I would never presume to disprove evolution; and proving creation with the scientific method is absurd as scientific method studies the natural world and creation purports a supernatural phenomenon. On the other hand, what I will debate is the biblical text and it is to that end I have posted a new thread to draw your attention. In my opinion, you are mistaken when you declare that evolution disproves Genesis. While evolution may disprove "Creationism," it cannot disprove Genesis because Genesis does not contain scientific theory. (Incidentally, it may also be argued that Genesis does not prove "Creationism" for precisely this same reason). The attempt to use Genesis, or any other biblical text, in argument (for or against) a natural scientific theory is a waste of time. Genesis is a text written to recount a people's experience with their God; it is highly subjective and personal--which is exactly the opposite of the objectivity desired by science. The stories of Gen 1-11, which includes the creation and flood accounts, are not concerned with answering scientific questions instead they answer theological ones. Many of the stories were written to counter prevailing myths of the period in which they were written. Genesis 1, for instance, is a carefully written polemic against polytheism. It rejects the divinity of the sun and the moon. It counters the myth that a clash of sea monsters created and divided the sea and land masses. Instead, sea monsters are under the sovereignty and creative hand of God. It also rejects the notion that humans were created as slaves for the gods (ie. Atrahasis). In a final analysis, Genesis 1 declares that God created the universe and it also declares that the world and humanity, as the pinnacle of God's creative activity, has inherent worth. Neither of these declarations are scientific ones; they are theological ones. It is not the domain of science to answer these questions; rather, it is the domain of philosophy and religion. When science attempts to answer these questions, it is moving beyond its realm of study and makes steps towards becoming a religion of its own. Too often evolution is propagated as dogma rather than what it is, namely scientific theory. To read Genesis 1 as a blueprint for the creation of the world, which is what you as well as creationists are doing (each for your own ends), is asking that a person from somewhere between 8th-11th B.C.E. was concerned with such matters. It requires that such a person understood and looked at his/her world from a modern (or post-modern), 20th-21st century worldview, which they quite obviously did not. It requires the perversion of a literary work to serve theories (for or against) it was not intended to and did not speak about.

On another point, I also find your argument that God is deceptive if he created a world that appeared to be older that it really was, fallacious. Science, by definition, studies the natural world. It, therefore, by necessity, and quite correctly, excludes supernatural phenomenon from its study. Consequently, it studies the world as it appears to be IF the world only contained natural phenomenon. But, if literature and experience has taught us anything, it is that appearances are deceiving, which is how you arrive at your argument. But, where your argument goes wrong, is that it fails to consider that the substance of the thing might be different and therefore, it is the test not the actual thing that is deceptive. Put another way, if I judge a book by its cover, I may or may not come to the correct conclusion. But, if I come to the wrong conclusion, it is not necessarily because the cover was deceptive; it may be that having failed to consider the substance or content of the book, my test necessarily lead me to deceptive conclusions. So then, if the world does in fact contain supernatural phenomenon, the scientific method may be arriving at deceptive conclusions because it ignores this part of the substance of the thing it studies. This is the limitation of science. It cannot study the supernatural and therefore, its conclusions should always be held in tension with the results of studies in other related and not-so-related disciplines, such as psychiatry, sociology, psychology, theology, literature, personal experiences, history, and so on.

Anyways, having said this much, way to go at keeping those "Creationism" theorists on their toes!

[Boris Godunov]

Not to step on the toes of the Master, I will at least say this before he posts:

The arguments Ethelred (and others) have given against the Creationists are confined to disproving a literal interpretation of the events chronicled in Genesis. If, however, you take the stance that the Biblical account of Creation is metaphorical, that's a whole different ballgame.

But the problem here for fundamentalist Creationists is that if you accept that one part of the Bible is literary allegory, you must accept that any part of the Bible is allegory. This brings the fundamentalist doctrine crashing down, as it subjects the dogma they believe to be the precise Will of God to be--heaven forbid!--the literary fiction of human authors. This creates an untolerable condition for a fundamentalist, since they base their worldview on the precise meanings of words written thousands of years ago that were, in turn, passed along orally for thousands of years before that. Admitting any event of the Bible is susceptible to even the slightest bit of inaccuracy destroys the notion it is a perfect book and that it is the word of God.

Science, on the other hand, is not bound by such rigid dogma, and so will always be different than religion. Science is flexible, as what is considered "canon" by science changes all the time, and the vast majority of scientists do not have a problem with altering their worldview to accomodate new evidence and theories. I can not think of a comparable religious idealogy that is so flexible and open to experimentation and change.

But if we accept the Bible can't be taken literally, it renders the Flood discussion moot, as we can just assume it is allegory. Ditto for Sodom and Gommorah. Ditto for Exodus. Ditto, in fact, for everything in the Bible. See where this leads religious folks who take the Bible literally into a hopelessly losing situation?

Anyway, I'm sure Ethelred will have much deeper insights than I...

[Skanky Burns]

Well said, Boris. Well said.

[ckweb]

Boris, you bring up a commonly-used argument but unfortunately, an untrustworthy one.

The point I make to Ethelred is that Genesis, like any body of literature, must be interpreted according to what it is. Also, because it is literature, it is fallacious to use scientific method as your interpretive guide.

So, how do you interpret literature? Well, literary theory offers many approaches. You can use New Criticism, Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Deconstruction, Form Criticism, etc. Some literary theories are concerned with author; some with text; some with audience. As Ethelred and now you have attacked (that may be too strong a word but I can't think of a better one) the text, we should employ an approach that focuses on the text. Such methods typically require an analysis of form and genre, which is what you are doing. You argue that if someone concedes that the Flood Story is not a literal account, they have conceded that nothing in the bible can be trusted because whose to say whether or not it is literal. This is simply wrong. If someone concedes that the Flood Story adheres to the rules of a certain genre of literature that is precisely what they have done, no more no less. And, it does not demand that every other part of the bible adheres to that same genre. Quite obviously, the bible consists of many different genres and each must be interpreted in light of the genre employed. To interpret poetry or parable as historiography or myth is simply wrong. You'll arrive at incredibly stupid notions about the intent of the poem or the parable if you read according to the rules of a different genre. This is basic hermeneutics and basic common-sense.

BTW, the Flood Story and the Creation Story are NOT allegory. Allegory is not really a convention used in Classical Hebrew all that often. I believe I'd be correct in saying that it is largely a form of speech/writing arising out of the Hellenistic Period. Paul occassionally uses allegory in his letters of the New Testament.

[Boris Godunov]

ckweb, you're still missing a basic point:

The Creationists Ethelred is arguing with are ones who believe the entire Bible is the word of God and therefor 100% accurate. That leaves no room for it being metaphor in any way (I should have used metaphor, perhaps, instead of allegory).

Even if the rest of the Bible is true, admitting that even the slightest bit of the Bible is literary metaphor smashes the foundations upon which fundamentalism resides, as fundamentalist dogma leaves no room for such a compromise. If you're a fundamentalist, you must believe the world was created in 6 days, that the Flood happened exactly as detailed in Genesis, etc., ad infinitum. Since it is easy to disprove the literal account of the Bible, if even just once, it is ergo easy to prove that religious fundamentalism is an erroneous doctrine.

[ckweb]

Re: Fundamentalism, I'm likely to agree with you. But, simply because you have undercut the erroneous presumptions and assumptions of Fundamentalism, you have not undercut the value, accuracy, or truthfulness of the biblical text.

Also, it is erroneous to form the following equations as you, Ethelred and quite ironically, the Fundamentalists often do:

truthful=historical
literal=truthful
truthful=literal
metaphor (or other genres) does not equal truth.

Each of these equations are often inaccurate and lead to wrong conclusions. Here is an example where you have made that error:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That leaves no room for it being metaphor in any way (I should have used metaphor, perhaps, instead of allegory).

Even if the rest of the Bible is true

Notice how you say, "Even if the rest of the Bible is true." This statement suggests that you do not believe a "metaphor," as you've elected to call it, can be true. What I think you really meant is "Even if the rest of the Bible is historical" because both history and metaphor can be true.

[Boris Godunov]

Not all Biblical text, no. But some of it, yes. That's enough to tell the fundamentalists to shut up. If someone asserts the Bible is the unerring and literal Word of God, then proving even the slightest thing wrong is enough to destroy their credibility.

When it comes to Biblical interpretivism, however, one can feasibly interpret the Bible means anything, so then it becomes a matter of picking and choosing what one thinks is literal and what is metaphor, perhaps based on your notion of "literary genre." In that case, religious ideology becomes personal rather than universal, and theists lose any moral authority to impress their ideology on others.

[SnowFire]

theists lose any moral authority to impress their ideology on others.

Kind of a vauge statement here. What if my personal reading of Holy Book X is that I should impose my reading on everybody else, including which parts are metaphor and which aren't? This happened to a mild degree during the time of the Mu'tazilites in early Islam- the caliphs semi-imposed their doctrines, which included some of what modern Muslims would probably call "watered down" Islam (ie that God is not actually seated on a throne in heaven, it's a metaphor. "Official" theology today will say that if the Koran says God's on a Throne in heaven, then he's on this big old Throne in heaven, darn it.). They still read the same Koran, and certainly tried to impress the moral authority of their reading on others, which included which parts were literal and which were metaphorical (but 100% word of God, natch).

As a side note, if I was a Muslim, I'd probably be quite favorable to the Mu'tazilites (I blame the Caliphs for the whole Mihna deal more than them), but I'm not, so the point is moot anyway. The general idea is that metaphor does not neccessarily take away moral authority, or at least percieved moral authority.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ckweb
Boris, you bring up a commonly-used argument but unfortunately, an untrustworthy one.

The point I make to Ethelred is that Genesis, like any body of literature, must be interpreted according to what it is. Also, because it is literature, it is fallacious to use scientific method as your interpretive guide.

Most agree that Genesis can be viewed as a historical record of sorts, in which case, a scientific approach will have to be used. As to whether it is literature is debatable. Certainly not all of the bible is literature, and probably not Genesis

Originally posted by ckweb
BTW, the Flood Story and the Creation Story are NOT allegory. Allegory is not really a convention used in Classical Hebrew all that often. I believe I'd be correct in saying that it is largely a form of speech/writing arising out of the Hellenistic Period. Paul occassionally uses allegory in his letters of the New Testament.

Certainly not a factual account in any case.

[Ethelred]

Re: Summoning Ethelred. . . About Genesis

Originally posted by ckweb
For myself, I would never presume to disprove evolution; and proving creation with the scientific method is absurd as scientific method studies the natural world and creation purports a supernatural phenomenon.

Supernatural or not there would be evidence to support it unless more supernatural effort went into making the world look exactly like its very old and that evolution has shaped life over millions and billions of years.

In my opinion, you are mistaken when you declare that evolution disproves Genesis.

You are mistaken in your assertion that I said that. I have said the Genesis one is does not fit the world we live in as it is written and that is a fact. However evolution itself does not show this. It is the order that things occur in Genesis that shows that. A literal six days is right out of course but that is not what I am talking about nor is Genesis one the most obvious areas to deal with regarding the accuracy of the Bible.

While evolution may disprove "Creationism," it cannot disprove Genesis because Genesis does not contain scientific theory.

This is both true and false. It is true that Genesis is not scientific but it is false that it cannot be disproved because of this. Genesis makes a large number of very clear and fairly precise statements. Many of them can be checked against the real world. Many fail that check. For instance The Elder Edda is not scientific either. However it says the Earth was formed by a giant cow licking a giant block of ice. This is clearly wrong just as Genesis is on some things. Neither of those two religious writings is scientific yet both make specific statements. Both can be checked against the real world. Both fail.

(Incidentally, it may also be argued that Genesis does not prove "Creationism" for precisely this same reason).

That too is wrong. Creationism is an attempt to prove Genesis and not the other way around. If Creationism was true it would indeed be provable by looking at the real world and comparing what Creationism says about it with the world really is. It fails that test.

The attempt to use Genesis, or any other biblical text, in argument (for or against) a natural scientific theory is a waste of time. Genesis is a text written to recount a people's experience with their God; it is highly subjective and personal--which is exactly the opposite of the objectivity desired by science.

Its not highly subjective nor is it personal. Its written in many areas as it was a factual telling. Rememberance of Things Past by Proust is highly subjective not the Bible. I doubt you would make that claim if the Bible and the real world were a better match. You would claim that match as evidence supporting the Bible, as would I.

The stories of Gen 1-11, which includes the creation and flood accounts, are not concerned with answering scientific questions instead they answer theological ones.

Not just theological ones. Real ones. Like how sheep got patches of color for instance. That they are put in theological terms is due to the fact that the authors simply didn't know any better. Theology was what they did and it was factual to them.

Many of the stories were written to counter prevailing myths of the period in which they were written.

And replace them with new myths. Myths that fit the authors beliefs. Many based on old legends and myths that had been around for a long time. None of them any more relevant to reality than the Elder Edda unless a god was involved in the writing. In which case they should have a much better fit to reality.

Genesis 1, for instance, is a carefully written polemic against polytheism.

So how come Genesis 2 refers to 'elohim instead of Jehovah? Plural gods instead of one god.

It rejects the divinity of the sun and the moon. It counters the myth that a clash of sea monsters created and divided the sea and land masses. Instead, sea monsters are under the sovereignty and creative hand of God. It also rejects the notion that humans were created as slaves for the gods (ie. Atrahasis). In a final analysis, Genesis 1 declares that God created the universe and it also declares that the world and humanity, as the pinnacle of God's creative activity, has inherent worth.

Its does more than that. Its fairly specific on a number of points. Those points only seem to match reality occasionaly by accident since they mostly don't match.

Neither of these declarations are scientific ones; they are theological ones. It is not the domain of science to answer these questions; rather, it is the domain of philosophy and religion.

It is the domain of science to understand how things work. If that shows the Bible has things wrong that is a byproduct of science and not a goal.

When science attempts to answer these questions, it is moving beyond its realm of study and makes steps towards becoming a religion of its own. Too often evolution is propagated as dogma rather than what it is, namely scientific theory.

You make a standard mistake here. Evolution is two valued word. Its a theory to explain facts. The fact is life evolves. Darwin came up with a theory that explains why and how it evolves. He did pretty good considering he didn't know about genes. Evolution is both theory and fact.

There is nothing wrong or religious in trying to understand how things happened. That is what science does and that includes trying to understand as much as possible about the beginning of the universe. Perhaps that is what you referring to in you implication that science is becoming a religion.

To read Genesis 1 as a blueprint for the creation of the world, which is what you as well as creationists are doing (each for your own ends), is asking that a person from somewhere between 8th-11th B.C.E. was concerned with such matters.

I do it for the simple reason that Creationist claim it. If they didn't I wouldn't. Creationists are attempting to push their religious beliefs into the US public school system disguised as a science. This is the main reason I argue against Creationism. The other reason is that its fun. That came second though.

It requires that such a person understood and looked at his/her world from a modern (or post-modern), 20th-21st century worldview, which they quite obviously did not. It requires the perversion of a literary work to serve theories (for or against) it was not intended to and did not speak about.

Actually it did speak about the creation of the world and a number of other things. It was not presented as theory that is true. It was presented as fact and there is no reason at all that those alledged facts cannot be contested.

On another point, I also find your argument that God is deceptive if he created a world that appeared to be older that it really was, fallacious.

Well you sure don't like I gather. Its not falacious though.

Science, by definition, studies the natural world. It, therefore, by necessity, and quite correctly, excludes supernatural phenomenon from its study.

Its hard to study things that there is no sign of. If there was evidence for the supernatural it would be studied. In fact there have been attempts to study things that many would call supernatural. They have produced nothing convincing. The Klein studies of ESP for instance.

Consequently, it studies the world as it appears to be IF the world only contained natural phenomenon. But, if literature and experience has taught us anything, it is that appearances are deceiving, which is how you arrive at your argument.

Its the job of science to clear up the deceptions should there be any. The real world can complex but it is not deceptive. That is what life does. Man and animal use decpetion for survival purposes so its not surprising that literature should abound with deception. You aren't doing for the Bible with this line of reasoning. You make it look deliberatly deceptive instead of due to ignorance.

But, where your argument goes wrong, is that it fails to consider that the substance of the thing might be different and therefore, it is the test not the actual thing that is deceptive. Put another way, if I judge a book by its cover, I may or may not come to the correct conclusion.

Its the job of science to open this metaphorical book.

But, if I come to the wrong conclusion, it is not necessarily because the cover was deceptive; it may be that having failed to consider the substance or content of the book, my test necessarily lead me to deceptive conclusions.

This look like an attempt to muddle things and nothing else.

So then, if the world does in fact contain supernatural phenomenon, the scientific method may be arriving at deceptive conclusions because it ignores this part of the substance of the thing it studies. This is the limitation of science. It cannot study the supernatural and therefore, its conclusions should always be held in tension with the results of studies in other related and not-so-related disciplines, such as psychiatry, sociology, psychology, theology, literature, personal experiences, history, and so on.

Science COULD study the supernatural if there was any evidence that it existed. However all you are doing here is saying what I said. The world and the Bible don't match. One must be wrong or Jehovah must have engaged in deception which is definitly what covering things up is. Wether reality is covered up via natural or supernatural means its still deception. The world looks exactly like its not the world described in parts of Genesis.

If you want to believe in a god that would do that be my guest. I find such an entity untrustworthy.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
The point I make to Ethelred is that Genesis, like any body of literature, must be interpreted according to what it is. Also, because it is literature, it is fallacious to use scientific method as your interpretive guide.

I use the Bible for interpreting it. I then compare it to the world around us. There is a failure to match. Calling it literature does not free it from testing unless of course you are calling fiction. Is that what you are doing? Calling the Bible fiction?

You argue that if someone concedes that the Flood Story is not a literal account, they have conceded that nothing in the bible can be trusted because whose to say whether or not it is literal. This is simply wrong.

I don't see anything wrong in it. If its myth its not trustworthy. This is simply realism.

If someone concedes that the Flood Story adheres to the rules of a certain genre of literature that is precisely what they have done, no more no less.

They have done much more. They have said the the people within the Bible that clealy treat the Flood as a fact are also mere literature or at least remarkably unaware that the story is mere literature if they were real people. Unless of course it was intended to thought of as real when it was written as I think was the case. There are a number of references to the Flood in the New Testament that clearly treat it as a real event just as described in Genesis.

And, it does not demand that every other part of the bible adheres to that same genre. Quite obviously, the bible consists of many different genres and each must be interpreted in light of the genre employed.

That would be fine if it was not the clear the others in the Bible did not think of it as a genre but instead thought of it as real. How does one decide which is which? It looks to me like you base your decision on whether it fails to match the real world and not by looking at the text.

For instance it is clear that the Psalms are songs and not prophecy despite the efforts of Fundamentalists to use Psalm as if it was prophecy. However there is nothing in Genesis that shows that it was not intended as a real description of actual events and later biblical figures clearly treat them as actual events.

BTW, the Flood Story and the Creation Story are NOT allegory. Allegory is not really a convention used in Classical Hebrew all that often. I believe I'd be correct in saying that it is largely a form of speech/writing arising out of the Hellenistic Period. Paul occassionally uses allegory in his letters of the New Testament.

Well the Flood story is treated as real throughout the Bible. Not as myth or legend. In any case I don't see any reason to put the Bible over any other book of myths and legends if it does not show some special knowledge that can be tested for a reality check.

[ckweb]

Re: Re: Summoning Ethelred. . . About Genesis

Originally posted by Ethelred
Supernatural or not there would be evidence to support it unless more supernatural effort went into making the world look exactly like its very old and that evolution has shaped life over millions and billions of years.

Not necessarily. Science can only test what can be reproduced. It is a major tenet of Science that experiments, which are the vehicle for its conclusions, must be repeatable. How do you repeat the supernatural? I'd like to point out, however, that I'm not arguing the validity of scientific theories of evolution. I do not have the expertise to do so and quite frankly am more than willing to accept (at the very least) aspects of evolution, if not the whole theory.

Originally posted by Ethelred You are mistaken in your assertion that I said that. I have said the Genesis one is does not fit the world we live in as it is written and that is a fact. However evolution itself does not show this. It is the order that things occur in Genesis that shows that. A literal six days is right out of course but that is not what I am talking about nor is Genesis one the most obvious areas to deal with regarding the accuracy of the Bible.

I apologize if I misunderstood you. I will look again for the post that gave me this sense and quote it. You can then clarify what you meant.

You employ the word "fact" with the self-assured certainity of a devout modernist. I would hesitate to be so free with that term, especially in areas that you do not have professional expertise. BTW, what do you mean by "Genesis one is does (sic) not fit the world we live in as it is written"?

Originally posted by Ethelred This is both true and false. It is true that Genesis is not scientific but it is false that it cannot be disproved because of this. Genesis makes a large number of very clear and fairly precise statements. Many of them can be checked against the real world. Many fail that check. For instance The Elder Edda is not scientific either. However it says the Earth was formed by a giant cow licking a giant block of ice. This is clearly wrong just as Genesis is on some things. Neither of those two religious writings is scientific yet both make specific statements. Both can be checked against the real world. Both fail.

Again, you are guilty of applying a modernist standard of truth to an ancient document. Moving from your example of "The Elder Edda" (which I'm not all that familiar with), I would judge its truthfulness on the basis of its genre. If it is an epic or a myth, the author may not have really believed that a giant cow licking a block of ice caused the formation of the earth. It may simply serve to represent or justify a particular worldview, i.e. cows are sacred. The question is then whether or not that worldview is accurate.

Originally posted by Ethelred That too is wrong. Creationism is an attempt to prove Genesis and not the other way around. If Creationism was true it would indeed be provable by looking at the real world and comparing what Creationism says about it with the world really is. It fails that test.

Actually, the way many fundamentalists argue Creationism, it would seem that they are more concerned with their theory then they are with the biblical text. While Creationism may fail in its scientific methodology, the claim that God created the world, which you should not construe as the same as the theory of "Creationism," is simply not open to scientific investigation because God is not a variable that can be controlled.

Originally posted by Ethelred Its not highly subjective nor is it personal. Its written in many areas as it was a factual telling. Rememberance of Things Past by Proust is highly subjective not the Bible. I doubt you would make that claim if the Bible and the real world were a better match. You would claim that match as evidence supporting the Bible, as would I.

It is very subjective and personal. Genesis 12-50 are comprised of several toledoths, which are essentially stories about families and in the case of Genesis, one particularly family, namely the family descending through Terah. Also, I am relatively certain that you do not have the expertise to claim, "Its written in many areas as it was a factual telling," because in fact that claim (in the context in which you employ it and with the meaning you are assigning it) is misleading.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Not just theological ones. Real ones. Like how sheep got patches of color for instance. That they are put in theological terms is due to the fact that the authors simply didn't know any better. Theology was what they did and it was factual to them.

That an ancient people believed they could manipulate the color of sheep (when in the "real" world, as you like to call it, we know that this cannot happen without genetic engineering) does not invalidate their story . It is still a story, told from their point of view, that (for the believer) passes on certain theological truths. That the elements of the story include superstitutions of the people who wrote only adds to the authenticity of the story itself and hence its reliability.

Originally posted by Ethelred And replace them with new myths. Myths that fit the authors beliefs. Many based on old legends and myths that had been around for a long time.

No argument here. Genesis 1-11 is best classified as myth.

Originally posted by Ethelred None of them any more relevant to reality than the Elder Edda unless a god was involved in the writing. In which case they should have a much better fit to reality.

I beg to differ about their relevancy. Many people, including myself, find the biblical stories extremely relevant.

Originally posted by Ethelred
So how come Genesis 2 refers to 'elohim instead of Jehovah? Plural gods instead of one god.

First off, I was talking about the purpose of Genesis 1 not Genesis 2, which has a totally different purpose and was probably written by a completely different writer. So, what's your point?

Second, you reveal a glaring lack of familiarity and understanding of Classical Hebrew. To avoid digressing into Hebrew grammar and morphology, the simplest answer to your statement is that Elohim is here used as a name and therefore it really doesn't matter what the name means. My middle name means "Handsome" but that is a description of me that is certainly open to interpretation.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Its does more than that. Its fairly specific on a number of points. Those points only seem to match reality occasionaly by accident since they mostly don't match.

What points are you talking about? Describe some for me. If they are simply points of culture then they only reflect something about the culture and the people who wrote the text.

Originally posted by Ethelred
It is the domain of science to understand how things work. If that shows the Bible has things wrong that is a byproduct of science and not a goal.

Except as pertains the theology of the bible. Science cannot instruct the bible as to what is right or wrong nor more than it can instruct society on morality. Science consists only of hypothesis, experimentation, and observation.

Originally posted by Ethelred You make a standard mistake here. Evolution is two valued word. Its a theory to explain facts. The fact is life evolves. Darwin came up with a theory that explains why and how it evolves. He did pretty good considering he didn't know about genes. Evolution is both theory and fact.

There is nothing wrong or religious in trying to understand how things happened. That is what science does and that includes trying to understand as much as possible about the beginning of the universe. Perhaps that is what you referring to in you implication that science is becoming a religion.

No. I'm not attacking science on its pursuit of knowledge in the natural world. What I am, however, arguing is that often times scientific theory is translated into dogma? For instance, darwinism is not only a scientific theory but it has also been translated into a social theory (Social Darwinism), which formed the basis of the many of the Third Reich's views of humanity. And, certainly, if we were to simply base our morality on the scientific theory of darwinism, would it not be for the betterment of humanity that we exterminate and/or sterilize people with disabilities?

BTW, I've been using evolution throughout in the sense of the scientific theory.

Originally posted by Ethelred Its hard to study things that there is no sign of. If there was evidence for the supernatural it would be studied. In fact there have been attempts to study things that many would call supernatural. They have produced nothing convincing. The Klein studies of ESP for instance.

You are looking for and expecting evidence of the supernatural in the natural world. But, there are many things, even in your so-called "real" world, that cannot be studied or at least are not fully discernable by science because they are not part the natural world, i.e. love, or various other more abstract ideas. You are right, however, that occassionally some supernatural things can be studied. You are wrong, however, when you state that "they have produced nothing convincing." Studies of the power of prayer for healing have in many cases provided remarkable results of its benefit.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Its the job of science to clear up the deceptions should there be any. The real world can complex but it is not deceptive. That is what life does. Man and animal use decpetion for survival purposes so its not surprising that literature should abound with deception. You aren't doing for the Bible with this line of reasoning. You make it look deliberatly deceptive instead of due to ignorance.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Its the job of science to open this metaphorical book.

It has its limitations, however. Hence, the other disciplines that exist in the pursuit of knowledge.

Originally posted by Ethelred
This look like an attempt to muddle things and nothing else.

Didn't understand something I wrote?

Originally posted by Ethelred
Science COULD study the supernatural if there was any evidence that it existed. However all you are doing here is saying what I said. The world and the Bible don't match. One must be wrong or Jehovah must have engaged in deception which is definitly what covering things up is. Wether reality is covered up via natural or supernatural means its still deception. The world looks exactly like its not the world described in parts of Genesis.

Again, science has limitations and I think you grant science powers it does not possess. What do you mean by "The world and the Bible don't match"? I think the bible provides a profound description of the reality of the human condition.

How did "Jehovah" (which btw is an incorrect attempt to vocalize the divine name used by old translations and Jehovah's Witnesses) deceive? I don't understand your point. How does the world not look like the world described in Genesis? And besides, you talk as if "Jehovah" wrote the bible.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I use the Bible for interpreting it. I then compare it to the world around us. There is a failure to match. Calling it literature does not free it from testing unless of course you are calling fiction. Is that what you are doing? Calling the Bible fiction?

Calling it literature means that it needs to be tested according to literary theories not scientific ones. And yes, many parts of the bible are fiction.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I don't see anything wrong in it. If its myth its not trustworthy. This is simply realism.

Really? Something that is ahistorical is not trustworthy? Have you ever cried "wolf"?

Originally posted by Ethelred
They have done much more. They have said the the people within the Bible that clealy treat the Flood as a fact are also mere literature or at least remarkably unaware that the story is mere literature if they were real people. Unless of course it was intended to thought of as real when it was written as I think was the case. There are a number of references to the Flood in the New Testament that clearly treat it as a real event just as described in Genesis.

To actually profit from this line of discussion, it would be very useful for you to provide quotations from the bible.

Originally posted by Ethelred
That would be fine if it was not the clear the others in the Bible did not think of it as a genre but instead thought of it as real. How does one decide which is which? It looks to me like you base your decision on whether it fails to match the real world and not by looking at the text.

For instance it is clear that the Psalms are songs and not prophecy despite the efforts of Fundamentalists to use Psalm as if it was prophecy. However there is nothing in Genesis that shows that it was not intended as a real description of actual events and later biblical figures clearly treat them as actual events.

What kind of story begins "Once Upon a Time"?
What kind of document begins "Dear ______"?
Genres have literally clues at the beginning, scattered throughout them, and at the end. It just so happens that separation of culture and time make it difficult to pin down all the varied genres employed in the bible. As you point out, some of them are easily discernable, i.e. Psalms (although here too there are many different types and forms of Psalms), Proverbs, Wisdom Lit., Oracles, Historiography, Short Story, Hero Stories, Typology, etc. The field of comparative literature is critically important to determining Classical Hebrew genres. By reading literature contemporeanous (sic) with the bible, we can discern various similarities and differences with those literary forms. As an example, "The Birth of Moses" in Exodus 1-2 takes on a typical form used repeatedly throughout the Ancient Near East. In fact, scholars have found well over a hundred literary parallels. This strongly indicates that it is the form of the story that conveys something the audience was meant to understand about Moses rather than the modernist tendency to believe that Exodus 1-2 is a historical record of Moses' birth. The form used here, as in most if not all the cases it is used in the Ancient Near East, foreshadows the fact that Moses will be a great person. It's as simple as that. There are other examples in the biblical text itself. For instance, have you ever wondered why the men of the bible so often meet their wives at wells? This is another "type" story. Their truthfulness (and even their historicity) can only be discerned if you recognize what in fact they are saying happened.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Well the Flood story is treated as real throughout the Bible. Not as myth or legend. In any case I don't see any reason to put the Bible over any other book of myths and legends if it does not show some special knowledge that can be tested for a reality check.

Again, please provide quotations on the use of the Flood Story in the rest of the bible.

Why put the Bible over other texts? Several reasons come to mind at the moment:

(1) It does contain historical kernels and many of these kernels are supported by archaeology. Most other religious texts have absolutely no grounding in history.

(2) The truthfulness of the bible's worldview on issues of theology, the human condition and such. This is a matter of personal conviction.

(3) The testimony of quite literally billions of humans who have been affected and moved by encounters with their God. (It is also worth pointing out that the perception that Christianity is a white man's religion is totally false. Christianity is the only religion of the world that can truly claim to be international and clearly knows no ethnic bounds. There are Christian Palestinians and Christian Israelis. The biggest Christian churches are in South Korea and South America. Christianity is experiencing its most significant and rapid growth in Africa and China. And, these are no simply recent developments. Christianity has thrived in many disparate parts of the world since the time of Jesus.)

(4) Most importantly, the authority of the bible rests in two historical encounters with God that a preponderance of the evidence (a legal standard) suggests were likely events and manifestly unique events in the course of human history: The National Revelation of God at Mount Sinai (Horeb) and for Christians, the Crucifixition and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, any person faced with the biblical text has to come to terms with these events. You can either deny them (but you would be rejecting exceedingly likely events), reject their efficacy and importance, or you can accept them and become a Christian in doing so (or if you only accept the former, become a Jew).

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Most agree that Genesis can be viewed as a historical record of sorts, in which case, a scientific approach will have to be used. As to whether it is literature is debatable. Certainly not all of the bible is literature, and probably not Genesis.

Yes. The Bible is literature. All of it! What is your definition of literature that somehow the bible would not be included?

Second, "Most agree that Genesis can be viewed as a historical record of sorts"? Are you talking about lay people or professionals? What do you mean by "historical record of sorts"? It is certainly an artifact of history and in that capacity reveals something of the culture and people who wrote it as well as the cultures and peoples that preserved it. The historical-scientific approaches can be applied to it in that capacity, most certainly. But, scientific method can't be applied as means to interpret the text itself. Well, it can but it yields inane results like trying to use literary theory to solve a math problem--good luck!

[Aeson]

The National Revelation of God at Mount Sinai (Horeb) and for Christians, the Crucifixition and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, any person faced with the biblical text has to come to terms with these events. You can either deny them (but you would be rejecting exceedingly likely events), reject their efficacy and importance, or you can accept them and become a Christian in doing so (or if you only accept the former, become a Jew).

Just wondering why you would claim these events were exceedingly likely to have happened?