There is an inescapable difficulty that we have to face when reading the scripture. Especially in the Old Testament, many of the stories simply cannot be proven through science (because there are no measurable data or because the events took place when there were no additional sources for comparison) and many of the stories report supernatural intervention that, by definition, must fly in the face of natural processes. So, how can we possibly look at the Bible in a critical way? Truthfully, there is not a great deal that can be gleaned scientifically from reading most of the Old Testament. The moment of Creation is prehistoric by definition. If there was indeed a great flood as described in the Bible, there were fewer than 10 human eyewitnesses, so any accounts would be based on oral tradition and passed down through generations. The stories themselves are rapid-fire accounts often containing minimal detail lest a mostly-illiterate populous lose their ability to transfer the stories orally.
Adherents to the literal interpretation of the Bible speak to the idea that if anything is possible through God, there is no reason to doubt Biblical history simply because something described therein was naturally impossible. Many also see little merit in seeking archaeological clues to verify/cast doubt upon Biblical stories. While I don’t look to the Bible as literal truth (due mostly to the fact that it contains rather apparent metaphors and that I have never read it as it was originally written), I can’t fault the logic that says a supernatural being could do things that are supernatural. Still, I would not expect anyone who has no other reason to believe in God to garner such a belief by reading the Pentateuch; in fact, I would expect quite the opposite. The stories of the Old Testament are sensational. Numerous acts described in the Old Testament cannot be conceived of without divine intervention. Further, historical accounts of many events were written thousands (or billions, in the case of the Creation) of years after the events themselves.
I wrote in earlier posts about the inception of the universe, and I am fascinated by the fact that the universe came to be. Even more fascinating is that Einstein’s equations tell us the facets of the universe – time and space – cannot have existed (at least as we know them presently) ontologically before the universe because they are interlinked with one another and with the whole of the universe. We are left then with a few irrational prospects (e.g. the non-existent universe caused itself, the universe existed for an immeasurable time obeying different physical laws and spontaneously came to obey the alternative laws we know today, or the universe stemmed from nothingness) or the prospect of a causer of the universe. Within the first 10 words of the Biblical account of Earth’s history we are introduced to the Judeo-Christian causer. According to the Bible, God created the entirety of the universe. If we accept this story, any act following such a feat would pale in comparison.
When I study the Bible, I can’t help but note that the stories are explicit in outlining those instances where God exercised power that was supernatural and those in which God called upon a man to exercise faith in performing tasks that were nearly impossible. In the latter instances, I think we can presume that such feats would have to be physically possible; else, they would not be the feats of men. I think it is important to view critically those events that the Bible describes as acts of men; however, I think it is rather futile to view critically the acts of God except if science can directly contradict statements of the Bible.
If we assume that a supernatural God may exist, we cannot fall victim to arguments that evoke only naturalistic evidence to refute explicitly-stated supernatural phenomena. For example, we cannot say “snakes don’t talk, animals don’t gravitate toward boats, and bushes don’t burn without changing their chemical composition; therefore, the Bible cannot be true.” Such events are said to be supernatural in the text (inherent in that they were performed by God or demon). Still, there are some tools at our disposal.
Let’s look at the Big Bang as an example. I have spoken at length about the Big Bang and the beginning of the universe. If the Bible said that the universe is alive and that it has existed forever, we could cast doubt on such a statement by examining the contrary evidence pointing to a massive explosion that ignited the universe.
In the Beginning
(Source of Biblical text: www.biblegateway.com)
I thoroughly enjoy the text of Genesis 1 because of its simplicity and because of the interesting perspective of creation relative to the earth.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 states simply that God created all. “In the beginning” carries a special kind of significance for me when compared against the literal beginning of time. I’m not saying that there was any understanding of General Relativity contained within the opening text, but I just think it’s neat that “the beginning” is exactly what Einstein tells us the Big Bang was.
On with the story
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Sequence of the Creation
There is only One who could relay the story of Creation, and verse 2 gives some insight as to the perspective God uses when relaying the story. His spirit hovers over the earth (Genesis 1:2), so I read the Creation story as told by One who has inhabited the earth throughout its journey; accordingly, I like to picture the events taking place as being told by someone who is both viewing the earth and looking out into the universe, describing the picture as it unfolds.
(Genesis 1:1) God brings the universe into being.
(Genesis 1:2) Billions of years after the Big Bang, we find Earth journeying through the dark expanse of space, fluid in form and without life.
(Genesis 1:3-5) Earth finds itself drawn by the gravitational pull of the sun and begins its orbit for the first time, experiencing the incredible light of the sun after a long journey through darkness.
(Genesis 1:6-8) The clearly-defined atmosphere begins to develop out of the ocean.
(Genesis 1:9-10) The first continents begin to emerge.
(Genesis 1:11-13) Early vegetation that resembles modern seed-bearing plants comes into being.
(Genesis 1:14-19) The veil of the dense early atmosphere is lifted, revealing the distinct sources of Earth’s light and eventually the light of the stars.
(Genesis 1:20-23) The lesser animals we know today begin to populate the seas and the earth.
(Genesis 1:24-25) Higher animals (mammals including livestock) are first seen.
(Genesis 1:26) Man is first introduced having the ability to tame and/or preside over other creatures.
There is a nice symmetry between the Creation story and between the scientific explanations of Earth’s history that I don’t believe should be lost in the poetic delivery of Genesis. It is important to note, though, that the early Bible is not focused on “how” so extracting scientific explanations from Hebrew poetry is a dicey proposition. After all, there are 31 poetic verses to cover the entirety of the Creation. Note, too, that there are a few variances in the interpretation of some of these passages, especially those regarding “light”. The key point, however, to the Creation story is that God created all. He is immeasurably powerful and brought the earth into existence along with the entirety of the universe.
Six Days of Creation
A Creation “day” stems from the Hebrew word “yom” which carries a multitude of different meanings when translated into English. Some scholars believe in a literal 6-day creation while others maintain that “age” might be a more appropriate translation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
typos......
I too think the opening creation story of Genesis is very poetic. It portrays God as being supremely in control, taking measured steps to accomplish his creation. Totally lovely. I also love that he created mankind “in our image, according to our likeness” - that seems a very hopeful vision of mankind. I also really like your image, Randy, of God’s perspective as He creates.
But if we’re going to view all this from a logos perspective, here are a few points to add.
1. The first creation story does follow a well-ordered pattern of simple building up to complex - except for God.
I think that from the point of view of pure reason, we must add “the prospect of a causer of the universe” to the list of irrational prospects. The word “causer” has the connotation of a sentient being like us. Whatever did cause the universe, if anything did ( at least related to our current notion of “cause”), there does not seem to be any reason to anthropomorphize a being into the mix. We know so little about what happened back then - I ask you which is more likely? a. Yahweh created the universe b. Ancient Hebrews anthropomorphized themselves back onto the “cause” of the universe, and wrote stories, thus creating Yahweh. - just like other ancient cultures told stories and wrote of their creation myths.
2. The writer of the first creation narrative clearly writes in verse 16 that God made the two “great lights” after He made vegetation “of every kind”. The sun and the moon were created and placed in the “dome of the sky”. It’s beautiful, but any comparison to scientific accuracy is a stretch. Why would God create the sun after the trees on earth?
3. Are we going to discuss the second creation story in chapter 2 next week? I will bring it up, but we can wait if that’s better....
The second creation story, from the Yahwist writer (who refers to God as “Yahweh” as opposed to “Elohim” or other names for God), is thought to predate the story in chapter one by several centuries. In this story, man is created first. Then Yahweh creates vegetation. He creates animals as a “trial and error” way to find a mate for Adam. Then he creates woman.
These stories are pure poetry, but they are also two very different versions of what happened. I don’t think they comment as much on science or history, as much as they comment on man’s attempts to understand his current situation, when the stories were written. But even if they are poetic and substantial in meaning, they contradict each other. That's not a problem for me, but for an inerrantist it may be. Did God create man or animals first?
4. Randy -“Such events are said to be supernatural in the text (inherent in that they were performed by God or demon)”
Everything was considered “supernatural” back then. Sickness, storms, etc. were all produced by God or demons. Since everything was considered supernatural, and therefore all things were within the realm of possibility, which is more likely? a. Ancient Hebrew writers wrote to explain the world, and their history, from a supernatural viewpoint b. The supernatural events described actually happened historically. Which is more likely?
5. Back to the flood briefly - which is more likely? A supernatural being flooded the earth and then cleaned it up so well that there is no archeological evidence for it - or that it is a folk tale? Which is more likely?
I'm not trying to tear down the Bible - but I am trying to dispute an inerrant viewpoint, as I think it's in the best interest of both the world and the ultimate fate of religion's relevance in today's world.
A relevant thought to add to this discussion:
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle" - Albert Einstein
“If there was indeed a great flood as described in the Bible, there were fewer than 10 human eyewitnesses, so any accounts would be based on oral tradition and passed down through generations.”In the same way that we did not need eyewitness accounts to paint a picture of the big bang, we do not need eyewitness accounts to paint a picture of a global flood as described in the fanciful story told in Genesis. Just as a big bang leaves evidence in the form of microwave background radiation, large scale homogeneity, distribution of light/heavy elements, etc.; a global flood that killed everything (other than what was impossibly on an ark) would leave a huge amount of evidence in the form of erosion, species distribution, existence of various species, sediment in ice cores, tree rings, etc.
“If the Bible said that the universe is alive and that it has existed forever, we could cast doubt on such a statement by examining the contrary evidence pointing to a massive explosion that ignited the universe.”:
If the Bible said that the entire planet was under water and that everything not on the ark was exterminated, we could cast doubt on such a statement (and therefore the Bible as a whole – according to Randy) by examining the contrary evidence pointing to no such mass extinction, erosion, species distribution, sedimentary deposits, etc.
Randy, can you honestly say you are evaluating the evidences in an even handed fashion? (as a physicist at heart?) I am directly calling you out as not doing this.
What I can honestly say is that I haven't written anything terribly in-depth beyond Genesis 1.
The fact that atheists, agnostics, and Biblical scholars alike have called into question the account of the great flood is certainly enough to give me pause.
The fact that there exists a "Localized Flood Theory" (brought about by Biblical scholars who question the feasablity of a worldwide flood) should make us question whether such a phenomenon actually happened.
I don't take these objections as flippantly as many apologists have. But, we'll discuss the flood further soon.
OK, then let’s apply the argument to something in Genesis 1.
An honest evaluation of the evidence for the claim that birds and porpoises were poofed into existence prior to reptiles and insects (Gen 1:21-24) leaves you with a feeling that Genesis is a creation myth that has many people fooled into believing that it is true.
Or what about God setting the stars with the purpose of giving light on the earth? (Gen 1:16-17) The evidence shows that the majority of stars’ light does not illuminate the earth at all, or only so very slightly. If this is not evidence against the claim of starlight's propose, what would such evidence look like?
If plants were poofed into existence before the sun, we could turn to evidence to corroborate this claim. And so on. I am saying that you can use the methods you used in previous blogposts to evaluate these claims.
Also, what about the useage of “us” and “our” in Gen 1:26? Is this evidence of multiplie gods?
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. (Gen1:29)
God said this and it is not true. Would you take Atropa belladonna for food? Is God lying, crazy, or truthful?
God does communicate with "we" and "us" -
My HarperCollins study Bible suggests that this does not mean multiple gods, but means that God is referring to his royal court. Angels and so forth - probably beings that he was considered to have created.
The term "Elohim" , used for God, is a plural meaning "gods" or "divine powers", but it is still used a lot in the OT in a singular way.
In Canaanite mythology "El" (god) was the father of Baal, and he presided over the pantheon of divine beings.
Note the similarity of this idea with "Yahweh" in Psalm 89:5-6
"Yahweh, the assembly of holy ones in heaven applaud the marvel of your faithfulness. Who in the skies can compare with Yahweh? Which of the heaven-born can rival him?"
In Psalm 82 Elohim strips the other gods of their power, because of the injustice taking place under their supervision.
In Deuteronomy 32: 8-9 "Elyon" (the most high) divided up the people of earth "according to the number of the gods". Yahweh (separate from or associated with Elyon here? I'm not sure) took Jacob (Israel).
There are definitely overtones of polytheism in the OT, although there are other portions which are very singular in the view of God as the only divine power.
Other terms for God in the OT are El Elyon (God Most High" and El Shaddai (God Almighty)
very interesting stuff.
Skyhook,
Let's try not to reach too terribly much. It will water down your later arguments.
Unfortunately, as previously stated, the Bible is not a scientific text and does not mention each type of creature by name.
You did manage to surprise me, though. I expected arguments against my interpretation of the "light" but not a semantic argument about the relative luminosity of stars or about the text not specifically mentioning lizards to predate birds.
There are a few different interpretations of Genesis 1. One makes the argument that the Hebrew word for "made" can also mean "revealed". One argues that God sped up time to create the universe and life in a literal six days. One says that God created light apart from the sun, moon, and stars in order to begin life on Earth, and then brought the earth to the sun. I gave my own interpretation based on what would be seen from Earth as the planet evolved according to our best geologic evidence. As I alluded to in the post, since Genesis 1 is nothing but divine action which can have no counter-evidence, there's not a whole lot to argue.
Also, there is a tendency to take one or two verses (e.g. those that use the royal "we") and take them out of context. The number of verses that mention the one true God leave little doubt as to the Biblical view of God. It's best not to get too hung up on the little stuff. What I really don't want to do here is spend 40 weeks studying Hebrew. Some Biblical themes are simply too prevalent to ignore.
I am not sure why you aim talk about reaching towards me. I am not the one trying to make a vague and obviously mythological story match with history, reality, and truth. An evaluation of the evidence matching the rigor of your big bang evidence evaluation demonstrates this plainly.
In saying that we can have no counter-evidence to divine action, you contradict this statement you made earlier:
”If the Bible said that the universe is alive and that it has existed forever, we could cast doubt on such a statement by examining the contrary evidence pointing to a massive explosion that ignited the universe.”For the universe to exist forever, it would require divine action in the way of a force that prevents the expansion or collapse of the universe, sustaining it forever. We have counter-evidence of this divine action in the form of all the evidence that supports the Big Bang Theory.
We may not be able to rule out a supernatural action if we are assuming a supernatural being, but we can examine the effects that action would have on the world we see today. If there is no evidence of that action taking place (or evidence of an alternative), being reasonable people, we come to the realization that this is a mythological story rather than a truthful account of what happened.
Using the same form of argument as what you have laid out before, we can then evaluate claims about creation of water and land creatures, vegetation before sunlight is available for photosynthesis, the purpose of the stars, or safety of food.
“God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems”Let’s look at that again – ‘great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems’ – and you think each type of creature needs to be named? Who is reaching here? Every living and moving thing…. In what twisted understanding does this exclude whales, porpoises, dolphins, manatees, and so on? Genesis 1:21-24 unambiguously states that all the creatures of the water and all the birds were created prior to the creatures that move on the ground. Do reptiles and insects not move on the ground? Do whales not move and teem in the sea? If whales are not a “great creature of the sea” I do not know what is.
It is not that the text fails to mention that lizards predate birds, it is that the text explicitly states that all creatures in the water appeared before all creatures on land. This claim is not true. One would expect that God would get it accurately. If this statement has to be lying, crazy, or truthful, taking it as truth requires quite a reach.
Genesis 1:11-17, as well as you in your interpretation, claim that vegetation appears before sunlight bathes the Earth. This is a claim that goes counter to botanical evidence. Part of what defines vegetation is photosynthesis and this is not possible without sunlight. Lying, crazy, or truthful? Calling this truthful is quite a reach.
“He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,”I take “God set [the stars]… to give light on earth” as meaning that God set the stars to give light on earth. Not much of a reach to take the words as they are written. “...to give light on the earth.” This sentence does not require semantic gymnastics, it plainly states the purpose, or intention, of the stars – to give light on the earth. Is this statement lying, crazy, or truth? To say it is true is quite a reach. You are aware of how vast the universe is and how distant the majority of stars are. A review of the astronomical evidence does not leave one standing on firm ground with the conclusion that stars were set to illuminate earth.
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.“Every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth”
Again, I want to draw you attention to the type of argument you set forth above. We can ‘cast doubt on the statement above by examining contrary evidence pointing to seed-bearing plants/trees that make for positively bad food. Is this statement lying, crazy, or truth? To say it is truth is a reach that is utterly absurd and flies directly in the face of evidence.
By taking the words of Genesis 1 as they are written, we see that it is not an accurate account of how things went down. We can reach and twist to make it seem superficially symmetrical with reality, but there is no need to do this. We have no need for such a story if we are concerned with what is true by way of science, reason, and logic.
Skyhook,
First, I want to apologize. I made the statement that Genesis 1 “can have no counter-evidence.” This is false. Certainly there is potential for counter-evidence. I had meant to address the fact that God’s immense power could explain most anything, and I overstepped with this claim.
Circular ArgumentYou addressed the idea of a circular argument being used to lend credence to supernatural explanations. I intend to devote an entire post to this idea soon. Feel free to prepare counter-arguments by reading Flew’s works… or Steve Stark, for that matter.
TranslationWhen I speak of trying not to make this blog a Hebrew translation debate, here’s what I’m referring to:
The Hebrew language of old contains about 20% of the vocabulary currently available in English. Further, there are certain idiosyncrasies associated with the Hebrew language that present a vast challenge for English translators. For example, Hebrew has only one past tense. Where English can incorporate the pluperfect tense (e.g. “had made”) instead of the past tense (e.g. “made”) when applicable, the Hebrew word “nathan” relies upon the translator to interpret the context. Couple this with the poetic language of Genesis, and you have a real problem on your hands. There are difficulties in translating Old English poetry into modern language… the difficulties associated with translating Hebrew poetry may be tenfold.
Let me address the translation of “we” that you alluded to, for instance. My wife, a Latin teacher, told me that one of the more difficult things to relay to younger students is the seemingly incorrect pronoun usage often incorporated in Latin poetry. Quite simply, the poet used what fit. If “we” had more poetic value than “I,” it was common for the poet to use the plural even when referring to the singular. A great many scholars agree with the interpretation that Steven brought to the table as well (“we” referring to the “royal court”). But, it could simply be that “we” fit (not to be confused with Wii Fit) the poetic style. Other parts of the Scripture (e.g. the Ten Commandments) state rather explicitly that Yahweh is the one true God.
Light
I made it a point to sit down and interpret the sequence of Genesis 1 before referencing outside resources in an attempt to honestly assess my view, but there was one interpretation (rather different from my own) that I found intriguing. Recall that the Jewish people were enslaved in Egypt, a culture that worshipped celestial bodies as powerful gods. One scholar that I came across suggested that God made a specific point to bring light to Earth on the first day to demonstrate to Israel that He alone can create life. In essence, God was the source of life-giving light. Earth was brought to the presence of the sun to act as a life sustainer on the fourth day.
In some ways, verses that seem erroneous give us a clue that authors and scribes attempted to strictly adhere to the original Scripture. I don’t think that you could find many cultures on Earth circa 1500 BC who did not understand that sunlight was necessary for vegetation. Why jot down a creation story you know to be out of order? I think it is reasonable to assume that the Israelites didn’t interpret it as such.
Creatures / Creeping Things / Nephesh
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures (nephesh) according to their kinds: livestock (behemah), creatures (still nephesh) that move (remes) along the ground, and wild animals (chay), each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Nephesh: The common English translation of the Hebrew word “nephesh” is “soul” (though in Hebrew the soul is accompanied by a living vessel). Generally, “nephesh” creatures are those thought to have a mind and/or those capable of emotion (i.e. not insects, and likely not lower creatures such as reptiles).
Behemah: “Cattle” or “livestock”.
Remes: “Creep” or “move”.
Chay: Usually references carnivorous animals.
So, the “twisted understanding” is just a product of researching the original Hebrew.
Stars"God set [the stars]...."
Two things:
1. Setting “the stars” in brackets instead of using the pronoun “them” certainly makes it easier to present your case; however, I haven’t found in my studies that “them” refers only to the stars and not to the other heavenly bodies mentioned directly before.
2. The light given off by the stars is used by many of God’s creatures (birds and men, for instance, navigate by the stars).
I refer back to my original post when I said, “extracting scientific explanations from Hebrew poetry is a dicey proposition.” I want to reiterate that the primary reason I do not subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Bible is that I don’t think we know what the Bible literally says. You can easily find four Biblical scholars with four varying opinions on the exact interpretation of Genesis 1. This will be true throughout the Bible, and especially through the Old Testament. That being said, there is one thing that no reputable scholar disagrees with: Scripture tells us that God created all. Again, I assert that this is the point to take away from reading Genesis 1.
Steven,
I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your comments. A lot of what you said will be addressed in later posts, and some in the very next post, so I opted to hold off on commenting here.
Let’s talk about this potential for counter-evidence.
What kind of reaching translational tricks can we use to water down the claim made in Genesis 1:29?
"I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.”If this is not the translation you believe to be true, then why would you paste it here on your blog? It seems more likely that you do not read these claims with a critical eye, and when challenged, you turn to various translations to get you out of a corner.
For example, if left unchallenged, we would never learn about how “every” really means “some” and “whole earth” only means “parts of the earth” and “yours for food” can be translated into “yours for food and for deadly poisons.”
With the quote from God above, we have a direct claim and direct counter-evidence. Assuming the words you posted are the words we are to go by (which I understand might change, but let’s assume), what would the consequence of this counter-evidence be? Would it be “sufficient evidence against the absolute and divine truth of the Pentateuch and in turn the Bible as a whole?” Drawing attention to these false claims feels like picking on a retarded kid to me, so I would like to understand what it would mean to you if I were able to successfully demonstrate counter-evidence, to you.
I am not sure exactly how the translations introduced in the last post affect the problem I presented with Genesis 1:20-24. Even after the translation, we still have mind having things (creatures/nephesh) in the water created before mind having things (creatures/nephesh) on the land. A whale is as good a candidate for nephesh as any. According to the given translation, whales were created prior to land creatures. This goes counter to the physiological, archeological, and molecular evidence. This does not fit with reality. Would this be “sufficient evidence against the absolute and divine truth of the Pentateuch and in turn the Bible as a whole?”
So what are you saying we should take from the Bible and why? I have no idea what translation or interpretation you are putting forth and I have no idea what method you are using to deem your understanding most reasonable. Statements like “brought light to demonstrate to Israel…” are nonsense if we are trying to determine what is true and fitting with reality. Saying that heavenly bodies are there for navigation is just a terrible case of the anthropic principle. I guess I am just confused as to why we are even reading this mythological creation story and how seriously we are to take it.
Randy,
No prob, man. I'm enjoying the back and forth with you and Skyhook.
I look forward to the logic discussion, and whatever other discussion are coming up.
”I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.”“…yours for food and for deadly poisons.”
Yeah, I forgot to address this. You don’t need to know Hebrew for this one. You just need to read on. Later in Genesis, you’ll note that there is a considerable change in the ecostructure courtesy of God. The pristine garden gives way to the Earth we’ve come to know and love after “The Fall”.
“Drawing attention to these false claims feels like picking on a retarded kid to me….”
I realize you’re getting frustrated, but I don’t appreciate the insinuation. The particular verse that seemed to bring about this statement is one that describes the earth as it once was, but is no longer. I tend to get a bit snide too when I argue, so no biggie. It’s frustrating on my end to read through the Old Testament as well.
I think the best evidence of God is Jesus. Beginning next week, we’ll do some skipping between the Old Testament and the New. In a nutshell, I believe the evidence for Jesus’ miracles to be convincing, I believe Jesus’ followers to be convincing in their narratives, and I believe Jesus’ references to the Scripture to be a convincing argument for the Scripture. The New Testament will be much, much easier to review than the Old.
The only claim I made about reviewing the Old Testament is that it would be difficult. It was likely a mistake to begin with Genesis.
Randy,
I do not intend to insinuate towards you, only at the Biblical claims as I read them. I apologize for choosing words that might give an impression otherwise.
“You don’t need to know Hebrew for this one. You just need to read on.”No, we need to look at the evidence. I thought we were sticking to principles of science, reason, logic… Where is the evidence of this pristine garden and fall? If there was a time where humans existed and all seed-bearing fruits were safe to eat, then there would be evidence of such an anomaly. This is simply not the case. In fact, all evidence indicates that poisonous fruits made their appearance long before man. I’m sorry; it just feels silly asking real, reasonable questions about a fictional account.
Post a Comment