ID question for creationists

What's stupid is I'm not married to anything being said. In one thread I am explaining what someone else is saying (quite clearly I might add). In this thread I am talking about an interpretation based on a THEORY that the Bible is a series of fables, most importantly the creation stories because that was before history the writers could write could have known about.I'm simply getting frustrated that my posts are being chopped up for convenience of raising issues I already answered.But I trust you Rei. You seem on the ball about most things. Am I really not answering Rrhain's charges? Am I really being inconsistent? And is he not chopping up my posts for his own convenience?If you think he's right then I will try to give this another shot. If not, then I am done. I don't know if you were in the thread on homosexuality where Rrhain kept freaking out when me and another guy (who were both on his side by the way) used the word homosexual merely for convenience in discussion. He couldn't handle the fact that we'd accept a term for convenience, and argue about it at length!This means that while I can agree with many end conclusions he has, his method of discussion is inconvenient and terribly burdensome. In fact I still feel like we haven't actually gotten to a debate on what I was advancing in this thread. Its just too exhausting.But like I said. If you think I am in the wrong I will give it another try. This is true and unfortunately is the nature of the Bible. It can and is interpreted many different ways. One can start by assuming it is tied together with some real coherence (which requires ignoring a few obvious contradictions), or accept that it contains some contradictions as a result of its nature.Not a few scholars (and I think at least one thread at EvC) have pointed out that the Bible is cobbled together bits and pieces of text based on originally oral traditions. To make matters worse many bits and pieces seem picked up from other religions in the region at the time.The result then is not necessarily going to be a coherent piece all the way through. Editing it together brought some coherence to it, but nothing to the level that there are no deviations (even singular) throughout.There are even some scholars which have suggested that most of the Bible contains parables or fables purchased from other religions and that each section may be viewed as a separate moral tale with lessons to be learned from it alone.Only in this way do I raise the interpretation that I outlined. That Genesis, and particularly the fall, is a moral tale regarding man's desire to judge life, and that being the ultimate cause of his misery.I actually had a whole thread on this topic (I put Rrhain's name in the title but he never showed up). No one argued against this possibility, and one person actually supported this possibility, posting chunks of text in Hebrew with the translations.I realize that this is a supposition. And if it is true that every single case of using "die" means physical death, then there is reason to wonder why the editors never caught the singular discrepency in word usage in Genesis. But it does happen and given all the other inconsistencies throughout, maybe not a surprise there. In fact, if the editors were literalists missing the point of the fable, then they may have seen no inconsistency at all!This would be similar to the editors and translators who thought sodomite was as good as Qadesh, and perpetuated those kinds of mistakes throughout.Rrhain has also suggested that day always means 24 hours, but this claim is not true at all. Or at least I have seen plenty of people debating that with pretty good reason.I certainly do not believe the Bible is in any way crystal clear, even if somewhat consistent. And I wholly doubt his interpretation that the Bible says God lied to Adam and Eve because he would be jealous of their power.While I get that he is an angry and jealous God, a lying God does not make sense to me as a morality tale (and remember that was the beginning "If, then" required for the sake of argument), or as a literal-word-based religious tradition. If anything, it seems that if it was to be taken literally, then he simply told them not to, and they did. Whether they would have been strong is beside the point. Maybe it was just God's personal stash. We don't know the reason and can't look into it.------------------
holmes

A nice, civil, well argued response. I hope Rrhain will respond in kind. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I should not jump on here. (But when has that ever stopped me :|? )I think you are Rrhain are talking past each other a bit. I finally seem to see this based on this most recent post.Here is my guess. Rrhain is adopting a position against the bible literalists. His whole argument is colored by that.You are simply discussing Genesis from a point of view of someone examining the text and the story without any particular religious or anti-religious point of view. You are not attempting to take it literally or even as something based on anything that actually happened but now told in simplified way.If I'm even a little right, then the conflict ends when you both agree that there is no way that the story works if there is an attempt to take it literally.

holmes writes:

quote:

---

I don't know if you were in the thread on homosexuality where Rrhain kept freaking out

---

Evidence, please? This is a searchable board. You should be able to find the post.Be sure to include full context.

quote:

---

I actually had a whole thread on this topic (I put Rrhain's name in the title but he never showed up).

---

There was nothing to say. I agreed with your point. The Bible is, indeed, a cobbled-together written version of oral tradition that is even older and also cobbled-together. I don't think anybody who understands anything about biblical scholarship would argue against that. At the very least, for example, we know that Deuteronomy has to have been written, at least in part, by somebody other than Moses because it contains a description of the funeral of Moses.

quote:

---

And if it is true that every single case of using "die" means physical death

---

Where does this idea come from? What makes you think that this is my argument? Since you seem to have missed it the first time: Now, what do you think "specific phrasing" means? Does it mean that every time the word "muwth" is used in every situation in every way, it always means a physical death? Or might it mean that there is something about the way the text is worded that indicates that it means a physical death?

quote:

---

Rrhain has also suggested that day always means 24 hours

---

Incorrect.Instead, I have directly stated that the text as used in Genesis 2:17 can only mean a literal day.Since you seem to have missed it the first time, here's an example of what I said: Now, what do you think "specific phrasing" means? Does it mean that every time the word "yowm" is used in every situation in every way, it always means a literal day? Or might it mean that there is something about the way the text is worded that indicates that it means a literal day?

quote:

---

And I wholly doubt his interpretation that the Bible says God lied to Adam and Eve because he would be jealous of their power.

---

(*sigh*)Have you considered the possibility that what was meant was not what was said? People do misspeak, you know. The story told in Genesis was an oral tradition, remember? Who knows what the original story was. There is a common problem among actors learning their lines: Even though the script is right in front of them, they'll learn their lines wrong. They'll say them the same way every single time, but what they memorized is different from what they were given to memorize. You repeat that over a few generations and the elaboration that would naturally come along and who on earth would be surprised that god is now actually threatening physical death upon Adam?The problem comes with people who refuse to allow for that and insist that every single word in the Bible is perfect. If that is the case, then we have to take the text for what it says.And I have absolutely no idea what the motivation of god is. It isn't an interpretation of mine but rather me speculating as to what might be the motivation if we are going to take the text for what it says.(Hint: That means even I don't buy it.)------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I could kiss you Ned. That's the way it looks to me.------------------
holmes

At first this comment enraged me. How could YOU possibly not know what I was talking about.Then I looked back at the "same sex marriage" thread in Coffee House and found indeed I was wrong.Doctrbill did not issue his "don't attack your teammates" comment in regards to the use of homosexuality, it was ANOTHER issue within the same thread that I had forgotten about (perhaps thankfully).You can look through the numerous posts (start at the end of the thread if you want) to review the insanity.First you refused to accept the use of the word "homosexual" for purposes of convenience, repeatedly chastising me that the term did not exist in ancient times (despite my repeated explanations that I understood that very well and used it for covenience).THEN it got into a brewhaha over the whether David was gay. Both Doctrbill and I saw your point and simply said it could be but was not conclusive. You went on clipping posts and playing games with semantics.It was during this that Doctrbill made his comment. Neither of us could understand the lengths you would go to stick to one single interpretation.It was frustrating.I have stated my position on Genesis.Your post does not seem to add anything new. Unless you are trying to say that like Qadesh, the specific word used for "die" and "day" can only really be used as physical death and 24 hour day then you might have a point. That is, it is not just because of its use elsewhere in the text (which honestly is what you seemed to be saying), but literal translation of the exact Hebrew words COULD NOT be used in other ways.Frankly I would like outside corroboration on that as someone posting images of the early Hebrew texts, thought my interpretation could be true and did NOT say those words were limited as you may be suggesting.Then again, your final statement supports my entire contention. Even if if the original Hebrew words were physical death, and 24 hr day, then it could have been a mistranslation (too concrete of wording) from the oral tradition.But even more to the point, the literal wording makes no difference if it is a fable. That would just indicate the strength of the warning, with the real understanding being the underlying message that to do such a thing (to gain knowledge of good and evil) is to lose your world.I am too frustrated to continue arguing about this or the other topic. I'm confident people can figure out what each of our positions are and more words are not going to get us further. Even my words above do nothing to really advance my position, just explain it some more. I'm done explaining.NosyNed seems to understand the situation perfectly.------------------
holmes

(*sigh*)Let's try this again.Holmes, you said the following: I am asking you for an example of me "freaking out."Are you saying anybody who disagrees with you is "freaking out"?

quote:

---

First you refused to accept the use of the word "homosexual" for purposes of convenience, repeatedly chastising me that the term did not exist in ancient times (despite my repeated explanations that I understood that very well and used it for covenience).

---

Yes, and do you remember why?Does the term "equivocation" mean anything to you? We were discussing the differences between the way we modern people conceptualize the world and understand relationships between people of the same sex and the way ancient peoples did. To casually use our term to describe them is to invite error.This isn't to say (which I directly said in that thread) that there weren't any people in that time whom we, today, would call "homosexual." But to treat the biblical text as if it is referring to them is to misread the text.Oh, but I guess I'm "freaking out" again.

quote:

---

THEN it got into a brewhaha over the whether David was gay. Both Doctrbill and I saw your point and simply said it could be but was not conclusive. You went on clipping posts and playing games with semantics.

---

Incorrect.Instead, doctrbill continued to evade, evade, evade and actually stated outright falsehoods, claiming that Jonathan and David were war buddies. You dropped out.Oh, but I guess I'm "freaking out" again.

quote:

---

I have stated my position on Genesis.

---

I know. But you refuse to respond to any inquiry into your position. If you've stated your piece and you will brook no discussion of it, then let it go. Nobody is forcing you to respond. Nobody can make you post something.

quote:

---

Your post does not seem to add anything new.

---

That's because you repeatedly refuse to answer the direct question that has been put to you multiple times. For the third time: Could you please answer the question?

quote:

---

Unless you are trying to say that like Qadesh, the specific word used for "die" and "day" can only really be used as physical death and 24 hour day then you might have a point.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?holmes, do you even bother to read my posts before responding?From Message 42I repeated it again in Message 45 and Message 49This entire thread between you and me got started when you responded to my statement in Message 16: You responded in Message 23: I then responded to you pointing out the intent of my statement in: Message 26: And you even quoted it in your response in Message 34, so you obviously though enough to include it.And now you sit here and say that you are only now coming to the idea that I'm saying that the specific phrasing used in Genesis 2:17 can only be interpreted in one way?My lord, holmes, I even made that specific point using "qadesh" as the reference! From Message 45: Do you not see the point? Do you not understand that I am trying to state that just like "qadesh" cannot be translated as "sodomite" no matter how many people might wish it could be, you cannot translate Genesis 2:17 as meaning something other than a physical death before the sun set no matter how much you might wish it could be?Oh, but I guess I'm "freaking out" again, right?

quote:

---

That is, it is not just because of its use elsewhere in the text (which honestly is what you seemed to be saying), but literal translation of the exact Hebrew words COULD NOT be used in other ways.

---

"Literal translation"? Are you kidding?Suppose Joe walks up to Sarah while at work and asks her, "Is Jane in?" Sarah responds, "Well, the light in her office is on."From a literal perspective, what the hell did Sarah just do? Joe asks a question about Jane's location and Sarah responds with a statement about the lights. What does that have to do with anything?But there isn't anybody who isn't a native speaker of English who wouldn't know that what Sarah meant by that statement is "I don't know if she is here, but she isn't in the habit of leaving her office light on when she isn't here, so it would seem that she is, but I could be wrong." To take a literal reading of Sarah's remark is to be disingenuous at best.So as I had said previously, it isn't like god directly used the words "physical death" and "before the sun set." However, the phrasing used never seems to get used any other way. So what's so special about this one time?

quote:

---

Even if if the original Hebrew words were physical death, and 24 hr day, then it could have been a mistranslation (too concrete of wording) from the oral tradition.

---

But then you're abandoning the text for something else. You're suddenly no longer talking about the Bible but the oral tradition that preceded and formed the basis for the Bible. But people don't base their philosophy or theology based upon this phantom oral tradition since they don't have it. The only thing they have is the Bible.

quote:

---

But even more to the point, the literal wording makes no difference if it is a fable.

---

Yes, it does! You're arguing that consistency means nothing. A person telling a story can contradict himself left and right, so long as the story is supposed to provide a moral. How on earth can that moral mean anything if the plot of the story used to give it life doesn't hold together?

quote:

---

I am too frustrated to continue arguing about this or the other topic.

---

Then don't respond. You indicated that you were through a couple days ago (Message 43): Do you mean it this time?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Okay, so am I right or am I right?Did I not answer why that one instance of "die" and "day" MAY have some other meaning than physical death and 24 hr day? And that, even if such terms are used that way in every other usage throughout the Bible?Go ahead and be brutal if I am wrong, but if this really is my problem I'd like to know.------------------
holmes

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

Okay, so am I right or am I right?

---

No.

quote:

---

Did I not answer why that one instance of "die" and "day" MAY have some other meaning than physical death and 24 hr day?

---

Your answer made no sense.Your answer boils down to, "It means something else because I want it to."

quote:

---

And that, even if such terms are used that way in every other usage throughout the Bible?

---

In other words, you're arguing, "Yeah, I know the text uses the word 'lemon yellow,' but what it really means is 'sky blue.'"

quote:

---

Go ahead and be brutal if I am wrong, but if this really is my problem I'd like to know.

---

I stated so directly in half a dozen posts, holmes. How many more times do you need to have it pointed out to you?Do you even bother to read my posts before responding?And for the fourth time: ------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I think that whether or not this thing is running on topic, beyond my comprehension abilities. I do sense a need for some "cooling off", so I'm going to shut this one down for a while.My guess it will be reopened in about 24 hours.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Topic Reopened.AM