|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis: is it to be taken literally? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
Well you can read the Hebrew version if you dont want a translation or revised version of the Bible. God did not intend for the Hebrew,Aramaic or Greek people to be the only ones to read his word. The purpose of translation was to take his message across the world. So the question is was it translated accordingly?. Here are some interesting facts about the Bibles translation...
SCRIBES - Being a Jewish scribe was among the most esteemed & demanding roles in biblical times. A life long commitment was required by training starting at age 14 & was not completed until age 40 RULES FOR COPYING - Master scrolls of scripture had an incredible amount of rules and cross-checks to assure accuracy in copying -Special surface preparation,inks-Only masters used no copies of copies -One mistake & entire scroll was destroyed (if a master) INTERNAL CONSISTENCY - There are thousands of cross-referrances within the Bible. After hundreds of reviews by millions of scholars, the Bible is still considered 100% internaly consistant EXTERNAL CONSISTENCY - Many skeptics & scholars have searched for inconsistencies of the Bible with the world. The Bible has always proved correct, sometimes before the world knew it. (Evolution contradicts the Bible but Evolution is not fact) DEAD SEA SCROLLS & SEPTUAGINT - Dead sea scrolls buried for nearly 2000yrs were found to match the current scripture almost identically. Also the original Hebrew scripture was translated into Greek in 270 b.c (septuagint). This early record provides another cross-check to current scriptural records The importance of the scrolls which lay untouched for nearly 2000yrs provides absolute assurance that the Old Testament has remanined unchanged since long before the time of Christ The translation process was not a difficult one... ORIGINAL TEXT- Translated: SYRIAC---GREEK---LATIN - Translated: VARIOUS COPIES NOT EXTANT - (More than 15,000 exisiting copies of various versions) Any other book in the world would not have survived an inch of what the Bible has survived. Bernard Ramm spoke on accuracy & biblical manuscripts "Jews preserved it as no other manuscript has ever been preserved. With their massora (parva,magna & finalis) they kept tabs on every letter,syllable,word & paragraph. They had special classes of men within the their culture whose sole duty was to preserve and transmit these documents with practically perfect fidelity - scribes,lawyers,massoretes. Who ever counted the letters and syllables and words of Plato or Aristotle? Cicero or Seneca?" Has anyone taken into account the Bibles survival through persecution?. The Bible has withstood vicious attacks of its enemies as no other book. Many have tried to burn it,ban it & outlaw it from the days of Roman emperors to present day Communist-dominated countries. No other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scrutinized and villified. What book on philosophy, religion, phychology or letters on classical or modern times have been the subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? with such venom and sketicism, with such thorougness and erudition upon every chapter,line & tenet? But the Bible stands tall. Still loved by millions,read by millions & studies by millions,classed scientifically accurate by many scientists. It Is by far unique from all other books. Only a book written and inspired by God could achieve what the book has achieved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2332 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
I'm not interested in Hebrew versions, you claimed an accurate rendition of the "ORIGINAL" texts. We do not have the original texts of either the OT or the NT.
I believe you need to do some research on the Qumran scrolls and their comparison to current texts. The cave 4 discoveries put to rest your...
Dead sea scrolls buried for nearly 2000yrs were found to match the current scripture almost identically. Also the original Hebrew scripture was translated into Greek in 270 b.c (septuagint). This early record provides another cross-check to current scriptural records The importance of the scrolls which lay untouched for nearly 2000yrs provides absolute assurance that the Old Testament has remanined unchanged since long before the time of Christ Not only were mistakes made, but deliberate textual changes seemed to have been made. The Skeptical Review » Internet Infidels
edited to change posting name This message has been edited by Asgara, 05-09-2004 03:21 AM AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Brian quote:
_____________________________________________________________________ Anyway, just to let you know that ‘myth’ does not equal ‘fiction’. _____________________________________________________________________ If you want to stipulate that then I cannot prevent it, but everyone knows that when Genesis is equated with the adjective "myth" that the author is saying that they believe the claims of Genesis are NOT TRUE. Brian quote:_____________________________________________________________________ But the ‘truth’ is always objective, whether something is true or not is not affected by what anyone believes. _____________________________________________________________________ Yes, I completely agree. My point was that God's subjective views are the only subjective views that become objective, automatically, IF HE IS. Brian: Once again, if you or anyone refers to Genesis as myth, they are saying the claims are not true - fine. But, to go on and redefine myth is essentially a worthless stipulation. Nobody is going to reconfigure their perception of what myth means. There are many similar creation accounts through out the worlds civilizations. Genesis was authored and protected by God to be His version of the truth of the genesis of the universe and mankind. Brian quote:_____________________________________________________________________ the Genesis narratives are not detailed, technical accounts of how He achieved this. _____________________________________________________________________ This comment was made in the context of God creating the universe. The other 65 books fill in the details. The N.T. declares that God created all things through Christ (John, Colossians) AND "the big" detail that He simply spoke the universe into existence (Hebrews 11) out of nothingness. These are basically invulnerable claims, they are accepted by faith, even though God did leave His fingerprints in creation according to Romans. There are inumerable stories and sources that contradict and challenge Genesis. No problem. Evangelicals claim the Genesis record is the genuine and protected version of events. This particular way of viewing Genesis, and the scholarship of persons like Dr. Scott demonstrate the details of the claims are evidenced to be true time and time again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
just like the Ptolemaic Solar System was superceeded by the Copernican Solar System, like all the other old Creation Theories, those of the American Indians, the Inuit, The Hindu and Sumerians, let Genesis go.
Genesis was a great theory at the time. It worked well and explained the facts that were seen. But like any theory, once the evidence comes forward that it can't explain, you need to drop the theory and go to something that can explain what is seen. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grass monkey Inactive Member |
I think you are talking like Genesis is a scientific Theory. It is a faithful book and holds many possibilities. There is nothing that it doesn't explain. It may hold a lack of scientific input - but that's all. It is not a theory, it is a book of faithful scripture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, what does it explain? Is there ANYTHING in it that can be taken literally?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grass monkey Inactive Member |
Ofcourse. We can take it as a truth that God created the heaven and the earth. Do you think he created them?
When I was in malbulga's realm he told me many lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5290 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
jar writes: Genesis was a great theory at the time. It worked well and explained the facts that were seen. But like any theory, once the evidence comes forward that it can't explain, you need to drop the theory and go to something that can explain what is seen. What needs to be dropped is the attempt to make Genesis into a scientific model. It is a creation myth; and like any creation myth in any culture, the primary aim is to establish a kind of cosmological framework for making sense of the current existing relationships and conditions for humanity, the world, and the gods. The basic purpose of the first chapter of Genesis is most likely to defend monotheism in the face of surrounding polythesitic cultures. The carefully structured arrangement of events has noticable parallels with other creation accounts of the time. For example, parallels with the Balylonian Enuma Elish have been noted by a number of scholars. The distinctions are stark; and this is the key to understanding why the account exists. In the first chapter of Genesis, what appear as gods in other cultures are listed and subordinated to the one great God of Hebrew theology. Ancient readers, prior to the rise of science, did tend to take these accounts as "true", but this was basically a consequence of the fact that there were no alternatives, and no concept of a distinct and independent scientific investigation of events in the past. The application has always been for the sake of theological parallels and lessons which remain untouched by the development of scientific modes of investigation. The second and third chapter of Genesis (the second creation story) has a quite different focus. Here the focus is on the problems of evil, and pain, and moral responsibility; again expressed as a creation story. Discarding Genesis because it fails to match science is simply a failure to see what Genesis is about. It is expressing theological principles, expressed using the device of creation stories, using (of course!) the cosmology known at the time to the readers and the writers. The cosmology is the background; not the focus or the intended lesson. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually, I believe that GOD created the Universe. But that is totally independant of Genesis.
So I can accept that Genesis is a figuritive description based on the needs of the people living at the time. But that is it. Nothing there to be taken literally. Religion is not concerned with HOW. Religion deals with WHY. It is a guide for living, not a scientific text book. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grass monkey Inactive Member |
If you think God created the universe then you agree somewhat with Genesis. Why throw the account away because it might seem to disagree with science? It is a book of the 'why' like you said. You're right that God made the universe independent of Genesis - but do you believe in the God of Abraham?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SRO2  Inactive Member |
It doesn't make any difference. Turtles holding the earth on their backs was an undisputed fact for eons before genisis was written.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Myth does not mean wrong or even inaccurate.
At the time, it did a pretty good job explaining things. It was an attempt just like all the other Creation Myths to explain the world and the variety seen. It really was a theory, not as we would define science today, but the best that could be done before the scientific method was developed. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
but do you believe in the God of Abraham? Just like every good Christian, Jew and Muslim. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5290 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
jar writes: Myth does not mean wrong or even inaccurate. At the time, it did a pretty good job explaining things. It was an attempt just like all the other Creation Myths to explain the world and the variety seen. It really was a theory, not as we would define science today, but the best that could be done before the scientific method was developed. I realize that "myth" does not mean wrong or inaccurate. The question you have to ask is: What was Genesis explaining? If Genesis was attempting to explain the physical origins of the universe, then whether we say it was pretty good, or pretty bad, it is certainly superceded and should be discarded since we have far better explainations available now. Creationists object to that; they consider that science is all wet, and that in fact the physical origins of the universe remain better explained in Genesis than in the conflicting conclusions of science. That debate focuses on looking at the empirical evidence, and seeing which account is consistent with the empirical evidence; or else it throws its hands up in the air and dismisses the scientific account as incorrect by fiat; even if we can't be sure how or why scientists got lead so badly astray. But if Genesis is focused on explaining the nature of God and the relationships between humanity and the world and the gods, through the vehicle of a creation story, then worrying about which explains the physical origins of the universe better misses the point. Even if the physical cosmology of Genesis is out of date, we still cannot simply discard it in favour of science, since the scientific stories have a different focus entirely. We rather need to step into the cosmological context of Genesis, and then see what it is explaining about God. The second step, by the way, is not a justification of Genesis. It is merely a matter how to give a reasonable critique or consideration of a creation myth, from any culture. They are always told for reasons beyond the surface level of physical explanation. Scientific models are not; they are always for the reason of developing physical explanation, no matter what philosophical inferences might be drawn subsequently. The appropriate handling of Genesis as creation myth is not saying it is wrong. It is not saying it is right either. It is just the recognition of the nature of the literary form, prior to any evaluation. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Exactly.
Religion is about Why. Science is the HOW. They are not in conflict, though some people try hard to make that the case. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024