Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is belief in God or the Bible necessary to believe in a massive flood.
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 31 of 110 (508945)
05-17-2009 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
05-17-2009 8:56 AM


Uh, isn't everyone forgetting something? We're talking about an oral tradition that eventually got written down. So who is this "author"? The succession of transmitter and augmentors of the oral tradition? Or the scribes who eventually wrote it down? If there are indeed special grammatical constructs to distinguish fact from fiction, then we might expect the original transmitter to use it, but then for each successive generation of oral transmission to continue to get it right becomes iffy. So it would boil down to whether the scribe who finally wrote it down believed it to be fact or fiction; since he had grown up being taught it as fact, he would have undoubtedly believed it to be true. Like young George Washington having chopped down the cherry tree.
Now, the idea of such a grammatical construct existing is not too far-fetched. In German, one can specifically use the subjunctive mood to signal indirect quoting: eg, "Then he told us that he placed that incriminating evidence in the safe."; we are not reporting the planting of that evidence as a fact, but rather we are only reporting what we were told while distancing ourselves from validating it as fact. In addition, the subjunctive is used in Spanish and French to express doubt or uncertainty.
If such a grammatical construct did exist in ancient Hebrew, we need to learn more about it. In part, is it something that would show up in writing? Remember, Hebrew is only written as consonants; there are no vowels in the alphabet (or "aleph-beth"). Yes, we now have diacritical markings (called "points") that mark the vowels, but that is a much later development. Would one be able to tell by reading just the unpointed writing whether that grammatical construct was being used?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 05-17-2009 8:56 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 05-17-2009 1:27 PM dwise1 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 110 (508947)
05-17-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by dwise1
05-17-2009 1:19 PM


The real question here is whether the grammatical constructs denote something at least resembling history in the modern sense or whether they are also used for folk tales, myths and legends. On the evidence so far it seems clear that the latter is the case. If so, we can give no weight to the grammatical constructs when trying to ascertain the nature of the account.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by dwise1, posted 05-17-2009 1:19 PM dwise1 has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 33 of 110 (509008)
05-18-2009 2:20 AM


dwise1, I think Moses wrote genesis, but since I did not know if PaulK thought it was Moses, I prefered to simply refer to ''the author''.
In any case, I don't even know why we are debating this. The very vast majority of hebrew scholars (to not say all of them) assert that Moses viewed genesis as real history, as the James Barr quote I put earlier says. Even Josephus viewed Genesis as history, since he put it in his book of antiquities of the Jews ... which is a history book.
It is logically fallacious to point to basically historical texts written in this form as an argument that ONLY historical texts are written in this form.
If it is fallacious, then you should be able to falsify it. You have to prove independantly that Moses viewed Genesis as myth, but still used the historical grammatical structure. If you don't have a counter example, you can say ''but you could be wrong!'' all you want, but it won't have much weight.

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2009 2:37 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 05-21-2009 7:40 AM slevesque has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 34 of 110 (509009)
05-18-2009 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by slevesque
05-18-2009 2:20 AM


quote:
In any case, I don't even know why we are debating this. The very vast majority of hebrew scholars (to not say all of them) assert that Moses viewed genesis as real history, as the James Barr quote I put earlier says. Even Josephus viewed Genesis as history, since he put it in his book of antiquities of the Jews ... which is a history book.
And if so, they clearly did not differentiate between myth and history.
quote:
If it is fallacious, then you should be able to falsify it.
That makes no sense. The point is that the argument is logically fallacious. You can't show that "All A are B" just by producing a few examples of "A" that are "B".
quote:
You have to prove independantly that Moses viewed Genesis as myth, but still used the historical grammatical structure.
No, I don't. Remember your argument is that we should believe that the flood story is basically historical, rather than a myth. If the author (who wasn't Moses) did not distinguish between myth and history and wrote clearly mythical accounts using the grammatical form supposedly diagnostic of history then we simply cannot make that assumption. You claim that all of Genesis 1-11 is written in this form and thus myth is written as "history". Therefore we cannot conclude that the flood is not a myth based on the grammatical form.
quote:
If you don't have a counter example, you can say ''but you could be wrong!'' all you want, but it won't have much weight.
I don't say that. I say that you have failed to produce a valid argument to support your assertion. I don't have to assume that your assertion is true just because I don't know enough about the subject to refute it.
Here's an example of a myth - which, according to you, is written as history : Genesis 2:4 - 3:24. Which is sufficient to prove the point I am actually making.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by slevesque, posted 05-18-2009 2:20 AM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 35 of 110 (509010)
05-18-2009 2:42 AM


I'm getting the impression we're saying the same thing: they viewed their myth as history. You just say they didn't differentiate between myth and history, I just say they thought myth was history. Its the same thing lol.
It never was about if it is a myth, or if it is history. It is about if they viewed it as such.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2009 2:47 AM slevesque has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 36 of 110 (509011)
05-18-2009 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by slevesque
05-18-2009 2:42 AM


quote:
We're saying the same thing: they viewed their myth as history
Which means that I was correct from the start. The Flood story appears in a book that is more myth and legend and therefore cannot be assumed to have any but the most remote historical foundation.
quote:
It never was about if it is a myth, or if it is history. It is about if they viewed it as such.
No, that is wrong. It was about whether we should consider it to be likely to be history and not myth.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by slevesque, posted 05-18-2009 2:42 AM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Peg, posted 05-21-2009 7:49 AM PaulK has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 37 of 110 (509012)
05-18-2009 3:07 AM


How can you say ''that is wrong'' when I could quote myself at least four times saying exactly this in the discussion.
This is not the point I am trying to make lol ... I'm not saying that it must be accepted as historical. I'm saying the author thought it was historical, it does not prevent anyone from interpreting it as mythical
Saying that it was viewed as history by the author doesn't make it more, or less, history. It simply means that he thought it was history when he wrote it. If 4000 years later we think that it was a myth, fair enough, but it doesn't affect what the original author thought of it.
Maybe I misexpressed myself, but that % is not the % of historical text compared to figurative text. It is the % that the author would have written it down as if it was historical compared to thinking it was figurative
Obviously verb tenses can't prove if this is really history or just a myth. But it can tell you if, for the author who wrote it down, it was meant to be history or myth.
You were arguing that I was saying we should view this as history because the author viewed it as history, I was arguing ONLY that the author viewed it as history but not that we should view it as history.
In the OP, all I said was that if the author viewed it as history, then that it COULD be history. Not that it SHOULD ...
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2009 4:40 AM slevesque has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 38 of 110 (509018)
05-18-2009 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by slevesque
05-18-2009 3:07 AM


quote:
How can you say ''that is wrong'' when I could quote myself at least four times saying exactly this in the discussion.
Because that was never really the point at issue. In my reply to the OP I pointed out that Genesis was a book of myth and legend rather than a historical account. Whether the author believed the myths and legends in Genesis doesn't change that point.
Indeed, when I pointed out that the author may not make a distinction between myths and history you argued against it. Now your position implicitly assumes that the author did NOT make that distinction !
You have been changing your position in the course of this argument and your new position concedes that my original point was correct.
quote:
In the OP, all I said was that if the author viewed it as history, then that it COULD be history. Not that it SHOULD ...
That isn't true. You made no mention of the author's opinions at all. You said:
What got me thinking is this: even if you do not believe in the innerancy of the Bible, you still have to consider that before it was a religious book, it was a historical manuscript, and that it talks about a major flooding-water event in the recent past.
And it isn't true that Genesis was a "historical manuscript" before it was religious. It was always more religious than it was a history in the modern sense. It's a book of myth and legend even if the author happened to believe them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by slevesque, posted 05-18-2009 3:07 AM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 39 of 110 (509021)
05-18-2009 5:16 AM


Hey, I think Moses was the author, that he did make a distinction between what he thought was myth and what he thought was history, and that was why he used the historical grammar to describe it.
My position didn't changed, I just acknowledge that you can think otherwise because I don't have enough knowledge to prove that Moses did make the distinction between myth and history. I hate to do any sort of call to authority, but I think this because since I am no hebrew scholar, I can only trust the very vast majority scholars. Though there's no doubt in my mind that any reputated Hebrew scholar could prove this, since ultimately your argument feeds on my limited knowledge of the subject.
Genesis was written as a record of the history of the jews since creation. Moses thought this was real history, and so has the Jewish people up to Josephus. His works are very reveiling on this. He did not write a ''myth's and legends of the Jews'' book, nor a review of ''Jewish religion''. He wrote a History book, his intention was to record the history of the jewish people, and surprisingly he included the creation, the flood, the exodus, etc. He did not make any distinction between this and the rest of their history such as the deportation to Babylon, or the Mccabee rebellion against the greeks. Did he mistake myth for history ? Maybe, but that doesn't hcange that his intentions was to write a history book.
You correctly quoted me from the OP, I never wanted to argued if Moses mistook a mythical account for a historical account, which really, is besides the point. The point is that he thought it was history, and recorded it as history. His intention was it to be taken as historical and not mythical EVEN IF he had mistaken myth for history.

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2009 7:43 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 43 by dwise1, posted 05-18-2009 10:19 AM slevesque has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 40 of 110 (509022)
05-18-2009 5:17 AM


BTW, who wrote it if it is not Moses ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Theodoric, posted 05-18-2009 8:54 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 44 by purpledawn, posted 05-18-2009 6:35 PM slevesque has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 41 of 110 (509037)
05-18-2009 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by slevesque
05-18-2009 5:16 AM


quote:
Hey, I think Moses was the author, that he did make a distinction between what he thought was myth and what he thought was history, and that was why he used the historical grammar to describe it.
You're assuming that he made that distinction, but you've only produced evidence against that assumption. And, of course, you've provided no reason to think that the "historical grammar" was not used for myths.
quote:
My position didn't changed
It certainly has. My essential point is that Genesis is a collection of myths and legends - that in itself is enough to refute your argument in the OP. And you're not addressing that point at all, so it seems that you have - at the least - accepted that you cannot argue against it..
quote:
I just acknowledge that you can think otherwise because I don't have enough knowledge to prove that Moses did make the distinction between myth and history. I hate to do any sort of call to authority, but I think this because since I am no hebrew scholar, I can only trust the very vast majority scholars.
Then please provide some evidence that the "vast majority" of scholars do agree with your argument in the OP. So far you've provided zero evidence for that. (You do know that the Barr quote only deals with the interpretation of Genesis 1 ? It certainly doesn't provide any support for the idea that the author of Genesis made a distinction between history and myth or for the argument in the OP).
Here's one opinion from bible.org - a Christian site.
Although issues of science, biography and history are a part of Genesis, it is primarily a book of theology
Did they consult the same "experts" that you did ?
quote:
Genesis was written as a record of the history of the jews since creation.
So far you've provided no evidence of this. Even if it were true the fact that it is in fact a collection of myths and legends still invalidates the points in the OP.
quote:
Moses thought this was real history, and so has the Jewish people up to Josephus. His works are very reveiling on this. He did not write a ''myth's and legends of the Jews'' book, nor a review of ''Jewish religion''. He wrote a History book, his intention was to record the history of the jewish people, and surprisingly he included the creation, the flood, the exodus, etc. He did not make any distinction between this and the rest of their history such as the deportation to Babylon, or the Mccabee rebellion against the greeks. Did he mistake myth for history ? Maybe, but that doesn't hcange that his intentions was to write a history book.
Alternatively he did not make a clear distinction between myth and history. The mere fact that he included clearly mythical - and legendary - material in his "history" argues for this.
quote:
You correctly quoted me from the OP, I never wanted to argued if Moses mistook a mythical account for a historical account, which really, is besides the point. The point is that he thought it was history, and recorded it as history. His intention was it to be taken as historical and not mythical EVEN IF he had mistaken myth for history.
Then my refutation stands. Because the author's intent is not enough to support your argument.
And in answer to your latest post it is generally accepted among Bible scholars that Genesis was assembled by a Jewish priest, likely around the time of the Babylonian Exile. However there is quite a lot of disagreement over when.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by slevesque, posted 05-18-2009 5:16 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 2:46 AM PaulK has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 42 of 110 (509053)
05-18-2009 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by slevesque
05-18-2009 5:17 AM


quote:
BTW, who wrote it if it is not Moses ?
Do you truly believe it was written down by one identifiable person? Isn't it more likely that it is a collection of legends and myths later collected and written by unnamed scribes? How could a person write about events that happened after their supposed death. Moses was probably a figure of legend and myth not an actual historic figure.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by slevesque, posted 05-18-2009 5:17 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 2:59 AM Theodoric has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 43 of 110 (509061)
05-18-2009 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by slevesque
05-18-2009 5:16 AM


Hey, I think Moses was the author, that he did make a distinction between what he thought was myth and what he thought was history, and that was why he used the historical grammar to describe it.
When was Moses? And when was Genesis finally written down -- ie, ink put to parchment?
Also, what does it matter whether Moses or whoever believed that something was myth or history? Just because somebody believes something to be true does not make it true.
There is a Talmudic tradition of using two methods for teaching: Khalakhah and Haggadah (apologies if the transcriptions are not standard). Khalakhah is a scholarly analysis of the subject. Haggadah is where you teach by telling a story.
Of course, I'm much more experienced in Gentile Haggadah and I don't ever recall such teachers starting off by issuing a disclaimer that the events he was about to recount and its characters were purely fictional and any similarity to acutal events or persons was purely coincidental. IOW, when teaching by telling a story is used, efforts are normally not made to distinguish fact from fiction.
So, how can we tell whether a historical or legendary character believed something or not? And since somebody believing something to be true does not make it so, then so what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by slevesque, posted 05-18-2009 5:16 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 3:01 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 3:10 AM dwise1 has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 44 of 110 (509115)
05-18-2009 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by slevesque
05-18-2009 5:17 AM


Reply Button
slevesque,
Could you please use the little reply button at the bottom of the post you are responding to?
Otherwise it is hard to tell who you are responding to and makes it difficult for viewers to follow the discussion.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by slevesque, posted 05-18-2009 5:17 AM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 45 of 110 (509150)
05-19-2009 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
05-18-2009 7:43 AM


Ok, maybe its me again misexpressing myself ...
Then my refutation stands. Because the author's intent is not enough to support your argument.
Ok I'll clarify my argument, then maybe all this will sort out. what I was saying in the OP was this:
If you write down a story you heard, and say to me that it is a not true, Then there is no possibility of it being true, since you (the author) acknowledged it to be not true.
If you write down a story you heard, and say to me you think it really happened. There both possibilities are possible: it may be true, or it may not be.
Obviously my example doesn't include lying amongst other things, which would have made my example pretty long and boring. My point was only this: if the author of genesis thought it was real history, then it leaves us the possibility to test it to see if it is true. But if the author thought it was a myth, then there is absolutely no reason for us to think it could be history.
Which is why I was trying to say that the author did think it was history, which leaves us the possibility to test it. Which is what we will be doing in other threads throughout the summer.
I hope I was clear enough, because really, I don't disagree with the fact they misinterpreted myth as fact. Sorry I didn't express this concept in the OP, it would have saved both of us some time.
BTW, theology is not the same as mythology.
Here are some people that I know of who spoke on the intention of the author to record history: James Barr, Dr. Andrew Steinmann, Dr. Robert Mccabe, Dr Ting Wang.
Dr. Clifford Wilson also said this which is pretty compelling:
I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2009 7:43 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 05-19-2009 7:25 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 05-19-2009 7:44 AM slevesque has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024