Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 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:   Not reading God's Word right is just wrong. No talking snakes!
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 76 of 157 (511464)
06-09-2009 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
06-09-2009 8:08 AM


quote:
When you've convinced the evangelical movement behind creationism that Noah's flood was regional you come back and let us know, all right? For starters, why don't you go over to the Was there a worldwide flood? thread and convince Peg that the flood was regional.
Don't make the mistake of viewing evangelical Christians as a monolithic group. Not all evangelical Christians accept a worldwide flood or young-earth creationism. Many evangelical Christians hold to a local flood, and some to a mythical flood. Many hold to an old earth (and a century ago, the majority of evangelical leaders held to an old earth.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 06-09-2009 8:08 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 06-10-2009 8:17 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 77 of 157 (511533)
06-10-2009 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by kbertsche
06-09-2009 9:07 PM


It's hard to follow the context because Greentwiga wasn't using the message reply button for a while, but if you go back to my Message 50 you'll see some of the context, and I posted a message somewhere before that about Adam and Eve. Greentwiga's argument is that the Bible actually says that it was a local flood (not that it can be reinterpreted as a myth that grew around a local flood), or that the Bible does not say that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman (not that it can be reinterpreted from a myth about a single man and woman). I was telling Greentwiga that he should convince other evangelicals of these things before trying to convince us, the point being that if he can't even convince his most receptive audience then he certainly isn't going to convince us.
We all understand that some within the evangelical movement hold non-YEC views, but not only are they are a small minority, they do not agree with Greentwiga that the literal meaning of Genesis is what he says it is.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by kbertsche, posted 06-09-2009 9:07 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 11:46 AM Percy has not replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 78 of 157 (511551)
06-10-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
06-10-2009 8:17 AM


Oh, I try talking to the Evangelicals. Most are not trained as scientists so they have a hard time debating the facts. I would be kicked out of most of the Churches that I like to attend, not because my ideas are wrong, but because each Churches traditional beliefs are unassailable. I am working on ways to present my study (read writing a book) but currently prefer to try presenting ideas where they will be debated. You have said that the flood and the garden were myths possibly growing up around a real event like a local flood. I am presenting evidence that the Garden was a real event at a real time, and presented a conflict between two know religions. Even the talking serpent relates to known religious beliefs. Again, I enjoy your response to and challenging my ideas.
(sorry for the confusion caused by my not understanding at first how to use the reply button)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 06-10-2009 8:17 AM Percy has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 157 (511610)
06-10-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by greentwiga
06-09-2009 7:04 PM


What the original writer meant and what you assume can be two different things. That is why I want to try to understand what the original writer meant, that is the most literal interpretation.
Um, no. The Peshat is the most literal interpretation. What you are considering is the Derash.
The difference.
When interpreting the Derash, the text cannot lose its Peshat.
The problem I have with your stuff is that intead of reading the Bible and obtaining a meaning, you have obtained a meaning and then are trying to fit the Bible into it.
Its bad theology, imho.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 7:04 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 11:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 80 of 157 (511643)
06-10-2009 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by New Cat's Eye
06-10-2009 4:31 PM


Bad Theology?
I have a Masters in Intercultural Communication in addition to two degrees from Fundamentalist Bible Schools. I have very carefully scoured the texts, including the Hebrew, and frequently discarded my Hypotheses. Much of what I have said is conclusions that I reluctantly arrived at. I mention my masters to indicate that I am well trained in the concepts of communication that I am talking about. It is not what I think the Bible says, but what the writer was trying to say. What seems obvious to me can be dead wrong. I constantly seek to challenge my preconceived notions. I am also a scientist and am well trained in the scientific method. I know what bad science is, and cherry picking facts that fit my preconceived notions is bad science. I don't do that with the Bible either. By the way, I haven't heard the terms Peshat and Derash. Can you explain them? Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2009 4:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2009 1:27 AM greentwiga has replied
 Message 82 by Theodoric, posted 06-11-2009 1:35 AM greentwiga has replied
 Message 83 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-11-2009 8:29 AM greentwiga has not replied
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 06-11-2009 9:02 AM greentwiga has replied
 Message 85 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 11:53 AM greentwiga has replied

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


Message 81 of 157 (511660)
06-11-2009 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by greentwiga
06-10-2009 11:17 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
quote:
I have a Masters in Intercultural Communication in addition to two degrees from Fundamentalist Bible Schools. I have very carefully scoured the texts, including the Hebrew, and frequently discarded my Hypotheses. Much of what I have said is conclusions that I reluctantly arrived at. I mention my masters to indicate that I am well trained in the concepts of communication that I am talking about.
Yet you can't justify your reading of Genesis 5. Why should the fact that the chapter claims to be about the descendants of Adam causes you to assume that the man of Genesis 5:2 is not Adam and is completely unrelated to Adam ?
Nor can you explain how you can have a reading of the Flood story that fits with the evidence. According to your own source the floods found in the archaeology are limited in area even within Sumeria, and did not cause massive depopulation even of the area that they did cover.
The Mesopotamian strata, whether at Ur or at Kish and Suruppak, testify only to a local flood which clearly left behind survivors and significant cultural continuity.
Also note:
No other Mesopotamian sites have produced flood remains of significance
Even your reading of Genesis 2 requires conflating the domestication of wheat with the start of farming - you treat those two distinct ideas as if they were interchangeable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 11:17 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by greentwiga, posted 06-11-2009 1:52 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 82 of 157 (511662)
06-11-2009 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by greentwiga
06-10-2009 11:17 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
By the way, I haven't heard the terms Peshat and Derash. Can you explain them?
Google them or try wikipedia. Wikipedia has decent laymens descriptions.
What the hell, here are the links.
Peshat
Derash

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 11:17 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by greentwiga, posted 06-11-2009 3:20 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 157 (511687)
06-11-2009 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by greentwiga
06-10-2009 11:17 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
I have a Masters in Intercultural Communication in addition to two degrees from Fundamentalist Bible Schools.
Yeah? Well I'm Catholic.
I have very carefully scoured the texts, including the Hebrew,
And your unfamiliar with PARDES!? weird...
Much of what I have said is conclusions that I reluctantly arrived at.
...
It is not what I think the Bible says, but what the writer was trying to say.
You honestly think that? Or are you just sayin'?
Because, from your posts here, you seem to have an agenda.
You seem to want to maintain the Bible's literal inerrancy while keeping it in tune with modern science and you are interpreting the text in whatever way you have to in order to acheive this.
I am also a scientist and am well trained in the scientific method. I know what bad science is, and cherry picking facts that fit my preconceived notions is bad science. I don't do that with the Bible either.
But that is exatcly what you are doing in multiple threads here. Do you not see this at all!?
You cherry pick facts from Genesis to support your Garden of Eden theory and ignore all the ones that contradict it. And the ones that you can't ignore you twist into wild interpretation until they fit within your preconceived notion.
I'm baffeled at how you can think that you are doing the exact opposite of what you are actually doing!?
By the way, I haven't heard the terms Peshat and Derash. Can you explain them? Thanks
Did you see this part right here:
The difference.
That its a different color and underlined means that you can click on it and it will link you to another page.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 11:17 PM greentwiga has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by kbertsche, posted 06-11-2009 12:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 84 of 157 (511694)
06-11-2009 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by greentwiga
06-10-2009 11:17 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
greentwiga writes:
Much of what I have said is conclusions that I reluctantly arrived at. I mention my masters to indicate that I am well trained in the concepts of communication that I am talking about.
Did any of that communications training touch on the use of paragraphs at all?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 11:17 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by greentwiga, posted 06-11-2009 5:36 PM Percy has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 85 of 157 (511718)
06-11-2009 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by greentwiga
06-10-2009 11:17 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
I have a Masters in Intercultural Communication in addition to two degrees from Fundamentalist Bible Schools. I have very carefully scoured the texts, including the Hebrew, and frequently discarded my Hypotheses. Much of what I have said is conclusions that I reluctantly arrived at. I mention my masters to indicate that I am well trained in the concepts of communication that I am talking about. It is not what I think the Bible says, but what the writer was trying to say. What seems obvious to me can be dead wrong. I constantly seek to challenge my preconceived notions. I am also a scientist and am well trained in the scientific method. I know what bad science is, and cherry picking facts that fit my preconceived notions is bad science. I don't do that with the Bible either.
Here's your logic chain, greentwiga.
PREMISE: The Bible is inerrant.
HYPOTHESIS: If the Bible is inerrant, but a direct reading of the Bible contradicts scientific knowledge, the original author's meaning must have been lost in translation.
FACT: Genesis recounts a global flood in which everything on teh Earth that breathes dies save the inhabitants of the Ark.
FACT: Geology does not support a global flood
FACT: Archeology does support a severe local flood in Mesopotamia circa 2900 BC.
CONCLUSION: The author's original meaning was not a global flood, but was rather the local flood in Mesopotamia circa 2900 BC. The Bible is inerrant.
Your conclusion regarding the author's original intent requires that you presuppose the author's inerrancy. You are assuming from the beginning that the Bible is inerrant, and therefore and preceived errors must be errors of translation. Without that basic assumption, your entire reason for re-interpreting the text to say anything other than what it plainly says disappears. Your conclusion is thus contained in your premise, and you are engaged in circular reasoning.
By the way, I haven't heard the terms Peshat and Derash. Can you explain them? Thanks
How can you claim to be able to find the original intent of the author without even knowing the Hebrew rules of interpretation? You didn't learn this in your multiple degree programs at fundamentalist universities?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 11:17 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by greentwiga, posted 06-11-2009 5:53 PM Rahvin has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 86 of 157 (511728)
06-11-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by New Cat's Eye
06-11-2009 8:29 AM


Re: Bad Theology?
quote:
And your unfamiliar with PARDES!? weird...
Your link was the first I had heard of it, too (and I have an MA in theology).
If you look at your link, you will see that "Pardes" is a method used in "rabbinic Judaism." And as far as I can tell, it is pretty much restricted to rabbinic Judaism. This method is not used in Christian biblical exegesis, and I do not believe it is used in broader biblical studies, either.
Mainstream Christian biblical exegesis seems to be analogous to the "Peshat" portion of your "Pardes." ("Peshat bears striking parallels and has been compared to the concept of Exegesis.") The wiki entries on Exegesis and Biblical_hermeneutics are pretty poor, but under the latter you will at least find an outline of the "techniques of hermeneutics" as described by Virkler. This is pretty much the standard Christian approach. (The classic text is "Protestant Biblical Interpretation" by Bernard Ramm, though wiki doesn't mention it.) As greentwiga implied, the assumption is that the original author was trying to communicate something to his contemporaries; our goal is to try to understand what this author meant to communicate. This is sometimes imprecisely called a "literal" method of interpretation; it is better called a "historical-cultural-grammatical-literary" method of interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-11-2009 8:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-11-2009 1:17 PM kbertsche has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 157 (511734)
06-11-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by kbertsche
06-11-2009 12:59 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
Your link was the first I had heard of it, too (and I have an MA in theology).
Did you study the Hebrew?
If you look at your link, you will see that "Pardes" is a method used in "rabbinic Judaism." And as far as I can tell, it is pretty much restricted to rabbinic Judaism. This method is not used in Christian biblical exegesis, and I do not believe it is used in broader biblical studies, either.
Oh... okay. You're the one with the theology degree.
PARDES usually only comes up when the Hebrew comes out. What I though was wierd was that greentwiga wrote:
quote:
I have very carefully scoured the texts, including the Hebrew,
emphasis added
I just figured that PARDES would come up at least once if you're carefully scouring the Hebrew.
Maybe you can clear that up for me. Did you too study the Hebrew and have never heard of PARDES?
As greentwiga implied, the assumption is that the original author was trying to communicate something to his contemporaries; our goal is to try to understand what this author meant to communicate.
I get what he's doing. The problem I have is when you take something from today and shoehorn it into the Bible in the sole effort of maintaining inerrancy. I find it dishonest.
That's not what the author really meant. You're just making it out to be that way for another reason.
This is sometimes imprecisely called a "literal" method of interpretation; it is better called a "historical-cultural-grammatical-literary" method of interpretation.
I agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by kbertsche, posted 06-11-2009 12:59 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by kbertsche, posted 06-11-2009 4:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 88 of 157 (511740)
06-11-2009 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by PaulK
06-11-2009 1:27 AM


Re: Bad Theology?
In my family genealogy, we list all the children of a couple (that we can find.) The ancient genealogies did it different. Sometimes they just added, and other children. Sometimes, but rarely, they added the wife. Other times they skipped one or many Generations. In all cases, they only highlighted the people that were significant for some reason such as the direct descendant, or the one that started a tribe or town. Gen 5 is the book of the generations of Adam, so I would not expect the person to list the people before Adam, but it does list at least some of the generations after Adam. Look at the Generations of Noah in Chap 10. We can still trace about half to known people groups and it seems likely that the other half were also, but it seems like many people were left out. Should I insist the genealogies fit the American method or one of these ancient methods?
My reading of Gen associates Adam with the start of farming of wheat. The harvesting that scientists say happened before the Younger Dryas did not entail tilling and cultivating. Whether Adam also domesticated the rest of the farming package, I don't know. I do know that one of Adam's sons kept flocks. Either at the same time or shortly after wheat was domesticated, sheep were being kept and undergoing the domestication process. Scientists say sheep, goats, pigs and Cattle were all domesticated near Karacadag, but not necessarily at there. They also say sheep, goats, and possibly pigs were undergoing domestication at about the same time as wheat. If there are other scientific studies, proving the scientists I have read are wrong, I am willing to listen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2009 1:27 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 2:15 PM greentwiga has replied
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2009 2:17 PM greentwiga has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 89 of 157 (511741)
06-11-2009 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by greentwiga
06-11-2009 1:52 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
In my family genealogy, we list all the children of a couple (that we can find.) The ancient genealogies did it different. Sometimes they just added, and other children. Sometimes, but rarely, they added the wife. Other times they skipped one or many Generations. In all cases, they only highlighted the people that were significant for some reason such as the direct descendant, or the one that started a tribe or town. Gen 5 is the book of the generations of Adam, so I would not expect the person to list the people before Adam, but it does list at least some of the generations after Adam. Look at the Generations of Noah in Chap 10. We can still trace about half to known people groups and it seems likely that the other half were also, but it seems like many people were left out. Should I insist the genealogies fit the American method or one of these ancient methods?
My reading of Gen associates Adam with the start of farming of wheat. The harvesting that scientists say happened before the Younger Dryas did not entail tilling and cultivating. Whether Adam also domesticated the rest of the farming package, I don't know. I do know that one of Adam's sons kept flocks. Either at the same time or shortly after wheat was domesticated, sheep were being kept and undergoing the domestication process. Scientists say sheep, goats, pigs and Cattle were all domesticated near Karacadag, but not necessarily at there. They also say sheep, goats, and possibly pigs were undergoing domestication at about the same time as wheat. If there are other scientific studies, proving the scientists I have read are wrong, I am willing to listen.
Before Adam?!
The Bible is even more clear on this than it is about the global flood, greentwiga. Adam was supposed to be the first man. Not the first farmer, or the first farmer of wheat, the first human being, made in god's image. Eve was the first woman, made from his rib.
What crazy Bizzarro-Bible have you been reading that supports the idea that Adam was anything other than the very first human being?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by greentwiga, posted 06-11-2009 1:52 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by greentwiga, posted 06-11-2009 10:04 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 90 of 157 (511742)
06-11-2009 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by greentwiga
06-11-2009 1:52 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
quote:
Gen 5 is the book of the generations of Adam, so I would not expect the person to list the people before Adam, but it does list at least some of the generations after Adam.
I'm glad that you agree with me now. Because that is not what you said before - not at all.
quote:
My reading of Gen associates Adam with the start of farming of wheat. The harvesting that scientists say happened before the Younger Dryas did not entail tilling and cultivating.
Neither would the earliest stages of the domestication of wheat require tilling and cultivating - because domestication, by definition, requires starting with wild stock. But that's not what your reading of Genesis 2 says - there's no mention of domestication as such.
If you want to say Genesis 2 is an inaccurate and mythologised account of the beginnings of farming then you might have some small case. But that's all this approach can get you. It's the same with the flood. You haven't got evidence of a real event that can be made to fit the Biblical description.
quote:
I do know that one of Adam's sons kept flocks.
Odd how you're so certain that no generations were left out there !
quote:
Scientists say sheep, goats, pigs and Cattle were all domesticated near Karacadag, but not necessarily at there. They also say sheep, goats, and possibly pigs were undergoing domestication at about the same time as wheat.
Given the uncertainty over the date of the domestication of wheat - and that your view requires a very early date in that range - that's little comfort for your views. Wikipedia may not be the most reliable of sources but it reports goats being domesticated in Iran around 10,000 BC and Cattle not until 8,000 BC (and their reference is to a site in Egypt). Not so near.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by greentwiga, posted 06-11-2009 1:52 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by greentwiga, posted 06-11-2009 10:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024