Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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!
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 91 of 157 (511749)
06-11-2009 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Theodoric
06-11-2009 1:35 AM


Re: Bad Theology?
Thank you. I saw in the Peshat def. this line, "proper understanding of peshat reveals deep, unexpected meaning within the text itself." I saw this line in the Derash, "Presence of apparently superfluous words or letters, chronology of events, parallel narratives or other textual anomalies are often a springboard for interpretation of segments of Biblical text." Both those statements seem to apply to what I do, though I try to limit myself very carefully to the possibilities that the Bible allows. Some of the Jewish methods go to far for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Theodoric, posted 06-11-2009 1:35 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 92 of 157 (511752)
06-11-2009 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by New Cat's Eye
06-11-2009 1:17 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
quote:
Did you study the Hebrew?
...
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?
Yes, I studied Hebrew. Two classes of language study followed by a class of Hebrew exegesis. For textbooks we used Ross and instructors' notes. And I never heard of Pardes in any of this.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed link as per mentioned in next message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-11-2009 1:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-11-2009 4:22 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 157 (511754)
06-11-2009 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by kbertsche
06-11-2009 4:06 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
quote:
Maybe you can clear that up for me. Did you too study the Hebrew and have never heard of PARDES?
Yes, I studied Hebrew. Two classes of language study followed by a class of Hebrew exegesis. For textbooks we used Ross and instructors' notes. And I never heard of Pardes in any of this.
Hrm. Maybe its not as uncommon as I thought. Thanks for sharing.

FYI:
When you use the url coding, make sure you don't put a space after the = or else it'll but a %20 (the html code for a space) in the address when its clicked on and then the link wont work (which yours didn't).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by kbertsche, posted 06-11-2009 4:06 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 94 of 157 (511760)
06-11-2009 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Percy
06-11-2009 9:02 AM


Re: Bad Theology?
I can write with quality, it just takes me much longer than average. So yes, my writing on this site is not submission quality, to say the least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 06-11-2009 9:02 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 06-11-2009 7:31 PM greentwiga has not replied

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


Message 95 of 157 (511763)
06-11-2009 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Rahvin
06-11-2009 11:53 AM


Re: Bad Theology?
You heard my conclusion and assumed my logic. It started out reading Noah's Flood by Ballard, etc. about the Black Sea and asking myself, could this be what the Bible refers to? I then went on to study the oceans rising at the end of the ice age to see if that was the flood. Then I looked at the sudden draining of the great ice lakes and asking myself, is this connected with Noah's flood? My conclusions were only slowly arrived at after careful studying of The Bible and seeing if these floods fit, and reluctantly abandoning them, especially the Black Sea flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 11:53 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 6:17 PM greentwiga has replied

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


Message 96 of 157 (511765)
06-11-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by greentwiga
06-11-2009 5:53 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
You heard my conclusion and assumed my logic. It started out reading Noah's Flood by Ballard, etc. about the Black Sea and asking myself, could this be what the Bible refers to? I then went on to study the oceans rising at the end of the ice age to see if that was the flood. Then I looked at the sudden draining of the great ice lakes and asking myself, is this connected with Noah's flood? My conclusions were only slowly arrived at after careful studying of The Bible and seeing if these floods fit, and reluctantly abandoning them, especially the Black Sea flood.
greentwiga, if your claim was only that the severe regional flood in Mesopotamia circa 2900 BC is the factual source behind the wildly exaggerated global flood myth of Genesis, I'd agree with you.
The problem is also claiming that, because there was a real-world event behind the flood story, the Bible is true.
It's true only if you remove all of the exaggerated features of the story that make it what it is.
You've seen movies "based on a true story," right? Would you call them "fiction" or "non-fiction?" Are they typically "accurate recordings of history?" Do you ignore all of the alterations made to the actual historical record so that an entertaining and marketable movie can be made and claim "this movie is historically accurate" even though 90% of the movie was written by script writers, not historians?
The fact is, the end result (the actual text of Genesis that's been around for the past few thousand years) is not historically accurate even if the person who first told the story was completely accurate in retelling a real-world event. The story in Genesis no longer resembles that story.
I'm very sure that there are factual events behind most legends, including most of the stories in the Bible. I'm sure there was a man named Jesus around 2000 years ago who developed a cult following that grew into modern Christianity after his execution by the Romans. However, the Jesus described in the gospels almost certainly never existed; we have solid evidence that many of the sections in the gospels (including the "throw the first stone" bit) were added long after the original authors were dead. Some even think that the Jesus described in the gospels is an amalgamation of two or even more real people whose stories were combined into one.
I'm sure there is a real-world basis for the Exodus, as well, though it certainly had nothing to do with the Pharaoh, there were no plagues, no slaying of the first-born, no 40 years of wandering, and those Hebrew slaves did not exist in anywhere near the numbers recounted in the Bible - the archeological evidence simply doesn't support any such thing. But I'm sure it was based on a true story originally.
(note - when I say "I'm sure," I really mean "I find it entirely plausible based on the fact that many other legends and myths have been shown to have at least some small basis in fact, but in many cases there is no evidence and I would also find it entirely plausible that some of these stories were completely made up." "I'm sure" is just a lot shorter.)
I know that you don't see the path of your logic the way I'm describing it - but then, very rarely do human beings think of their thoughts and personal curiosities in terms of premesis, hypotheses, and conclusions. The fact is, you're claiming that the Bible is inerrant...but your interpretations if the original author's intent require that you presuppose that the original author was accurate. Your conclusion (the Bible is inerrant) is contained within the premise that the original author was inerrant. Without that premise, all of your attempts to match Biblical myths to real-world events falls apart - if, for example, the Adam myth was literally completely false and made-up in the same way that Thor and Zeus and unicorns are completely made-up, then your line of reasoning would be completely invalid. You'd be chasing a red herring, because you're using circular reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by greentwiga, posted 06-11-2009 5:53 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Theodoric, posted 06-11-2009 8:58 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 101 by greentwiga, posted 06-11-2009 10:36 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 103 by greentwiga, posted 06-12-2009 1:53 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 106 by kbertsche, posted 06-12-2009 10:26 AM Rahvin has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 97 of 157 (511770)
06-11-2009 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by greentwiga
06-11-2009 5:36 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
greentwiga writes:
So yes, my writing on this site is not submission quality, to say the least.
My comment was rhetorical, I didn't expect a reply, but since you've answered, you missed the point, which was that your lack of communication skills belie your claims of any specialized training. Your reading comprehension skills appear to be in the same ballpark. Your revelations about your educational background are just the fallacy of appeal to authority, in this case your own, your motivation being to counteract the poor impression lent by your poor communication skills.
But this is all off-topic. What's important is that you understand that the reputation you build here will depend upon the quality of your written arguments and not upon any degrees that you may or may not have and certainly do not deserve.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by greentwiga, posted 06-11-2009 5:36 PM greentwiga has not replied

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


Message 98 of 157 (511781)
06-11-2009 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Rahvin
06-11-2009 6:17 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
I'm sure there was a man named Jesus around 2000 years ago who developed a cult following that grew into modern Christianity after his execution by the Romans.
I agree with everything else you say. Here we differ. There is no extra-biblical evidence at all for a historical Jesus Christ.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 6:17 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 99 of 157 (511789)
06-11-2009 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Rahvin
06-11-2009 2:15 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
I was just reanalyzing the texts to see if another interpretation fit. In science, should scientists never challenge theories? I see you getting angry with Christians for accepting everything they are taught blindly. Should I do that? I have yet to find a text that clearly says he was the first human being. Even in the New Testament, When Paul could have said he was the first Anthropos, he didn't. He said he was the first Adam and that Jesus was the last Adam. If Adam meant human being, that would say that Jesus was the last human being, which he clearly is not, else you and I would not be here. So tell me, should I be questioning every interpretation or accepting them blindly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 2:15 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 06-12-2009 1:55 AM greentwiga has not replied
 Message 112 by jaywill, posted 06-20-2009 9:03 AM greentwiga has not replied

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


Message 100 of 157 (511792)
06-11-2009 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by PaulK
06-11-2009 2:17 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
In Gen 3:23, and in Gen 4:2, the Hebrew uses more technical words for preparing the ground before planting. The harvesters never did this work. Later, after Cain Killed Abel, Eve says God gave me another child in place of Abel since Cain killed him. Therefore, we know that there was no gap between Abel and Cain, though that doesn't preclude gaps in the rest of the genealogy.
Rather than wikipedia, I recommend Mathilda's Anthropology Blog.
Mathilda's Anthropology Blog. | Just another WordPress.com weblog
She does a great job of keeping abreast of the latest scientific studies and giving us links. (I have no idea if she is a Christian, I would guess she is not. She definitely is not pushing a Christian agenda.) She has 37 blogs on domestication and agriculture.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2009 2:17 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 06-12-2009 1:30 AM greentwiga has replied

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


Message 101 of 157 (511794)
06-11-2009 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Rahvin
06-11-2009 6:17 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
I do see your logic. In fact, I tried to say that I couldn't prove any of the "supernatural or theological." I tried to say that all I could do was show a factual basis for the passages in the Bible. Actually, I can show one other thing that you can accept. I can show a connection to other non Christian Theologies. Therefore, I do not say there was a talking snake. I say that the other religions preached about talking Serpents and that the Bible did too. The next part, "The Bible was teaching against that worship," I don't expect you to accept. Read up on the Oracle at Delphi. Is it true that she was called the Pythia and she was said to receive her oracles from Python, the serpent? All I would expect you to say is that that is known history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 6:17 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 102 of 157 (511807)
06-12-2009 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by greentwiga
06-11-2009 10:20 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
quote:
In Gen 3:23, and in Gen 4:2, the Hebrew uses more technical words for preparing the ground before planting. The harvesters never did this work
And both relate to the situation AFTER God's curse was issued in Genesis 3:17-19.
quote:
Later, after Cain Killed Abel, Eve says God gave me another child in place of Abel since Cain killed him. Therefore, we know that there was no gap between Abel and Cain, though that doesn't preclude gaps in the rest of the genealogy.
Provided you assume that the gaps in the genealogy don't predate this version of the story.
quote:
Rather than wikipedia, I recommend Mathilda's Anthropology Blog.
Mathilda's Anthropology Blog. | Just another WordPress.com weblog
I'm taking a look. Most of the posts relating to domestication seem to deal with Europe and Africa, however I have spotted this:
...rye was being grown at Abu Hureyra about 13k ago,
Early Holocene Cultivation...
...my provisional dates on the domestication of lentils and vetch seem to predate this ( about 14,000 years min)
...cultural diffusion of agriculture...
The latter puts the domestication of rye and vetch clearly prior to the Younger Dryas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by greentwiga, posted 06-11-2009 10:20 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by greentwiga, posted 06-12-2009 6:46 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 103 of 157 (511808)
06-12-2009 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Rahvin
06-11-2009 6:17 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
I don't think I have tried to use my point about the historical accuracy to convince you of the theological aspects. What amazes me is the depth of historical accuracy. As for the ten plagues, have you read Ipuwer? He doesn't have to be describing the same event. It just shows that the plagues could have been a historic event. The only part of the story of Moses that I really struggle over is the numbers. I know that the desert couldn't support those numbers. I have read various theories, but do not have a theory of my own. I have gone so far as to research the history of the alphabet in looking for answers. I am even wondering if there was a translation error when someone read the 1400 BC writing and wrote a new copy in the much different 1000 BC script. Again, I have nothing solid. Sometimes it has taken me years to find a key that unlocks a point, usually making all my previous theories wrong. Therefore, I am not ready to say "The Bible is plain wrong." Years ago, I was in the same position with the Garden of Eden that I am now at with the population in the Exodus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 6:17 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Theodoric, posted 06-12-2009 9:32 AM greentwiga has replied

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


Message 104 of 157 (511809)
06-12-2009 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by greentwiga
06-11-2009 10:04 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
quote:
I was just reanalyzing the texts to see if another interpretation fit.
No, that's not true. You went in with the intention of fitting the Biblical text to the evidence. And when it didn't you just twist both the evidence and the text to try to force-fit it. You're really not that different from the more typical creationists.
quote:
I see you getting angry with Christians for accepting everything they are taught blindly.
No, you don't. And if I did your blind acceptance of Biblical inerrancy - despite your own researches showing that it is untenable - is at least as bad as that of the YECs.
quote:
I have yet to find a text that clearly says he was the first human being.
Genesis 2:5-7 seems to pretty clearly imply it. And it makes a hell of a lot more sense to read it that way than to assume that Genesis 2:5-7 is talking about a region where humans were already living as you would have it. And we already know that you misrepresented Genesis 5:1 in an attempt to try to suggest that the man of Genesis 5:2 was not Adam.
quote:
Even in the New Testament, When Paul could have said he was the first Anthropos, he didn't.
Wrong - he DID say that in 1 Corinthians 15:45.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by greentwiga, posted 06-11-2009 10:04 PM greentwiga has not replied

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


Message 105 of 157 (511843)
06-12-2009 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by greentwiga
06-12-2009 1:53 AM


Re: Bad Theology?
It just shows that the plagues could have been a historic event.
Which offers proof how?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by greentwiga, posted 06-12-2009 1:53 AM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by greentwiga, posted 06-14-2009 9:56 AM Theodoric 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