Summations Only

Thank you yet again Faith for agreeing that the Bible is not the Inerrant word of God but just the words of men.

I just report what the Bible actually says Faith and not what I think it really said.Inerrant means incapable of being wrong, again not my definition but rather what the dictionary says it means.Do you have any evidence to support your position?

No one questions the fact that there are lots of people who agree with you Faith, that is not an issue. The issue is can any of them provide support for those beliefs beyond something as silly as "Fifty million Frenchman can't be wrong".I don't read what I think it says, I actually post what it does say.It is just like the 300 or so leading lights of the Christian Cult of Ignorance that signed the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. Did they invite folk to present the overwhelming evidence that the Bible is not factually correct, that there is absolute conclusive evidence that the Biblical Floods never happened, that the Earth is billions of years old and humans are just the result of evolution, that the Exodus never happened as described or that the Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua is just fiction? Was there any evidence of interest in truth or honesty or reality?Do you have any evidence to support your readings other than the fact that there are people who attempt to explain away the errors, contradictions and falsehoods?Why do you never produce any support for your position other than "well others agree with me"?

We understand there are folk that try to make shit up to explain away the contradiction and we understand you check the commentaries and sermons; what we don't understand is why you don't check to see if the Bible says what they claim? Hint. It does not. If it did then they would be out of a job.The stories found in Genesis 6&7 do not say take 2 unclean fowl and 3 pairs plus one of clean fowl. Genesis 6 says take two fowl. Genesis 7 says take seven pairs of fowl.The commentaries are just stuff made up to try to explain away the errors. omissions, contradictions and just plain falsehoods that are found in the Bible and far too often totally ignore what might actually be of interest and importance.Neither of the Biblical Floods ever happened so that is a starting fact.That means we are dealing with myth. Now why are two mutually exclusive myths mushed up together?

The issue is not what some "orthodox understanding" is but rather what the Bible actually says.There was no Biblical Flood. That is fact. Anyone that claims there was a Biblical Flood is simply wrong.The issue is why are the two flood myths different and just mushed together?Once again I will post what the Bible actually says rather than what the commentaries wished it said.Let's start with Genesis 6:

quote:

---

19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

​

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

---

In this story the god character says there will be two of each kind of fowl, a male and a female. No mention of clean or unclean but specifically two of each kind of fowl.Now let's look at the story found in Genesis 7:

quote:

---

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

​

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

---

In this story the god character gives a whole different set of commands. When it comes to beasts there is a division between clean and unclean with seven pair of clean beasts and only one pair of unclean but again, when it comes to fowls there is no mention of clean or unclean just fowls of the air, just bring them in by sevens.Two stories, two different and mutually exclusive sets of directions.

Sorry Phat but other than misrepresenting what I have said, what does any of that have to do with the topic?

It's doubly hard when even the internal evidence does not support inerrancy.

I'm not sure "errors" is the right term for those examples rather I'd say they were contradictions. Errors are things that are patently false like there being a Biblical Flood or Young Earth or Special Creation or the Exodus or Conquest of Canaan.They are evidence that the Bible is not the Inerrant word of God and that it is just the word of men. It could even be inspired; God inspires several folk to write about the post resurrection pre-ascension period and each recounts the story as they remember it. We have no way of determining which version most accurately reflects reality or if any version reflects reality but that is not what I'd describe as an error, just different versions.Some examples might help. While the Biblical Flood never happened traditions of a great flood are not unusual and so can well just be enhanced and embellished accounts of a real event that developed in different communities and cultures and both are included for political reasons.But there is another significant example and that is the two mutually exclusive creation stories found in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3. There we see another example of contradictions, if one account is true then the other must be false. Of course both can also be false.That example gets even stranger when you consider that the story found in Genesis 2&3 is much older than the story in Genesis 1. Why include both stories since the two creation accounts are mutually exclusive and why place the younger, newer one first?Now the folk that Canonized these examples, that decided to include stories that were mutually exclusive were certainly not dumb; they were learned Jews building a liturgy.The likely answer is that the contradiction were just not that important and the creation stories were just a plot device used to explain something else.So if the Creation story is just a plot device what was the purpose served?Well Genesis 1 revolves around time and time division, defining a day (night and day). the week (seven periods of night and day) and the Sabbath, the day of rest and contemplation. That, the Jewish Sacred Week, was what was really important in the story.But what was important in the older Genesis 2&3 tale?It seems to be a "Just So" story meant to explain that world as seen, why we fear snakes, why we wear clothes, why we build moral societies with some standard of right and wrong, why we farm instead of just being hunter gatherers like the other animals, why childbirth for women seems more painful than for the other animals and perhaps most importantly, places men over women.We can see reasonable explanation for how the different traditional stories developed and how each of the tales serves a unique and important function but why include both and why place the younger story before the older one?Well there is one possible reason that would have been important when creating a liturgy and that is that the two stories present two entirely different descriptions of God that can encompass traits that would have been attractive. The Genesis 1 story presents an overarching, supremely competent God but also one that is aloof and does not interact directly with creation but the older God found in the Genesis 2&3 story is much warmer, human, perhaps bumbling and unsure but trying and considerate, directing interacting and controlling creation by hand. This is a God you wouldn't mind having as a next door neighbor.By including both stories in the canon and liturgy they present a composite image of God that cannot be found by looking at the two stories separately.

Likely true, but the point is that the Hebrews, the peoples Israel, were neither monolithic nor static, traditions evolved and different cultures as well. Remember that the beginnings of Canonization began during the period of the return from exile and involved a need to meld the traditional regional Palestine faction with the more secular cosmopolitan folk returning from exile.

I have no idea what a historical warrant is or what value it might have.The important part though is that we have discovered vast new resources in the last 100 years so that today we know far more about the actual history of what later got canonized and can say with a very, very, very high degree of certainty that anyone that thinks Moses wrote anything is just plain wrong. Now it is not a slap at those who lived hundreds of years ago but today only a Cult of Ignorance would make such a claim as Moses wrote the Books of Moses.In fact today we know that the various stories did not even come from a single culture but rather at least three different traditions.

Now those two examples are examples of creating a false prophetic fulfillment; of marketing; of a con. It is people saying "Hey there is a passage that says the king will come in on an ass so let's get an ass and Jesus can ride into Jerusalem on it."Others pointed out "But wait, there will be lots of folk riding into Jerusalem on asses. It happens every day."The reply, "Don't worry about that, we'll advertise that he did it."

There are several approaches to critical analysis of the Bible that can only lead to understanding that it really is the product of many voices, many belief systems and lots and lots of errors and contradictions.The methods vary and can be both painstaking and subject to interpretation but are not really very difficult. We did some on this very thread where pieces parts are compared. The two flood stories are a great example of textual criticism. Here are clearly two different stories simply based on what is actually written.Genesis 1 versus Genesis 2&3 is another great and easily seen example. The stories of creation found in the two tales are mutually exclusive and the god described entirely different. We can see similar evolution in the Synoptic Gospels where Matthew and Luke seem to have been written using Mark and a second unknown and so far lost collection of sayings of Jesus called "Q". These are examples of Source Criticism. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 are the product of two entirely different eras and traditions designed to serve two different purposes.There is another line of inquiry which is based on the earliest known documents that revolves around what language was used, what titles were used to describe god and other specific characteristics; how things were said rather than what was said.Other lines of inquiry are based on facts on the ground. The floods never happened so those tales are mythology or mythos. Some stories refer to places or peoples that either did not exist at the time the story is set or were called something else at that time.None of those things though detract from the worth or value of the Bible. But they do show that the Bible is not inerrant and that it is the product of many authors, editors, redactors, copy errors then sifted through the filter of committees designed and created to make a document that will be authoritative. Not all the committees agreed and so we have canons that vary from the Orthodox Samaritan Canon that says only those books that were canonized at the time of Jesus should be authoritative to the Ethiopian Long Canon that has over 80 books included.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin for ---> from

But this again is a problem of christian education and not a problem with the Bible stories themselves.Let me present a section from a 1981 Pastoral Letter from The Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta that dealt with the attempt at that time to force Creationism into the classrooms in Georgia.

quote:

---

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

​

Legislation is pending before the Georgia State Legislature which calls for the public financing and teaching of Scientific Creationism as a counterunderstanding to Evolution, wherever the evolutionary view is taught in the public schools.

​

Scientific Creationism understands the cosmos and the world to have originated as the Bible describes the process in the opening chapters of Genesis.

​

The 74th Annual Council of the Diocese of Atlanta, in formal action on January 31, 1981, acted without a dissenting vote to oppose by resolution any action by the Georgia Legislature to impose the teaching of Scientific Creationism on the public school system. A copy of the resolution is attached to this Pastoral.

​

It seems important that the Episcopal Church in this diocese add to its brief resolution a statement of its own teaching. The office of Bishop is historically a teaching office, and I believe it is timely to offer instruction as to this Church's understanding of what has become a contested public issue.

​

To begin with creation is a fact. The world exists. We exist. Evolution is a theory. As a theory, evolution expresses human response to the fact of creation, since existence raises questions: how did creation come to be, and why?

​

The question of why is the deeper one. It takes us into the realm of value and purpose. This urgent inquiry is expressed in human history through religion and statements of faith. Christians cherish the Bible as the source book of appropriating the point and purpose of life. We regard the Bible as the Word of God, His revelation of Himself, the meaning of His work and the place of humanity in it.

​

The question of how is secondary, because human life has been lived heroically and to high purpose with the most primitive knowledge of the how of creation. Exploration of this secondary question is the work of science. Despite enormous scientific achievement, humanity continues to live with large uncertainty. Science, advancing on the question of how, will always raise as many questions as it answers. The stars of the exterior heavens beyond us and the subatomic structure of the interior deep beneath us beckon research as never before.

​

Religion and science are therefore distinguishable, but in some sense inseparable, because each is an enterprise, more or less, of every human being who asks why and how in dealing with existence. Religion and science interrelate as land and water, which are clearly not the same but need each other, since the land is the basin for all the waters of the earth and yet without the waters the land would be barren of the life inherent to its soil.

​

In the Bible the intermingling of why and how is evident, especially in the opening chapters of Genesis. There the majestic statements of God's action, its value and the place of humanity in it, use an orderly and sequential statement of method. The why of the divine work is carried in a primitive description of how the work was done.

​

But even here the distinction between religion and science is clear. In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier.

---

Here is a clear statement from a major Christian source that points out that there really are two different authors and stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 and that they came from different eras and cultures.We need to remember that the stories found in Bibles were written for, meant for and created within the local culture of the authors age. They reflect how that author and the audience saw their relationship with god and with other peoples at that time. And those opinions and beliefs evolved and changed; were influenced by other cultures from Babylonian to Persian to Egyptian the the enlightenment of Greece and Rome.

"TRUTH" doesn't seem to be all that important or even useful. People worry way too much with trying to find some "TRUTH". Nor is it really important if there are not multiple sources for what really is important.As I pointed out above, the stories found in the Bibles reflect the feeling and knowledge of the people during the period when the stories were written. They show how folk tried to relate to god and also to other people and the environment.But we are not living in those times and have lots of additional data to draw upon that simply didn't exist back then.People today face the same challenges as they did then, learning to interact with their fellow man and the environment. For some, there is also an additional desire and that is how to relate (not interact) with a deity. Christianity is one possible path in that endeavor but there are many other paths as well.Again, the issue is one of education; that Christians need to be taught that it is a path; it is NOT "TRUTH" and lessons learned will depend on the current culture, idiom and era.

It is only bunk if you think the goal was to describe facts about creation instead of creation simply being a plot device.The former position seems really unlikely since both versions including the mutually exclusive parts were included.The folk that decided what to include (and remember this is a decision made repeatedly over hundreds of years) were not stupid or unlearned. They could see the contradictions and problems as easily as any honest reader yet they included both and even placed the newer, younger story before the older.A reasonable explanation is that they did not see the Creation as factual but rather a plot device to present other and more important issues. Remember that they were not trying to write science texts.