Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture
jar
Member
Posts: 34125
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 211 of 304 (654797)
03-04-2012 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Lone77Star
03-04-2012 1:56 PM


Re: Hidden Wisdom -- The Literalists' Nightmare
But we have found absolute proof that the Biblical Flood myths are just that, simply not factual.
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:
quote:
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:
quote:
2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:
quote:
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthmen and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airfor I am grieved that I have made them."
and in Genesis 7:
quote:
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things.
If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7.
Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals).
Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck.
We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species.
BUT...
If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period.
Talk about a big RED flag.
That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see.
So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood.
If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support.
If on the other hand that genetic marker is NOT there, then the Flood is refuted.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Lone77Star, posted 03-04-2012 1:56 PM Lone77Star has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Phat, posted 03-04-2012 3:56 PM jar has replied
 Message 285 by Phat, posted 12-23-2012 8:35 AM jar has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18427
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 212 of 304 (654801)
03-04-2012 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by jar
03-04-2012 2:24 PM


Re: Hidden Wisdom -- The Literalists' Nightmare
Do you believe that the whole book is likely myth? If so, wouldn't that render powerless the object of our faith? (I realize this is a faith based question...but I would like some reassurance that there is verifiable power behind the stories and the beliefs). A Human can only do so much in and of themselves. We can't walk on water unless it is ice, and we cant heal the blind yet...though laser surgery has advanced considerably.
Perhaps the Flood story need not be literal and authentic...symbolism teaches ethics...but the Virgin Birth is a central tenet for most of club christian.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by jar, posted 03-04-2012 2:24 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by jar, posted 03-04-2012 4:07 PM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34125
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 213 of 304 (654802)
03-04-2012 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Phat
03-04-2012 3:56 PM


Re: Hidden Wisdom -- The Literalists' Nightmare
What book?
What does "virgin birth" even mean?
Why is it important?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Phat, posted 03-04-2012 3:56 PM Phat has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9536
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 214 of 304 (654803)
03-04-2012 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Lone77Star
03-04-2012 1:56 PM


Re: Hidden Wisdom -- The Literalists' Nightmare
Lone77Star writes:
"I've concluded this, but you can prove me wrong"
Yes, that's correct, that's how it works. You do the work, look for the facts and form a conclusion. When the facts change......well, you know the rest.
How else would you have it?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Lone77Star, posted 03-04-2012 1:56 PM Lone77Star has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 215 of 304 (654807)
03-04-2012 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Lone77Star
03-04-2012 1:56 PM


Re: Hidden Wisdom -- The Literalists' Nightmare
The Flood never happened? Perhaps it did happen, but we simply have as yet found only one piece of evidence: a species which died out at the real Flood date -- a species which matches the Genesis 6 description of "daughters of men." And if we understand God's reason for something like the Flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, then we might understand why it was necessary to wipe out one very specific species.
Except that this "one piece of evidence" is a pathetic fantasy. As I have explained to you previously, it's based upon inaccurate information on the science side and glaring misinterpretations on the Biblical side.
So, what really happened in Genesis 6-9? We could say that it's all myth and leave it at that, but where's the fun in that?
Funny thing; reality doesn't actually care how much fun you think it is.
What's the right tool? The right paradigm? Restraint and humility! Don't jump to conclusions. Hypothesize by all means, but skepticism -- the way most use it -- has conclusion written all over it.
Sanctimonious drivel.
Science does great in the realm of the study of nature. It deals with elements and qualities of "continuity." Creation, however, is discontinuous in nature.
Magic. The word you are strenuously seeking to avoid here is "magic". If your explanation is that God used magic, then say so. Just don't pretend to have any right to then comment on the science.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Lone77Star, posted 03-04-2012 1:56 PM Lone77Star has not replied

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 354 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


Message 216 of 304 (654825)
03-04-2012 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Lone77Star
03-04-2012 1:56 PM


Naughty God
Lone77Star writes:
Where God is Concerned
Science does great in the realm of the study of nature. It deals with elements and qualities of "continuity." Creation, however, is discontinuous in nature. Things like forgiveness, inspiration, walking on water and parting the sea are all acts discontinuous in nature. They ignore the continuity of physical law (not science). Physical law is not science; this is what science studies. Continuity gives science something to study.
Where God is concerned, all physical law is subject to suspension, revision or outright breaking. Water from a rock in the desert, manna from heaven and similar miracles break with the continuity that science studies.
So, what really happened in Genesis 6-9? We could say that it's all myth and leave it at that, but where's the fun in that?
Did God use a force that looked like water? Did He use actual water, but took care of all of the apparent problems we see from a scientific angle? Yes, the Flood story could be entirely myth and a morality tale -- a warning wrapped in symbolism. But where God is concerned, all options are on the table.
Of course what you say is viable, but what are the consequences if true?
God made a flood, but covered up all the evidence apart from a couple of paragraphs in some Bronze-age poem?
God made all life in some apparent order within a week, but then sneakily played around with the geology and biology to give the appearance of evolution from a common ancestor?
God made the Earth 6000yrs ago but rigged the evidence to make it all look 4500Mya?
God performs all manner of crime against humanity but condemns me to hell if I go have a quick toss?
Let's face it - that God is a bit of a fuckwit.
Edited by Boof, : Changed from cunt (too strong) too fuckwit (possibly not strong enough)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Lone77Star, posted 03-04-2012 1:56 PM Lone77Star has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 217 of 304 (654843)
03-05-2012 6:37 AM


Topic Please!
Please reread Message 1 or at least pay attention to the title of the thread. Although titles aren't necessarily the argument being presented, this one does reflect the theme of this thread.
Although "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" thread is on the science side, not all topics are strictly scientific in nature. As the description says: Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?
Please take flood debates to the appropriate threads.
Thank you

  
creatorsknight
Junior Member (Idle past 4512 days)
Posts: 5
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 03-05-2012


Message 218 of 304 (654914)
03-05-2012 2:53 PM


I like Greg's thinking on this
Here is a link to STR.org where Greg Koukl talks about this very thing. I think he has some sound reasoning here.
Status

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2012 3:37 PM creatorsknight has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 219 of 304 (654918)
03-05-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by creatorsknight
03-05-2012 2:53 PM


Re: I like Greg's thinking on this
I don't think his reasoning is very sound. It's odd that if his view of inerrancy is such an important doctrine it isn't clearly expressed anywhere in the Bible. Does't his view rely on assuming that God intended things to be the way that he believes they are ?
And what about 1 Corinthians 14:16 ?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
Now, if God intended every word to come out as it did then why would there need to be the correction and the admission of poor memory in verse 16 ? God could easily provide the correct details. If God intended the words to come out this way, then surely God intended us to recognise that Paul was fallible, and that his writing is not guaranteed to be entirely correct. Or maybe it's just a mistake on Paul's part, meaning that God isn't guiding every little detail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by creatorsknight, posted 03-05-2012 2:53 PM creatorsknight has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by creatorsknight, posted 03-05-2012 3:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
creatorsknight
Junior Member (Idle past 4512 days)
Posts: 5
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 03-05-2012


Message 220 of 304 (654920)
03-05-2012 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by PaulK
03-05-2012 3:37 PM


Re: I like Greg's thinking on this
Why would God want to make man look perfect? Why would he want to put in there evidence that man is flawless in some way? The details of the Bible are astounding in their detail. All of the flaws of the people are pointed out. Stupid questions from Jesus followers are pointed out. His followers abandoning him and scattering. God didn't want us to look at his followers and say I need to be like him. God wanted us to look at his followers and say... wow... they are as srewed up as I am but they did great things. The question the Bible leaves you with after seeing their flaws is... why were they doing great things? Why did they believe so much in what Jesus was saying that they would lay down their lives for it. God is brilliant in his design to point out those flaws so that it can point back to him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2012 3:37 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2012 4:10 PM creatorsknight has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 221 of 304 (654921)
03-05-2012 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by creatorsknight
03-05-2012 3:55 PM


Re: I like Greg's thinking on this
quote:
Why would God want to make man look perfect?
That, of course is not the question. The question is why would God make Paul's writings look unreliable if he meant us to take them as absolutely reliable ?
Doesn't it make more sense to accept that Paul's writings are not reliable in absolutely every detail ? And is it not therefore the case that the Bible actually supports the view that Greg Koukl is arguing against ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by creatorsknight, posted 03-05-2012 3:55 PM creatorsknight has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by creatorsknight, posted 03-05-2012 4:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
creatorsknight
Junior Member (Idle past 4512 days)
Posts: 5
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 03-05-2012


Message 222 of 304 (654926)
03-05-2012 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by PaulK
03-05-2012 4:10 PM


Re: I like Greg's thinking on this
No, God doesn't make Paul's writings look unreliable. God makes paul look unreliable. There is a difference. If you were to write a love letter to your significant other and say that you loved her deerly. Would those feelings be any less just because you spelt the word wrong? The message that God is sending is no less significant just becuase he is using fallible people to send it. Many people choose not to trust it because we look at those examples God gives us and we associate their failures with what they wrote. The thing that people forget is that it got wrote down. Despite of all of their flaws the message got preserved for millenia and it has survived. If I were to see a story where everyone was perfect and shiny where no one made mistakes. I don't know that i would trust it. What I see is a bunch of people who were screwed up and they show it but what they are saying goes beyond the flaws that they show. We see the flaws and relate to the people so that we can trust what they say. Yes God cold have made everyword perfect but would that make it anymore trustworthy? People would still scoff. If God's own hand had wrote it, people would still try to say otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2012 4:10 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2012 4:58 PM creatorsknight has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 223 of 304 (654929)
03-05-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by creatorsknight
03-05-2012 4:34 PM


Re: I like Greg's thinking on this
quote:
No, God doesn't make Paul's writings look unreliable. God makes paul look unreliable. There is a difference.
Is there ? Paul wrote that he only baptised Crispus and Gaius, then he remembers that he baptised the household of Stephanius then he adds that he may have baptised others he doesn't remember.
So his claim, in writing that he only baptised Crispus and Gaius is wrong.
quote:
If you were to write a love letter to your significant other and say that you loved her deerly. Would those feelings be any less just because you spelt the word wrong?
It would mean that I made a spelling mistake. If I argued that God was guiding my spelling and therefore the spelling was correct I would be wrong.
quote:
The message that God is sending is no less significant just becuase he is using fallible people to send it.
And now you are taking exactly the position that Koukl argues against. Congratulations !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by creatorsknight, posted 03-05-2012 4:34 PM creatorsknight has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by creatorsknight, posted 03-05-2012 10:18 PM PaulK has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 224 of 304 (654941)
03-05-2012 6:36 PM


Topic Please! Take Two
Please reread Message 1. I don't see how the current debate addresses any problem with literal interpretation of scripture.
Please keep to the spirit of the topic.
Thanks

  
creatorsknight
Junior Member (Idle past 4512 days)
Posts: 5
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 03-05-2012


Message 225 of 304 (654954)
03-05-2012 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by PaulK
03-05-2012 4:58 PM


Re: I like Greg's thinking on this
AdminPD is right I am a bit off topic but I do think that if someone determines that the word of God is fallible that they will not take it literally. So to tie in the topic I will say that in order for God to get his message out to everyone then he needs to have people trust in what his word says. PaulK seems to think that the word is fallible because fallible man wrote it. So he will never take anything in it literally. God being an All Knowing, All Powerful God could serve his purpose through fallible people and still have everything in it literal. I see God in nature and can trust that if he did all of that then him telling me about himself in the Bible is just as awe inspring. The things he talks about in there are to far fetched for our minds to wrap around because they aren't things we have seen. So to most people most of it can't be literal becuase they can't fathom that God could do what it says. I say he can and when I look at something as well planned and designed as humans are. I can take every word exactly as it says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2012 4:58 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2012 1:22 AM creatorsknight 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