Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who to believe , Ham or Ross?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 223 (195219)
03-29-2005 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by nator
03-29-2005 1:54 PM


Re: How much agreement?
"Call me Ishmael."
YOU don't know about me without you have read a book
The above is certainly a narative, not a work of historical fiction. In fact the author went to great lengths to assure the reader that it WAS narrative, not fiction, a morality story or that it had a plot. To make sure folk understood that it was not simply fiction he included as a Frontispiece:
PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.
BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR,
Per G.G., Chief of Ordnance.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nator, posted 03-29-2005 1:54 PM nator has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 62 of 223 (195239)
03-29-2005 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by CK
03-29-2005 1:44 PM


Re: not really surprised.
We can't KNOW what WOULD HAVE happened. That's the problem with ALL evo speculations. They CANNOT be proved, tested, falsified or replicated. They are NOT subject to scientific method. There is no way to be sure about anything in the past. You CAN'T invalidate the Biblical report with speculations even based on physics. Sorry. The Biblical account stands as the only witness account of the Flood. Funny how you all scream that "it's not science!" on the one hand and then turn around and insist when it suits you that we must take it as if it were a completely detailed report by the National Weather Service that makes scientific judgments about it from 5000 years in the future minutely accurate. (And the weather people are usually studying past storms even within the last few months after the fact to figure out how they happened anyway).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by CK, posted 03-29-2005 1:44 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by CK, posted 03-29-2005 4:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 223 (195241)
03-29-2005 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
03-29-2005 12:01 PM


I thought to myself I wonder if somebody will be stupid enough to try to pass off a piece of historical fiction as an example?. and I answered myself, Nah, these are smart people here, these are people who really want to get to the bottom of things. I was wrong.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I picked an example that I knew you would find ridiculous. And it is. (BTW you are actually wrong, Lord of the Rings isn't historical fiction, it's Second World fantasy.)
But here's the thing. The fictional conceit of the Lord of the Rings is that its not fiction; its a recovered manuscript authored by Bilbo and Frodo Baggins called "the Red Book". There's no indication in the text that what we're reading isn't the literal history of the War of the Ring. There doesn't have to be, of course, because nobody reading it would mistake it for events that actually happened in the real world. I mean, duh, right?
But you've already eliminated that line of argument. According to you, it doesn't matter what we know about the real world; if a book that claims to be the truth (as LOTR does) says it happens, then it must have happened.
For the same reason that nobody mistakes LOTR for a history because of its drastic and obvious incongruity with real events in the real world, so too should the Bible not be mistaken for real history, because of its obvious incongruities with real events in the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 03-29-2005 12:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 64 of 223 (195242)
03-29-2005 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
03-29-2005 4:08 PM


Re: not really surprised.
Lots of waffle in there - who mentioned weather reports?
The subject seems to make you angry for some reason - try and stay calm.
Let's try and make this simple for you to follow - we can break it down into chuck.
Does the Bible mention how long the "flood" lasted?
Yes/No. If so how long does the flood last?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 03-29-2005 4:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 65 of 223 (195243)
03-29-2005 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by nator
03-29-2005 1:54 PM


Re: How much agreement?
OK, what how about the Iliad?
I have not read it but I do know that archaeologists found the city of Troy where the poem indicated it had been, that had previously been regarded as fiction invented by Homer, so it has at least some historical references. But otherwise I believe it presents itself only as a romantic fiction.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-29-2005 04:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nator, posted 03-29-2005 1:54 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-29-2005 4:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 66 of 223 (195244)
03-29-2005 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
03-29-2005 12:11 PM


Everything about the Bible presents itself as fact, every author of every historical book.
How can the "way the Bible presents itself" be evidence of its factuality? I mean, how gullible are you? Are we to trust every single claim presented as fact? Isn't that how lies are presented, too? As fact? (Isn't that what makes them lies?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 03-29-2005 12:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 03-29-2005 4:25 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 03-29-2005 6:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 67 of 223 (195245)
03-29-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
03-29-2005 4:19 PM


quote:
How can the "way the Bible presents itself" be evidence of its factuality? I mean, how gullible are you? Are we to trust every single claim presented as fact? Isn't that how lies are presented, too? As fact? (Isn't that what makes them lies?)
The gullibility in your statement is what is staggering. Have you ever read any C.S. Lewis? He could show you how to distinguish between history and fiction. I guess 3000 year track record of its having been taken as true history isn't evidence in these parts, huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 03-29-2005 4:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by CK, posted 03-29-2005 4:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 69 by JonF, posted 03-29-2005 4:40 PM Faith has replied
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 03-29-2005 4:50 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 72 by Sylas, posted 03-29-2005 5:00 PM Faith has replied
 Message 81 by nator, posted 03-29-2005 6:49 PM Faith has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 68 of 223 (195246)
03-29-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
03-29-2005 4:25 PM


quote:
I guess 3000 year track record of its having been taken as true.history isn't evidence in these parts, huh?
Well...no. what makes you think it's been considered literally true for 3000 years?
Your understanding of what is actually "history" seems poor. If we give you a section out of the bible - can you tell us what independent historical evidence there is for such an event?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 29-Mar-2005 04:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 03-29-2005 4:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 69 of 223 (195248)
03-29-2005 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
03-29-2005 4:25 PM


I guess 3000 year track record of its having been taken as true history isn't evidence in these parts, huh?
No. It's hearsay. And, as Charles pointed out, your claim that it has been taken as true history for 3,000 years is an unsupported asserion. The fundamentalist and evangelical movements, and their interpretatioins of the Bible, are pretty recent phenomena. All histories thet I've seen (and I'm not an expert) agree that the "literal" interpretation of the Bible is a recent phenomenon also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 03-29-2005 4:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 03-29-2005 5:55 PM JonF has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 223 (195250)
03-29-2005 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
03-29-2005 4:18 PM


Re: How much agreement?
I have not read it but I do know that archaeologists found the city of Troy where the poem indicated it had been, that had previously been regarded as fiction invented by Homer, so it has at least some historical references. But otherwise I believe it presents itself only as a romantic fiction.
Seriously, now. This is Spinal Tap.
It presents itself, straight through, as a documentary about a rock band. However, the rock band in question never existed. The movie is a spoof.
While we're at it... The Office, The Blair Witch Project, It's a Good Life if You Don't Weaken, the writings of Herodatus... they all present themselves as fact. None of them actually are.

"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!"
-Jane Christie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 03-29-2005 4:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 71 of 223 (195254)
03-29-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
03-29-2005 4:25 PM


Have you ever read any C.S. Lewis?
Who hasn't? I especially loved The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
What does that have to do with anything?
He could show you how to distinguish between history and fiction.
I already know how - compare the narrative to the physical evidence. It's not really that hard, after all.
I guess 3000 year track record of its having been taken as true history isn't evidence in these parts, huh?
No, why would it be? Lies don't become truth just because they are believed, even if they're believed for a long time or by many people. You might find, if you asked, that most people have heard that Walt Disney was cryogenically frozen, or even believed it; the fact that it was believed, however, doesn't exhume Walt's body from his California cemetary and dunk him in liquid nitrogen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 03-29-2005 4:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 72 of 223 (195258)
03-29-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
03-29-2005 4:25 PM


The gullibility in your statement is what is staggering. Have you ever read any C.S. Lewis? He could show you how to distinguish between history and fiction. I guess 3000 year track record of its having been taken as true history isn't evidence in these parts, huh?
CS Lewis was indeed able to distinguish history and fiction; and being an expert in literature he certainly did not make the facile mistake of treating Genesis as a history. Lewis regarded it as myth, and he regarded that as a compliment, not a denegration.
Lewis was not much concerned with whether events took place in history exactly as recorded in Genesis; in his view this makes little difference to the importance of the account or why it was recorded. There is a good discussion of how Lewis treated the bible at The Unfundamental C. S. Lewis: Key Components of Lewis's View of Scripture by Duncan Sprague. Sprague is a creationist himself, but he is a fan of Lewis. He does, however, critize Lewis for failing to declare Genesis as historical. On this, Lewis is plainly the more expert in literature and the more sensible in recognizing that historicity is not the point or the focus.
Lewis regarded the bible as showing a progression from myth to history. Thus early Genesis he regarded as "folktale" and the flood as "legendary", but Jesus as fully historical. Quoting C. S. Lewis's Theology by James Townsend:
In his books Lewis amplified on his understanding of the Bible’s inspiration: "The earliest stratum of the Old Testament contains many truths in a form which I take to be legendary, or even mythical . things like Noah’s Ark or the sun standing still upon Ajalon," while in the New Testament "history reigns supreme." Elsewhere he wrote, "The first chapters of Genesis, no doubt, give the story in the form of a folktale . " Referring to the notion that "every sentence of the Old Testament has historical or scientific truth," Lewis admitted: "This I do not hold, any more than St. Jerome did when he said that Moses described Creation ”after the manner of a popular poet’ (as we should say, mythically) or than Calvin did when he doubted whether the story of Job were history or fiction." Again, Lewis penned: "The Old Testament contains fabulous elements" which would include "Jonah and the Whale, Noah and his Ark, . but the Court history of King David is probably as reliable [historically] as the Court history of Louis XIV."
Note that Lewis also disagrees with the notion that Genesis has always been read simply as history in the past. Ancient scholars also could recognize the use of myth and poetry and other literary forms. In short, Lewis is no support for your perspective at all.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 03-29-2005 4:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 03-29-2005 5:59 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 73 of 223 (195276)
03-29-2005 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by JonF
03-29-2005 4:40 PM


No. It's hearsay. And, as Charles pointed out, your claim that it has been taken as true history for 3,000 years is an unsupported asserion.
You guys are a riot. What a joke. By your standards nothing whatever is proof EXCEPT your own sometimes somewhat scientific guesses extrapolated from the present to the distant past which can't be tested, proved, replicated or falsified. Alice through the looking glass every minute. Entertaining if depressing.
I guess it's too much to ask that anyone be literate enough around here to KNOW that it's been taken as true history by great Bible teachers all the way back, so I'd have to find one in each century at least get quotes from voluminous writings to prove it and then if I found them all agreeing that the Flood was history you'd demand that I prove they all agreed that the parting of the Red Sea was history TOO, and so on.
The "pretty recent" way of dealing with the Bible is not the way that believes it and trusts it as written, that's the old way, that's the way of the apostles and all the believers who were willing to die for the God who died for them, and went on dying for Him through the centuries. It's the "liberal" mangling of it that's recent, that really got going in the 19th century with the Tubingen seminary in Germany, although it goes back to Jefferson and the Deists and Enlightenment crowd originally, the "enlightened" approach that declares the supernatural couldn't have happened and whatever else offends the personal sensibilities of today's "advanced" and "progressive" elites. They think somebody or other - Hume - PROVED that miracles couldn't happen. What a laugh. It's really all according to personal taste however as they've eliminated all rational standards for determining anything about it. The "Jesus Seminar" makes subjective guesses about what Jesus "really" said and this is considered "proof." This stuff is so irrational while considering itself the epitome of rationality I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Some will accept this or that miracle though, just 'cause they think it's probably true. Just 'cause, no need to be reasonable or expect to find rational grounds for believing it true, for heaven's sake, it's all just "religion."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by JonF, posted 03-29-2005 4:40 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 03-29-2005 5:58 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 76 by CK, posted 03-29-2005 6:10 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 77 by JonF, posted 03-29-2005 6:11 PM Faith has replied
 Message 84 by nator, posted 03-30-2005 7:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 74 of 223 (195278)
03-29-2005 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Faith
03-29-2005 5:55 PM


so I'd have to find one in each century at least get quotes from voluminous writings to prove it and then if I found them all agreeing that the Flood was history you'd demand that I prove they all agreed that the parting of the Red Sea was history TOO, and so on.
If you haven't done all those things already, then why do you believe it?
You're correct to point out that we have a higher standard of proof than you appear to. The question is, why do you have such lower standards for what you're willing to believe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 03-29-2005 5:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 75 of 223 (195279)
03-29-2005 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Sylas
03-29-2005 5:00 PM


That's too bad. I'm sorry to hear it, although I did find some flaws in Lewis myself. Oh well, heroes are hard to come by.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Sylas, posted 03-29-2005 5:00 PM Sylas 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