Raf

1. Most people in Columbus' day knew the world was not flat. 2. Yertle the Turtle actually says "fiction" on the binding. In the copy of Insomnia, by Stephen King, on my desk right now, there's a page that has a lot of teeny tiny type on it. Copyright date. Publisher's address. Credits for other people's work cited in the novel. And this gem of a paragraph: "Publisher's note: This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents are either the products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events or locales is entirely coincidental." 3. You see the same disclaimer in most works of fiction and in most fictional movies. 4. Nonetheless, it was never taken literally by anyone and if it were, then an analysis showing why it could not possibly be literally true would be warranted. Arguing against such an analysis by saying it wasn't MEANT to be taken literally when it was written does not change the fact that it was taken literally by others at a later time. I don't think one can reasonably argue that Paul and the writer of the gospel of Luke didn't believe that Adam was a real person in history. They clearly did. A significant piece of Paul's theology hinges on it. How Augustine handles that complication is something I have yet to explore, to be honest (thank you for the EXCELLENT link). I do know that Catholics in general have been comfortable for decades at least with "Adam and Eve never happened" AND "Jesus' death was a sacrifice that atones for original sin." I suppose their reconciliation of those two ideas, which contradict each other on the surface, can be found in the writings of their most prestigious philosophers. Or, maybe not. WIll be interesting to explore.

WordWolf: Let us assume I was mistaken about the fate of GSC and, assuming you are back in action: it's your move!

No longer certain about the fate of GSC, I will continue on the assumption GSC will continue: I don't see where there's room for "Genesis 1-3 is a misunderstood section of scripture." The only misunderstanding is that it presents itself as history, was accepted for the longest time as history, is still presented as history in certain circles (see The Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter), and is bullsh#t, from the standpoint of what actually happened in history. This thread is looking at assertions as though they are assertions of fact and history. It is not looking at assertions as allegories to teach lessons. And honestly, i think we've far passed the point where arguments about the nature of Genesis are becoming disingenuous.You can excuse any historical inaccuracy in the Bible if you are willing to adopt some kind of expansive "but does the Bible actually say this happened" interpretation. Everyone was perfectly happy assuming it happened until it was challenged. Paul speaks of Adam as though Adam were a historical figure of tremendous consequence. To come along 2,000 years later and say Paul didn't mean that, Genesis didn't mean that literally, strikes me as desperate ret-conning of It Is Written. Show me in the Bible where they say this is just a story and not history, and you may have a point. But when the writer of Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam, I don't think he's shoving a "figuratively speaking" in there.

The button is still up. That's the best I can answer at this time. Still waiting to hear again from Paw.

Bart Ehrman, the famed agnostic, agrees with your interpretation. So you're in good company as far as I'm concerned. I don't think the original Christians believed in a fiery hell of eternal torment.

I'm gratified that you are very proud of you. I would be too.

If you do say so yourself.

This is more a suspicion than an observation, so take it with a grain of salt. I think part of the problem in discussions about "critical thinking" is a lack of agreement on what "critical" means. It sounds to me like one person is using it to mean "searching for and finding fault," while another is using it to mean "examining the argument and determining whether its logical bases are flawed. Someone who is engaged in critical thinking is NOT looking to find flaws or fault. He's not being cynical. If you're not engaged in critical thinking, you can be suckered into anything. If you are engaged in cynical thinking, you won't believe the truth even when is is staring you in the face. Anyway, just a thought.

if anyone has a cheaper, better way to do this, by all means secure a domain name and start it up. Maybe Paw will sell this domain to you. I ran, for a very short time, a parallel site. it was a nightmare, with only a tiny fraction of GSC's membership. But hey all means, if you can do it better, cheaper and are willing to deal with the hassles, go for it!

The correct answer is Seinfeld.. Grease Spot Cafe will cease operations at the end of November. This is my last post on this thread. It's been a pleasure.

it appears gsc will be shutting down at the end of November. As such, I will cease and desist from this and all other discussions. It has been an honor.

That is, of course, your prerogative, Paw. Let us know what you decide.

It counts as amusing.

How I Met Your Friends.

Four years after starting this thread, I thought it might be handy for me to re-read the opening post, to make sure I was living up to my own original intent. Some formatting is added here for emphasis in future references. I would say if I made a blunder here, it was in saying I'll try to have an eye for what it meant to those living at the time Genesis was first written. That is because in order for me to do that, we would have to come to an agreement as to when Genesis was first written. Based on certain anachronisms and political references (the existence, for example, of kingdoms that did not exist until well after the character of Moses would have been dead, a lot of scholars believe Genesis was written by multiple writers as late as the Babylonian exile. If that is true, it would lend lots of credence to the notion that none of this was originally intended to be taken literally. That doesn't change the fact that it most certainly was taken literally, and for a very long time. In fact, I think Paul took Genesis literally, and I think the gospel message about Christ depends on it. Without a literal Adam, after all, how do we account for an original fall? What did Christ's sacrifice accomplish? It obviously didn't undo what Adam did if there was no Adam. Now, smarter people than I have reconciled this matter for themselves. They do believe in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ without believing the Adam and Eve story actually took place. A matter for another thread, and I only bring it up to examine the question of why this all matters: who cares if Genesis is literally true or allegorically true or metaphorically true? Well, lots of people, actually. If you're not one of those people, FINE. The PFAL definition of God-breathed (I would have been more accurate to say PFAL's criteria for characteristics of the God-breathed word) contends that if there is an error or contradiction, then it "all falls apart" and is not God-breathed. That's not to say PFAL is right. It's just our only common frame of reference. So, are there really errors? Yes. Are there really contradictions? Yes. What about plot holes? Well, if they're glaring enough, a plot hole would fall in the category of an error. For example, if Genesis is talking about Satan and not a literal snake, then why does God punish snakes? Technically, Genesis does not say a word about the serpent being a spiritual being. It talks about a snake. We get that it was Satan from extrapolating later scriptures. Revelation calls Satan "that old serpent." No, it does not say he was present at Eden, but the word choice seems intentional. So why did God punish snakes? That's why I listed it. Why didn't God talk to Abel when he talked to literally everyone else mentioned in the Bible to that point? ["Because" is not an answer. "Why would he?" is not an answer. It's an evasion. He would talk to Abel to save Abel's life. That's a blasted good reason right there]. My point: I think we need a place for plot holes when discussing errors. I guess.

Thanks, IA. I think what's interesting about "ok, it was never meant to be taken literally" are the implications. If Genesis was not meant to be taken literally, why did the writers of Matthew and Luke seek to trace Jesus' lineage to Abraham (a fictional character) and Adam (a fictional character)? Personally, I believe the notion that it was never meant to be taken as literally true is a retcon... But I would yield to the historian on that point. A lot of people thought it was literally true for a long time, until the fact of their literal untruth became undeniable. Then they became true in a whole other sense... true without being historical. Tall tales, meant to impart a lesson, not o teach about what really happened. Fine. What's the lesson? Because some of these lessons are pretty ... what's the word... not smart. In my opinion.

Do you have a point? I have made it very clear why this thread exists and what viewpoint it addresses. The existence of other viewpoints does not invalidate the purpose of this thread. They exist independently. If you don't think this is "the right tactic" (the right tactic for what?) then GTFO of this conversation. This thread is for people interested in this subject. Clearly you are not, and that is ok.

The best ones give a clue to the characters.

Perhaps. Again, if we're going to discuss this as interpreting what the writers of a fictional story meant to convey, then "actual errors" is pointless because no one is asserting that the story actually happened. It's a whole different conversations. This thread implicitly addresses the position that these events are asserted to have actually happened as described. There's NOTHING wrong with looking at everything from a literary point of view. It's just not the point of this thread. The moment the reader says "this story is just that: a story that never took place in real life," then we're not in any fundamental disagreement about that.

In Genesis 10, we the the repopulation of earth after the flood that never happened either globally or regionally. We know it wasn't global because there was not enough time for the population to have grown so massive that Nimrod's territory could encompass all it did by verse 12. And we know it wasn't regional because there was no flood in that region that would have been massive enough to carry the ark to "the mountains of Ararat." We've gone over this in previous posts; no need to rehash. Then we get to chapter 11, where we learn that the whole world had one language and a common speech. This is simply not true. It has never been true. I mean, just read the previous chapter. The writer of that chapter didn't think everyone on earth had one language. So these people decide to build a city. As though there weren't already more than a dozen of them as recorded in the previous chapter. With a tower that reaches all the way to heaven. Bearing in mind that heaven just meant "sky," I will refrain from the usual trope that they wanted to reach God's habitat. It's not what the book says. But note their concern: If we don't build this really big building, we may end up scattered all over the earth. This, apparently, would be a bad thing. I could be wrong on this, but I don't think the author of Gen. 11 is the author of Gen. 10. Honestly, the author of Genesis 10 talks about a huge population of over multiple cities and even kingdoms. Gen. 11 has one group of people, all speaking one language, as if these are the only people on earth. I am aware of Bullinger's belief that the tower was not going to be remarkable for its height but for its content: it was supposed to depict the heavens, which would have been ... I don't know. I don't get why that would concern God. But I don't get why God was bothered by this building anyway. Nevertheless, He persisted. “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them," God says, as if this were a bad thing. "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” Would this be an inconvenient time to bring up the verse that says God is not the author of confusion? Because it seems here that he's taking credit for it. Anyway, so God, instead of appearing in some form that says "don't construct this building: it is against my will," instead decides to have everyone speak different languages. Suddenly, no one understands each other. So the people who DO understand each other get together in groups and depart for other lands, where they can be with their own people. And that's how we got the different languages of the world. Of all the cockamamie... Seriously? You know this didn't happen, right? And let's be real clear: similar to the flood, this confusing of languages is not some localized event unnoticed by most of humanity. This IS most of humanity. Note the scripture: "So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel -- because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth." Not a local event. And not a true one. Languages developed independently over a great deal of time. They didn't all suddenly pop up at one location in the middle east and scatter around the world from there. This is a myth, not history. It never happened.

Ok, I made the same mistake WW made, which was to treat this thread the same as TV Mashup. So George, if you don't mind returning us to our regularly scheduled programming: next clue should be quotes from a show.

It is Moonlighting.

That is not credible. I'm sorry, but it's just not. But whatever. Moving on...

not a cop show. close. but not. one of the main stars became MUCH more famous playing a cop in movies.

I tend to ignore silly explanations. God's intervention is minimalistic? Note where we are in the story: God is blabbing away with everyone so far, EXCEPT the one who found favor with him. Your answer is not an explanation; it is an excuse, and a pretty bad one at that. It's the kind of answer you would laugh at and reject if we were discussing the holy book of any other religion. As for an author coming back later to explain something: this did no good for Cain, did it? Again, a ridiculous explanation you would reject if offered to support any other religion.