Kudos to you Raf, for being ballsy enough to speak freely about your atheism and to question "Da Word".
The derailment of this thread is one of the reasons I gave up on GSC several years ago...anytime I even thought about questioning the underlying assumptions of Christianity, or was skeptical about some miraculous event, I was assailed with personal attacks and a chorus of "I just know it's true"
Every point of view (or set of beliefs) has a load of assumptions attached to it. Some of those assumptions are right, some are wrong...some might even be somewhere in between. It's no bad thing to examine and investigate assumptions and reassess one's PoV. If you are confident in your assumptions then you should be able to debate with someone with different assumptions, and one or both can change their minds or retain the same PoV.
It's not a bad thing to air assumptions. And to test out one's critical thinking ability and interpretation of those assumptions - heck, our critical thinking ability was pulverised enough in TWI. You can probably pick up a load of Bible commentaries that will come up with yet other PoVs, explanations about why this did or did not occur - the flood, and historical inaccuracies and anomalies, for example. Some of those appear to be more "wish list" than "what happened.".
I welcome Raf's "actual errors in Genesis" commentary. He might be right. He might be wrong. He's stated his assumptions. No need to shoot the messenger, if the message is wrong. Maybe the message was wrongly recorded by someone else before it got to this particular messenger (Raf). "Maybe" lotsa things (shrugs).
But to think about what might underlie the Biblical record and the truths or errors therein, is no bad thing.
(And nobody shoot me either, please. I'm just saying - get back on track, let Raf have his say, and consider what he says on its own merit)
Oakspear, given GSC as it's currently laid out, I felt the doctrinal section was the best place to have this kind of discussion. The central issue here is NOT "is there a God?" although I made it clear that it forms part of my underlying assumption. The central issue here is, "are there actual errors in Genesis?" And there are. So where does one go, doctrinally, from there?
I contend that you cannot maintain the premise that the Bible is inerrant without explaining why the errors in Genesis aren't really errors.
You can abandon the premise that the Bible is inerrant while maintaining a belief in Christianity, but I contend that it is beyond difficult to do so. Ultimately, I found the task impossible, but others manage it, so there's that.
You can abandon Christianity altogether.
Or you can find some other way to grapple with these issues. Or you can ignore them.
All of that falls generally under the framework of the doctrinal section on a forum that is NOT exclusively Christian.
For those not keeping track, let me be clear at the outset of this thread: I no longer consider myself Christian, and I no longer believe in God. But you need not hold the same view to recognize what many -- Christians and atheists alike -- have realized for a very long time: There are actual errors in the Bible. Not errors of interpretation. Real, documentable, tangible blunders that show Genesis does not pass PFAL's criteria for what it means to be God-breathed.
For those who remain Christian, the challenge is simple: Deny the evidence and conclude Genesis DOES pass PFAL's criteria, or reject PFAL's criteria. Maybe God-breathed means something else entirely. If the second solution satisfies you, far be it from me to take that away from you. I'm not looking to persuade anyone that there is no God. If it's at all possible, I ask you to separate that proposition from the point I am making, which I will reiterate: There are actual errors in Genesis. What to do with them is up to you. Let's examine them. I probably won't be right about every point I make. But I will be right about many of them, and I suspect if you are honest with yourself, you will agree with that statement (even if you loathe where it has led me).
Let us begin...
I wouldn't consider PFAL as a standard for determining the validity of scripture, doctrine, or tie-ins to science. He was a shyster who plagiarized and cobbled together a patchwork of theology from various sources.
However, there's lots of material out there from legitimate/qualified people that address some of the stuff on this thread which I have found satisfactory. It may not be to your satisfaction. I can list them in a PM to anyone who's interested.
Before I elaborate I should state up front the grand assumption I've had long before coming to TWI. Maybe it's due to being raised in a Roman Catholic family and having a fascination with how things work – i assumed the Bible and the world around us (which science studies) have a common origin – God. Of course that also reveals a personal bias for the harmony of science and Scripture.
When I first took PFAL I came away with the idea VP did a bang up job of tying it all together. After leaving TWI I questioned everything, did a lot of reading, realizing I needed to develop critical thinking skills.
I never did abandon my grand assumption (the harmony of science and Scripture). Is that what faith is? I don't know. I think one of the first things that piqued my interest in checking out other theological systems was stumbling across biblical arguments for an old earth. When I said I found things like that satisfactory – I mean it bolstered my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. But like I said earlier an alternate answer that differs from PFAL may not impress you. And so it went that way with my quest on various topics – research driven by a personal bias? yes. But NOT using the criteria of PFAL! I would like to think I'm considering the best evidence for my arguments – but I'm not scientist, theologian, or philosopher – so who knows how off base I am. Who cares? Well, other than me I guess no one.
I also think Christianity should champion the inerrancy of Scripture – not just as a matter of being theologically honest but also to be consistent with what the Bible says about itself (more on this in a minute). As far as I can tell this was Jesus' view of Scripture. But you know – this is all my opinion – I wouldn't want a bunch of inerrancy-Nazi's going around badgering other Christians who don't share this view of Scripture. Heck, I'd probably get labeled an apostate for some of the stuff I've posted on Grease Spot.
Back to being consistent with what the Bible says about itself: I guess I see a possible issue with Christians wanting to pick and choose what part of Scripture is God-breathed and has authority over their lives. Believe that Jesus got up from the dead but ignore prohibitions of lying or adultery.
However, there's lots of material out there from legitimate/qualified people that address some of the stuff on this thread which I have found satisfactory. It may not be to your satisfaction. I can list them in a PM to anyone who's interested.
Please list at least some of them. Who knows? You might change my mind about something.
Please list at least some of them. Who knows? You might change my mind about something.
Sure, I can do that. And just for the record, i'm not trying to change anyone's mind in doctrinal. Matter of fact, many things in my belief system have changed since coming to Grease Spot, especially the doctrinal forum; maybe safe to say even some are still in a state of flux.
So concerning doctrinal matters I read and post in this forum as a means of checking out my own thought process; somewhat of a virtual acid test of my belief system, if you will. I don't know if that's the technician in me – I often obsess on trying to figure out how things work and usually double and even triple check myself while on a project; "measure 3 times to cut once"; I have this weird notion that a competent technician does not totally trust himself – mistakes will be made, something gets overlooked or forgotten – so have processes in place to check, review, and assess status along the way. I do wish doctrinal/theological/philosophical matters were as easy to work on as a home theater system. You put the cable in here – NOT there; flip this switch when you want to do that; follow the instructions. No guess work. Life isn't like that though – so it's definitely not boring.
i am glad this is not a Christian website – not just to nix the group-think factor but to become aware of the holes, contradictions, illogic, and nonsense of my "philosophy" – as painful/awkward/embarrassing as it may be at times, and usually don't admit it…and a big kudos to you Raf on your "Seeing the Dark" thread in Open forum. So needless to say, for me anyway - alternate viewpoints are not always a welcomed challenge but certainly a necessary one on life's journey. So always carry extra water and trail mix so you can share.
The only forum where I do intend to change people's minds is on About the Way. My purpose there is to give testimony of my experiences in TWI for the prosecution of VP and all things related to him in the virtual courtroom of Grease Spot – with the hope that someone still in TWI is reading Grease Spot …and more importantly questioning their own involvement with TWI. I am passionate about this – and don't consider myself an "Un-apostle" to the Way Corps (maybe an apostate-L…mmm hard to pronounce, not sure of spelling…) or anyone who is still stuck in TWI mindset; the only gift ministry I ever had was the gift ministry of an idiot; but alas, I lost that gift after I quit drinking their Kool-Aid.
Sorry for getting off topic here but I'm actually enjoying this thought provoking thread. Consider this my "Seeing the Dark" post of someone who left the "comfortable confines" of a group that thinks they know it all./>
I will put together a list and maybe some brief notes on what each book covers.we can go from there; my intention was not to debate every point you brought up but to mention there's other books/folks (besides PFAL, VP, TWI) out there that may properly address some of these issues.
Here is a list of some of the books that I feel offer sound arguments to harmonize science and Scripture. For brevity's sake I've included a link to Amazon that gives more info on each book - but will of course discuss any particular point of the books listed as per the flow of discussion.
The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis by Hugh Ross. NavPress Publishing Group, Colorado Springs, CO. 1998. Print
The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design by William Dembski. InterVarsity Press. Downers Grove, IL. 2004. Print.
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe. Touchstone / Simon & Schuster. New York, NY. 1st Edition 1998. Print. (this is the one I have. the link below is of 2nd edition 2006, Free Press publisher)
I thought you were going to list answers, not books. I could respond with a list of books that refute the above books, but what good would that do. I apologize for misunderstanding you.
I thought you were going to list answers, not books. I could respond with a list of books that refute the above books, but what good would that do. I apologize for misunderstanding you.
I thought I was quite clear in my post # 81:
I wouldn't consider PFAL as a standard for determining the validity of scripture, doctrine, or tie-ins to science. He was a shyster who plagiarized and cobbled together a patchwork of theology from various sources.
However, there's lots of material out there from legitimate/qualified people that address some of the stuff on this thread which I have found satisfactory. It may not be to your satisfaction. I can list them in a PM to anyone who's interested.
even your reply in post # 82 gave every indication that you knew I was providing only a list of books
Please list at least some of them. Who knows? You might change my mind about something.
And just to verify I was going provide what you expected I said this in post # 83
I will put together a list and maybe some brief notes on what each book covers. we can go from there; my intention was not to debate every point you brought up but to mention there's other books/folks (besides PFAL, VP, TWI) out there that may properly address some of these issues.
== == == ==
initially i was responding to a very specific challenge and criteria you stated in post # 1:
For those not keeping track, let me be clear at the outset of this thread: I no longer consider myself Christian, and I no longer believe in God. But you need not hold the same view to recognize what many -- Christians and atheists alike -- have realized for a very long time: There are actual errors in the Bible. Not errors of interpretation. Real, documentable, tangible blunders that show Genesis does not pass PFAL's criteria for what it means to be God-breathed.
For those who remain Christian, the challenge is simple: Deny the evidence and conclude Genesis DOES pass PFAL's criteria, or reject PFAL's criteria.
to reiterate - my response to your challenge in post # 1 is simple: I do not deny the scientific evidence but I do reject PFAL's criteria for establishing the God-breathed Word.
My response to your latest post is also simple: mentioning some of the issues you brought up at the beginning of this thread and briefly covering some things I found in Hugh Ross' book The Genesis Question will have to suffice for now.
Post # 1: "It is spawned from a discussion in About the Way about there being no rain before Noah's flood. The consensus on that thread was that TWI got it wrong, that there was rain before the Flood. But other issues were brought up -- for example the teaching by Earl Burton that the universe is encapsulated in a gigantic bubble with water on the other side of it."
The idea of a universe in a bubble and no rain before the flood are not supported in Scripture; day 2 of creation Gen. 1:6 & ff is where the water cycle begins – condensation and precipitation – the word "sky" and "expanse" refer to the visible "dome" above us – more specifically the portion of Earth's atmosphere where clouds form and move. Even if it were a watery canopy just around the Earth, there is no science that offers compelling evidence. On page 153, Ross states this concept fails every test of plausibility since the vaporous canopy would dissipate to interplanetary space or come crashing down to Earth due to gravity; even if it was for a short time it would set up such a powerful greenhouse heating effect that no ice or liquid would remain on Earth to sustain life, and the Flood would become unnecessary.
== == == ==
Post #3: "Now, when science and biology teach us that mankind cannot trace its first common female ancestor until tens of thousands of years before Eve would have lived, is that an "error"? I may say yes. You may say no. Ok. Stalemate."
Lightfoot and Ussher were caught up in a race to see who could publish an accurate date when God created Adam & Eve. They assumed that Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 listed complete genealogical records. Jewish scholars view the lists as part of their cultural heritage and consider the genealogies adequate lists not complete lists. Lightfoot and Ussher figured it was simple math to calculate the date – add the ages of the fathers to the ages of their sons and work backward from the fairly well-established date for Abraham. Before long their date spread throughout Christendom and beyond as if it were part of the Bible text. By the 19th century, it had reached the margin notes of most English Bibles. As far as dating done by scientists - by comparing samples of currently living humans with well-dated ancient human DNA and noting the range of DNA differences among individuals of people groups of the world, researchers could then estimate the total time required for the differences to have developed. the biochemical studies so far have been on small population samples and the results are only approximate.
== == ==
Post # 3: "There was no worldwide flood. That's an actual error. But wait! Lots of Christians believe the flood of Noah was local, not worldwide. Fine. But it still moved a boat from wherever Noah began his journey to Ararat. Actual error."
Maybe our modern global perspective assumes a worldwide flood. The scale of reference for the Flood should be understood in the context of their culture. "worldwide" references are used elsewhere: the famine of Genesis 41:56 "was over the face of the earth" = devastated all the lands of the ancient Near East in and around Egypt. We do not interpret that to imply that Australian Aborigines and American Indians had to come to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph. Likewise, I Kings 10:24 states "the whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart", we do not assume New Zealand Maoris or the Patagonian natives sent yearly delegations to Jerusalem."
Mount Ararat's elevation is 16,946 feet above sea level. Genesis 8:4 says the ark came to rest on the mountains (plural) of Ararat not on Mount Ararat. The entire Ararat range extends from the vicinity north and east of Mount Ararat all the way down to the foothills skirting the Mesopotamian plain, covering more than 100,000 square miles. Noah's ark could have come to rest anywhere within this enormous region. It does not require a global flood interpretation.
== == ==
Post # 3: "Back to Noah: how old was he when the flood started? 600 and what? And his sons were what, 30? Because they had to repopulate the earth. So either they were remarkably young to be fathered by a 600 year old man, or they were remarkably old to have wives that could still bear children.
It's not history. It's a myth. People didn't live that long."
Stories from the ancient Akkadian and Sumerian cultures tell of extraordinary long life spans. Only rough dates or ages appear in these accounts, but they claim that their most ancient kings lived thousands of years. Genesis 6 simply states that God shortened humans' lifespan to 120 years. Genesis does not say how God did this. A reasonable place to start the inquiry would be to identify what factors limits the human lifespan. Ross lists 13 factors – war and murder, accidents, disease, inadequate nutrition, metabolic rate, inadequate exercise, stress, chemical carcinogens, ultraviolet radiation, solar X-ray radiation, radioisotope decay radiation, cosmic radiation, and apoptosis (biochemically "programmed" cell death). The last one – apoptosis – could easily have been "the how" – to genetically alter a cell to limit its lifespan.
Ok, now to address the substantive parts of your post, which is difficult because on the one hand you say you reject PFAL's criteria for establishing the God-breathed word while on the other hand you appear to be defending the accuracy of the Genesis account as written. So I'm a little confused, and this time I don't know if I'm misunderstanding you or if you're not being clear, or both. So without shouting I'm right! or you're wrong! I'll just address your points individually and without personal judgment.
The idea of a universe in a bubble and no rain before the flood are not supported in Scripture; day 2 of creation Gen. 1:6 & ff is where the water cycle begins – condensation and precipitation – the word "sky" and "expanse" refer to the visible "dome" above us – more specifically the portion of Earth's atmosphere where clouds form and move. Even if it were a watery canopy just around the Earth, there is no science that offers compelling evidence. On page 153, Ross states this concept fails every test of plausibility since the vaporous canopy would dissipate to interplanetary space or come crashing down to Earth due to gravity; even if it was for a short time it would set up such a powerful greenhouse heating effect that no ice or liquid would remain on Earth to sustain life, and the Flood would become unnecessary.
I would start by observing that there is no word "expanse" in Genesis. The "firmament" was a solid structure (in the storytelling, not in reality). "Expanse" is a word that was introduced by translators who recognized at some point that "firmament" was not an accurate word to describe what's really up there. I have no quarrel with anything else you wrote there, except to say explicitly what is implied: the writer of Genesis either did not know or did not show that he knew any of the truth of what you just wrote. If he did not know it, that's an obvious error. If he knew it but did not show that he knew it, then it's just poor communication. Maybe he had no idea that people would take him literally. There's no way to tell, not knowing who authored Genesis. Taking the text at face value, it's an error. Even the most satisfying explanation is extrinsic to the text itself.
In other words, if you had no idea what was up there, and you used only Genesis to inform you, you would be misinformed. I don't see a need to belabor the point, as I don't even see us in real disagreement here.
Lightfoot and Ussher were caught up in a race to see who could publish an accurate date when God created Adam & Eve. They assumed that Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 listed complete genealogical records. Jewish scholars view the lists as part of their cultural heritage and consider the genealogies adequate lists not complete lists.
I think Lightfoot and Ussher were justified in treating the genealogies as complete, considering that the lists include numbers. Read Genesis 5. It not only lists names of fathers and sons, but it tells you exactly how old the fathers were when the sons were born. So you can't say "it's an adequate list but not a complete one." Without the numbers, you could make that claim. But with the numbers, you're kind of stuck. Either Seth was 105 when his son was born or he wasn't. Whether it's his son, grandson, or great grandson is irrelevant when you're talking about how much time passed, because the amount of time is fixed by the number.
Lightfoot and Ussher figured it was simple math to calculate the date – add the ages of the fathers to the ages of their sons and work backward from the fairly well-established date for Abraham.
Not sure how anyone can say the date for Abraham is "well-established," considering his existence as a historical figure is not in any way well-established. To what date are you referring?
Before long their date spread throughout Christendom and beyond as if it were part of the Bible text. By the 19th century, it had reached the margin notes of most English Bibles. As far as dating done by scientists - by comparing samples of currently living humans with well-dated ancient human DNA and noting the range of DNA differences among individuals of people groups of the world, researchers could then estimate the total time required for the differences to have developed. the biochemical studies so far have been on small population samples and the results are only approximate.
Not sure how this relates to our discussion. Elaborate? Or don't. I'm good either way.
Maybe our modern global perspective assumes a worldwide flood. The scale of reference for the Flood should be understood in the context of their culture. "Worldwide" references are used elsewhere: the famine of Genesis 41:56 "was over the face of the earth" = devastated all the lands of the ancient Near East in and around Egypt. We do not interpret that to imply that Australian Aborigines and American Indians had to come to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph. Likewise, I Kings 10:24 states "the whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart", we do not assume New Zealand Maoris or the Patagonian natives sent yearly delegations to Jerusalem."
Agreed, but it is precisely because the writers of the Bible had no clue that New Zealand, Australia or the Americas existed that they could write "worldwide" with no understanding of the mistake they were making. Even allowing those later usages of the concept of "worldwide" to be figurative (which is easy), the wording in Genesis makes it impossible to treat the Flood as another example of such a figurative use.
In Genesis 6:1, God commits himself to wiping out humanity. Not "humanity here, in this particular area."
Then we have Genesis 7:
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[a] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
There's nothing local about this wording, but even if you grant the text that flexibility (which it does not claim for itself), you still have to contend with the fact that we're talking about covering local mountains -- with 15 cubits of water.
Mount Ararat's elevation is 16,946 feet above sea level.
So according to Genesis 7, assuming Ararat to be the highest mountain we're talking about, the Flood covered the earth in water up to 16,946 feet PLUS FIFTEEN CUBITS of water.
Never happened.
Genesis 8:4 says the ark came to rest on the mountains (plural) of Ararat not on Mount Ararat. The entire Ararat range extends from the vicinity north and east of Mount Ararat all the way down to the foothills skirting the Mesopotamian plain, covering more than 100,000 square miles. Noah's ark could have come to rest anywhere within this enormous region. It does not require a global flood interpretation.
The resting place of Noah's ark is irrelevant to the global flood interpretation. It could have come to rest in the Sea of Galilee. The point is, there was no REGIONAL flood that covered Ararat under 15 cubits of water. So whether we're talking about a global flood or a regional flood as described in Genesis, it doesn't matter, because neither ever happened (at least, certainly not in the time frame described in the Bible. I have no idea what happened 10 million years ago, but I think we all agree that the Biblical timeline does not stretch back that far.
Stories from the ancient Akkadian and Sumerian cultures tell of extraordinary long life spans. Only rough dates or ages appear in these accounts, but they claim that their most ancient kings lived thousands of years. Genesis 6 simply states that God shortened humans' lifespan to 120 years. Genesis does not say how God did this. A reasonable place to start the inquiry would be to identify what factors limits the human lifespan. Ross lists 13 factors – war and murder, accidents, disease, inadequate nutrition, metabolic rate, inadequate exercise, stress, chemical carcinogens, ultraviolet radiation, solar X-ray radiation, radioisotope decay radiation, cosmic radiation, and apoptosis (biochemically "programmed" cell death). The last one – apoptosis – could easily have been "the how" – to genetically alter a cell to limit its lifespan.
Genesis 6 does not say God shortened man's lifespan, I don't think. Pretty sure it's talking (in verse 1) about how much time would pass between the time God said "I'm getting rid of these people" and the time the Flood came. So a reasonable place to start the inquiry is NOT to do all the calculations you said, but to ask whether either of us is interpreting that verse correctly in the first place. Trying to figure out HOW God shortened lifespans is not necessary, because we have not established as fact the notion that lifespans were ever so great. Stories from ancient Akkadian and Sumerian cultures are problematic, because it is FROM those very sources that the mythology of Genesis derived. So now, instead of actual errors in Genesis, we transfer our discussion to actual errors in the Akkadian and Sumerian myths and epics that were the source material for the Genesis myths.
In "conclusion," I'm not sure what points you were trying to make here, because if you reject PFAL's criteria for what it means to be God-breathed, then you should not be even slightly uncomfortable admitting there are actual errors in Genesis. Yet you do seem uncomfortable with that notion, at least to some extent.
There was no "Adam and Eve." There was no Noah. There was no "Great Flood." We can learn quite a bit from those stories, but "history" is not one of the things you'll learn. Astronomy, ecology, geology, etc. are not things you'll learn from Genesis. If this truly is God's Word, then we have to ask ourselves, what is he trying to tell us? I no longer concern myself with that question, but that's my business. If you wish to concern yourself with it, be my guest. :)
Ok, now to address the substantive parts of your post, which is difficult because on the one hand you say you reject PFAL's criteria for establishing the God-breathed word while on the other hand you appear to be defending the accuracy of the Genesis account as written. So I'm a little confused, and this time I don't know if I'm misunderstanding you or if you're not being clear, or both. So without shouting I'm right! or you're wrong! I'll just address your points individually and without personal judgment.
Granted, I'm not the greatest communicator and can be clear as mud sometimes – but I also think some of the confusion comes from your assumption that PFAL's criteria are the standard for determining the accuracy of the Genesis account. one of PFAL's many weaknesses is the tendency to pull a rabbit out of the hat when you want to sell the scientifically implausible: Need enough water for a global flood? Teach there's water outside the universe.
Maybe I should state my position a different way. I look for the original sense of Scripture (historical, cultural, and grammatical) and usually find Its unscientific language harmonious with science – even though the Bible expresses it in non-technical terms. Genesis 1:1 explains how it all began: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
A scientific explanation of how it all began can be found at space.com website: "The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today."
One obvious difference between the above two explanations of the origin of the universe is that one is non-technical and the other is scientific. I believe they both describe the same event. Another difference is that the Genesis account attributes the creation of the universe to God. The scientific statement leaves God out of the picture.
I'm tempted to think our brief discussion may follow a similar track.
In "conclusion," I'm not sure what points you were trying to make here, because if you reject PFAL's criteria for what it means to be God-breathed, then you should not be even slightly uncomfortable admitting there are actual errors in Genesis. Yet you do seem uncomfortable with that notion, at least to some extent.
There was no "Adam and Eve." There was no Noah. There was no "Great Flood." We can learn quite a bit from those stories, but "history" is not one of the things you'll learn. Astronomy, ecology, geology, etc. are not things you'll learn from Genesis. If this truly is God's Word, then we have to ask ourselves, what is he trying to tell us? I no longer concern myself with that question, but that's my business. If you wish to concern yourself with it, be my guest.
Yes "conclusion" may be a good word to use; I do not see the point of any further discussion since no matter how many different ways I say that PFAL sucks and goes against the grain of seeing the natural, original, and general sense of Scripture – you continue to shove me in that box.
So you say there was no Adam and Eve. I start further back than that. I believe there's a Creator. I believe He created the universe. Maybe it sounds childish - but i figure if He could create the universe He can do anything. and so it follows from that I believe He inspired people to write His Word. The more I learn about this world the more I see Scripture and science as a good fit. I could be way off base – but I'm ok with that. Maybe the only thing I'm uncomfortable with is the role of an apologist - debate is not really my thing.
I'm not trying to shove you in any box. I'm trying to address specific points you made. Your post made it appear you believed Adam and Eve were historical people and that the genealogies in Genesis were legit, if not complete. I addressed what you said, not PFAL. Regarding the flood, I addressed what you said, not PFAL.
The only way to harmonize scripture and science is to distort one, the other or both.
You offered an alternative way of looking at parts of genesis, a way that differed from TWIs views on the same topics. I demonstrated why I do not accept those alternative explanations. PFAL has nothing to do with it.
I think the internal evidence of the Bible is that these stories are to be taken literally as history, and it was only when they were demonstrated NOT to be history that alternative explanations emerged. If Adam and Eve were not literal historical figures, then important sections of the Epistles no longer make sense. So it's not a small matter in my mind.
But honest people disagree. You're an honest person. And I thank you for sharing your thoughts.
So you say there was no Adam and Eve. I start further back than that. I believe there's a Creator. I believe He created the universe. Maybe it sounds childish - but i figure if He could create the universe He can do anything. and so it follows from that I believe He inspired people to write His Word. The more I learn about this world the more I see Scripture and science as a good fit. I could be way off base – but I'm ok with that. Maybe the only thing I'm uncomfortable with is the role of an apologist - debate is not really my thing.
See, T-Bone, that's a fundamental difference in your systems.
Raf's going "Genesis is unreliable, I don't trust the Bible.
Therefore, the Bible's not from God, and since the Bible's not
from God, there's no God, and since there's no God, but we
exist, we exist without having been created, and the universe
exists without having been created. It all goes back to Genesis.
Your approach sounds like it looks at the universe, and dismisses
the idea that the universe couldn't have been created, so there was
a Creator that created it, and so on. (I could be wrong, that might
not be your approach.) So, you're both focusing on different things.
Since this thread's specifically about Genesis, a discussion on the
See, T-Bone, that's a fundamental difference in your systems.
Raf's going "Genesis is unreliable, I don't trust the Bible.
Therefore, the Bible's not from God, and since the Bible's not
from God, there's no God, and since there's no God, but we
exist, we exist without having been created, and the universe
exists without having been created. It all goes back to Genesis.
Not correct.
More accurate: Raf's going "Genesis is unreliable. My trust or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. Let's look at Genesis to see whether my statement holds up or not. If A. PFAL's criteria of God-breathed is correct, and B. Genesis is filled with actual errors, then C. Genesis is not God-breathed."
T-Bone is rejecting A and C. Rejecting A makes B irrelevant. In my view, it raises the question of what God-breathed means, but that's a separate issue (and one that we cannot possibly hope to settle on a message board).
If you want to extrapolate from "Genesis has errors" to "therefore the Bible's not from God," I would say we're missing QUITE a few steps. For one, who said something has to be error-free to be from God?
If you want to extrapolate from "since the Bible is not from God" to "there is no God," you are likewise missing quite a few steps. If the Bible is not from God, all that proves is that the Bible is not from God. It does not prove that there is no God, and I am not saying or implying to the contrary. Maybe there is a God, and it's Allah. Or Zeus. Or the back of a turtle. Or the deist God. Saying "Genesis has errors" is FAR from saying "there is no God."
On this thread, I have one thesis: Genesis has errors that disqualify it as God-breathed according to PFAL's definition. I even said, right there in the first post, that if you reject PFAL's definition, you can loathe my other conclusions about God's existence without denying there are errors in Genesis.
T-Bone's discussion both IS and IS NOT a good fit for this thread. It is a good fit because it seeks an alternative interpretation of Genesis that appears to reject its factual accuracy in favor of its larger Capital-T Truth (T-Bone will correct me if I'm wrong). It's NOT a good fit because it sidesteps the careful way I tried to frame the discussion. It basically says, "Raf, you're correct to say PFAL is wrong about 'God-breathed,' but you're mistaken about there being errors in Genesis." That's where I got confused, which T-Bone then clarified.
In responding to T-Bone's views on Genesis, I demonstrated why the alternative interpretation does not satisfy me. But I re-assert, honest people can disagree without being hostile (and I trust neither of us have gone anywhere near the line of hostility, much less crossed it).
I made a number of edits to this post. I hope I have not thrown anyone off course in responding to me.
More accurate: Raf's going "Genesis is unreliable. My trust or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. Let's look at Genesis to see whether my statement holds up or not. If A. PFAL's criteria of God-breathed is correct, and B. Genesis is filled with actual errors, then C. Genesis is not God-breathed."
T-Bone is rejecting A and C. Rejecting A makes B irrelevant. In my view, it raises the question of what God-breathed means, but that's a separate issue (and one that we cannot possibly hope to settle on a message board).
If you want to extrapolate from "Genesis has errors" to "therefore the Bible's not from God," I would say we're missing QUITE a few steps. For one, who said something has to be error-free to be from God?
If you want to extrapolate from "since the Bible is not from God" to "there is no God," you are likewise missing quite a few steps. If the Bible is not from God, all that proves is that the Bible is not from God. It does not prove that there is no God, and I am not saying or implying to the contrary. Maybe there is a God, and it's Allah. Or Zeus. Or the back of a turtle. Or the deist God. Saying "Genesis has errors" is FAR from saying "there is no God."
On this thread, I have one thesis: Genesis has errors that disqualify it as God-breathed according to PFAL's definition. I even said, right there in the first post, that if you reject PFAL's definition, you can loathe my other conclusions about God's existence without denying there are errors in Genesis.
T-Bone's discussion both IS and IS NOT a good fit for this thread. It is a good fit because it seeks an alternative interpretation of Genesis that appears to reject its factual accuracy in favor of its larger Capital-T Truth (T-Bone will correct me if I'm wrong). It's NOT a good fit because it sidesteps the careful way I tried to frame the discussion. It basically says, "Raf, you're correct to say PFAL is wrong about 'God-breathed,' but you're mistaken about there being errors in Genesis." That's where I got confused, which T-Bone then clarified.
In responding to T-Bone's views on Genesis, I demonstrated why the alternative interpretation does not satisfy me. But I re-assert, honest people can disagree without being hostile (and I trust neither of us have gone anywhere near the line of hostility, much less crossed it).
I made a number of edits to this post. I hope I have not thrown anyone off course in responding to me.
hmmm...having second thoughts about leaving this discussion....attempts at clarification are always good....i don't know if i can respond back as clearly as both Raf and WordWolf have expressed themselves...but here goes....
perhaps an official definition of the PFAL criteria for establishing the God-breathed Word is in order.
i feel satisfied with the alternative interpretation of Genesis from Hugh Ross' book The Genesis Question,his process hits me as being an honest attempt to interpret the text by looking for the original sense.And it that regard, i do not see an accuracy issue with the points i brought up from his book. PFAL on the other hand, touching on some of those same points came up with an interpretation of Genesis that contradicts the science of physics, paleontology, anthropology, geology, astronomy etc.
to further reiterate my previous points - i believe the Bible is God-breathed, that the Scriptures are inerrant. Can i prove this? No. Are there accuracy issues in Genesis? Yes. Does that stop me from deriving inspiration and guidance from it? No. In my opinion, the Bible is a religious or spiritual book - not a scientific text.
And to put it another way, my concern for "accuracy", for attempting to grasp the original sense of Scripture and what it means to me today is usually focused on doctrinal issues (like the Holy Spirit and manifestations, Jesus Christ/Trinity or no Trinity stuff) and not trying to prove to myself the Bible is perfect. sorry to say I'm already sold on the idea of the God-breathed Word - but that does motivate me to understand the original languages, the cultural setting, historical context, etc. so i can get a better grasp of the original sense of it - what it meant to folks back then and what it means to me now.
i don't know - does that clarify anything? or maybe i need someone to interpret what i just spoke in tongues./> ... btw, there's no complaints of hostility from my side of the Internet.
What do you mean when you say "the Scriptures are inerrant" AND "Are there accuracy issues in Genesis? Yes."
If there are accuracy issues, then the book's not "inerrant," so what do YOU mean by inerrant?
Mind you, the Bible never claims that IT is inerrant, so I feel compelled to ask why that's a part of your belief. We throw a lot of terms around here interchangeably, and sometimes you'll say something that's precise to how you see things, not realizing that when I READ your words, I process them according to what I think you mean.
Does Bible = Scriptures = Word of God?
Does inerrant = without error? If not, what does it mean?
Genesis certainly gives no indication on its own that it is anything other than a History of the World Part One. When we start replacing the literal meaning of the words with figurative extrapolations that allow us to retain symbolic meaning without contradicting science, do we do damage to the "integrity of the Word"? In my opinion, we do. This is apparently the heart of where we disagree, and I'm comfortable disagreeing there. I could quibble with how you express your view until the cows come home, and it won't make much of a difference to either of us.
To me, either there was a Great Flood that covered the whole Earth or there wasn't. I think a plain reading of Genesis indicates there was. But even allowing for that interpretation to be wrong, I see no evidence of a regional flood that would have covered the region with as much water as described in Genesis. So maybe Genesis was just exaggerating about the amount of water. Fine. Except it doesn't say it's exaggerating, so how do we know? Well, we know because when we look for the evidence that we would expect to find if the Genesis account were literally true, we don't find it. So I guess my question is, how literally UNTRUE can Genesis be before we feel comfortable declaring it false?
Because the flood story is a whopper. It's false. The story of languages being confused at Babel is false. That's not how languages developed. The Garden of Eden story is false. There was no bottleneck of human development traceable to a single couple that lived 7,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago, or 20,000 years ago (and anything beyond that would disqualify the Genesis account just for reasons of time). These are false stories. Fables.
You can learn a lot from fables. A lot of "truth." But the truth is in the lessons, not in the stories themselves. The ant and the grasshopper, the tortoise and the hare, the fox and the grapes -- all these stories teach us interesting and valuable lessons, but we need not believe they really happened in order to extract the lesson from them.
The problem with Genesis, as I see it, is that it doesn't present itself as fable or myth, though it clearly is. So along comes an author who says these stories aren't literal, they're not science, but they still communicate God's word and will. That's nice. But how did he come to that position in the first place? By being confronted with and forced to acknowledge that the stories cannot be literally true, a testimony not to be found in the pages of the Bible itself.
What do you mean when you say "the Scriptures are inerrant" AND "Are there accuracy issues in Genesis? Yes."
If there are accuracy issues, then the book's not "inerrant," so what do YOU mean by inerrant?
Mind you, the Bible never claims that IT is inerrant, so I feel compelled to ask why that's a part of your belief. We throw a lot of terms around here interchangeably, and sometimes you'll say something that's precise to how you see things, not realizing that when I READ your words, I process them according to what I think you mean.
Does Bible = Scriptures = Word of God?
Does inerrant = without error? If not, what does it mean?
I believe the Scriptures are inerrant based on its own testimony:
Num. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind…
Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning; and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever.
Proverbs 30: 5…Every word of God is pure…
II Sam. 23:2 The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.
Isa. 59:21 …My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth…
II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God…
II Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The basic idea I gather from the above verses is that the Scriptures are true on every subject within its pages – whether it touches on history, science, ethics, etc. and of course on spiritual matters. So in other words, true – or accurate - as opposed to false or having errors.
Are there accuracy issues in Genesis and other parts of the Bible? Yes. But are they intrinsic to the Scriptures? No. In other words, I believe the source of the problem is from outside the Scriptures. I like the way St. Augustine put it:
"The Traditional Understanding of the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy Prior to the Second Vatican Council
The traditional understanding of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is perhaps most powerfully and clearly expressed by St. Augustine in one of his letters to St. Jerome:
For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the MS. is faulty or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it . . . I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine.1
The brilliant Augustine did not shirk from exhibiting humility when confronted with potential problems in his reading of Scripture; rather than ascribe deficiencies to the Scriptures, he acknowledged his human limitations when confronted with supernatural revelation."
To summarize thus far, contrary to what you've said - it looks to me like the Scriptures do claim to be inerrant – despite any accuracy issues – which of course is one of the challenges faced by biblical scholars and students of the Bible. I have good reason to think that it is inerrant (a few of which I've expressed on this thread). Like I said before, I believe in the Bible because I believe in God; it's not the other way around: I do not believe in God because I believe in the Bible.
== == == ==
Raf Post # 97: …Genesis certainly gives no indication on its own that it is anything other than a History of the World Part One. When we start replacing the literal meaning of the words with figurative extrapolations that allow us to retain symbolic meaning without contradicting science, do we do damage to the "integrity of the Word"? In my opinion, we do. This is apparently the heart of where we disagree, and I'm comfortable disagreeing there. I could quibble with how you express your view until the cows come home, and it won't make much of a difference to either of us.
To me, either there was a Great Flood that covered the whole Earth or there wasn't. I think a plain reading of Genesis indicates there was. But even allowing for that interpretation to be wrong, I see no evidence of a regional flood that would have covered the region with as much water as described in Genesis. So maybe Genesis was just exaggerating about the amount of water. Fine. Except it doesn't say it's exaggerating, so how do we know? Well, we know because when we look for the evidence that we would expect to find if the Genesis account were literally true, we don't find it. So I guess my question is, how literally UNTRUE can Genesis be before we feel comfortable declaring it false?...
Certainly I have not been the one replacing the literal meaning of the words with figurative extrapolations on this thread. I challenged your idea of a "worldwide" flood by saying you're interpretation is based on a present day global perspective. I disagreed, saying the "worldwide" references should be understood in light of the cultural background. That is a simple principle of hermeneutics:
From Wikipedia: "…Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines is: textual criticism the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience. Other analysis includes classification of the type of literary genres present in the text, and an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself.
The terms exegesis and hermeneutics have been used interchangeably..."
Now if you want to shift the argument from a worldwide flood to regional flood you'll only reinforce what I've been saying all along. You cannot have it both ways – you say the Genesis account is literal but you'll allow for exaggeration. And then imply it's of little consequence anyway because "when we look for the evidence that we would expect to find if the Genesis account were literally true, we don't find it." I beg to differ. I've read a few books by scientific scholars and some articles on the Internet concerning physical evidence for a regional flood – there's an interesting one that presents evidence to show Noah's flood may have happened but not over the whole Earth – the article is from The National Center for Science Education – see link below:
to answer your other question "So I guess my question is, how literally UNTRUE can Genesis be before we feel comfortable declaring it false?" so far you have not proven to me that any portion of the Genesis record we have discussed is literally untrue; if you want to declare it false that's your business. A quick and groundless dismissal of the Genesis accounts seems to be your method in this discussion; your post # 3 is a good example
Raf Post # 3: "Back to Noah: how old was he when the flood started? 600 and what? And his sons were what, 30? Because they had to repopulate the earth. So either they were remarkably young to be fathered by a 600 year old man, or they were remarkably old to have wives that could still bear children.
It's not history. It's a myth. People didn't live that long."
regarding your comment that implies how I express my views leaves a lot to be desired in the realm of debates i will wholeheartedly agree! – so I will be as clear as possible in my following comments.
your view is inconsistent; in post #3 you declare Genesis is NOT history. But in post # 90 you argued the genealogies were a complete listing so the amount of time is fixed by the number:
Raf post # 90: I think Lightfoot and Ussher were justified in treating the genealogies as complete, considering that the lists include numbers. Read Genesis 5. It not only lists names of fathers and sons, but it tells you exactly how old the fathers were when the sons were born. So you can't say "it's an adequate list but not a complete one." Without the numbers, you could make that claim. But with the numbers, you're kind of stuck. Either Seth was 105 when his son was born or he wasn't. Whether it's his son, grandson, or great grandson is irrelevant when you're talking about how much time passed, because the amount of time is fixed by the number.
I don't follow your reasoning – if it's not history, in other words a myth then how can you say the genealogy lists are complete and fixes the time? And in post # 97 you go back to saying it's history.
Raf Post # 97:
Genesis certainly gives no indication on its own that it is anything other than a History of the World Part One.
so is it history or myth?
your conclusion on another item – long lifespans in post # 3 "People didn't live that long." Has no weight or substance behind it. On what basis do you make that claim? On the possibility of longer lifespans I offered Ross' scientific reasoning of what determines lifespan as well as historical records of long lifespans in other ancient cultures. You offered zip – I'm guessing because you think it's impossible for people to have ever lived that long.
Raf post # 97:The problem with Genesis, as I see it, is that it doesn't present itself as fable or myth, though it clearly is. So along comes an author who says these stories aren't literal, they're not science, but they still communicate God's word and will. That's nice. But how did he come to that position in the first place? By being confronted with and forced to acknowledge that the stories cannot be literally true, a testimony not to be found in the pages of the Bible itself.
I agree with you on this part – Genesis does not present itself as fable or myth. However, you have failed to demonstrate why it should be treated as a fable or myth. On this thread I have shown specific accounts in Genesis that in the cultural context of the language they can be understood as literally true events and do not contradict science.
You've given me more than I can handle in one post, but let's start with the obvious: When you make an affirmative claim, the burden is on you to prove the claim. It is not on the other person to disprove it.
It is our experience and history that teaches us the human lifespan is NOT more than 200 years old (I'm being obscenely generous there). So if you're going to assert that there was a time when men lived to be 300, 400, up to 969 years old, the burden is on you to prove that claim, not on me to disprove it.
I won't burden you with an onslaught of articles. I'll just point out a couple that turned up in a casual search:
There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone lived hundreds of years, ever. That is a claim. There is no proof for it. Genesis is not proof -- it is the claim. Sumerian texts or other ancient texts are likewise not proof -- they are myths. They are claims. The evidence refutes those claims. If we are to treat ancient legends as evidence for their own veracity, then we're going to be stuck trying to disprove Pandora's Box and the war between the gods and the titans.
===
You clearly seem to be confused about how I'm referring to Genesis, so allow me to attempt a clarification:
I think the Bible says these things are genuinely history, literally true.
I think the Bible is flat out wrong about that.
So when I say "Genesis certainly gives no indication on its own that it is anything other than a History of the World Part One," I am NOT saying I believe the Bible. I'm just trying to represent what the Bible says.
The Bible does not say the flood was regional. It says it was worldwide. So you come along and say it wasn't worldwide, that we need to look at it differently. Fine. i look at it differently. But you can only look at it so differently before you start doing damage to the text. You want to say "worldwide" didn't carry today's definition of worldwide? Fine. I'll go with you on that. But if you want to say 15 cubits over and above the mountains didn't really mean 15 cubits over the mountains (which, incidentally, never happened, we know from geology), then you have a different problem. I read the article you posted. Big problem for your position there: the local flood described doesn't have nearly enough water to cover a mountain, plus 15 cubits. No need to build an ark. This flood also, according to the article, had survivors. THINK!
The solution is not to point out confusion in whether I see this as history or myth. The solution is that this is myth, period, presented as history, and documentably false. That's why I call this Actual Errors in Genesis. Because these are actually errors in Genesis.
This is like me claiming that the United States completely obliterated Japan in 1945 and using the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as proof. We did bomb the bejeezus out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we did not obliterate the entire nation of Japan.
Likewise, the fact that there were regional floods is not in dispute. The notion that Genesis describes one with any accuracy IS in dispute. There was no flood that covered mountains under 15 cubits of water. Didn't happen. Read the article you posted: it doesn't even claim that something like that happened.
You wrote: "your view is inconsistent; in post #3 you declare Genesis is NOT history. But in post # 90 you argued the genealogies were a complete listing so the amount of time is fixed by the number"
There is nothing inconsistent in my view: only in your understanding of it. Genesis is NOT history. And the genealogies ARE presented as a complete listing. Conclusion: the genealogies are bogus. They're lies. They're made up of whole cloth. You want to see the genealogies as incomplete in order to inject more and more and more time between the established (ha!) time of Abraham and the backwards calculation that gets you to Adam. By showing that the list was complete on its own terms, I wasn't trying to uphold the list as accurate, I was trying to show the inadequacy of the explanation that the list is only partial.
See how that works?
You wrote:
regarding your comment that implies how I express my views leaves a lot to be desired in the realm of debates i will wholeheartedly agree!
I have no idea what you're referring to there. Seriously. None.
I'm glad you clarified your view of inerrancy, but there are a few problems with it. One: Not a single verse you cited is talking about the Bible. How could it be? There was no Bible when those verses were written. Catch-22.
Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning; and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever.
Is that verse talking about the gospel of Matthew? Of course not. Couldn't be.
Remember in my last post when I asked if Bible = Scripture = Word of God? There's a reason I asked that question.
The Bible talks a lot about the Word of God, but it never claims to BE that Word.
In any event, you have now made a pretty firm case (bringing us back full circle) in favor of PFAL's criteria for what it means for the Bible to be God-breathed. You can no longer say you reject it (even though you may reject other aspects of PFAL). PFAL teaches that the Bible is perfect, without error or contradiction. You just posted a lengthy argument IN FAVOR of that position. So you're going to resist any admission that Genesis could possibly be wrong about anything -- you HAVE to.
I just went through, again, the article from the National Center for Science Education that you posted. I don't think you have any idea how much this article refutes the Genesis account. The flood described here would not have covered a single mountain.
Genesis 7:
18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits... 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
The flood described in the article does NOT match the description in Genesis. Not by a longshot. Genesis describes a literal worldwide flood, but even if you want to say it was regional, it describes a flood that covered mountains. The article you cited does not describe such a flood.
The issue here is not whether the Middle East was ever flooded. Of course it was. The issue is whether it was flooded as described in Genesis. By the very article YOU cited, the answer is a big, fat NO.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
137
24
35
25
Popular Days
Aug 2
50
Sep 12
15
Oct 4
13
Jul 30
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 137 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 24 posts
Bolshevik 35 posts
TLC 25 posts
Popular Days
Aug 2 2014
50 posts
Sep 12 2018
15 posts
Oct 4 2018
13 posts
Jul 30 2017
11 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
I thought I was quite clear in my post # 81: even your reply in post # 82 gave every indication that you knew I was providing only a list of books And just to verify I was going provide what you
Raf
Actually, you don't just get to say this and have it be true. That's arrogance. "My position is wise even if it makes no sense to you." Honestly, that's the definition of arrogance. Why demo
Grace Valerie Claire
Raf, I beg to differ with you; Demons do exist! I know one lives here in DC!!
Raf
Though I speak in the tongues of men and of lower mammals, and still have not evidence, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling puppy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Kudos to you Raf, for being ballsy enough to speak freely about your atheism and to question "Da Word".
The derailment of this thread is one of the reasons I gave up on GSC several years ago...anytime I even thought about questioning the underlying assumptions of Christianity, or was skeptical about some miraculous event, I was assailed with personal attacks and a chorus of "I just know it's true"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Every point of view (or set of beliefs) has a load of assumptions attached to it. Some of those assumptions are right, some are wrong...some might even be somewhere in between. It's no bad thing to examine and investigate assumptions and reassess one's PoV. If you are confident in your assumptions then you should be able to debate with someone with different assumptions, and one or both can change their minds or retain the same PoV.
It's not a bad thing to air assumptions. And to test out one's critical thinking ability and interpretation of those assumptions - heck, our critical thinking ability was pulverised enough in TWI. You can probably pick up a load of Bible commentaries that will come up with yet other PoVs, explanations about why this did or did not occur - the flood, and historical inaccuracies and anomalies, for example. Some of those appear to be more "wish list" than "what happened.".
I welcome Raf's "actual errors in Genesis" commentary. He might be right. He might be wrong. He's stated his assumptions. No need to shoot the messenger, if the message is wrong. Maybe the message was wrongly recorded by someone else before it got to this particular messenger (Raf). "Maybe" lotsa things (shrugs).
But to think about what might underlie the Biblical record and the truths or errors therein, is no bad thing.
(And nobody shoot me either, please. I'm just saying - get back on track, let Raf have his say, and consider what he says on its own merit)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks Twinky.
Oakspear, given GSC as it's currently laid out, I felt the doctrinal section was the best place to have this kind of discussion. The central issue here is NOT "is there a God?" although I made it clear that it forms part of my underlying assumption. The central issue here is, "are there actual errors in Genesis?" And there are. So where does one go, doctrinally, from there?
I contend that you cannot maintain the premise that the Bible is inerrant without explaining why the errors in Genesis aren't really errors.
You can abandon the premise that the Bible is inerrant while maintaining a belief in Christianity, but I contend that it is beyond difficult to do so. Ultimately, I found the task impossible, but others manage it, so there's that.
You can abandon Christianity altogether.
Or you can find some other way to grapple with these issues. Or you can ignore them.
All of that falls generally under the framework of the doctrinal section on a forum that is NOT exclusively Christian.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I wouldn't consider PFAL as a standard for determining the validity of scripture, doctrine, or tie-ins to science. He was a shyster who plagiarized and cobbled together a patchwork of theology from various sources.
However, there's lots of material out there from legitimate/qualified people that address some of the stuff on this thread which I have found satisfactory. It may not be to your satisfaction. I can list them in a PM to anyone who's interested.
Before I elaborate I should state up front the grand assumption I've had long before coming to TWI. Maybe it's due to being raised in a Roman Catholic family and having a fascination with how things work – i assumed the Bible and the world around us (which science studies) have a common origin – God. Of course that also reveals a personal bias for the harmony of science and Scripture.
When I first took PFAL I came away with the idea VP did a bang up job of tying it all together. After leaving TWI I questioned everything, did a lot of reading, realizing I needed to develop critical thinking skills.
I never did abandon my grand assumption (the harmony of science and Scripture). Is that what faith is? I don't know. I think one of the first things that piqued my interest in checking out other theological systems was stumbling across biblical arguments for an old earth. When I said I found things like that satisfactory – I mean it bolstered my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. But like I said earlier an alternate answer that differs from PFAL may not impress you. And so it went that way with my quest on various topics – research driven by a personal bias? yes. But NOT using the criteria of PFAL! I would like to think I'm considering the best evidence for my arguments – but I'm not scientist, theologian, or philosopher – so who knows how off base I am. Who cares? Well, other than me I guess no one.
I also think Christianity should champion the inerrancy of Scripture – not just as a matter of being theologically honest but also to be consistent with what the Bible says about itself (more on this in a minute). As far as I can tell this was Jesus' view of Scripture. But you know – this is all my opinion – I wouldn't want a bunch of inerrancy-Nazi's going around badgering other Christians who don't share this view of Scripture. Heck, I'd probably get labeled an apostate for some of the stuff I've posted on Grease Spot.
Back to being consistent with what the Bible says about itself: I guess I see a possible issue with Christians wanting to pick and choose what part of Scripture is God-breathed and has authority over their lives. Believe that Jesus got up from the dead but ignore prohibitions of lying or adultery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Please list at least some of them. Who knows? You might change my mind about something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Sure, I can do that. And just for the record, i'm not trying to change anyone's mind in doctrinal. Matter of fact, many things in my belief system have changed since coming to Grease Spot, especially the doctrinal forum; maybe safe to say even some are still in a state of flux.
So concerning doctrinal matters I read and post in this forum as a means of checking out my own thought process; somewhat of a virtual acid test of my belief system, if you will. I don't know if that's the technician in me – I often obsess on trying to figure out how things work and usually double and even triple check myself while on a project; "measure 3 times to cut once"; I have this weird notion that a competent technician does not totally trust himself – mistakes will be made, something gets overlooked or forgotten – so have processes in place to check, review, and assess status along the way. I do wish doctrinal/theological/philosophical matters were as easy to work on as a home theater system. You put the cable in here – NOT there; flip this switch when you want to do that; follow the instructions. No guess work. Life isn't like that though – so it's definitely not boring.
i am glad this is not a Christian website – not just to nix the group-think factor but to become aware of the holes, contradictions, illogic, and nonsense of my "philosophy" – as painful/awkward/embarrassing as it may be at times, and usually don't admit it…and a big kudos to you Raf on your "Seeing the Dark" thread in Open forum. So needless to say, for me anyway - alternate viewpoints are not always a welcomed challenge but certainly a necessary one on life's journey. So always carry extra water and trail mix so you can share.
The only forum where I do intend to change people's minds is on About the Way. My purpose there is to give testimony of my experiences in TWI for the prosecution of VP and all things related to him in the virtual courtroom of Grease Spot – with the hope that someone still in TWI is reading Grease Spot …and more importantly questioning their own involvement with TWI. I am passionate about this – and don't consider myself an "Un-apostle" to the Way Corps (maybe an apostate-L…mmm hard to pronounce, not sure of spelling…) or anyone who is still stuck in TWI mindset; the only gift ministry I ever had was the gift ministry of an idiot; but alas, I lost that gift after I quit drinking their Kool-Aid.
Sorry for getting off topic here but I'm actually enjoying this thought provoking thread. Consider this my "Seeing the Dark" post of someone who left the "comfortable confines" of a group that thinks they know it all.
/>
I will put together a list and maybe some brief notes on what each book covers.we can go from there; my intention was not to debate every point you brought up but to mention there's other books/folks (besides PFAL, VP, TWI) out there that may properly address some of these issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Here is a list of some of the books that I feel offer sound arguments to harmonize science and Scripture. For brevity's sake I've included a link to Amazon that gives more info on each book - but will of course discuss any particular point of the books listed as per the flow of discussion.
The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis by Hugh Ross. NavPress Publishing Group, Colorado Springs, CO. 1998. Print
Genesis Question at Amazon
== == == ==
Navigating Genesis: A Scientist's Journey through Genesis 1-11 by Hugh Ross. Reasons to Believe. 2014. Kindle Edition
Navigating Genesis at Amazon
== == == ==
Genesis One: A Physicist Looks at Creation by Gerald Schroeder with Zola Levitt. Zola Levitt Ministries. 1st edition 2014. Kindle edition
Genesis One at Amazon
== == == ==
The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom by Gerald Schroeder. Free Press / Simon & Schuster. 2009. Kindle edition.
The Science of God at Amazon
== == == ==
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Technology by William A. Dembski. InterVarsity Press. Downers Grove, IL. 1999. Print.
Intelligent Design at Amazon
== == == ==
The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design by William Dembski. InterVarsity Press. Downers Grove, IL. 2004. Print.
Design Revolution at Amazon
== == == ==
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe. Touchstone / Simon & Schuster. New York, NY. 1st Edition 1998. Print. (this is the one I have. the link below is of 2nd edition 2006, Free Press publisher)
Darwin's Black Box at Amazon
== == == ==
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I thought you were going to list answers, not books. I could respond with a list of books that refute the above books, but what good would that do. I apologize for misunderstanding you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I thought I was quite clear in my post # 81:
even your reply in post # 82 gave every indication that you knew I was providing only a list of books
And just to verify I was going provide what you expected I said this in post # 83
== == == ==
initially i was responding to a very specific challenge and criteria you stated in post # 1:
to reiterate - my response to your challenge in post # 1 is simple: I do not deny the scientific evidence but I do reject PFAL's criteria for establishing the God-breathed Word.
My response to your latest post is also simple: mentioning some of the issues you brought up at the beginning of this thread and briefly covering some things I found in Hugh Ross' book The Genesis Question will have to suffice for now.
The idea of a universe in a bubble and no rain before the flood are not supported in Scripture; day 2 of creation Gen. 1:6 & ff is where the water cycle begins – condensation and precipitation – the word "sky" and "expanse" refer to the visible "dome" above us – more specifically the portion of Earth's atmosphere where clouds form and move. Even if it were a watery canopy just around the Earth, there is no science that offers compelling evidence. On page 153, Ross states this concept fails every test of plausibility since the vaporous canopy would dissipate to interplanetary space or come crashing down to Earth due to gravity; even if it was for a short time it would set up such a powerful greenhouse heating effect that no ice or liquid would remain on Earth to sustain life, and the Flood would become unnecessary.
== == == ==
Lightfoot and Ussher were caught up in a race to see who could publish an accurate date when God created Adam & Eve. They assumed that Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 listed complete genealogical records. Jewish scholars view the lists as part of their cultural heritage and consider the genealogies adequate lists not complete lists. Lightfoot and Ussher figured it was simple math to calculate the date – add the ages of the fathers to the ages of their sons and work backward from the fairly well-established date for Abraham. Before long their date spread throughout Christendom and beyond as if it were part of the Bible text. By the 19th century, it had reached the margin notes of most English Bibles. As far as dating done by scientists - by comparing samples of currently living humans with well-dated ancient human DNA and noting the range of DNA differences among individuals of people groups of the world, researchers could then estimate the total time required for the differences to have developed. the biochemical studies so far have been on small population samples and the results are only approximate.
== == ==
Maybe our modern global perspective assumes a worldwide flood. The scale of reference for the Flood should be understood in the context of their culture. "worldwide" references are used elsewhere: the famine of Genesis 41:56 "was over the face of the earth" = devastated all the lands of the ancient Near East in and around Egypt. We do not interpret that to imply that Australian Aborigines and American Indians had to come to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph. Likewise, I Kings 10:24 states "the whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart", we do not assume New Zealand Maoris or the Patagonian natives sent yearly delegations to Jerusalem."
Mount Ararat's elevation is 16,946 feet above sea level. Genesis 8:4 says the ark came to rest on the mountains (plural) of Ararat not on Mount Ararat. The entire Ararat range extends from the vicinity north and east of Mount Ararat all the way down to the foothills skirting the Mesopotamian plain, covering more than 100,000 square miles. Noah's ark could have come to rest anywhere within this enormous region. It does not require a global flood interpretation.
== == ==
Stories from the ancient Akkadian and Sumerian cultures tell of extraordinary long life spans. Only rough dates or ages appear in these accounts, but they claim that their most ancient kings lived thousands of years. Genesis 6 simply states that God shortened humans' lifespan to 120 years. Genesis does not say how God did this. A reasonable place to start the inquiry would be to identify what factors limits the human lifespan. Ross lists 13 factors – war and murder, accidents, disease, inadequate nutrition, metabolic rate, inadequate exercise, stress, chemical carcinogens, ultraviolet radiation, solar X-ray radiation, radioisotope decay radiation, cosmic radiation, and apoptosis (biochemically "programmed" cell death). The last one – apoptosis – could easily have been "the how" – to genetically alter a cell to limit its lifespan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No need to get testy. I said I was the one who misunderstood, not you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
oops sorry...i guess that makes two of us
/>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
:)
Ok, now to address the substantive parts of your post, which is difficult because on the one hand you say you reject PFAL's criteria for establishing the God-breathed word while on the other hand you appear to be defending the accuracy of the Genesis account as written. So I'm a little confused, and this time I don't know if I'm misunderstanding you or if you're not being clear, or both. So without shouting I'm right! or you're wrong! I'll just address your points individually and without personal judgment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I would start by observing that there is no word "expanse" in Genesis. The "firmament" was a solid structure (in the storytelling, not in reality). "Expanse" is a word that was introduced by translators who recognized at some point that "firmament" was not an accurate word to describe what's really up there. I have no quarrel with anything else you wrote there, except to say explicitly what is implied: the writer of Genesis either did not know or did not show that he knew any of the truth of what you just wrote. If he did not know it, that's an obvious error. If he knew it but did not show that he knew it, then it's just poor communication. Maybe he had no idea that people would take him literally. There's no way to tell, not knowing who authored Genesis. Taking the text at face value, it's an error. Even the most satisfying explanation is extrinsic to the text itself.
In other words, if you had no idea what was up there, and you used only Genesis to inform you, you would be misinformed. I don't see a need to belabor the point, as I don't even see us in real disagreement here.
I think Lightfoot and Ussher were justified in treating the genealogies as complete, considering that the lists include numbers. Read Genesis 5. It not only lists names of fathers and sons, but it tells you exactly how old the fathers were when the sons were born. So you can't say "it's an adequate list but not a complete one." Without the numbers, you could make that claim. But with the numbers, you're kind of stuck. Either Seth was 105 when his son was born or he wasn't. Whether it's his son, grandson, or great grandson is irrelevant when you're talking about how much time passed, because the amount of time is fixed by the number.
Not sure how anyone can say the date for Abraham is "well-established," considering his existence as a historical figure is not in any way well-established. To what date are you referring?
Not sure how this relates to our discussion. Elaborate? Or don't. I'm good either way.
Agreed, but it is precisely because the writers of the Bible had no clue that New Zealand, Australia or the Americas existed that they could write "worldwide" with no understanding of the mistake they were making. Even allowing those later usages of the concept of "worldwide" to be figurative (which is easy), the wording in Genesis makes it impossible to treat the Flood as another example of such a figurative use.
In Genesis 6:1, God commits himself to wiping out humanity. Not "humanity here, in this particular area."
Then we have Genesis 7:
There's nothing local about this wording, but even if you grant the text that flexibility (which it does not claim for itself), you still have to contend with the fact that we're talking about covering local mountains -- with 15 cubits of water.
So according to Genesis 7, assuming Ararat to be the highest mountain we're talking about, the Flood covered the earth in water up to 16,946 feet PLUS FIFTEEN CUBITS of water.
Never happened.
The resting place of Noah's ark is irrelevant to the global flood interpretation. It could have come to rest in the Sea of Galilee. The point is, there was no REGIONAL flood that covered Ararat under 15 cubits of water. So whether we're talking about a global flood or a regional flood as described in Genesis, it doesn't matter, because neither ever happened (at least, certainly not in the time frame described in the Bible. I have no idea what happened 10 million years ago, but I think we all agree that the Biblical timeline does not stretch back that far.
Genesis 6 does not say God shortened man's lifespan, I don't think. Pretty sure it's talking (in verse 1) about how much time would pass between the time God said "I'm getting rid of these people" and the time the Flood came. So a reasonable place to start the inquiry is NOT to do all the calculations you said, but to ask whether either of us is interpreting that verse correctly in the first place. Trying to figure out HOW God shortened lifespans is not necessary, because we have not established as fact the notion that lifespans were ever so great. Stories from ancient Akkadian and Sumerian cultures are problematic, because it is FROM those very sources that the mythology of Genesis derived. So now, instead of actual errors in Genesis, we transfer our discussion to actual errors in the Akkadian and Sumerian myths and epics that were the source material for the Genesis myths.
In "conclusion," I'm not sure what points you were trying to make here, because if you reject PFAL's criteria for what it means to be God-breathed, then you should not be even slightly uncomfortable admitting there are actual errors in Genesis. Yet you do seem uncomfortable with that notion, at least to some extent.
There was no "Adam and Eve." There was no Noah. There was no "Great Flood." We can learn quite a bit from those stories, but "history" is not one of the things you'll learn. Astronomy, ecology, geology, etc. are not things you'll learn from Genesis. If this truly is God's Word, then we have to ask ourselves, what is he trying to tell us? I no longer concern myself with that question, but that's my business. If you wish to concern yourself with it, be my guest. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Granted, I'm not the greatest communicator and can be clear as mud sometimes – but I also think some of the confusion comes from your assumption that PFAL's criteria are the standard for determining the accuracy of the Genesis account. one of PFAL's many weaknesses is the tendency to pull a rabbit out of the hat when you want to sell the scientifically implausible: Need enough water for a global flood? Teach there's water outside the universe.
Maybe I should state my position a different way. I look for the original sense of Scripture (historical, cultural, and grammatical) and usually find Its unscientific language harmonious with science – even though the Bible expresses it in non-technical terms. Genesis 1:1 explains how it all began: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
A scientific explanation of how it all began can be found at space.com website: "The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today."
The Big Bang Theory
One obvious difference between the above two explanations of the origin of the universe is that one is non-technical and the other is scientific. I believe they both describe the same event. Another difference is that the Genesis account attributes the creation of the universe to God. The scientific statement leaves God out of the picture.
I'm tempted to think our brief discussion may follow a similar track.
Yes "conclusion" may be a good word to use; I do not see the point of any further discussion since no matter how many different ways I say that PFAL sucks and goes against the grain of seeing the natural, original, and general sense of Scripture – you continue to shove me in that box.
So you say there was no Adam and Eve. I start further back than that. I believe there's a Creator. I believe He created the universe. Maybe it sounds childish - but i figure if He could create the universe He can do anything. and so it follows from that I believe He inspired people to write His Word. The more I learn about this world the more I see Scripture and science as a good fit. I could be way off base – but I'm ok with that. Maybe the only thing I'm uncomfortable with is the role of an apologist - debate is not really my thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm not trying to shove you in any box. I'm trying to address specific points you made. Your post made it appear you believed Adam and Eve were historical people and that the genealogies in Genesis were legit, if not complete. I addressed what you said, not PFAL. Regarding the flood, I addressed what you said, not PFAL.
The only way to harmonize scripture and science is to distort one, the other or both.
You offered an alternative way of looking at parts of genesis, a way that differed from TWIs views on the same topics. I demonstrated why I do not accept those alternative explanations. PFAL has nothing to do with it.
I think the internal evidence of the Bible is that these stories are to be taken literally as history, and it was only when they were demonstrated NOT to be history that alternative explanations emerged. If Adam and Eve were not literal historical figures, then important sections of the Epistles no longer make sense. So it's not a small matter in my mind.
But honest people disagree. You're an honest person. And I thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
See, T-Bone, that's a fundamental difference in your systems.
Raf's going "Genesis is unreliable, I don't trust the Bible.
Therefore, the Bible's not from God, and since the Bible's not
from God, there's no God, and since there's no God, but we
exist, we exist without having been created, and the universe
exists without having been created. It all goes back to Genesis.
Your approach sounds like it looks at the universe, and dismisses
the idea that the universe couldn't have been created, so there was
a Creator that created it, and so on. (I could be wrong, that might
not be your approach.) So, you're both focusing on different things.
Since this thread's specifically about Genesis, a discussion on the
science would most likely be a very poor fit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yes, WordWolf - i'd say you have an accurate assessment of my approach and i appreciate your observations of our discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Not correct.
More accurate: Raf's going "Genesis is unreliable. My trust or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. Let's look at Genesis to see whether my statement holds up or not. If A. PFAL's criteria of God-breathed is correct, and B. Genesis is filled with actual errors, then C. Genesis is not God-breathed."
T-Bone is rejecting A and C. Rejecting A makes B irrelevant. In my view, it raises the question of what God-breathed means, but that's a separate issue (and one that we cannot possibly hope to settle on a message board).
If you want to extrapolate from "Genesis has errors" to "therefore the Bible's not from God," I would say we're missing QUITE a few steps. For one, who said something has to be error-free to be from God?
If you want to extrapolate from "since the Bible is not from God" to "there is no God," you are likewise missing quite a few steps. If the Bible is not from God, all that proves is that the Bible is not from God. It does not prove that there is no God, and I am not saying or implying to the contrary. Maybe there is a God, and it's Allah. Or Zeus. Or the back of a turtle. Or the deist God. Saying "Genesis has errors" is FAR from saying "there is no God."
On this thread, I have one thesis: Genesis has errors that disqualify it as God-breathed according to PFAL's definition. I even said, right there in the first post, that if you reject PFAL's definition, you can loathe my other conclusions about God's existence without denying there are errors in Genesis.
T-Bone's discussion both IS and IS NOT a good fit for this thread. It is a good fit because it seeks an alternative interpretation of Genesis that appears to reject its factual accuracy in favor of its larger Capital-T Truth (T-Bone will correct me if I'm wrong). It's NOT a good fit because it sidesteps the careful way I tried to frame the discussion. It basically says, "Raf, you're correct to say PFAL is wrong about 'God-breathed,' but you're mistaken about there being errors in Genesis." That's where I got confused, which T-Bone then clarified.
In responding to T-Bone's views on Genesis, I demonstrated why the alternative interpretation does not satisfy me. But I re-assert, honest people can disagree without being hostile (and I trust neither of us have gone anywhere near the line of hostility, much less crossed it).
I made a number of edits to this post. I hope I have not thrown anyone off course in responding to me.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
hmmm...having second thoughts about leaving this discussion....attempts at clarification are always good....i don't know if i can respond back as clearly as both Raf and WordWolf have expressed themselves...but here goes....
perhaps an official definition of the PFAL criteria for establishing the God-breathed Word is in order.
i feel satisfied with the alternative interpretation of Genesis from Hugh Ross' book The Genesis Question,his process hits me as being an honest attempt to interpret the text by looking for the original sense.And it that regard, i do not see an accuracy issue with the points i brought up from his book. PFAL on the other hand, touching on some of those same points came up with an interpretation of Genesis that contradicts the science of physics, paleontology, anthropology, geology, astronomy etc.
to further reiterate my previous points - i believe the Bible is God-breathed, that the Scriptures are inerrant. Can i prove this? No. Are there accuracy issues in Genesis? Yes. Does that stop me from deriving inspiration and guidance from it? No. In my opinion, the Bible is a religious or spiritual book - not a scientific text.
And to put it another way, my concern for "accuracy", for attempting to grasp the original sense of Scripture and what it means to me today is usually focused on doctrinal issues (like the Holy Spirit and manifestations, Jesus Christ/Trinity or no Trinity stuff) and not trying to prove to myself the Bible is perfect. sorry to say I'm already sold on the idea of the God-breathed Word - but that does motivate me to understand the original languages, the cultural setting, historical context, etc. so i can get a better grasp of the original sense of it - what it meant to folks back then and what it means to me now.
i don't know - does that clarify anything? or maybe i need someone to interpret what i just spoke in tongues.
/> ... btw, there's no complaints of hostility from my side of the Internet.
(edited for clarity and typos)
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Forget PFAL for a second.
What do you mean when you say "the Scriptures are inerrant" AND "Are there accuracy issues in Genesis? Yes."
If there are accuracy issues, then the book's not "inerrant," so what do YOU mean by inerrant?
Mind you, the Bible never claims that IT is inerrant, so I feel compelled to ask why that's a part of your belief. We throw a lot of terms around here interchangeably, and sometimes you'll say something that's precise to how you see things, not realizing that when I READ your words, I process them according to what I think you mean.
Does Bible = Scriptures = Word of God?
Does inerrant = without error? If not, what does it mean?
Genesis certainly gives no indication on its own that it is anything other than a History of the World Part One. When we start replacing the literal meaning of the words with figurative extrapolations that allow us to retain symbolic meaning without contradicting science, do we do damage to the "integrity of the Word"? In my opinion, we do. This is apparently the heart of where we disagree, and I'm comfortable disagreeing there. I could quibble with how you express your view until the cows come home, and it won't make much of a difference to either of us.
To me, either there was a Great Flood that covered the whole Earth or there wasn't. I think a plain reading of Genesis indicates there was. But even allowing for that interpretation to be wrong, I see no evidence of a regional flood that would have covered the region with as much water as described in Genesis. So maybe Genesis was just exaggerating about the amount of water. Fine. Except it doesn't say it's exaggerating, so how do we know? Well, we know because when we look for the evidence that we would expect to find if the Genesis account were literally true, we don't find it. So I guess my question is, how literally UNTRUE can Genesis be before we feel comfortable declaring it false?
Because the flood story is a whopper. It's false. The story of languages being confused at Babel is false. That's not how languages developed. The Garden of Eden story is false. There was no bottleneck of human development traceable to a single couple that lived 7,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago, or 20,000 years ago (and anything beyond that would disqualify the Genesis account just for reasons of time). These are false stories. Fables.
You can learn a lot from fables. A lot of "truth." But the truth is in the lessons, not in the stories themselves. The ant and the grasshopper, the tortoise and the hare, the fox and the grapes -- all these stories teach us interesting and valuable lessons, but we need not believe they really happened in order to extract the lesson from them.
The problem with Genesis, as I see it, is that it doesn't present itself as fable or myth, though it clearly is. So along comes an author who says these stories aren't literal, they're not science, but they still communicate God's word and will. That's nice. But how did he come to that position in the first place? By being confronted with and forced to acknowledge that the stories cannot be literally true, a testimony not to be found in the pages of the Bible itself.
Etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I believe the Scriptures are inerrant based on its own testimony:
Num. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind…
Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning; and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever.
Proverbs 30: 5…Every word of God is pure…
II Sam. 23:2 The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.
Isa. 59:21 …My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth…
II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God…
II Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The basic idea I gather from the above verses is that the Scriptures are true on every subject within its pages – whether it touches on history, science, ethics, etc. and of course on spiritual matters. So in other words, true – or accurate - as opposed to false or having errors.
Are there accuracy issues in Genesis and other parts of the Bible? Yes. But are they intrinsic to the Scriptures? No. In other words, I believe the source of the problem is from outside the Scriptures. I like the way St. Augustine put it:
"The Traditional Understanding of the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy Prior to the Second Vatican Council
The traditional understanding of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is perhaps most powerfully and clearly expressed by St. Augustine in one of his letters to St. Jerome:
For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the MS. is faulty or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it . . . I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine.1
The brilliant Augustine did not shirk from exhibiting humility when confronted with potential problems in his reading of Scripture; rather than ascribe deficiencies to the Scriptures, he acknowledged his human limitations when confronted with supernatural revelation."
source for St Augustine quote
To summarize thus far, contrary to what you've said - it looks to me like the Scriptures do claim to be inerrant – despite any accuracy issues – which of course is one of the challenges faced by biblical scholars and students of the Bible. I have good reason to think that it is inerrant (a few of which I've expressed on this thread). Like I said before, I believe in the Bible because I believe in God; it's not the other way around: I do not believe in God because I believe in the Bible.
== == == ==
Certainly I have not been the one replacing the literal meaning of the words with figurative extrapolations on this thread. I challenged your idea of a "worldwide" flood by saying you're interpretation is based on a present day global perspective. I disagreed, saying the "worldwide" references should be understood in light of the cultural background. That is a simple principle of hermeneutics:
From Wikipedia: "…Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines is: textual criticism the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience. Other analysis includes classification of the type of literary genres present in the text, and an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself.
The terms exegesis and hermeneutics have been used interchangeably..."
Wikipedia source
Now if you want to shift the argument from a worldwide flood to regional flood you'll only reinforce what I've been saying all along. You cannot have it both ways – you say the Genesis account is literal but you'll allow for exaggeration. And then imply it's of little consequence anyway because "when we look for the evidence that we would expect to find if the Genesis account were literally true, we don't find it." I beg to differ. I've read a few books by scientific scholars and some articles on the Internet concerning physical evidence for a regional flood – there's an interesting one that presents evidence to show Noah's flood may have happened but not over the whole Earth – the article is from The National Center for Science Education – see link below:
source for evidence of regional flood
to answer your other question "So I guess my question is, how literally UNTRUE can Genesis be before we feel comfortable declaring it false?" so far you have not proven to me that any portion of the Genesis record we have discussed is literally untrue; if you want to declare it false that's your business. A quick and groundless dismissal of the Genesis accounts seems to be your method in this discussion; your post # 3 is a good example
regarding your comment that implies how I express my views leaves a lot to be desired in the realm of debates i will wholeheartedly agree! – so I will be as clear as possible in my following comments.
your view is inconsistent; in post #3 you declare Genesis is NOT history. But in post # 90 you argued the genealogies were a complete listing so the amount of time is fixed by the number:
I don't follow your reasoning – if it's not history, in other words a myth then how can you say the genealogy lists are complete and fixes the time? And in post # 97 you go back to saying it's history.
so is it history or myth?
your conclusion on another item – long lifespans in post # 3 "People didn't live that long." Has no weight or substance behind it. On what basis do you make that claim? On the possibility of longer lifespans I offered Ross' scientific reasoning of what determines lifespan as well as historical records of long lifespans in other ancient cultures. You offered zip – I'm guessing because you think it's impossible for people to have ever lived that long.
I agree with you on this part – Genesis does not present itself as fable or myth. However, you have failed to demonstrate why it should be treated as a fable or myth. On this thread I have shown specific accounts in Genesis that in the cultural context of the language they can be understood as literally true events and do not contradict science.
(edited for typos and clarity)
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok! Now we're in business!
You've given me more than I can handle in one post, but let's start with the obvious: When you make an affirmative claim, the burden is on you to prove the claim. It is not on the other person to disprove it.
It is our experience and history that teaches us the human lifespan is NOT more than 200 years old (I'm being obscenely generous there). So if you're going to assert that there was a time when men lived to be 300, 400, up to 969 years old, the burden is on you to prove that claim, not on me to disprove it.
I won't burden you with an onslaught of articles. I'll just point out a couple that turned up in a casual search:
http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitystatsandnumbers/a/Longevity-Throughout-History.htm
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/life-expectancy-myth-and-why-many-ancient-humans-lived-long-077889
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity_myths
There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone lived hundreds of years, ever. That is a claim. There is no proof for it. Genesis is not proof -- it is the claim. Sumerian texts or other ancient texts are likewise not proof -- they are myths. They are claims. The evidence refutes those claims. If we are to treat ancient legends as evidence for their own veracity, then we're going to be stuck trying to disprove Pandora's Box and the war between the gods and the titans.
===
You clearly seem to be confused about how I'm referring to Genesis, so allow me to attempt a clarification:
I think the Bible says these things are genuinely history, literally true.
I think the Bible is flat out wrong about that.
So when I say "Genesis certainly gives no indication on its own that it is anything other than a History of the World Part One," I am NOT saying I believe the Bible. I'm just trying to represent what the Bible says.
The Bible does not say the flood was regional. It says it was worldwide. So you come along and say it wasn't worldwide, that we need to look at it differently. Fine. i look at it differently. But you can only look at it so differently before you start doing damage to the text. You want to say "worldwide" didn't carry today's definition of worldwide? Fine. I'll go with you on that. But if you want to say 15 cubits over and above the mountains didn't really mean 15 cubits over the mountains (which, incidentally, never happened, we know from geology), then you have a different problem. I read the article you posted. Big problem for your position there: the local flood described doesn't have nearly enough water to cover a mountain, plus 15 cubits. No need to build an ark. This flood also, according to the article, had survivors. THINK!
The solution is not to point out confusion in whether I see this as history or myth. The solution is that this is myth, period, presented as history, and documentably false. That's why I call this Actual Errors in Genesis. Because these are actually errors in Genesis.
This is like me claiming that the United States completely obliterated Japan in 1945 and using the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as proof. We did bomb the bejeezus out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we did not obliterate the entire nation of Japan.
Likewise, the fact that there were regional floods is not in dispute. The notion that Genesis describes one with any accuracy IS in dispute. There was no flood that covered mountains under 15 cubits of water. Didn't happen. Read the article you posted: it doesn't even claim that something like that happened.
You wrote: "your view is inconsistent; in post #3 you declare Genesis is NOT history. But in post # 90 you argued the genealogies were a complete listing so the amount of time is fixed by the number"
There is nothing inconsistent in my view: only in your understanding of it. Genesis is NOT history. And the genealogies ARE presented as a complete listing. Conclusion: the genealogies are bogus. They're lies. They're made up of whole cloth. You want to see the genealogies as incomplete in order to inject more and more and more time between the established (ha!) time of Abraham and the backwards calculation that gets you to Adam. By showing that the list was complete on its own terms, I wasn't trying to uphold the list as accurate, I was trying to show the inadequacy of the explanation that the list is only partial.
See how that works?
You wrote:
I have no idea what you're referring to there. Seriously. None.
I'm glad you clarified your view of inerrancy, but there are a few problems with it. One: Not a single verse you cited is talking about the Bible. How could it be? There was no Bible when those verses were written. Catch-22.
Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning; and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever.
Is that verse talking about the gospel of Matthew? Of course not. Couldn't be.
Remember in my last post when I asked if Bible = Scripture = Word of God? There's a reason I asked that question.
The Bible talks a lot about the Word of God, but it never claims to BE that Word.
In any event, you have now made a pretty firm case (bringing us back full circle) in favor of PFAL's criteria for what it means for the Bible to be God-breathed. You can no longer say you reject it (even though you may reject other aspects of PFAL). PFAL teaches that the Bible is perfect, without error or contradiction. You just posted a lengthy argument IN FAVOR of that position. So you're going to resist any admission that Genesis could possibly be wrong about anything -- you HAVE to.
More later.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I just went through, again, the article from the National Center for Science Education that you posted. I don't think you have any idea how much this article refutes the Genesis account. The flood described here would not have covered a single mountain.
Genesis 7:
The flood described in the article does NOT match the description in Genesis. Not by a longshot. Genesis describes a literal worldwide flood, but even if you want to say it was regional, it describes a flood that covered mountains. The article you cited does not describe such a flood.
The issue here is not whether the Middle East was ever flooded. Of course it was. The issue is whether it was flooded as described in Genesis. By the very article YOU cited, the answer is a big, fat NO.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.