Is the bible supposed to be taken literally or not?

[lee]

I've noticed that when someone points out a difficult passage from the bible that puts xtians on the spot, Thomas somehow manages to interpret the passage in a different way, claiming that the passage isn't meant to be taken literally. So who gets to decide which passage are meant to be literal? and which are not?

HeWhoAsks makes an excellent point in the "Knowledge or Happiness" topic by saying:

"There is still a big problem if the tree story is a myth or exact reality. Either way, it makes no sense, see my post 126. Further, if parts of it do make sense and other parts don't, then we are left with every individual grabbing whatever meaning they like out of it and ignoring whatever they like. So it can mean anything to anyone. What good is that? Something that means anything means nothing."

[Little Earth Stamper]

Anything that has strong disconfirming evidence is allegorical, everything else is true.

[Another brick in the wall]

I always enjoy discussing the book of Revelations with christians. The eyes fundamentalists light up as they expound upon how the all-loving god will methodically destroy almost everything. The moderates backpedal awkwardly as they stumble in vain for an allegorical interpretation.

[HeWhoAsks]

I've noticed that when someone points out a difficult passage from the bible that puts xtians on the spot, Thomas somehow manages to interpret the passage in a different way, claiming that the passage isn't meant to be taken literally. So who gets to decide which passage are meant to be literal? and which are not?

HeWhoAsks makes an excellent point in the "Knowledge or Happiness" topic by saying:

"There is still a big problem if the tree story is a myth or exact reality. Either way, it makes no sense, see my post 126. Further, if parts of it do make sense and other parts don't, then we are left with every individual grabbing whatever meaning they like out of it and ignoring whatever they like. So it can mean anything to anyone. What good is that? Something that means anything means nothing."
[Bowing to thunderous applause] Everyone should please note that Thomas ignores many points we atheists make and only argues some of them. In his defense, he'd be pretty busy if he had to follow up every single point in every thread. But I get pretty frustrated when I make brilliant points :P like the above and get no reply, counter-argument, concession, whatever.

[Philboid Studge]

Biblical passages that smear homos: literally true. Passages that say you can't eat mollusks: allegory. That's why Leviticus is my favorite.

But I get pretty frustrated when I make brilliant points like the above and get no reply, counter-argument, concession, whatever.
Do what I do: assume that every point unanswered is a concession. (But seriously, you're right: the theists in this forum couldn't possibly address every point, and I for one am damn impressed with their stick-to-it-iveness, even where we disagree.)

[DMofD&D]

But I get pretty frustrated when I make brilliant points tongue like the above and get no reply, counter-argument, concession, whatever.
Maybe we could set up an official debate between an atheist and a theist with rules and a judge and everything. That way the theist couldn't worm out of not answering a tough refutation by working on an easy one. What do you guys think?

[Zen Master]

It's all metaphorical. The garden of Eden, the exodus, Noah and the flood, Jonah and the whale, the virgin birth, the resurrection of the dead, the ascension, the second coming, the rapture, the end of the world, heaven and hell; all metaphors.

[Another brick in the wall]

A metaphor for what? I don't see how those metaphors are useful for anything. It would have been better to povide concise instructions.

[Zen Master]

A metaphor for what?
Which one? Each is a different metaphor.

Here's a good explanation of Eden:

Excerpted from “Thou Art That” by Joseph Campbell
------------

The first part of the book of Genesis is sheer mythology, and it is largely that of the Mesopotamian people. Here we have the Garden of Eden, for this is the mythological age in which we enter a mythological garden. The story of not eating the apple of the forbidden tree is an old folklore motif, that is called "the one forbidden thing." Do not open this door, do not look over there, do not eat this food. If you want to understand why God would have done a thing like that, all you need to do is tell somebody "Don't do this." Human nature will do the rest.

God's idea, in this story, was to get Adam and Eve out of that Garden. What was it about the Garden? It was a place of oneness, of unity, of no divisions in the nature of people or things. When you eat of the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, however, you know about pairs of opposites, which include not only good and evil, light and dark, right and wrong, but male and female, and God and Man as well.

Man has eaten the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Lest he eat the fruit of the second tree, which is that of immortal life, God throws Man out from the Garden and places two cherubim, with a flaming sword between them, to guard the gate.

Adam and Eve are separated from God and they are aware of the break in their sense of oneness. They seek to cover their nakedness. The question becomes, how do they get back into the Garden? To understand this mystery we must forget all about judging and ethics and forget about good and evil as well.

Jesus says, "Judge not, that you may not be judged." That is the way back into the Garden. You must live on two levels: One, out of recognition of life as it is without judging it, and the other, by living in terms of the ethical values of one's culture, or one's particular personal religion. These are not easy tasks.

I said that God exiled Adam and Eve from the Garden, but actually they exiled themselves. This story yields its meaning only to a psychological interpretation. If you explain it as an historical event that occurred at some distant time back there, it seems ridiculous. There was no Garden of Eden as a concrete place. To believe so is to misunderstand and misconstrue the metaphoric language of religion.

You cannot even find a date for the idea of it. In the evolution of the species, did it arise with Homo erectus, when the human brain measured 1,000 cubit centimeters? Or did it come later with Neanderthal man, or just prehistoric with Cro-Magnon? When did this notion come?

This idyllic spot is not an historical fact. The Garden is a metaphor for the following: our minds, and our thinking in terms of pairs of opposites--Man and woman, good and evil--are as holy as that of a god.

Let us look around this Garden now that we stand imaginatively within it.

What is that tree of immortal life? Even after examining in depth the rabbinical discussions of the two trees in the Garden, it remains something of an enigma.

Look closely and you may see, as I do, that they are the same tree. You are in the Garden and the tree is the way out. The way out is through learning of good an evil, a process that is symbolically expressed by eating the fruit of that tree. It is as if you are walking from a room where all is one into a room where, as you pass the threshold, all is suddenly two.

Look back at the gate of the Garden where stand the two cherubim with the flaming sword between them, and you are out, in exile from the place where all was one.

What is the way back? The idea appears to be that God is keeping us out of the Garden, forbidding our reentry. In the Buddhist tradition, however, the Buddha says, "Don't be afraid, come right through."

But what does that mean?

Of the two guardians in the Buddhist theme, one has his mouth open, the other has his mouth closed: they are opposites. One represents fear, the other represents desire.

The fear is that of death and the desire is for more of this world: fear and desire are what keep you out of the Garden. It is not God who keeps us in exile, but ourselves.

What, then, is the way back into the Garden? One must overcome fear and desire. "Regard the lilies of the field," Jesus teaches, "They toil not, neither do they spin." Blake, in his "Marriage of Heaven and Hell," says, in effect, "Remove the cherubim from the gate, and you will see that everything is infinite. You'll clean desire and fear from your eyes, and will behold everything as a revelation of the Divine."

All this teaching is right before us. In the Gospel of Thomas, which was found in the Nag Hammadi jars dug out of Egypt, Jesus says, "People ask, 'When will the Kingdom come?'" And Jesus says, in an example of sheer Gnosticism, "The Kingdom will not come by expectation. The Kingdom of the Father is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it."

That is what the story of the expulsion from the Garden of Eden is all about. It is not about an historical incident but about a psychological, spiritual experience, a metaphor for what is happening to us right now.

[Another brick in the wall]

OK, I see you point, but it still seems kind of long and convoluted. It seems like it would have been better for
god(s) to carve a few simple rules in big letters on a rock somewhere for all to see instead to entrusting it to fallible humans, who in all probability have an agenda.

[Zen Master]

OK, I see you point, but it still seems kind of long and convoluted. It seems like it would have been better for
god(s) to carve a few simple rules in big letters on a rock somewhere for all to see instead to entrusting it to fallible humans, who in all probability have an agenda.
God did something even better than that. The law of God, the golden rule, is written on the hearts of all humankind, and is expressed in every religion.

[Another brick in the wall]

Mmmmmm..... Not sure I agree with that. While there are broad similarities among religions, you hardly ever hear the Pope say something like "Jew, Hindu, what's the difference?" Also, humans that grow up without human contact (feral children) do not learn to socialize. This suggests that morality is not inborn, but learned. Serial killers are also examples of humans with no moral code.

[thomas]

I've noticed that when someone points out a difficult passage from the bible that puts xtians on the spot, Thomas somehow manages to interpret the passage in a different way, claiming that the passage isn't meant to be taken literally. So who gets to decide which passage are meant to be literal? and which are not?
It's a little bit naive of atheists to assume that Christians don't have explanations for what the Bible says. After all, there is 2000 years of study gone into that book. The questions you guys should be asking yourself is not "How does Christianity look if I interpret it in the worst way possible" but "How does it look if I interpret it in the best way possible". Maybe you're missing out on something ?

As to who gets to choose, like I said there is a continous 200 year period of interpretation to rely on, for answers. The answers aren't always clear, but why should they be ?

By the way, one of the things I get out of this forum is the opportunity to examine Christianity presented in its worst light. It strengthens my beliefs to look at your worst objections and work through them.

HeWhoAsks makes an excellent point in the "Knowledge or Happiness" topic by saying:

"There is still a big problem if the tree story is a myth or exact reality. Either way, it makes no sense, see my post 126. Further, if parts of it do make sense and other parts don't, then we are left with every individual grabbing whatever meaning they like out of it and ignoring whatever they like. So it can mean anything to anyone. What good is that? Something that means anything means nothing."
My answer to this point is that the Christian Church works together to interpret the Bible. I'd always be wary of explanations that aren't grounded in that tradition of analysis based on a faithful, worshipping body of believers. When I bring you explanations here, I'm always looking to bring you the best answer I can, based on these traditions.

[Another brick in the wall]

The answers aren't always clear, but why should they be ?
Because the bible was allegedly written with the help of the smartest being in existence. From the numerous theological disputes over time, it's seems obvious that the bible could be a little less ambiguous on many points. One of the many ways in which science is better than religion.

[thomas]

[Bowing to thunderous applause] Everyone should please note that Thomas ignores many points we atheists make and only argues some of them. In his defense, he'd be pretty busy if he had to follow up every single point in every thread. But I get pretty frustrated when I make brilliant points tongue like the above and get no reply, counter-argument, concession, whatever.

Do what I do: assume that every point unanswered is a concession. (But seriously, you're right: the theists in this forum couldn't possibly address every point, and I for one am damn impressed with their stick-to-it-iveness, even where we disagree.)

You're right that I couldn't answer all the points. Still I do try to follow individual threads. But, sometimes even that gets overwhelming. You're all pretty good at sticking points back at me if I miss them :) Anyway, I'm not trying to avoid hard points, although sometimes the hard points take a bit more thinking about than the easy ones.

Oh, and I feel the same way about you all some of the time, in terms of not answering the harder questions. I guess its just the nature of a forum like this

[thomas]

The answers aren't always clear, but why should they be ?
Because the bible was allegedly written with the help of the smartest being in existence. From the numerous theological disputes over time, it's seems obvious that the bible could be a little less ambiguous on many points. One of the many ways in which science is better than religion.
Well, maybe the smartest being in existence has some complicated things to say that aren't easy for us to interpret and understand, and that do require allegory to convey. We are essentially relational beings and stories and parables do communicate with us in a profound way. Also, remember that this book has affected the lives of people over 2000 years all around the world, and been relevant to all of them. That's quite some achievement.

I don't see that religion and science are opposed to each other. There is no need to choose either science or religion.

[Another brick in the wall]

Since god allegedly created humans, he knows our abilities and limitations. If you were trying to explain nuclear physics to kindergarteners, you probaly would try to put it in the simplest terms possible. Since god is all-knowing, I have a hard time understanding why the bible isn't absolutely clear. Shouldn't god's word be easy to understand?

I don't know if your correct in saying that the bible has affected the lives of people for 2000 years. For most of history, the majority of people were illiterate. It doesn't make sense for god to entrust his most important message to fallible humans.

[Zen Master]

The Bible is written by men.

[Another brick in the wall]

OK, but didn't god intend it as a vehicle for his message? These arguments apply too other holy books to. I'm taking potshots with a scattergun here . . .

[Zen Master]

OK, but didn't god intend it as a vehicle for his message?
No? It's just a book that men wrote to express their ideas about God, and their relationship to God. It's no more the "word of god" than our posts on this forum are.

[Another brick in the wall]

OK. Then where did all of your ideas about god come from? What books, if any, do you consider divinely inspired?

[Zen Master]

OK. Then where did all of your ideas about god come from?
Experience, reason, meditation/zen, science, the sacred texts of the worlds religions.

What books, if any, do you consider divinely inspired?
Everything is divinely inspired. God made all, and is all.

[Another brick in the wall]

Everything is divinely inspired.
You just said the bible was book written by men.

[Zen Master]

Everything is divinely inspired.
You just said the bible was book written by men.
Yeah, it is. Remember, I also said that all is God, which includes the men that wrote the book. It's only the "word of God" in that sense.

[Little Earth Stamper]

It turns out that the effect on the bible for a lot of people was pretty miserable. Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, they all kind of got the short end of the stick, god's message-wise.

Well, whatever god thinks of morality, he did a half-assed job inprinting it on the universe. We have things like sociopaths in the human race. I think he was more concerned with things like gravity and the speed of light an thermodynamics, because he made those amazingly consistant.

[whoneedscience]

Well, maybe the smartest being in existence has some complicated things to say that aren't easy for us to interpret and understand, and that do require allegory to convey. We are essentially relational beings and stories and parables do communicate with us in a profound way. Also, remember that this book has affected the lives of people over 2000 years all around the world, and been relevant to all of them. That's quite some achievement.
Good point. In fact, it may be that we are only capable of understanding abstract ideas through allegory, but that's for another argument. As for the relevance of the Bible, I'm reminded of the argument of Intelligent Design: that since the likelihood of all our atoms arranging together in the exact way they are is infintessimal, we must be created by God, despite there being no evidence for said god or mechanism by which it would occur. It also completely ignores the mechanisms of Natural Selection, which, when properly understood, offer a near perfect understanding of how life exists in its present forms. So, to draw an appropriate allegorical comparison, the fact that many people find the Bible relevant means little else than that it has been a particularly successful conglomeration of myths. If it were full of complete crap that, when accepted, led to the believers destruction, it wouldn't have survived this long. As it is, it is very easy for someone with no other concept of reality (those with little to no education) to gain a competitive advantage by following the Bible.

Furthermore, the argument that "everyone else is doing it" never works in an intellectual discussion, you need something a bit more tangible, like experimental evidence. That's what separates science and religion, and so we reach your next argument:

I don't see that religion and science are opposed to each other. There is no need to choose either science or religion.
Honestly, that really only works from a religious standpoint. I have to say that it's the most respectable view of religion, as at least you're not impeding reason, and you're allowing some tolerance to other views. Most intelligent theists I know would agree with you here. The problem is that, in the end, it's really just an intellectual cop-out.

I see something of a progression of theistic viewpoints that follow something like Kohlberg's theory of moral development. The simple-minded and childish, like the fundamentalists, need simple rules (ten commandments and the like) enforced with simply consequences (Hell). Those with more developed morals, like most christians, recognize the utility of rules based on the authority of their writer (God). The advanced, more deistic and reasonable theists can see where things go wrong (and the new testament can be a wonderful place to look for these: "the sabbath was made for men, not men for the sabbath") and make moral decisions within those confines. Only a very few can transcend those laws entirely, making adjustments where neccesary.

Of course, this parallel isn't perfect, and I would not go so far as to say that atheists have reached some sort of moral nirvana, as you could make an equally legitimate argument for atheism as a cop-out, but I only see your kind of argument from those that are religious and have learned science, in other words, they are religiously biased but still intelligent enough to see through the religious crap. That becomes their idea of religion and there are no problems. Scientists with no religious bias that look at religion, on the other hand, in my experience rarely get the idea that they do not conflict. Quite the contrary, they see that most views of religion (the first two stages of theistic development) are absolute bullshit, and that becomes their definition of religion. As I see it, this is why we atheists tend to get frustrated when people defend theism.

What I'm trying to say is, good for you, Thomas, and clearly Zen Master, too, but surely you must recognize that your own view of religion is distorted (albeit for the better) from the pure and moderate Biblical one, which is clearly bigoted, antiquated and all together ludicrous. You aren't the ones (I hope) crashing planes into buildings or trying to get creationism taught in school, so why would you be trying to defend such a view of religion, or a religion that can allow this kind of crap?

[whoneedscience]

And Zen, for a while I've been intrigued by Buddhism (from the point of view of an atheist analyzing certain aspects of its practices, of course), especially an ancient temple in South Asia where the idea is to travel through a series of carved scenes of the Buddha, where you're supposed to stop and meditate until you understand the issue being portrayed. I must say I'm completely ignorant of the whole way of life, and would appreciate any help on the matter. I'd have to look into it further, but it seems to me like having a kind of path for development could help eliminate the problems noted above about a warped idea of religion, that is assuming the end result is a secularly, reasonably acceptable one. I feel like Christians have no moral goal and can believe anything they want (even though that may turn out for the better, if it weren't for the ridiculous dependency on a God figure and the legitimacy of the Bible).

[HeWhoAsks]

But I get pretty frustrated when I make brilliant points tongue like the above and get no reply, counter-argument, concession, whatever.
Maybe we could set up an official debate between an atheist and a theist with rules and a judge and everything. That way the theist couldn't worm out of not answering a tough refutation by working on an easy one. What do you guys think?
I would love that. Another idea I've had for a while and would love to implement is to outline the discussion between an atheist and a theist over whether god exists, so that each point and counter-point could be followed up easily and not get sidetracked, run over earlier issues and get stuck in a loop, etc.

Don't have time yet to implement that myself, but let me and all of us know if anyone can do any of this, I'd love to see it.

[HeWhoAsks]

HeWhoAsks makes an excellent point in the "Knowledge or Happiness" topic by saying:

"There is still a big problem if the tree story is a myth or exact reality. Either way, it makes no sense, see my post 126. Further, if parts of it do make sense and other parts don't, then we are left with every individual grabbing whatever meaning they like out of it and ignoring whatever they like. So it can mean anything to anyone. What good is that? Something that means anything means nothing."
My answer to this point is that the Christian Church works together to interpret the Bible. I'd always be wary of explanations that aren't grounded in that tradition of analysis based on a faithful, worshipping body of believers. When I bring you explanations here, I'm always looking to bring you the best answer I can, based on these traditions.
But if the Bible is interpreted, then those interpretations are human, not divinely inspired, right? So any meaning from the Bible is a human invention.

[lee]

It's a little bit naive of atheists to assume that Christians don't have explanations for what the Bible says. After all, there is 2000 years of study gone into that book. The questions you guys should be asking yourself is not "How does Christianity look if I interpret it in the worst way possible" but "How does it look if I interpret it in the best way possible". Maybe you're missing out on something ?
Oh but I have, I have seen it interpreted in the best way possible, I went to protestant school as a child you see. But I prefer to look at the bible as a whole, I'll admit that the bible teaches a lot of good, and I have no problem with that, but you also have to admit that it has some pretty bad things in it as well. Why would the supposed word of God on which rests the whole basis of your whole religion contain things like incest and murder? It has some pretty disturbing passages to the extent that you felt a need interpret in into something else.

As to who gets to choose, like I said there is a continous 200 year period of interpretation to rely on, for answers. The answers aren't always clear, but why should they be ?
Why shouldn't they? That's supposed to be word of god right? Why did god have to go to all the trouble of telling a story about a garden with a snake and a forbidden fruit? If the whole point of the story was to tell of man's disobedience to god, he could just have said so clearly and succintly.

[Philboid Studge]

But if the Bible is interpreted, then those interpretations are human, not divinely inspired, right? So any meaning from the Bible is a human invention.
What he said.

[thomas]

Good point. In fact, it may be that we are only capable of understanding abstract ideas through allegory, but that's for another argument. As for the relevance of the Bible, I'm reminded of the argument of Intelligent Design: that since the likelihood of all our atoms arranging together in the exact way they are is infintessimal, we must be created by God, despite there being no evidence for said god or mechanism by which it would occur. It also completely ignores the mechanisms of Natural Selection, which, when properly understood, offer a near perfect understanding of how life exists in its present forms. So, to draw an appropriate allegorical comparison, the fact that many people find the Bible relevant means little else than that it has been a particularly successful conglomeration of myths. If it were full of complete crap that, when accepted, led to the believers destruction, it wouldn't have survived this long. As it is, it is very easy for someone with no other concept of reality (those with little to no education) to gain a competitive advantage by following the Bible.
You're right. I'd say that the Bible is "at least" what you say it is. And further more that that would be a kind of minimum sort of criteria to apply when looking to see if any writings that claimed to be inspired by God, really were that.

Furthermore, the argument that "everyone else is doing it" never works in an intellectual discussion, you need something a bit more tangible, like experimental evidence. That's what separates science and religion, and so we reach your next argument:
I'm not saying that it is true because lots of people have believed in it over 2000 years in many different cultures. Just pointing out that it's an impressive fact that a book compiled over a 3000 year period by largely un-educated people can have such a wide impact. Surely, it's worth a pause for thought to see if it contains any merit ?

I don't see that religion and science are opposed to each other. There is no need to choose either science or religion.
Honestly, that really only works from a religious standpoint. I have to say that it's the most respectable view of religion, as at least you're not impeding reason, and you're allowing some tolerance to other views. Most intelligent theists I know would agree with you here. The problem is that, in the end, it's really just an intellectual cop-out.

I see something of a progression of theistic viewpoints that follow something like Kohlberg's theory of moral development. The simple-minded and childish, like the fundamentalists, need simple rules (ten commandments and the like) enforced with simply consequences (Hell). Those with more developed morals, like most christians, recognize the utility of rules based on the authority of their writer (God). The advanced, more deistic and reasonable theists can see where things go wrong (and the new testament can be a wonderful place to look for these: "the sabbath was made for men, not men for the sabbath") and make moral decisions within those confines. Only a very few can transcend those laws entirely, making adjustments where neccesary.
I'm a relatively main-stream, evangelical, protestant Christian. I don't find my views particularly unusual amongst the Christians I know. I think more of a problem is that atheists set up a kind of cartoon christianity of their own inventing, in order to justify their lack of belief. Why they would need to do this, I don't know. But I observe it.

[thomas]

But if the Bible is interpreted, then those interpretations are human, not divinely inspired, right? So any meaning from the Bible is a human invention.
It is self-evident that the Bible is written, edited, compiled and interpreted by humans. I don't think that subtracts in any way from divine inspiration. The canon of the New Testament was put together from foundations set by people who were eye-witnesses to the crucial events of Jesus' life and established by the church He set-up and left here, with the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide them.

[Another brick in the wall]

The eyewitnesses you speak of could not even agree on what Jesus' last words were:

My god, my god, why have you forsaken me? (Matthew and Mark)

Father, into your hands, I commend my spirit. (Luke)

It is finished. (John)

[HeWhoAsks]

I'm not saying that it is true because lots of people have believed in it over 2000 years in many different cultures. Just pointing out that it's an impressive fact that a book compiled over a 3000 year period by largely un-educated people can have such a wide impact. Surely, it's worth a pause for thought to see if it contains any merit ?
I must grab this opportunity to agree with thomas, as I disagree with him regarding just about everything else. Yes, the fact that the bible has survived lo these many years with so many people respecting it does warrant a pause to see if it contains merit. Please note I'm drawing the line here carefully.

[HeWhoAsks]

It is self-evident that the Bible is written, edited, compiled and interpreted by humans. I don't think that subtracts in any way from divine inspiration. The canon of the New Testament was put together from foundations set by people who were eye-witnesses to the crucial events of Jesus' life and established by the church He set-up and left here, with the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide them.
Wait a minute, let's be careful to distinguish

1. divine inspiration for the *authors* of the bible when they were writing it from

2. divine inspiration (being guided by the Holy Spirit, whatever) for *readers* of the bible, including biblical scholars, when they interpret and find meaning in the bible.

Are you saying both 1 and 2 happen(ed)? My point was about 2, not 1.

[Lurker]

The bible should be taken literally when it's being literal, and figurative when it's being figurative. Easier said than done sometimes...

[HeWhoAsks]

The bible should be taken literally when it's being literal, and figurative when it's being figurative. Easier said than done sometimes...
As I've asked thomas without a response, on what basis do you decide when it's literal and when it's not? So, when you come across a scene or passage in the bible, what makes you say it's literal or allegorical?

[Lurker]

The bible should be taken literally when it's being literal, and figurative when it's being figurative. Easier said than done sometimes...
As I've asked thomas without a response, on what basis do you decide when it's literal and when it's not? So, when you come across a scene or passage in the bible, what makes you say it's literal or allegorical?
I'm not a theologian, however I think the thing to do is to examine each section in context of the customs, traditions, figurative phrases, language, history, geography, culture, etc of the time. People reading a story from today 2000 years from now will have to understand that the phrase "it's raining cats and dogs" doesn't involve cats or dogs - only raindrops.

[HeWhoAsks]

The bible should be taken literally when it's being literal, and figurative when it's being figurative. Easier said than done sometimes...
As I've asked thomas without a response, on what basis do you decide when it's literal and when it's not? So, when you come across a scene or passage in the bible, what makes you say it's literal or allegorical?
I'm not a theologian, however I think the thing to do is to examine each section in context of the customs, traditions, figurative phrases, language, history, geography, culture, etc of the time. People reading a story from today 2000 years from now will have to understand that the phrase "it's raining cats and dogs" doesn't involve cats or dogs - only raindrops.
OK, I guess I have to do it myself.

If one, for instance, comes across a phrase like "it's raining cats and dogs," one knows to take that not literally because of two reasons: 1. it's a phrase one has encountered before in other contexts and in those cases it is not taken literally, and 2. for it to actually be raining cats and dogs, literally, would be so fantastic that it would be impossible and unbelievable. *That's* the basis on which we decide between literal and non-literal.

Reason #1 doesn't apply in the case of the bible, but #2 does. But plenty of people believe things in the bible that run counter to this principle (Jesus' resurrection being the prime example). Which was my whole point. So this principle is not used consistently. That's a big problem.

[Lurker]

If one, for instance, comes across a phrase like "it's raining cats and dogs," one knows to take that not literally because of two reasons: 1. it's a phrase one has encountered before in other contexts and in those cases it is not taken literally, and 2. for it to actually be raining cats and dogs, literally, would be so fantastic that it would be impossible and unbelievable. *That's* the basis on which we decide between literal and non-literal.

Reason #1 doesn't apply in the case of the bible, but #2 does. But plenty of people believe things in the bible that run counter to this principle (Jesus' resurrection being the prime example). Which was my whole point. So this principle is not used consistently. That's a big problem.
The point is all cultures and all people use figurative speech and the bible is no different. Words change meaning too. The word “balderdash” means something different today compared to the 1800’s.

A story or phrase that falls under #2 should not be dismissed immediately just because it sounds unbelievable. You need to research the story, gather evidence and weigh the facts before coming to a conclusion.

If you believe that life came from non-life via natural selection and evolution then you should not balk at the idea of life coming from non-life via a resurrection event. Both produce life out of non-living chemicals so what’s the problem? The question for all of us is how do we determine what is true and what is false?

[Another brick in the wall]

Amino acids (an important family of chemicals for life) arising from methane, water, and oxygen has been observed in a lab (See Miller-Urey experiment). People coming back from the dead hasn't been observed in a lab. The best way to determine of something is true or false is to perform an experiment.

[thomas]

Wait a minute, let's be careful to distinguish

1. divine inspiration for the *authors* of the bible when they were writing it from

2. divine inspiration (being guided by the Holy Spirit, whatever) for *readers* of the bible, including biblical scholars, when they interpret and find meaning in the bible.

Are you saying both 1 and 2 happen(ed)? My point was about 2, not 1.
Yes, both and I'm not sure I fully understand the distinction. If one believed that #2 was possible, why is #1 any more or less believable ?

[Lurker]

Amino acids (an important family of chemicals for life) arising from methane, water, and oxygen has been observed in a lab (See Miller-Urey experiment). People coming back from the dead hasn't been observed in a lab. The best way to determine of something is true or false is to perform an experiment.
Oh my gosh, are you saying the Miller experiment helps demonstrate/prove evolution? :lol:

[Another brick in the wall]

Yes, and it's one of many. There's also the DeVries experiments. Hugo Devries actually observed the creation of a new species that had twice as many chromosomes as the parent species. I take your emoticon to mean that you've heard of the Miller experiment before. Sorry if I bored you. Now it's your turn. Name an experiment where a dead person was brought back to life (and I don't mean clinically dead, as in no heart beat or breathing, but has brain activity, but someone who was dead for several hours and was brought back).

[Lurker]

Yes, and it's one of many. There's also the DeVries experiments. Hugo Devries actually observed the creation of a new species that had twice as many chromosomes as the parent species. I take your emoticon to mean that you've heard of the Miller experiment before. Sorry if I bored you. Now it's your turn. Name an experiment where a dead person was brought back to life (and I don't mean clinically dead, as in no heart beat or breathing, but has brain activity, but someone who was dead for several hours and was brought back).
There are several problems with the Miller experiement that make it a non-proof for life coming from non-life via evolution and natural selection. For starters that particular life did not come about naturally - it had human (intelligent) intervention to make it happen. That's not a natural process. I can make a birthday cake appear in a lab too, but I don't think that proves that birthday cakes are formed via natural processes. Why do you think scientists are still grappling for an answser to the beginning of life question?

Anyway, if life can come from non-life without help from anyone, then why is it difficult to believe that life can come from non-life with help from god or another person?

[Another brick in the wall]

What do you mean human intervention was involved? It's simply a chemical reaction. They recreated the conditions of early earth and sat back to watch what happened. Part of the reason why scientists are still searching for an answer is that there is always disagreement among competing theories. The Miller experiment showed what could have happened, but it's a far cry from and iron-clad proof.

As for your second question, it's difficult for me to believe that there was an intellgent designer because I see no evidence for one. Snowflakes form without any apparent assistance. Chemical reactions occur without any apparent guidance. There is an element of chance in many phenomena, but the unthinking forces of the universe guide them along.

[Lurker]

What do you mean human intervention was involved? It's simply a chemical reaction. They recreated the conditions of early earth and sat back to watch what happened. Part of the reason why scientists are still searching for an answer is that there is always disagreement among competing theories. The Miller experiment showed what could have happened, but it's a far cry from and iron-clad proof.
Humans picked the mixture of chemicals and the energy level/duration to be used in the experiement. That's controlled human intervention. The composition of the early atmosphere is highly speculative. Let me pick a mixture of flour, sugar, butter, water and eggs and then let me pick 350 F for 30 minutes followed by a coating of sweet frosting. Does the result prove anything?

[Another brick in the wall]

The mixture and the conditions the humans picked were designed to be similar to that of the early earth. And even if it wasn't quite right, it shows that the precursors of life could have arisen from non-living chemicals. Your analogy would me more accurate if you said that the cake baked itself.

[Lurker]

The mixture and the conditions the humans picked were designed to be similar to that of the early earth. And even if it wasn't quite right, it shows that the precursors of life could have arisen from non-living chemicals. Your analogy would me more accurate if you said that the cake baked itself.
"baked itself" Huh? Set a mixture of these early earth chemicals in a bowl somewhere and then walk away. If it produces life by itself then I'll believe.

[Another brick in the wall]

That's basically what they did. They put the chemicals in, added some heat energy, and observed. Have you ever heard of Mad Cow disease? It's caused by a self-replicating protein, even simpler than a virus. It's not impossible for a self-replicating molecule to form.

[Philboid Studge]

If you believe that life came from non-life via natural selection and evolution ...
That's a common misconception (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml). Evolution deals with with how life changed after it's origin. Certainly other branches of science investigate how life started, but it has little to do with Darwin.

[Lurker]

That's basically what they did. They put the chemicals in, added some heat energy, and observed. Have you ever heard of Mad Cow disease? It's caused by a self-replicating protein, even simpler than a virus. It's not impossible for a self-replicating molecule to form.
I can do that with my cake. Mix chemicals, add heat/energy and observe. Why do you suppose cakes are not found on the hillsides?

[Lundie]

That's basically what they did. They put the chemicals in, added some heat energy, and observed. Have you ever heard of Mad Cow disease? It's caused by a self-replicating protein, even simpler than a virus. It's not impossible for a self-replicating molecule to form.
I can do that with my cake. Mix chemicals, add heat/energy and observe. Why do you suppose cakes are not found on the hillsides?
becos me dog et em.

[Another brick in the wall]

I think there's more supervision in baking a cake than the experiment. It's not like the scientists broke individual bonds between atoms and reassembled them like tinker toys. It's more like planting a seed and seeing what grows. The main reason why cakes don't grow on hillsides is because conditions are not conducive to their formation. It's the same reason it doesn't snow in July.

[Lurker]

If you believe that life came from non-life via natural selection and evolution ...
That's a common misconception (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml). Evolution deals with with how life changed after it's origin. Certainly other branches of science investigate how life started, but it has little to do with Darwin.
I agree with you, however evolution is founded on the belief that non-life can spring into life via natural means. It's a separate issue, yes, but if you can't explain how life started then I think we're getting ahead of ourselves. My point is this: if life can come about naturally and unassisted then why can't life come about with assistance from god/jesus/paul/peter/mark/matthew? Seems reasonable to me.

[Another brick in the wall]

I'm not saying it's impossible for some being to create life, I'm saying there's a simpler explanation that fits the evidence.

[whoneedscience]

I agree with you, however evolution is founded on the belief that non-life can spring into life via natural means. It's a separate issue, yes, but if you can't explain how life started then I think we're getting ahead of ourselves. My point is this: if life can come about naturally and unassisted then why can't life come about with assistance from god/jesus/paul/peter/mark/matthew? Seems reasonable to me.
Well, you clearly have a religious bias, and I could care less as to what seems reasonable to you. If you want your hypothesis to be taken seriously, you have to do what Miller did, which is come up with a situation that shows it's possible for God to create life. That means objectively describing exactly what God is and what mechanisms he used to create life. It doesn't do to just say "it's possoble that a miracle happened" and think that's reasonable enough. Scientists are still looking for answers as to how life started on Earth. For Instance, they're looking on comets to see what kinds of molecules they carry that could have sprung to life in the early Earth. We won't know if this theory holds any water until they test for those molecules and see how they react under simulated natural conditions. That's science. Your ideas on religion are nice enough for you, if you somehow need to believe that crap to be a moral person, but understand they are worthless in an intelligent argument.

Your biases are actually quite disgusting, not to mention robbed from mindless creationists. No, Miller did not prove how life was created, but he showed that it is physically possible for organic molecules to form from inorganic ones. We make a leap of logic to assume that it might be possible for self-replicating molecules (like the pions that cause mad-cow) to form by these natural processes, at which point evolution can describe their development. EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT NON-LIFE CAN SPRING INTO LIFE, IT DESCRIBES WHAT HAPPENED AFTERWARD. You say you agree, then continue to warp the concept.

If you want to make idiotic arguments based on corrupted science, go to your Hell. You can argue all you want with the fundamentalists there. For now, back to the original discussion: you've shown well enough what kind of ignorance comes out of reading the Bible literally.

[lee]

There is nothing in the Bible that is incompatible with evolution. Only the most literal reading of the text would suggest that.
Hi Thomas, I took the liberty of quoting one of your posts from a another topic, and I'd like to clarify some things with you first. From the post above, I take it that you believe in evolution. You also said before in another post that the tree in the Garden of Eden should be taken figuratively. Now I would like to know where you stand on these issues before I discuss it further with you, let's start with these three:

1. Do you believe in a literal account of god's creation of the universe?
2. Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
3. Do you believe in a literal Garden of Eden?

It's sometimes so difficult discussing things with you when you can just magically pull a rabbit out of your hat and say "nope, that's not meant to be taken literally..." :)

[whoneedscience]

I'm a relatively main-stream, evangelical, protestant Christian. I don't find my views particularly unusual amongst the Christians I know.
Exactly.

I think more of a problem is that atheists set up a kind of cartoon christianity of their own inventing, in order to justify their lack of belief. Why they would need to do this, I don't know. But I observe it.
Yeah, the problem is definitely those damn ignorant atheists. I just can't see why they would feel a need to get religious people to think about what they believe instead of blindly following an outdated, chauvinistic book.

How does it feel to be an oppressed majority?

[Lurker]

Well, you clearly have a religious bias, and I could care less as to what seems reasonable to you.
Hostility noted. Please continue...

If you want your hypothesis to be taken seriously, you have to do what Miller did, which is come up with a situation that shows it's possible for God to create life. That means objectively describing exactly what God is and what mechanisms he used to create life. It doesn't do to just say "it's possoble that a miracle happened" and think that's reasonable enough.
You mean come up with the evidence that science has failed to deliver? Science can theorize about what happened and I can't? Hmmm...

Scientists are still looking for answers as to how life started on Earth.
Hey, I just said that.

For Instance, they're looking on comets to see what kinds of molecules they carry that could have sprung to life in the early Earth. We won't know if this theory holds any water until they test for those molecules and see how they react under simulated natural conditions. That's science. Your ideas on religion are nice enough for you, if you somehow need to believe that crap to be a moral person, but understand they are worthless in an intelligent argument.
I'm all for science discovering what the truth is. I'm interested to hear what they find. Until then I have my theory.

Your biases are actually quite disgusting, not to mention robbed from mindless creationists.
And your bias is pure as snow, right? You have no proof to support your belief and somehow I'm the mindless one. *cough* *cough*

No, Miller did not prove how life was created, but he showed that it is physically possible for organic molecules to form from inorganic ones. We make a leap of logic to assume that it might be possible for self-replicating molecules (like the pions that cause mad-cow) to form by these natural processes, at which point evolution can describe their development. EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT NON-LIFE CAN SPRING INTO LIFE, IT DESCRIBES WHAT HAPPENED AFTERWARD. You say you agree, then continue to warp the concept.
At least you admit you have no proof.

If you want to make idiotic arguments based on corrupted science, go to your Hell.
What punishment do you recommend for your idiotic arguments?

You can argue all you want with the fundamentalists there. For now, back to the original discussion: you've shown well enough what kind of ignorance comes out of reading the Bible literally.
You might be a fundamentalist atheist if....in some small way I think you met all the requirements for 16, 17, 25, 27, 40, 41, 44 and 45 (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=465). Congratulations!! Membership has it's privileges so your official Fundy Atheist jacket, decoder ring and comic book will be mailed to you shortly.

[thomas]

Hi Thomas, I took the liberty of quoting one of your posts from a another topic, and I'd like to clarify some things with you first. From the post above, I take it that you believe in evolution. You also said before in another post that the tree in the Garden of Eden should be taken figuratively. Now I would like to know where you stand on these issues before I discuss it further with you, let's start with these three:

1. Do you believe in a literal account of god's creation of the universe?
2. Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
3. Do you believe in a literal Garden of Eden?

It's sometimes so difficult discussing things with you when you can just magically pull a rabbit out of your hat and say "nope, that's not meant to be taken literally..." :)
1. No. 2. No. 3. No.

And I'm not pulling rabbits out of hats, you're just jumping to conclusions about what I think without asking me first.

[thomas]

I'm a relatively main-stream, evangelical, protestant Christian. I don't find my views particularly unusual amongst the Christians I know.
Exactly.

I think more of a problem is that atheists set up a kind of cartoon christianity of their own inventing, in order to justify their lack of belief. Why they would need to do this, I don't know. But I observe it.
Yeah, the problem is definitely those damn ignorant atheists. I just can't see why they would feel a need to get religious people to think about what they believe instead of blindly following an outdated, chauvinistic book.

How does it feel to be an oppressed majority?
You having a bad week, WNS ? Do you have a point or does it just make you feel better to let off steam.

There is little more ignorant than somebody who isn't prepared to listen to somebody else's viewpoint with politeness, and to consider that they may indeed themselves be wrong.

[lee]

Hi Thomas, I took the liberty of quoting one of your posts from a another topic, and I'd like to clarify some things with you first. From the post above, I take it that you believe in evolution. You also said before in another post that the tree in the Garden of Eden should be taken figuratively. Now I would like to know where you stand on these issues before I discuss it further with you, let's start with these three:

1. Do you believe in a literal account of god's creation of the universe?
2. Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
3. Do you believe in a literal Garden of Eden?

It's sometimes so difficult discussing things with you when you can just magically pull a rabbit out of your hat and say "nope, that's not meant to be taken literally..." :)
1. No. 2. No. 3. No.

And I'm not pulling rabbits out of hats, you're just jumping to conclusions about what I think without asking me first.
Ok a few more questions...

1. You do believe that we are descended from apes? right? If I'm jumping to conclusions again please forgive me, but since you do believe in evolution...
2. What is the figurative signifance of the bible saying that man came first before animals?
3. What type of hominid does Adam and Eve represent? Lucy-the first Hominid to walk upright? or Homo sapiens itself? or some other hominid in between?
4. What does the tree of knowledge represent?

I'll save my other questions for later...

[thomas]

1. Your words are perfectly chosen. I do believe that man descended from apes. I say believe because I'm basing that opinion on the trusted authorities of science. I have not myself examined the evidence, I don't understand the mechanisms and I haven't evaluated the truth for myself whilst considering all the other possibilities.
2. None, it's irrelevant.
3. It's a strange question to ask. The answer is it matches the species of hominid that wrote the myth of course.
4. In my view it represents the opportunity for humans, created with free-will, to use that free-will to choose the bad and not the good.

Are you going somewhere with all these questions?

[whoneedscience]

Okay, I'll admit this is a subject that I'm more than a little touchy on. :D But I believe it is for good reason...

My original point was one of tolerance, thomas. I was trying to explain how there can be such a difference in opinion between theists and atheists, or more specifically theists and myself, as the vast majority of people I interact with on a daily basis, including most of my closest friends whom I have the utmost respect for, are theists. Those that care enough about their beliefs to vioce them in conversation (which is pretty much every time someone new discovers I'm an atheist) come up with arguments very similar to yours: arguments that, from a scientific perspective, are complete nonsense. I am used to being preached at by theists and will not sit politely by when they make what should be considered blatant errors in reasoning (please understand I do not refer to you specifically, if I did have such an issue with your perspective I would not live very long). My more recent point was that you clearly have an idea of your religion that you see as fairly normal, but are blinded to those that commit atrocities under the same name. This also applies to atheism, but it is not nearly the social or political problem that corrupted theism is.

At least you admit you have no proof.
The matter is not one of proving anything. Science isn't involved in proving things, but rather coming up with the best explanations that fit the evidence. Theories are developed from facts and are held as true when they can reasonably explain most of the observed phenomena. If you came to me with a proper theory that could explain biogenesis better than the existing ones, or experimental results that clearly contradict them, I would be willing to discuss them reasonably. Religion, on the other hand, has no legitimate explanations for scientific phenomena. The ideas put forth in the Bible are myths, plain and simple, and are as such the antithesis of scientific reasoning. Holding them as legitimate is foolish. Attempting to convince others of their legitimacy is intolerable, especially when you do so with an incomplete understanding of science. When you make claims such as "evolution is founded on the belief that non-life can spring into life via natural means", or "if life can come about naturally and unassisted then why can't life come about with assistance from god", you are, from my perspective, either making a fundamental, if understandible, mistake in reasoning, or you are intentionally warping scientific principles with the intent of corrupting the minds of others.

I may be jumping to conclusions on the latter, but it is something I see with many theists I know, and something that is a major problem in the US today, where most people know nothing of science and can be easily swayed into buying the rhetoric and agenda of the Religious Reich.

You may call me a fundamentalist if you like; I would say I meet plenty of your requirements. I also realize that by attacking you I may have lost any ability to change your mind, but I will not sit idly by while you make such errors.

For instance:

Science can theorize about what happened and I can't?
When it comes to changing the minds of others, no, you can't. Not if you don't know enough about Natural Selection to understand that it has nothing to do with biogenesis, even after you've been corrected. It's intellectually irresponsible. Almost as much as telling someone to go to hell.

[lee]

1. Ok.

2. Why is it irrelevant? I thought an allegory has to have a point.

Here's what you said in a previous post.

"Well, maybe the smartest being in existence has some complicated things to say that aren't easy for us to interpret and understand, and that do require allegory to convey. We are essentially relational beings and stories and parables do communicate with us in a profound way. Also, remember that this book has affected the lives of people over 2000 years all around the world, and been relevant to all of them. That's quite some achievement."

If the whole purpose of telling genesis in allegorical prose was to make it easier for us humans to understand how the universe and how man came to be, the bible failed miserably. It is evident that for the majority of it's 2000 years of it's existence, it's allegorical purpose has been lost on people, because people do take it literally.


3. What I'm trying to ask is if Adam represented an actual individual. You know, the first man.

4. So the whole story about the tree and fruit and the serpeant is nothing more than a myth?

A myth is a legend, right? it's not suppose to be true. So why put a non-truth into the very first chapter of the bible? Why put irrelevant bits of passages here and there? And if the first chapter of the bible is not true, then the possibility that the other chapters aren't true also exists.

[Another brick in the wall]

If one can easily find several misleading, contradictory, or inaccurate statements in the bible, why believe any of it?

[Lurker]

Okay, I'll admit this is a subject that I'm more than a little touchy on. :D But I believe it is for good reason...
Apology accepted.

[thomas]

1. Ok.
So do you also believe in evolution on the same basis as I do. Is my basis a valid means of deriving knowledge in your opinion ?

2. Why is it irrelevant? I thought an allegory has to have a point.

Here's what you said in a previous post.

"Well, maybe the smartest being in existence has some complicated things to say that aren't easy for us to interpret and understand, and that do require allegory to convey. We are essentially relational beings and stories and parables do communicate with us in a profound way. Also, remember that this book has affected the lives of people over 2000 years all around the world, and been relevant to all of them. That's quite some achievement."

If the whole purpose of telling genesis in allegorical prose was to make it easier for us humans to understand how the universe and how man came to be, the bible failed miserably. It is evident that for the majority of it's 2000 years of it's existence, it's allegorical purpose has been lost on people, because people do take it literally.
An allegory does have a point but that doesn't mean that every small detail of the myth has to have a meaning. Some points can just be meaningless colour for the story. I think the order of creation in the Bible is meaningless colour. The important aspect is the creative act of God for all the universe.

Regardless of the fact of people taking the story literally, that has no impact on its value as allegory. If I assume an allegory is fact does that have any impact on the value of an allegory ? I don't think so.

3. What I'm trying to ask is if Adam represented an actual individual. You know, the first man.
I think not.

4. So the whole story about the tree and fruit and the serpeant is nothing more than a myth?

A myth is a legend, right? it's not suppose to be true. So why put a non-truth into the very first chapter of the bible? Why put irrelevant bits of passages here and there? And if the first chapter of the bible is not true, then the possibility that the other chapters aren't true also exists.
It's not a non-truth. Things that aren't literally true can still express a truth. It's not irrelevant when taken as a whole, although individual details may be irrelevant.

[lee]

1. Correct me if I'm wrong, your basis of of deriving knowledege is based on a trusted authority, without examining the evidence and actual mechanism behind it? Here's my basis for believing in evolution. I do believe that man descended from apes. I'm basing that opinion on the trusted authorities of science. But I have also examined the evidence and mechanisms behind it by reading a bit on the subject which have left me to conclude that evolution is true.

2. A few more questions first, some unamed person wrote the gensis, right? In your opinion, how exactly did god influence this person in writing genesis? I need a very specific answer if you please. Example: "God appeared in front of this person and dictated exactly what he needed to write."

3. Ok, just clearing up some wrong assumptions of mine. :)

4. Although it's not meant to be taken literally, every allegory has some very important points that represent something in real life, that's what makes fables and parables so effective at teaching moral values.

Case in point, the fable about the ant and the grasshopper, of course the grasshopper didn't play fiddle all day while the ant worked his shirt off, it's not meant to be taken literally, BUT the they represent something that is integral to the story. It can be broken down into these important points, the ant, the grasshopper, the ant's food, and the rainy season. each of them represents something in real life. the ant = hardworking people, the grasshopper = lazy people, the food = benefits of hardwork, and rain = hard times.

We now take a look at the bible, Adam and Eve = humans, god = god, serpeant = satan, tree of knowledge = free will (according to your interpretation), so if we follow the story correctly, God forbade us humans to have free will? and free will was given to us humans by satan????

[The Judge]

It's not a non-truth. Things that aren't literally true can still express a truth. It's not irrelevant when taken as a whole, although individual details may be irrelevant.
The danger is that such "half-truths" or fantasies are interpreted literally by weak-minded fools. This goes for all the other myths in the bible.

[thomas]

1. Correct me if I'm wrong, your basis of of deriving knowledege is based on a trusted authority, without examining the evidence and actual mechanism behind it? Here's my basis for believing in evolution. I do believe that man descended from apes. I'm basing that opinion on the trusted authorities of science. But I have also examined the evidence and mechanisms behind it by reading a bit on the subject which have left me to conclude that evolution is true.
Yes, we pretty much agree on how people practically arrive at belief in complex subjects. Your criteria for assenting to evolution are much the same as my criteria for assenting to Christianity.

2. A few more questions first, some unamed person wrote the gensis, right? In your opinion, how exactly did god influence this person in writing genesis? I need a very specific answer if you please. Example: "God appeared in front of this person and dictated exactly what he needed to write."
I think the process is complex, not simple. But basically I believe that God revealed Himself through several different events, that were understood by the community of Isreal, probably initially in oral traditions and eventually written down. I think it's a mixture of God's direct revelation and based on that revelation an application of God's character to create myths.

4. Although it's not meant to be taken literally, every allegory has some very important points that represent something in real life, that's what makes fables and parables so effective at teaching moral values.

Case in point, the fable about the ant and the grasshopper, of course the grasshopper didn't play fiddle all day while the ant worked his shirt off, it's not meant to be taken literally, BUT the they represent something that is integral to the story. It can be broken down into these important points, the ant, the grasshopper, the ant's food, and the rainy season. each of them represents something in real life. the ant = hardworking people, the grasshopper = lazy people, the food = benefits of hardwork, and rain = hard times.

We now take a look at the bible, Adam and Eve = humans, god = god, serpeant = satan, tree of knowledge = free will (according to your interpretation), so if we follow the story correctly, God forbade us humans to have free will? and free will was given to us humans by satan????
On the tree I'd say that the tree doesn't represent free-will, it represents the fact that God gave us both the opportunity to disobey Him ( the tree ) and the means to disobey Him ( the will of humans ).

[lee]

2. What I'm driving at is this, god knew as well as you and I know that the sequence of events in genesis was wrong, and yet he allowed it to be written down on this book on which rests the whole basis of christian belief?

3. But in the story there was the point of forbidding to take the fruit, forbidding us and giving us the opportunity to choose between obeying and disobeying are two entirely different matters.

[Lurker]

2. What I'm driving at is this, god knew as well as you and I know that the sequence of events in genesis was wrong, and yet he allowed it to be written down on this book on which rests the whole basis of christian belief?
I disagree. The way I read it, the creation sequence matches current scientific thinking.

[Another brick in the wall]

Yes except, for that fact that god creates plants before creating the sun. Apparently, god wasn't aware that plants need light to survive.

[Lurker]

Yes except, for that fact that god creates plants before creating the sun. Apparently, god wasn't aware that plants need light to survive.
If that's the way you read it then I can understand your comment, however I think it's pretty clear that the universe was created on day one which would include stars, galaxies, sun, earth, etc - the whole enchilada.

[Another brick in the wall]

No, on day one, god creates day and night. God doesn't make the sun (or any other stars) until day four. See Gen. 1:16. How could there be day and night without the sun?

[Lurker]

No, on day one, god creates day and night. God doesn't make the sun (or any other stars) until day four. See Gen. 1:16. How could there be day and night without the sun?
I've been over this before, but I'll do it again briefly. Day 4 doesn't say anything about creating a sun/light, instead it describes a revealing of light that was already there. We have the phrase "let there be light", which was also said on Day 1 so it's clear that light was already there on Day 1.

The phrase on Day 4 that people refer to is a statement that refers back to what was done on Day 1. Here it is - "God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night;". To say that Day 1 had no sun is to ignore the statement "let there be light" in verse 3.

[Another brick in the wall]

How could there be light on day 1 if there was no sun or stars (light doesn't come from nowhere)? If the sun and stars were already there, why were they mentioned a second time on day 4? Incidentally, the bible states quite clearly that god made a greater light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night on day 4.

[Lurker]

How could there be light on day 1 if there was no sun or stars (light doesn't come from nowhere)? If the sun and stars were already there, why were they mentioned a second time on day 4? Incidentally, the bible states quite clearly that god made a greater light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night on day 4.
I'll say it again... Verse 1 is the creation of the stars/sun/earth/etc. Verse 3 is taken from the perspective of the earth's surface. How do I know this? Because verse 2 talks about the spirit hovering over the surface of the earth. The earth is covered by clouds/darkness so the statement "let there be light" refers to light starting to appear on earth's surface (our vantage point) as the clouds start to part. Verse 14 is also taken from the perspetive of the earth's surface and speaks of the first time the 'lights' in the sky could be seen from the surface. It seems more/all the clouds have departed from covering the earth now. Verses 15/16 are kind of a recap of all that has gone on. There's no more "let there be" statements in these verses so nothing new is happening. To say the sun was created in verse 16 is to ignore the light that already exists in verse 3. It's obvious that the sun existed on Day 1.

[Another brick in the wall]

Verse 15 says "let there be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth," so the way it's written makes it sound like a separate event. Anyway, there is no dome of the sky, so that's another mistake.

[lee]

Lurker, I had already established that Thomas believes in evolution. That was why I was questioning him why the bible states that man came first before animals. I know nothing about your stand on this matter, so to avoid any wrong assumptions on my part, I have to ask first, do you believe in evolution and do you believe that man was descended from apes?

[Lurker]

Verse 15 says "let there be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth," so the way it's written makes it sound like a separate event. Anyway, there is no dome of the sky, so that's another mistake.
Are you serious? You really think a dome is a dome just like The Superdome and maybe not a word for... well I'll let you guess? The word is used elsewhere and god called it... what? (Hint: it rhymes with "fly") Go back a few verses.

As to verse 15, all other times something was created it says "god created" or "god made". Look at verses 24-25. First we have "god said" and then in verse 25 we have "god made" yet they are speaking of the same thing - creation of living creatures, etc. Did he create them twice or is verse 25 restating verse 24? Same with verses 26-27.

[Another brick in the wall]

I realize the sky looks like a dome, but the bible says that stars are points of light attached to the sky, and that the sky is a hollow dome above the earth. Ancient people believed that the earth was stationary and it's not surprising the bible portrays it as such. Verse 7 says that god use the dome to separate the water from below it from the water above it. Ancient people believed that rain was caused when the doors in the sky were opened to let rain fall down, so again, this is not surprising. Regardless, there is no dome of the sky. There is no layer of water hovering above the earth.

[Lurker]

Regardless, there is no dome of the sky. There is no layer of water hovering above the earth.
The dome is the sky/atmosphere/expanse/heavens, whatever you want to call it. Science says early earth was darkened/covered by water vapor clouds so YES there was a layer of water "hovering above" the earth. As the water condensed the "expanse separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse" (verse 7).

[Another brick in the wall]

And I'm telling you that the bible states that the sky is an actual physical object, not just an optical illusion or an expanse. At one point, yes, the earth was clouded over. But the earth was also once covered in ice. Where is that in the bible? Stars are not in the atmosphere, so the firmament and the atmosphere are not the same thing.

[lee]

Lurker, just in case you missed my question. Please check out post #83

[Lurker]

Lurker, I had already established that Thomas believes in evolution. That was why I was questioning him why the bible states that man came first before animals. I know nothing about your stand on this matter, so to avoid any wrong assumptions on my part, I have to ask first, do you believe in evolution and do you believe that man was descended from apes?
Where does it say man came before animals?

I also believe in evolution because science has prove it to be true. It's probably not the same view of evolution that you have though. I do not believe modern man (homo sapiens sapiens) decended from apes or other animals. I think earlier hominids are too different than modern man. I think the earlier hominids were more animal than human. Tying this in with the creation account, I think both earlier hominids and modern humans were created during the same "day 6" period. I'm not a young-earther so that "day" would be a long period of time with land animals created first then modern humans later. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this subject, but that's what I think right now.

[WITHTEETH]

LURKER, why do you think its not possible that homo sapien sapien dencended from a simpler a simpler organism?

[lee]

2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

But to be fair, the bible also says this:

1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So irregardless of what you believe in, wether man or animal came first, THE BIBLE HAS A PASSAGE SAYING THAT YOU ARE WRONG!!! Which leads me to my original question to Thomas, why did god allow that to happen in his bible? How exactly did god influence the author of the genesis?

BTW, by saying that they were all created in that "day 6" period. I feel that you are implying that they were all created at the same time. But it doesn't make sense because you said that the sixth day is in fact a loooooong period of time.... so which is which? You can't have it both ways. You're beginning to contradict yourself, just like the bible.

[Tenspace]

Lurker, I had already established that Thomas believes in evolution. That was why I was questioning him why the bible states that man came first before animals. I know nothing about your stand on this matter, so to avoid any wrong assumptions on my part, I have to ask first, do you believe in evolution and do you believe that man was descended from apes?
Where does it say man came before animals?

I also believe in evolution because science has prove it to be true. It's probably not the same view of evolution that you have though. I do not believe modern man (homo sapiens sapiens) decended from apes or other animals. I think earlier hominids are too different than modern man. I think the earlier hominids were more animal than human. Tying this in with the creation account, I think both earlier hominids and modern humans were created during the same "day 6" period. I'm not a young-earther so that "day" would be a long period of time with land animals created first then modern humans later. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this subject, but that's what I think right now.
Since earliest hominids are less human, and more recent hominids are more human, wouldn't that enforce the theory that man's current form is explained by primate evolution?

Tenspace

[Lurker]

So irregardless of what you believe in, wether man or animal came first, THE BIBLE HAS A PASSAGE SAYING THAT YOU ARE WRONG!!! Which leads me to my original question to Thomas, why did god allow that to happen in his bible? How exactly did god influence the author of the genesis?

BTW, by saying that they were all created in that "day 6" period. I feel that you are implying that they were all created at the same time. But it doesn't make sense because you said that the sixth day is in fact a loooooong period of time.... so which is which? You can't have it both ways. You're beginning to contradict yourself, just like the bible.
Don't be so quick to shoot yourself in the foot. The genesis 2 account is clearly a restatement of the genesis 1 account, unless of course you're naive enough to think god created everything twice.

As I said to Another Brick, in genesis 1:24-25 we have "god said" and then in verse 25 we have "god made" yet they are speaking of the same thing - creation of living creatures, etc. Did he create them twice or is verse 25 restating verse 24? Same with verses 26-27. The bible does this all the time. It says something and then it says it again a different way. It's the literary style of the time. The bible isn't a textbook nor is it a step-by-step instruction manual. You guys don't seem to grasp this point.

As to "days", I reject the 24-hour meaning and side with those that say it implies "a period of time". There are other times in the bible when day is a long period of time. These creatures obviously didn't appear at the same time. Science says otherwise. Lets say day 6 was 10 million earth years (I made that up). Why can't land animals be created near the beginning period and modern man near the end? Why can't the creation event for day 6 take place over the entire 10 million years?

[Lurker]

Since earliest hominids are less human, and more recent hominids are more human, wouldn't that enforce the theory that man's current form is explained by primate evolution?
I'm out of my league here so don't kick me too hard if I say something stupid. :)

I've read where Y chromosome and mDNA variation studies suggest that modern humans can be traced back to under a hundred thousand years. Not to a group of other hominids, but to a single source. It's not conclusive so I'm not saying "case closed". There's much more studying to be done.

Also, homo sapiens idaltu is reported to be quite a bit different than modern humans and the age is under 200,000 years so it looks like it is not a link to modern humans (not enough time). There are other reasons but I'll take this one step at a time.

[Tenspace]

Since earliest hominids are less human, and more recent hominids are more human, wouldn't that enforce the theory that man's current form is explained by primate evolution?
I'm out of my league here so don't kick me too hard if I say something stupid. :)

I've read where Y chromosome and mDNA variation studies suggest that modern humans can be traced back to under a hundred thousand years. Not to a group of other hominids, but to a single source. It's not conclusive so I'm not saying "case closed". There's much more studying to be done.

Also, homo sapiens idaltu is reported to be quite a bit different than modern humans and the age is under 200,000 years so it looks like it is not a link to modern humans (not enough time). There are other reasons but I'll take this one step at a time.
Homo Sapiens sapiens is the only hominid branch to survive. There were other parallel branches that evolved, so I have no doubt that there are other homos out there which are different from H. sapiens. Similar to the fact that eyes evolved about forty different times. Oh, and Neandertals were around about fifty thousand years ago, so it looks like they too are part of a lineage which is now extinct.

I think what you're referring to regarding the chromosome studies is the "bottleneck mother". Because all of humanity's ancestry can be traced to a single (actually, a population's) genotype, does not mean it was the starting point for homo sapien's evolution. Other populations can (and did) die out. Our evolutionary heritage is rife with dried-up gene pools.

Read up on convergent evolution, and evolutionary bottlenecks for more info. Wikipedia or talkorigins would be a good start.

Tenspace

[whoneedscience]

As to "days", I reject the 24-hour meaning and side with those that say it implies "a period of time". There are other times in the bible when day is a long period of time. These creatures obviously didn't appear at the same time. Science says otherwise. Lets say day 6 was 10 million earth years (I made that up). Why can't land animals be created near the beginning period and modern man near the end? Why can't the creation event for day 6 take place over the entire 10 million years?
It's not quite as simple as you might be implying. Cosmology and Biology's current timescale puts the origin of the universe at about 10 billion years ago, the development of the earliest life at about 4.5 billion and homonids within about a million years ago. That means no matter how you interpret "day" it has to be a significantly variable length, not a constant. This isn't a huge problem, but you do have such a loose definition that it destroys any real legitimacy.

You probably have a pretty good idea of this, and I'm not attacking your position here (;)), but it seems to me that if this concept can be interpreted so liberally, why not throw it all out? If you have science to tell you all these things legitimately, why bother at all with the mythology of the Bible and concentrate your attention on the things that are harder to quantify, like the moral message of the New Testament. You may have to accept that the Bible is not the divine word, and was instead invented by a bunch of power-hungry assclowns, but why should that matter? The moral message of love still makes a lot of sense at least as a base for moral development, especially if you consider that it has been the primary basis for a very successful, if evil-prone society.

The point I think many of us are trying to make is that there is really no difference at all between the Old Testament and the mythologies of other civilizations, like the epic of Gilgamesh or the Greco-Roman Olympians. If you want to see a difference in the message of the New Testament, that's fine, just understand that the book as a whole is not divine, and is nothing to be followed religiously.

[lee]

Don't be so quick to shoot yourself in the foot. The genesis 2 account is clearly a restatement of the genesis 1 account, unless of course you're naive enough to think god created everything twice.
You should take your own advice. See below pls...

As I said to Another Brick, in genesis 1:24-25 we have "god said" and then in verse 25 we have "god made" yet they are speaking of the same thing - creation of living creatures, etc. Did he create them twice or is verse 25 restating verse 24? Same with verses 26-27. The bible does this all the time. It says something and then it says it again a different way. It's the literary style of the time. The bible isn't a textbook nor is it a step-by-step instruction manual. You guys don't seem to grasp this point.
I've posted the two creation accounts and put into bold type the more relevant parts, even a child could tell that this is no mere restatement.

1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So in the first account, animals first then man, please note, male and female created at the same time.

Here's the alleged "restatement".

2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

God made man but no women yet. What follows is a few verses describing the garden of eden and it's location, which I cut out to shorten the post.

2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

God created animals because man needed a companion, but none of animals was suitable for man. Remember, there were still no female humans yet...

2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

I rest my case?

As to "days", I reject the 24-hour meaning and side with those that say it implies "a period of time". There are other times in the bible when day is a long period of time. These creatures obviously didn't appear at the same time. Science says otherwise. Lets say day 6 was 10 million earth years (I made that up). Why can't land animals be created near the beginning period and modern man near the end? Why can't the creation event for day 6 take place over the entire 10 million years?
My mistake, I thought that you were implying that since they were created in the same day, the order of creation within that day was irrelevant.

[Lurker]

I've posted the two creation accounts and put into bold type the more relevant parts, even a child could tell that this is no mere restatement.
What can I say? To say that the second account is "no mere restatement" means you're one of the few who think the bible teaches god created everything twice. Now I understand why the rest of the book is confusing to you. It's because you're trying so hard to make it confusing. Maybe you should take a lesson from a former atheist (http://www.ex-atheist.com/from-skepticism-to-worship.html) and read the bible as you would poetry or fiction. Maybe it will work for you too.

Here's a quote from the website that I liked...

"I found that my mind could logically accept two very different interpretations of almost everything I was reading. One interpretation of any verse or passage would render the whole story as nonsensical. But the other interpretation allowed the whole story to make sense. If my mind was capable of accepting interpretations that allowed the whole book to make sense, then what was it in me that wanted it not to make sense?"

[Another brick in the wall]

You admit the the bible is written like fiction . . . interesting.

[Another brick in the wall]

The bible has many, many other confusing and contradictory passages. Here's another contradiction: What were Jesus's last words?

My god, my god, why have you forsaken me? (Why would the son of god say this?)

Into you hands, I commend my spirit.

It is finished.

Explain why Christ's disciples were unable to agree as to what their glorious leader's last words were. After that, explain why the gospels give different times for the crucifiction and why all the Easter stories don't agree.

[Lurker]

You admit the the bible is written like fiction . . . interesting.
More contextual problems I see. I said it worked for the former atheist and offered it up as a suggestion. It's worth trying, especially if it can help ease that tunnel vision problem.

[Another brick in the wall]

I've met former christians who had epiphanies while reading the bible as they would read Greek mythology. Maybe that will cure your tunnel vision.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Hey, Alice in Wonderland makes perfect sense, even though it pretty much doesn't. The fact that I can follow the thread of the story doesn't mean I would accept that there is literally a place called Wonderland out there somewhere.

Me, I have trouble with the theological implications of the bible's contradictions: Why the heck did god decide to make his book so contradictory?

I mean, ambiguity is fine in fiction, but if the bible is true, and is our road to salvation, then it is essentially a practical book, like a toaster repair manual. I mean, if any instruction manual had to sets of instructions, and the steps were a different order in each one, it wouldn't be very good.

Looked at as literature, these contradictions are fascinating, but in practical terms they only serve to confuse those of us who seek god. So shame on god, I say.

[lee]

What can I say? To say that the second account is "no mere restatement" means you're one of the few who think the bible teaches god created everything twice.
The reason I said that the second account is no mere restatement is because you insist that it is, I just showed you why it isn't. It also doesn't mean that I believe that god created every thing twice. To me , it only means that there is a direct contradiction in the supposedly divine word of god.

Now I understand why the rest of the book is confusing to you. It's because you're trying so hard to make it confusing.
The book is confusing to me because IT IS CONFUSING!

Obviously, our views of the bible are biased, your a christian and I'm an atheist. What we need now is an impartial jury. So let's pretend that there is this aboriginal tribe hidden deep in the amazon untouched by modern civilization, they have no preconceived notions of christianity nor of evolution, then along comes a christian missionary preaching to them about the glory of god, the missionary then gives them what he claims to be the divine word of god, he gives the tribe a bible to read.

After reading the bible, two members of the tribe get into an argument over which came first, man or animals, they both claim it was written in the bible like so, to settle the dispute, the chief examines the evidence in the bible and to his surprise, finds out that they are both right and wrong at the same time. He then concludes that using the bible solely as the basis of confirming which came first is impossible, therefore that part of the bible is flawed.

The point is, the reason why I'm so nitpicky about the bible is because it claims to be the divine word of god. If it was advertised as a collection of actual and mythical stories of people who believed in god, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion now.

[Crackerus Dadderus]

lee

You are definitely more patient than I am. He's reading your posts the same as he reads the bible - interpreting them however he wants to. Who needs a silly thing like reason when you can pick and choose how to look at everything?

I am getting smarter by the sentence following your replies though.

[lee]

Lurker. from your posts above, I assume that you admit that the first and second accounts are in direct contradiction to each other. I also assume that you admit that some passages can be interpreted in such a way as to cause the whole story to be non-sensical. So a few questions please...

1. How exactly did god influence the author or authors of the genesis? specific answers only please, ex. God appeared in front of him and told him what to write.

2. Why did god allow his holy book to contain passages that are in direct contradiction to each other and can be interpreted in such a way as to cause the whole story to be nonsensical?

[Lurker]

1. How exactly did god influence the author or authors of the genesis? specific answers only please, ex. God appeared in front of him and told him what to write.
I don't know exactly. I don't think anyone knows.

2. Why did god allow his holy book to contain passages that are in direct contradiction to each other and can be interpreted in such a way as to cause the whole story to be nonsensical?
I don't buy into your contradiction argument at all.

As you say above, a passage can be interpreted in such a way as to be nonsensical, but it can also be interpreted in such a way as to make complete sense. Now which one do you think is the better choice? You're choosing to focus on the nonsensical interpretation and then you're asking me to make sense out of it. It can't be done so stop asking me to do it.

[WITHTEETH]

Why would god condemn man, if he is Omnipotnent, aominipresent, all knowing, HE MUST have known adam was going to eat the fruit. Unless he is not the sharpest god in the toolshed, and made a miscalculation. Why did god choose to condemn man when he knew it was coming, why did he set the situation up?

[Lurker]

The point is, the reason why I'm so nitpicky about the bible is because it claims to be the divine word of god. If it was advertised as a collection of actual and mythical stories of people who believed in god, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion now.
First, "the divine word of god" does not mean god penned the words himself. The bible claims to be god inspired, which means god inspired/influenced/guided everyday people as they wrote their story. And that means personal writing styles, etc enter into the text.

It's "advertised" as the word of god because that's what the text inside claims. Let the reader be the judge. There was no bible in the first century, these documents were simple letters/writings recording the events that happened. The writer of genesis (Moses?) seems to have the writing style where he describes an event and then does it again using different words. Suppose I penned the following:

"Today I drove 10 miles to work and went to Wendy's for lunch with Bob and some friends. Carrie decided not to go with us and drove away before we all left that day. Bob ordered a cheeseburger, but I decided to avoid the meat and went for a salad. I got food poisoning and had to leave work early.

A little later I write this...

And so I went to lunch at Wendy's on Thursday with Jill and many friends. I had a salad with ranch dressing and a large Coke. It was a long drive to work that day. I was plenty hungry but decided a salad was best. Carrie shared half her chicken sandwich with me. It tasted great."

Did I contradict myself?
1) I ate part of a chicken sandwich and also said I decided to avoid meat.
2) I went to lunch with Jill and friends and also said I went with Bob and friends.
3) Carrie decided not to go with us, but she shared her sandwich with me.
4) I drove 10 miles to work and also said it was a long drive to work that day.
5) I went to lunch first and then drove to work, whereas I reversed the order in the prior statement.
6) I said the food tasted great and also said it made me sick.

[lee]

First, "the divine word of god" does not mean god penned the words himself. The bible claims to be god inspired, which means god inspired/influenced/guided everyday people as they wrote their story. And that means personal writing styles, etc enter into the text.
"...guided everyday people..." Suppose let's say back in the time when genesis was being written, it was late at night, and the author was sleepy, and instead of writing down "serpeant" he wrote "god" instead. This being an obvious error, I would like to know how god guided this author to correct his work, did the holy spirit enter him? did god materialize in front of him? did god appear in his dreams?

It's "advertised" as the word of god because that's what the text inside claims. Let the reader be the judge. There was no bible in the first century, these documents were simple letters/writings recording the events that happened. The writer of genesis (Moses?) seems to have the writing style where he describes an event and then does it again using different words. Suppose I penned the following:
Mmmmm, I'm not quite knowledgeable about biblical literary styles, can you please show me some more examples of this style?


"Today I drove 10 miles to work and went to Wendy's for lunch with Bob and some friends. Carrie decided not to go with us and drove away before we all left that day. Bob ordered a cheeseburger, but I decided to avoid the meat and went for a salad. I got food poisoning and had to leave work early.

A little later I write this...

And so I went to lunch at Wendy's on Thursday with Jill and many friends. I had a salad with ranch dressing and a large Coke. It was a long drive to work that day. I was plenty hungry but decided a salad was best. Carrie shared half her chicken sandwich with me. It tasted great."

Did I contradict myself?
1) I ate part of a chicken sandwich and also said I decided to avoid meat.
2) I went to lunch with Jill and friends and also said I went with Bob and friends.
3) Carrie decided not to go with us, but she shared her sandwich with me.
4) I drove 10 miles to work and also said it was a long drive to work that day.
5) I went to lunch first and then drove to work, whereas I reversed the order in the prior statement.
6) I said the food tasted great and also said it made me sick.
:lol: Ingenious! I'll grant you that, but not quite...

First of all, the accounts in genesis had verse numbers in it, the most obvious implication of which is that it came it happened in order one after the other, your account is not numbered and that gives you a loophole to claim that this happened the other way round.

But that still doesn't change the fact if you showed me this two wildly varying accounts of your day, and claim that they were both true. My first impression would be that you need psychiatric help. And if you then proceed to explain to me why they are both true as you just did in the above post, I would then come to the conclusion that my first impression of you was justified after all.

Come on!!!! Who writes like this??? The basic function of writing is to impart knowledge to others, the simpler and more direct, the better. The way you did it implies that 1. Your thinking processes are all messed up, or 2. you were deliberately making it confusing to the readers.

Here's my opinion on why genesis had 2 different accounts of creation, the bible to me is a collection of stories from the past, some of which are true, some of which are not, whoever compiled the bible, must have felt the need to include both versions, because they both had the central theme of creationism by god.

[Lurker]

First of all, the accounts in genesis had verse numbers in it, the most obvious implication of which is that it came it happened in order one after the other, your account is not numbered and that gives you a loophole to claim that this happened the other way round.
If you think verse numbers add meaning then I'll add some to my story.

"1. Today I drove 10 miles to work and went to Wendy's for lunch with Bob and some friends. 2. Carrie decided not to go with us and drove away before we all left that day. 3. Bob ordered a cheeseburger, but I decided to avoid the meat and went for a salad. 4. I got food poisoning and had to leave work early."

A little later I write this...

"15. And so I went to lunch at Wendy's on Thursday with Jill and many friends. 16. I had a salad with ranch dressing and a large Coke. 17. It was a long drive to work that day. 18. I was plenty hungry but decided a salad was best. 19. Carrie shared half her chicken sandwich with me. It tasted great."

Come on!!!! Who writes like this??? The basic function of writing is to impart knowledge to others, the simpler and more direct, the better. The way you did it implies that 1. Your thinking processes are all messed up, or 2. you were deliberately making it confusing to the readers.
Ancient near east people write like this - not exactly, but you get the idea. Old English people wrote in old english and 2000 year old jews wrote like... well... 2000 year old jews. I'm sorry they didn't write it down in modern english as influenced by your culture and traditions so you could read it like the morning paper.

The bottom line is my made-up story does not contradict itself. If you read it one way it will seem nonsensical, but if you read it another way it makes sense. Sound familiar? Are you going to choose the nonsensical way again?

Here's my opinion on why genesis had 2 different accounts of creation, the bible to me is a collection of stories from the past, some of which are true, some of which are not, whoever compiled the bible, must have felt the need to include both versions, because they both had the central theme of creationism by god.
People 2000 years ago thought the universe/earth were eternal. Come to think of it, atheists also thought the universe was eternal up until the BB theory started gaining ground.

[lee]

The problem with your example is that you know what actually happened, it was after all a recollection of the events of YOUR day. You can say for certain that this happened before that and any other interpretation is wrong.

But this isn't the case with the bible, right? Your siding with the first account because you believe in evolution, a fundamentalist on the other hand would side with the 2nd account, each of you would claim that all other interpretations are nonsense.

Now this is the important part, because you seem to have missed this previously, the keyword here is "solely", if both of you were to use the bible solely as the basis of finding out which of one of you is correct, you can't! Because the bible is written in such a way that multiple interpretations are possible.

Assuming that there is no contradiction in genesis, assuming that it was a restatement, assuming that the author had a uniquely confusing style of writing, it still doesn't change the fact that many passages lead to different interpretations.

Over the course of the bible's 2,000 years of existence, these multiple interpretations have thus far lead to multiple variations of the christian religion, each one proclaiming to be the true word of god and yet all their doctrines are based on the same bible. In effect, the bible's ability to be interpreted in different ways has given rise to the breaking up of the christian community.

God being all-knowing must have known that this would happen, so my question is why did god allowed the bible's authors to write it so ambiguously? God being the creator of everything could at the very least appear in the dreams of the author and say: This is GOD speaking! Would you erase that 2nd account please??? 2,000 years from now, it's going to cause a debate at the ravingatheist forums and it might influence some people to believe that atheism is right.

[HeWhoAsks]

Suppose I penned the following:

"Today I drove 10 miles to work and went to Wendy's for lunch with Bob and some friends. Carrie decided not to go with us and drove away before we all left that day. Bob ordered a cheeseburger, but I decided to avoid the meat and went for a salad. I got food poisoning and had to leave work early.

A little later I write this...

And so I went to lunch at Wendy's on Thursday with Jill and many friends. I had a salad with ranch dressing and a large Coke. It was a long drive to work that day. I was plenty hungry but decided a salad was best. Carrie shared half her chicken sandwich with me. It tasted great."

Did I contradict myself?
Lurker's account is not contradictory like the bible is. Lurker's first account offers some details, and the other account offers other details that don't contradict the first account's details. But that's not what happens in the bible. The two genesis accounts *do* contradict each other, on their face, in terms of the order of the creation of man and animals.

[Lurker]

But that's not what happens in the bible. The two genesis accounts *do* contradict each other, on their face, in terms of the order of the creation of man and animals.
Reference the specific verses and we'll go over them.

[CFett]

Why would god condemn man, if he is Omnipotnent, aominipresent, all knowing, HE MUST have known adam was going to eat the fruit. Unless he is not the sharpest god in the toolshed, and made a miscalculation. Why did god choose to condemn man when he knew it was coming, why did he set the situation up?
Wait for it....Because he loves us!
He