Board index ‹ God

[jimwalton]

> We don't know for certain that our understanding of gravity, for example is exactly correct. That does not mean, however, that the idea of Adam and Eve is tenable. It's not.

The idea of Adam and Eve is not tenable only if you are clinging to traditional and inadequate ways of perceiving Adam and Eve. So try not to jump to conclusions and make your mind up before gathering all the data. The Bible doesn't insist that Adam and Eve were the first, or even the only, hominids on the planet, but only those that God took from wherever they were and put in the garden (Gn. 2.8). It's very possible that these two were selected out from among to fulfill a particular function that God had in mind. That's not so untenable.

> Concordant with science

Maybe instead of continuing to go around in circles about science, let's talk specifics. What is it about the Bible's portrayal of science or some phenomenon on the earth that has ants in your pants? Specifics will yield a more productive conversation than mush contrived through generalities.

> Your whole religion fundamentally depends on this idea of Adam and Eve having really been the first two humans and the snake having really appeared to them and all of the stuff in that story being literally true, doesn't it?

No, that's the traditional take, but I don't take them that way. Adam and Eve weren't the first two humans, but were selected out from among the hominids at the time to represent the whole human race. It's very possible that as humans evolved to the point of being morally culpable and spiritually capable, that God chose them out to reveal Himself to them so they could be his priest and priestess to the rest (the language of Gen. 2.15 is priestly, not agricultural). As representatives of the human race they were disobedient, and so all of humanity was known to be incapable of a relationship with God unless God initiated all the dynamics of the relationship. We can talk about this theology more at length, but the Genesis account of chapter 2 I take to be an account of functionality, not of material origin. We can talk further.

As to the snake, first off, it may not have been a literal snake. The Hebrew word for serpent is nahash, which is indeed the common word for snake, but it also possibly means "able to stand upright." There are all kinds of verbal possibilities here. For instance, nahash is the same root as nehoset, which means "bronze". We see that the shiny, upright snake in Number 21.9 is the same root: it was a literal thing, but a spiritual symbol. "Snake" could also be a word play, because the Hebrew word for "deceive" is very close to it, and is the same root as for magic and divination. Snakes in the ancient world were very much associated with spiritual powers, magic, and cultic rituals. So maybe that's why it was a snake and not another animal.

Back to Genesis now. So what if this "thing" (the nahash) was a spiritual power, represented to the woman as a bright creature, speaking "spiritual wisdom", and yet was deceiving her—all of these can be expressed by the word for snake? Just a little bit of research could change the whole picture. Bible scholars are still working on this text. New archaeological data, as I have just explained, are motivating them to rethink what we thought we knew. So maybe that's why there was a snake in the first place—it was actually a spiritual power (same word group).

So maybe, as I said, this wasn't a snake at all (though logically that is the word used by their culture). Maybe it was a deceiviant (my own coined word. You like it?) upright spiritual being. That may have been why Adam & Eve didn't think it was weird to converse with it. After all, who would talk to a snake? The nahash distorted God's words, deceived them both, and was cursed by God for what he did. And, by the way, nahashim are often the object of curses in the ancient world, and the curse of Genesis 3.14 follows somewhat predictable patterns, conforming to the culture's expressions and forms. The word curse ('aror) also means "banned," so what was happening was that this spiritual being was being thrown out of the garden, so to speak, removed from God's presence (banned), and that was his curse. Maybe that's why God punished the spiritual being. It distorted God's words, deceived them both, and motivated them to rebel against God. You'll notice in the text that the serpent was cursed, but not the man or the woman. There were consequences for what they had done, but only the serpent and the ground were cursed.

In other words, you may be basing your critique of a foundation of sand. It's quite possible, with some thought and research, that the cornerstone upon which the entire Bible is based in more solid and not as scientifically ludicrous as you are assuming. Maybe, when it comes right down to it, the text isn't scientific at all, but theological. But there's nothing wrong with the science either, because there really isn't science in this text.

[TrakeM]

Apparently, the bible says nothing that we can't say it didn't say. Did it say there was a snake? Did it say Adam and Eve were the first two humans? Did it say god formed man from clay and breathed life in to him? Did it say woman was made from man's rib. Did it say the existence of thorns was due to the sin of adam and eve? Apparently, who knows? So, why not continue on? Does the bible say that jesus ever existed? Does the bible say that there is a such thing as god or sin? Who knows. We can say that it's not a science book so we can just chunk out anything that's testable so that you can't falsify it, but then why not just say it's a book about treating people well and the whole "there being a god thing" isn't really what it's about so we can just chunk that out to? The bible doesn't say it's not a science book. It doesn't say it's a theology book. It doesn't say the science isn't necessarily right but the theology stuff is. It's AMAZING just how much of the claims of the bible you can throw out. If you can just put forward a possibility and believe in it, all things are true no matter what. We need some form a ruler to determine what is and isn't true. Otherwise we can just justify any idea with "god did it". If you eat chocolate your soul will be caught in a loop of "Never Gonna Give You Up" because god did it.

>No, that's the traditional take, but I don't take them that way. Adam and Eve weren't the first two humans, but were selected out from among the hominids at the time to represent the whole human race. It's very possible that as humans evolved to the point of being morally culpable and spiritually capable, that God chose them out to reveal Himself to them so they could be his priest and priestess to the rest (the language of Gen. 2.15 is priestly, not agricultural).
This is the thing. No matter what you can explain any result with "god did it". If you observe an orderly universe, you can explain that with "god did it". If you observe a disorderly universe, you can explain that with "god did it". No matter what you observe you can explain it with "god did it". Therefore, "god did it" explains nothing.

>So maybe, as I said, this wasn't a snake at all (though logically that is the word used by their culture). Maybe it was a deceiviant (my own coined word. You like it?) upright spiritual being. That may have been why Adam & Eve didn't think it was weird to converse with it. After all, who would talk to a snake? The nahash distorted God's words, deceived them both, and was cursed by God for what he did. And, by the way, nahashim are often the object of curses in the ancient world, and the curse of Genesis 3.14 follows somewhat predictable patterns, conforming to the culture's expressions and forms. The word curse ('aror) also means "banned," so what was happening was that this spiritual being was being thrown out of the garden, so to speak, removed from God's presence (banned), and that was his curse. Maybe that's why God punished the spiritual being. It distorted God's words, deceived them both, and motivated them to rebel against God. You'll notice in the text that the serpent was cursed, but not the man or the woman. There were consequences for what they had done, but only the serpent and the ground were cursed.

Here I see lots of maybes. You can come up with a justification for believing ANYTHING. If JK Rawling releases a new book saying that the god rukkuhoi exists and gave the characters their powers, I can use your own logic to explain why you should believe in Harry Potter. Of course, I can also just arbitrarily decide that maybe JK Rawling wanted to show you the power of rukkuhoi so that you would seek him out yourself since rukkuhoi wants for you to seek him out due to a desire to know him and not because you were told who he is. Once we have no ruler by which to determine if a claim is true or false, I can come up with any maybe I want and justify any belief I want, Harry Potter included.

[jimwalton]

> Did it say there was a snake? Did it say Adam and Eve were the first two humans? ...etc.

What I'm saying is that we have to read the Bible thoroughly and bring to bear all our scholarship and research, not just read it superficially and shallowly and assume we have it. Remember, it was written to a different culture in a different time and in a different language. To understand it properly we have to discern what was the intent of the author and how the original audience was meant to understand it. It's irresponsible to take our English version, read only the words(and not the meaning or anything cultural behind the text), and draw conclusions.

> It's AMAZING just how much of the claims of the bible you can throw out.

Again yo have jumped to the wrong conclusion. I haven't thrown anything out. My task os to understand what the author was trying to communicate to his audience.

> We need some form a ruler to determine what is and isn't true.

Now this I agree with, and that rule is a proper interpretation of the text based on the language of the writer, the cultural and historical context of the writer, and his intent in words and message. That's how we determine what he meant. Suppose I drive to the grocery store. In front of the store are a row of signs that say "No Standing." If these signs were dug up by an archaeologist 3000 years from now, they would wonder why people were not allowed to stand in front of the store. But we know that's not what those signs mean. They don't mean no standing, they mean you can't park your car there. But that's not what the language says, for sure. You just can't read it superficially and shallowly. Knowing the culture and the context makes all the difference.

We put signs on certain doors that say,"This door is to remain closed at all times." We know that's not what it means. We know what it means is that it is never to be propped open, not that it is never to be opened. The historical and cultural context determines how we interpret what seems to be plain and clear language.

> No matter what you can explain any result with "god did it".

This is not what I'm doing. You have jumped to the wrong conclusion. What I am doing is using our knowledge of the cultural and historical context, in combination with the language used, to arrive at what the author intended to say.

> Here I see lots of maybes.

Yes you do. It's a difficult text, and we are still trying to sort it out. What is irresponsible, though, is to assume there's only one understanding, and it's the superficial and shallow interpretation. There is obviously something going on in this text that is not a snake talking to a woman. There's nothing arbitrary about it, but deep research and concentrated study.

[TrakeM]

>Now this I agree with, and that rule is a proper interpretation of the text based on the language of the writer, the cultural and historical context of the writer, and his intent in words and message. That's how we determine what he meant. Suppose I drive to the grocery store. In front of the store are a row of signs that say "No Standing." If these signs were dug up by an archaeologist 3000 years from now, they would wonder why people were not allowed to stand in front of the store. But we know that's not what those signs mean. They don't mean no standing, they mean you can't park your car there. But that's not what the language says, for sure. You just can't read it superficially and shallowly. Knowing the culture and the context makes all the difference.

I still have no idea by what means you attempt to evaluate the claims to see if they are actually true or not. I understand that you are trying to use history to determine what the author meant, but what about whether or not what the author meant was actually true? It seems that the things that the book claims that are objectively verifiable aren't meant in a way that it would be objectively verifiable by the way you read it. So I have to ask, how d you evaluate whether or not the claim it's making is true and do you use that same logic in determining whether or not the other holy texts are true in what they actually do claim? I keep trying to find out why you believe in the claims of the bible but it to be honest it feels like pulling teeth to get you to tell me based on what evidence you actually believe in the claims of the bible.

>Yes you do. It's a difficult text, and we are still trying to sort it out. What is irresponsible, though, is to assume there's only one understanding, and it's the superficial and shallow interpretation. There is obviously something going on in this text that is not a snake talking to a woman. There's nothing arbitrary about it, but deep research and concentrated study.
It would appear that not that much confidence can be placed in any interpretation of it. That there really can't be much confidence in even any idea of anything that it says, much less whether that claim is actually true or not. At every step along the way though, what I see when I read it looks exactly like what I'd expect primitive man to write. You can always claim that it's not, but I see no reason to believe that it's not just the writings of primitive man. I keep trying to find out based on what evidence you believe it is more than just the writings of primitive man, but honestly it feels like pulling teeth. My main point in this conversation is trying to find out why you believe that the bible is more than just the word of primitive man. By what ruler do you actually judge whether or not the claim that Moses talked to a burning bush was actually true or not?

[jimwalton]

> I understand that you are trying to use history to determine what the author meant, but what about whether or not what the author meant was actually true?

Hmm. I gave an example that our "No Standing" signs don't actually mean you can't stand there, but you can't park there. So I am using history not only to determine what the author meant but also what the truth of the situation is. The two are concordant unless the author is a liar and is deliberately trying to mislead. "No Standing" really truthfully means "you can't park here." But it clearly doesn't mean what it sounds like: "You can't stand here."

> I keep trying to find out why you believe in the claims of the bible but it to be honest it feels like pulling teeth to get you to tell me based on what evidence you actually believe in the claims of the bible.

Here are some of the reasons I believe in the Bible:

1. Corroboration with history (history is always a matter of interpretation of records)

2. Corroboration with archaeological finds (becoming more scientific all the time, but still subject to a vast amount of interpretation)

3. Corroboration with known cultural (in history) markers

4. Corroboration with known geographical information

5. Reliable anecdotal evidence from trustworthy sources

6. Reason: The Bible gives a well-reasoned and consistent perspective and interpretation of life as we know it. The picture it presents makes sense.

7. Testimonial evidence (of people currently alive), consistent from person to person, of life change founded in a religious experience as described in the Bible. People's lives are still being radically changed by what they say is the truth of the Bible and the Holy Spirit inside of them.

8. Current realities (like the existence of the state of Israel and the existence of the Church) that don't make as much sense outside of the environments and interpretations described by the Bible.

9. The eyewitness accounts of the Bible ring true.

10. There is no hint of any kind of conspiracy, fraud, or collusion.

11. The writers of the Bible exude nobility, morality, and honor. To accuse them of deliberate deception is unreasonable. There is no hint that these men were insane. While they certainly lived in a non-literate culture, they didn't live in an illiterate one. These people were obviously not buffoons, barbarians, or blockheads, but were demonstrably fairly cogent and logical.

12. The consistency of theme, theology, and focus from over 40 authors from 3 continents over a span of 1600 years is unearthly.

13. Prophecy and fulfillment

14. The events they wrote about were public occurrences, not private experiences. Detecting fraud or error would have been easy.

15. Their writings have been pored over for millennia and have been accepted by great numbers of scholars.

16. The Bible has an unearthly kind of power to change lives for the people who submit to its teachings.

Well, that's 16 off the top of my head, at least enough to stimulate dialogue.

> By what ruler do you actually judge whether or not the claim that Moses talked to a burning bush was actually true or not?

We have little to go by here. Mostly I'd have to say Moses would have little motivation to return to Egypt, negligible reason to set himself up as leader of the people of Israel, and an inadequate means of pulling off this whole storyline without what seemed to him a legitimate theophany and palpable help in doing it, which he certainly wouldn't get from the people).

[TrakeM]

1. Corroboration with history (history is always a matter of interpretation of records)
There aren't much records from the time period that Jesus supposedly existed in the back up the story.

6. Reason: The Bible gives a well-reasoned and consistent perspective and interpretation of life as we know it. The picture it presents makes sense.
The picture it presents makes sense? I'm sorry, but the idea of a man who is his own father makes no sense. The picture of the world we live in being the design of a deity makes no sense. Have you seen the human genome? It's filled with exactly the kind of junk you'd expect the process of evolution to leave behind, not what I'd expect a deity to design.

9. The eyewitness accounts of the Bible ring true.
The only eyewitness accounts we have are from the bible it's self. At this point, you're using the account of the Bible to say that the account of the Bible is true. If we're going to do that, why not do it for the other holy books? They are all concordant with science (by your standard of what it means to be concordant with science).

7. Testimonial evidence (of people currently alive), consistent from person to person, of life change founded in a religious experience as described in the Bible. People's lives are still being radically changed by what they say is the truth of the Bible and the Holy Spirit inside of them.
There are more Muslims that will tell you of the amazing works of their holy Allah in their life than there are that will tell you of the amazing works of Yahwe in their life. Doesn't that mean that you should also believe in Allah? While we're at it, there's also those personal accounts of Shiva and the Mormons too. Shouldn't you start believing in those?

10. There is no hint of any kind of conspiracy, fraud, or collusion.
This Bible is the result of a vote by one of the most corrupt organizations in human history.

13. Prophecy and fulfillment
I assume you are referring to the prophecies that we have no evidence to show that they were fulfilled except for the Bible?

14. The events they wrote about were public occurrences, not private experiences. Detecting fraud or error would have been easy.
Given that these were public occurrences, shouldn't we have historical accounts from the time of them occurring? By the time that the first accounts showed up, they wouldn't have easily been checked.

15. Their writings have been pored over for millennia and have been accepted by great numbers of scholars.
The same can be said of the Qua'ran. Shouldn't you start believing in that as well?

>We have little to go by here. Mostly I'd have to say Moses would have little motivation to return to Egypt, negligible reason to set himself up as leader of the people of Israel, and an inadequate means of pulling off this whole storyline without what seemed to him a legitimate theophany and palpable help in doing it, which he certainly wouldn't get from the people).
Seriously, he had nothing to gain? Power is desired by almost everyone. Moses gained a lot of power. If this is all you have for evidence of Moses talking to the burning bush, we have just as good for Mohammed riding a horse to the moon. Will you start believing in that claim as well?

[jimwalton]

Wow. We're obviously not going to see eye to eye about this, but you have some distinct misinformation and misunderstandings.

> There aren't much records from the time period that Jesus supposedly existed in the back up the story.

You're right that we can't corroborate from extrabiblical sources most of what the Gospels say about Jesus. What we do have is the existence of a Galilean Jew named Jesus who was born between 7 and 4 BC and died between AD 26-36. We have that he lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere, was called Christos in Greek, had a brother named James, and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek. It is believed even from non-Christian sources that he had both Jewish and Gentile followers, and that Jewish leaders held unfavorable opinions of him. There are two events (and only two) whose historicity is subject to “almost universal assent”: that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.

> life as we know it.

"Life as we know it" doesn't pertain to the doctrine of the Trinity (a man who is his own father).

> Have you seen the human genome?

An absolutely awe-inspiring repository, each strand of which contains more information than the Library of Congress, in a mechanism more complex than the space shuttle.

> The only eyewitness accounts we have are from the bible itself

Many historical events of the OT are corroborated by extrabiblical sources, and there are many good reasons to believe that the Gospels have their source in eyewitness accounts.

> This Bible is the result of a vote by one of the most corrupt organizations in human history.

This is a grotesque distortion of history and the Bible. The OT canon has never been subject to a vote that we know of. We have no record of its contents ever being debated, questioned, or voted upon. The NT canon was ratified by general agreement in the 4th century, not by committee vote. (Though I agree that the Catholic church of the first half of the second millennium was quite corrupt).

> I assume you are referring to the prophecies that we have no evidence to show that they were fulfilled except for the Bible?

But there is evidence. There were prophecies that the Assyrians wouldn't conquer Judah when the conquered Israel, and history tell us that was the case. There were prophecies that the Babylonians would conquer and exile Judah, and they did. There are a bunch more.

> Given that these were public occurrences, shouldn't we have historical accounts from the time of them occurring? By the time that the first accounts showed up, they wouldn't have easily been checked.

It would be nice to have more records than we have. But because we don't have documentation of when and where the last pterodactyl died doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[TrakeM]

>You're right that we can't corroborate from extrabiblical sources most of what the Gospels say about Jesus. What we do have is the existence of a Galilean Jew named Jesus who was born between 7 and 4 BC and died between AD 26-36. We have that he lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere, was called Christos in Greek, had a brother named James, and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek. It is believed even from non-Christian sources that he had both Jewish and Gentile followers, and that Jewish leaders held unfavorable opinions of him. There are two events (and only two) whose historicity is subject to “almost universal assent”: that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.
Seriously, that's all you've got? Seems to me that if that's all you've got then you can't justify your claims based on history. After all, we can do AT LEAST that good for Islam. I'm sorry, but even if you can actually back up that much with writings of contemporary historians, you still have next to nothing. None of that shows anything super natural. All that that's enough for is that there was a guy named Jesus who had a brother and that's about it. I'm sorry, that's pretty slim picking for evidence.

>An absolutely awe-inspiring repository, each strand of which contains more information than the Library of Congress, in a mechanism more complex than the space shuttle.
Yes, and it's filled with a ton of junk. So much of the genome is deactivated genes. So much of it is just a waste. Weird that your god would put in so much junk. Of course, you can say your god decided for it to be that way, but then you just point out how much god is an unstable and therefore meaningless claim since it can be used to justify any observation. That which can explain everything explains nothing.

>The NT canon was ratified by general agreement in the 4th century, not by committee vote.
General agreement is pretty much just a vote. How do you think they decided what books should be included in the NT?

>It would be nice to have more records than we have. But because we don't have documentation of when and where the last pterodactyl died doesn't mean it didn't happen.
We have scientific objective evidence that pterodactyls existed and therefore the claim should be accepted. We don't have such evidence of the events you're talking about in the Bible and they should therefore be rejected. That's how logic and science works.

[jimwalton]

> Seriously, that's all you've got? Seems to me that if that's all you've got then you can't justify your claims based on history.

You're right that we have no extrabiblical corroboration of Jesus' miracles or teachings. Josephus refers to them in a text that many believe is authentic, but the text is debated, so we can't put a whole lot of stock in it. But, as I said, it does exist, and many regard it as having been written by Josephus. That's the only secular corroboration in existence.

In addition, however, the historical references in the Gospels are proven to be accurate: names and places mentioned, cultural details and practices, religious details and practices, and historical events. Extrabiblical corroboration supports the historicity of the Gospels, and of the Bible at large.

> General agreement is pretty much just a vote. How do you think they decided what books should be included in the NT?

I believe there's a difference. We don't have to vote about whether Donald Trump is a much-maligned president. It's common knowledge, and we all recognize it. That's what it was like with the ratification of the canon. The books of the NT were recognized by common knowledge to be authoritative. All the Church did was make a list to formalize what was recognized. It's different from, "OK, who votes for this book? All in favor say 'Aye'."

> We have scientific objective evidence that pterodactyls existed and therefore the claim should be accepted.

You missed my point. Of course science tells us they existed, just as historical record tells us Jesus existed. But science can't and doesn't tell us where and when the last one died, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Science is not the do-all and tell-all. There are many things science can't tell us, that are outside of its reach. Just because we don't have scientific evidence doesn't mean it should be rejected, as you are claiming, or else we need to reject that the last pterodactyl ever died, because we don't have the evidence of when and where it happened. We have to apply logic consistently.

[TrakeM]

>You're right that we have no extrabiblical corroboration of Jesus' miracles or teachings. Josephus refers to them in a text that many believe is authentic, but the text is debated, so we can't put a whole lot of stock in it. But, as I said, it does exist, and many regard it as having been written by Josephus. That's the only secular corroboration in existence.
Ok, so rationally we shouldn't claim that Jesus performed any miracles. We should not accept any claims other than that Jesus existed and had a brother. Any claims about miracles should not be accepted. I think that's about it for believe in your religion, isn't it?

>I believe there's a difference. We don't have to vote about whether Donald Trump is a much-maligned president. It's common knowledge, and we all recognize it. That's what it was like with the ratification of the canon. The books of the NT were recognized by common knowledge to be authoritative. All the Church did was make a list to formalize what was recognized. It's different from, "OK, who votes for this book? All in favor say 'Aye'."
I don't think the difference is that significant, but OK. Let's declare it to be significant. Your book was formed by general agreement on what books should be included. This doesn't sound like you have evidence that this organization was being overseen by a deity. It seems that all the we have evidence for is that the people at the time thought that these books were authoritative, not that a deity wanted them to be this way. Yet another claim without sufficient evidence that should not be accepted as true.

> But science can't and doesn't tell us where and when the last one died, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
We can present a tremendous amount of evidence that life forms tend to die after enough time. We know that it is staggeringly unlikely that a pterodactyl would have survived all this time. Science doesn't work in a binary it's definitely true and we can prove it for certain or we have no idea type basis. You have evidence and based on that evidence you asses some level of confidence. In the case of gravity, we have tremendous evidence so we assign a high degree of confidence, but we can't actually prove that gravity is real. Just because all those rocks that we've ever dropped fell to the ground doesn't mean you've proved that the next one will. I can't shown absolute certainty that the pterodactyl has gone extinct, but I have evidence enough to make me confident that the claim is likely true. In other words, I assess that the evidence is sufficient to justify a high degree of confidence even if I can't claim complete certainty.