[_ Old Earth _] The creation of light

[BobRyan]

I agree that when L.K says that the Bible is nothing more than people "trying to come up with a better story" and "downright absurdities" he is careful not to transparently summarize those "Bible can not be trusted" ideas with the term "Corrupt". But the objective unbiased reader will not see past the euphamism "I am not a literalist" to his Bible contains "errors, efforts to tell a better story and downright absurdities". (Though I suppose that another person using the same euphamism to mean the same thing -- might translate L.K's statement as such)

Let me help you with the "I am not a literalist -- I am a literalist" discussion.

In the book of Judges there is a story about the trees going forth to elect a king. The author of Judges records that this is told by one of the sons of Gideon. A strict literalist "might" be found on some remote hill some place arguing that the trees were literally engaged in an election. The non-Literalist (as would be all of us in that case) would argue that this is simply an illustration that the son of Gideon is using to make a point.

But the atheist (as we all agree) would not only argue that the "trees electing a king" description is simply an illustration they would ALSO say that there is no trust in the text to even state that Gideon's son is "real" or that Gideon is "real" or that the other sons of Gideon mentioned there are "real" in fact the whole thing is probably make believe -- just "some story telling" written for our entertainment and moralizing in a true Aesop's fable fashion.

(Hint - spend the 3 minutes to watch the video)

The only question in this part of our discussion is WHO ELSE is going to join the atheists in making that "doubt-the-bible-first" argument and will those other groups admit that they are taking the same "bible is corrupt" position as those they are agreeing with.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

I agree that when L.K says that the Bible is nothing more than people "trying to come up with a better story" and "downright absurdities" he is careful not to transparently summarize those "Bible can not be trusted" ideas with the term "Corrupt". But the objective unbiased reader will not see past the euphamism "I am not a literalist" to his Bible contains "errors, efforts to tell a better story and downright absurdities". (Though I suppose that another person using the same euphamism to mean the same thing -- might translate L.K's statement as such).....

Bob, you're at it again. Are all these phrases you attribute to me actual quotations or not? If they are, link to them, if not stop putting quotation marks around your words in an attempt to make it look as if this is what I am saying. If these are not actual quotations from myself, I make the point again that you are, to all intents and purposes, lying.

By the way, when you defined 'corrupt' before, was this your own definition or someone else's, as again you throw quotation marks around with an apparently careless understanding of their implication when used in such a context?

You also appear to use the word 'corrupt' to imply that any criticism of the literal truth of the Bible is in some way intended to suggest that the Bible is tainted, rotten or in some way morally degraded. There are Christians who believe that the Bible can contain factual errors and yet still remain a wholly moral and uplifting text for spiritual guidance and enrichment. Your problem with anyone who says they are not a biblical literalist appears to be driven by the fact that they must thereby disagree with you that Earth and the Universe are only a few thousand years old; you seem determined to distort and misrepresent anything they say in order to discredit their arguments. As far as I can tell, your argument seems to stem from entirely circular reasoning (please note the absence of quotation marks as I am not attributing these statements to you, and neither am I claiming to know that this is what you mean):

1. The Bible is inerrant.
2. You know the Bible is inerrant because the Bible is the unvarnished word of God.
3. You know the Bible is the unvarnished word of God because the Bible says it is.

Can you spot the logical fallacy here?

I also note that in your supposed justification of your accusations against me you continue to claim that you are able to know what I mean.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree that when L.K says that the Bible is nothing more than people "trying to come up with a better story" and "downright absurdities" he is careful not to transparently summarize those "Bible can not be trusted" ideas with the term "Corrupt". But the objective unbiased reader will not see past the euphamism "I am not a literalist" to his Bible contains "errors, efforts to tell a better story and downright absurdities". (Though I suppose that another person using the same euphamism to mean the same thing -- might translate L.K's statement as such).....

Bob, you're at it again. Are all these phrases you attribute to me actual quotations or not? If they are, link to them,

1. Quotation marks used to emphasize a point or a part of a text that is not my own belief.

2. As for your argument that bible writers are simply ignorant people trying to "come up with a better story" try going to this link

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&start=90#p395472

You also appear to use the word 'corrupt' to imply that any criticism of the literal truth of the Bible is in some way intended to suggest that the Bible is tainted, rotten or in some way morally degraded.

Hint -

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&start=90#p395472

There are Christians who believe that the Bible can contain factual errors and yet still remain a wholly moral and uplifting text for spiritual guidance and enrichment.

Well there are atheists that "believe that" I do know that -- as we saw in the link.

Since you appear reluctant to "Click" the links when given -- a little help..

True Believers in Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism -- arguing that the Bible (as a kind of a-factual Aesop's fable text) is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, claims about the CREATOR
http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

The “Corrupt text†that results has corrupt defined as “Errors, Ambiguities, absurdities, creative story telling in efforts to come up with a better story…â€Â

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, you're at it again. Are all these phrases you attribute to me actual quotations or not? If they are, link to them,

1. Quotation marks used to emphasize a point or a part of a text that is not my own belief.

Then you do not understand how quotation marks should be used. Quotation marks suggest that you are directly quoting the statements of another person, in this case me. If these remarks that you attribute to me by the use of quotation marks are not taken from something I have actually written, you are misrepresenting me. Stop it, please. Find another method of 'emphasiz[ing] a point or a part of a text that is not my own belief'; you seem to have no difficulty in using different coloured fonts and text sizes to emphasize points elsewhere.

2. As for your argument that bible writers are simply ignorant people trying to "come up with a better story" try going to this link

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&start=90#p395472

Case in point. The post you link to nowhere contains my use of the phrase "come up with a better story", which the quotation marks you have placed round the phrase indicates that I have so done. This is a misrepresentation. You are free to interpret my comments and argue your interpretation as you wish; you are not free to put words into my mouth that I never uttered.

[quote:14c28gma]You also appear to use the word 'corrupt' to imply that any criticism of the literal truth of the Bible is in some way intended to suggest that the Bible is tainted, rotten or in some way morally degraded.

Hint -

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&start=90#p395472[/quote:14c28gma]

Again your link fails either to illumninate your interpretation of my position in respect of biblical literalism, your implication that I have somewhere used the word 'corrupt' in my arguments, or whether my understanding of your intention when you use the word 'corrupt' is correct or not. A 'hint' is only helpful if it provides some relevant and comprehensible information.

There are Christians who believe that the Bible can contain factual errors and yet still remain a wholly moral and uplifting text for spiritual guidance and enrichment.

Well there are atheists that "believe that" I do know that -- as we saw in the link.[/quote]
So is it your argument that Christians who fail to agree with your narrow and idiosyncratic interpretation of biblical literalism, inerrancy, or whatever you want to call it, are not Christians at all, but in some way closet atheists? What is the point of referring to 'atheists' in the context of your reply otherwise?

Since you appear reluctant to "Click" the links when given -- a little help..

Your sarcasm is not conducive to following links that you provide, Many of the links you have provided that I have followed appear to be irrelevant and fail to support your points in any substantial way.

True Believers in Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism -- arguing that the Bible (as a kind of a-factual Aesop's fable text) is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, claims about the CREATOR
http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

What relevance does this have to Christians who are comfortable with the evidence that supports an old Earth and evolution without fearing that it in some way threatens their faith? Who has ever claimed that Richard dawkins is a Christian evolutionist? Here are some links on this question for you to ponder:

http://www.asa3.org/asa/newsletter/can_a_christian.htm

http://www.eauk.org/resources/idea/bigquestion/archive/2005/bq7.cfm

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20422

The “Corrupt text†that results has corrupt defined as “Errors, Ambiguities, absurdities, creative story telling in efforts to come up with a better story…â€Â

Again, whose words are these you place in quotation marks? Yours? Mine? Someone else's? If I am to believe what you wrote earlier about your use of quotation marks, given that you provide no attribution I would have to conclude that you are 'emphasiz[ing] a point or a part of a text that is not my own belief'. Is this the case?

ETA: I notice again that there are significant parts of my post that you have declined to respond to.

 

[BobRyan]

2. As for your argument that bible writers are simply ignorant people trying to "come up with a better story" try going to this link

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&start=90#p395472

Case in point. The post you link to nowhere contains my use of the phrase "come up with a better story"

Trying to "tell a better story"
"trying to come up with a better story"

A distinction without a difference.

, which the quotation marks you have placed round the phrase indicates that I have so done. This is a misrepresentation. You are free to interpret my comments and argue your interpretation as you wish; you are not free to put words into my mouth that I never uttered.

Again you choose to rabbit trail instead of addressing the point of the problem in your position and it's identical fit with the atheist arguments of Meyers and Dawkins as well as the obvious point that the "Bible is corrupt" argument is fully stated in your own itemized recitation of what you consider to be the failings of scripture.

L.K. You also appear to use the word 'corrupt' to imply that any criticism of the literal truth of the Bible is in some way intended to suggest that the Bible is tainted, rotten or in some way morally degraded. [quote:3l2oypwd]Bob

Hint -

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&start=90#p395472

Again your link fails either to illumninate your interpretation of my position in respect of biblical literalism, your implication that I have somewhere used the word 'corrupt' in my arguments, or whether my understanding of your intention when you use the word 'corrupt' is correct or not.
[/quote:3l2oypwd]

How so?

What part do you find confusing?

A 'hint' is only helpful if it provides some relevant and comprehensible information.

[quote:3l2oypwd]There are Christians who believe that the Bible can contain factual errors and yet still remain a wholly moral and uplifting text for spiritual guidance and enrichment.

Well there are atheists that "believe that" I do know that -- as we saw in the link.[/quote:3l2oypwd]
So is it your argument that Christians who fail to agree with your narrow and idiosyncratic interpretation of biblical literalism, inerrancy, or whatever you want to call it, are not Christians at all, but in some way closet atheists?
[/quote]

I have already pointed to several cases where compromised christians have unwittingly followed atheist darwinist leadership into positions that are "dinstinctively atheist" in the case of the ID argument and history.

No "news" there.

What is the point of referring to 'atheists' in the context of your reply otherwise?

I point to the most logical and consistent context for your bible-is-corrupt when it comes to "details and events" and show that it fits the atheist model perfectly as THEY themselves take the lead in MAKING it!

L.K
[quote:3l2oypwd]Bob - Since you appear reluctant to "Click" the links when given -- a little help..

Your sarcasm is not conducive to following links that you provide, Many of the links you have provided that I have followed appear to be irrelevant and fail to support your points in any substantial way.[/quote:3l2oypwd]

How so?

(hint: "More words" in fact -- outright "details" would be helpful when making your unsupported sweeping accusations)

Bob

True Believers in (atheist) Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism -- arguing that the Bible (as a kind of a-factual Aesop's fable text) is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, claims about the CREATOR
http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

L.K.
What relevance does this have to Christians who are comfortable with the evidence that supports an old Earth and evolution without fearing that it in some way threatens their faith?

Are "you" claiming to be one of them and so to be able to represent their position on this point?

Would they take your same bible-is-corrupt postion as outlined in the quote of YOUR post?

Who has ever claimed that Richard dawkins is a Christian evolutionist?

No one -- the claim is that Dawkins is an ATHEIST DARWINIST who admits to the demise of his Christianity as a result of Darwinism. You would know this IF you had clicked on the link and watched for 2 minutes.

Apparently that modest due diligence on your part did not happen.

Bob The “Corrupt text†that results has corrupt defined as “Errors, Ambiguities, absurdities, creative story telling in efforts to come up with a better story…â€Â

L.K. said:

Again, whose words are these you place in quotation marks? Yours? Mine? Someone else's? If I am to believe what you wrote earlier about your use of quotation marks, given that you provide no attribution I would have to conclude that you are 'emphasiz[ing] a point or a part of a text that is not my own belief'. Is this the case?

Go to this post -- and read.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&p=395870#p395472

The quotes from you are in QUOTE BOXES and have your name on them. The parts of interest are set in RED. Pretty hard to miss.

If you wont read it is going to make the debate all the harder.



Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Case in point. The post you link to nowhere contains my use of the phrase "come up with a better story"

Trying to "tell a better story"
"trying to come up with a better story"

A distinction without a difference.

Then you are ignorant of the subtleties of the English language and determined only to misuse it to support your own arguments. If you cannot understand the difference between the two phrases you have surrounded with quotation marks, then you should make an effort so to do. It remains the case that putting quotation marks around a phrase as if I had written those very words is a misrepresentation.

[quote:2z95id7v]So is it your argument that Christians who fail to agree with your narrow and idiosyncratic interpretation of biblical literalism, inerrancy, or whatever you want to call it, are not Christians at all, but in some way closet atheists?

I have already pointed to several cases where compromised christians have unwittingly followed atheist darwinist leadership into positions that are "dinstinctively atheist" in the case of the ID argument and history.[/quote:2z95id7v]

So that's a 'Yes', then? Do you think that your determination of who is or is not a Christian is definitive? Do you think those Christian scientists who believe firmly in both their faith and in the soundness of evolutionary theory are 'really 'unwitting' tools of atheism? Do you think it at all possible that you may be the one who is 'unwitting' in your refusal to understand and recognise the evidence of God's work in the natural world? Nature is a silent, unbiased witness to God's work; the Bible is in part no more than the work of fallible and imperfect human beings attempting to interpret the works of God in the best way they could in terms of their limited knowledge of nature.

[quote:2z95id7v]onducive to following links that you provide, Many of the links you have provided that I have followed appear to be irrelevant and fail to support your points in any substantial way.

How so?

(hint: "More words" in fact -- outright "details" would be helpful when making your unsupported sweeping accusations)[/quote:2z95id7v]
Your frequent links that purport to evidence the words you attribute to me by quotation marks. Your links concerning the evidence supporting a 'young' Earth from the 'sedimentation rates of all majopr river deltas'. If you want me to go on, I will.

L.K.
What relevance does this have to Christians who are comfortable with the evidence that supports an old Earth and evolution without fearing that it in some way threatens their faith?

Are "you" claiming to be one of them and so to be able to represent their position on this point?

Would they take your same bible-is-corrupt postion as outlined in the quote of YOUR post?

I claim nothing; I ask what relevance your remark and link has, as I can see none. You may ask them what position they take on my position, which you choose to interpret as the Bible is corrupt.

Who has ever claimed that Richard dawkins is a Christian evolutionist?

No one -- the claim is that Dawkins is an ATHEIST DARWINIST who admits to the demise of his Christianity as a result of Darwinism. You would know this IF you had clicked on the link and watched for 2 minutes.

then you should make your point more cogently. If people fail to understand you, you might ask yourself whether that is their fault or yours. I am fully aware of Richard Dawkins' reasons for his atheism without your helpful links.

Bob The “Corrupt text†that results has corrupt defined as “Errors, Ambiguities, absurdities, creative story telling in efforts to come up with a better story…â€Â

L.K. said:

Again, whose words are these you place in quotation marks? Yours? Mine? Someone else's? If I am to believe what you wrote earlier about your use of quotation marks, given that you provide no attribution I would have to conclude that you are 'emphasiz[ing] a point or a part of a text that is not my own belief'. Is this the case?

Go to this post -- and read.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&p=395870#p395472

The quotes from you are in QUOTE BOXES and have your name on them. The parts of interest are set in RED. Pretty hard to miss.[/quote]

Thanks for that link; I am sorry if I missed it before. However, your idiosyncratic use of quotation marks around phrases and sentences, some of which are mine and some of which are your own creative flourishes create confusion rather than clarity. Is it your argument that my comment that you refer to, namely -

That errors, ambiguities and downright absurdities might be incorporated over the centuries as a result of mis-rememberings, mistranslations, innocent copying errors and the desire to tell a better story seems inevitable to anyone with even a passing understanding of the vagaries of the oral record in pre-literate societies and of the written record in largely illiterate ones with no rooted tradition of bureaucratic record-keeping.

- is a practical definition of corruption in terms of biblical text? Do you regard this definition of corruption as encompassing the idea that the Bible is tainted, rotten or in some way morally degraded, or do you regard it as only arguing that parts of the Bible are demonstrably errant?

If you wont read it is going to make the debate all the harder.

I am happy to acknowledge my errors and misunderstandings when I realize they have occurred. Are you?

 

[BobRyan]

Case in point. The post you link to nowhere contains my use of the phrase "come up with a better story"

Trying to "tell a better story"
"trying to come up with a better story"

A distinction without a difference.

Then you are ignorant of the subtleties of the English language and determined only to misuse it...

Excellent posturing. (Your interest in that tactic seems to be endless)

Horrible attention to detail. If you are able to find a substantive difference -- do it.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

L.K.

So is it your argument that Christians who fail to agree with your narrow and idiosyncratic interpretation of biblical literalism, inerrancy, or whatever you want to call it, are not Christians at all, but in some way closet atheists?

[quote:3qc3iyz9]Bob said
I have already pointed to several cases where compromised christians have unwittingly followed atheist darwinist leadership into positions that are "dinstinctively atheist" in the case of the ID argument and history.

[/quote:3qc3iyz9]

L.K

So that's a 'Yes', then?

That is certainly "one way" to gloss over the details.

L.K
Do you think that your determination of who is or is not a Christian is definitive? Do you think those Christian scientists who believe firmly in both their faith and in the soundness of evolutionary theory are 'really 'unwitting' tools of atheism?

Do you claim to be one of them?

Are you holding up your bible-is-corrupt argument as their argument?

Do you really think it makes sense for Christians and bible-is-corrupt groups like atheists should agree on "a corrupt Bible"?? Why not just stop claiming the Christian moniker in that case and just settle for the agreed upon bible-is-corrupt argument where they unwittingly agree with atheists?

(Hint: Can you say "Bart Ehrman"? He agrees with your bible-is-corrupt solution...)

Wikipedia
". Ehrman theorizes that it was more often the Orthodox that "corrupted" the manuscripts, altering the text to promote particular viewpoints."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Notice that "corrupt" is defined as making your claims about the Bible text ;-)

L.K
Do you think it at all possible that you may be the one who is 'unwitting' in your refusal to understand and recognise the evidence of God's work in the natural world?

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&p=395996#p395917

I "refuse to understand and recognize the EVIDENCE OF GOD" in HIS creative work in nature?

Aren't you one of those in the deny-the-bible-first camp who also joined with the deny-ID-SCIENCE nay-sayers on this very board? Recall that ID claims that you can SEE IN nature the evidence of INTELLIGENCE in the design of IT rather than an undirected RANDOM process!

What kind of self-conflicted position are you leaping into now??

L.K
Nature is a silent, unbiased witness to God's work;

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&p=395996#p395917

How wonderful that you come out of the closet with that NOW!! Why did you not make that statement when you posted along with the ID bashing crowd on the ID threads???

Is this really L.K?? Has someone else taken over your keyboard? Who am I talking to now??

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

'Trying to tell a better story' = suggests efforts to improve the story in the way it is told and the dramatic impact it carries, perhaps by adding minor characters and scenes, without in any way disturbing the nature or message of the story; in other words and put simply, it expands but does not alter the plot.

'Trying to come up with a better story' = suggests to me creative manipulation of the story as a whole in an attempt to change the nature of the story so that a quite different story from that originally told or intended is the result; in other words and put simply, it alters the plot.

Shakespeare reworked an Italian tale, translated as The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke in 1562, and retold in prose in Palace of Pleasure by William Painter in 1582 when he wrote Romeo and Juliet. Was he 'trying to tell a better story' or 'trying to come up with a better story'? Is the Noachian Flood tale 'trying to tell a better story' than the flood legend in Gilgamesh, or is it 'trying to come up with a better story' than Gilgamesh?

If you believe the two expressions to be without distinction, fair enough, but I don't, so please desist from putting quotation marks around 'trying to come up with a better story' as if these are my words.

 

[BobRyan]

'Trying to tell a better story' = suggests efforts to improve the story in the way it is told and the dramatic impact it carries, perhaps by adding minor characters and scenes, without in any way disturbing the nature or message of the story; in other words and put simply, it expands but does not alter the plot.

'Trying to come up with a better story' = suggests to me creative manipulation of the story as a whole in an attempt to change the nature of the story so that a quite different story from that originally told or intended is the result; in other words and put simply, it alters the plot.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&p=396005#p395998

Added Characters - makes the story fictitious.
Added events (scenes) makes the story "fictitious"

It turns a document about a real event into pure "Aesop's fable FICTION".

As wikipedia notes - that is "CORRUPTING" the text!

". Ehrman theorizes that it was more often the Orthodox that "corrupted" the manuscripts, altering the text to promote particular viewpoints."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

We see you have already gone there at this link --

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=90#p395472

Now Once again you simply dig the hole you're in -- deeper.

L.K
Shakespeare reworked an Italian tale, translated as The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke in 1562, and retold in prose in Palace of Pleasure by William Painter in 1582 when he wrote Romeo and Juliet.

Indeed - taking one "work of fiction" and turning it into an "even better work of fiction".

Atheists have long been known for their "Bible is fiction" solution to Christianity.

No "news" there.

Was he 'trying to tell a better story' or 'trying to come up with a better story'?

A distinction without a difference in that example. The Bible writers are not engaged in the fiction you imagine for them trying to come up with a better story (characters and events) around the same topic or theme.

Note that you yourself have argued that in your own imagination the text has been through soooo many revisions new character and new events that we can NOT be certain about the original content.

Your bible-is-corrupt solution has been detailed far too much by now for you to imagine that you can gloss over that point.

L.K
Is the Noachian Flood tale 'trying to tell a better story' than the flood legend in Gilgamesh, or is it 'trying to come up with a better story' than Gilgamesh?

Hint: They are not "the same story".

Gilgamesh's Utnapishtim flood story is a transparent attempt to "come up with a better story" than Noah's flood.

Utnapishtim takes the 3 decks of the ark and makes them six.

he takes the 40 days and 40 nights and makes them 7.

he takes the (clean animals by sevens and clean animals by twos) and just make them "all life on earth".

Then of course he takes the pointed statements of God in Genesis 6, 8 and 9 and turns them into --

Shamash the sun god showered down loaves of bread and rained down wheat. Then the flood came, so fierce that:

"The gods were frightened by the flood,
and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu.
The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall.
Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth,
the sweet-voiced Mistress of the Gods wailed:
“The olden days have alas turned to clay,
because I said evil things in the Assembly of the Gods!
How could I say evil things in the Assembly of the Gods,
ordering a catastrophe to destroy my people!!
No sooner have I given birth to my dear people
than they fill the sea like so many fish!â€Â
The godsâ€â€those of the Anunnakiâ€â€were weeping with her,
the gods humbly sat weeping, sobbing with grief(?),
their lips burning, parched with thirst."5

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... gamesh.asp

They do both tell about a flood - in the case of Moses and Genesis he is recording real events and referring to real people, a real boat a real distinction between clean and unclean animals a real destruction of earth by water as Peter confirms in 2Peter 3, real destruction of all life on land --- real events from which where drawn the basics for Gilgimesh to embellish


Your - did not happen, events not true, characters not real... work-of-fiction downsizing of the Bible to an "Aesop's fables" document is consistently wrong.

Your argument that we can not know what was really written given all of your imagined changes is also the crowning result of your imagination about bible writers trying to come up with a better story -- on the same subject of course but one where the story itself (events and characters) is complete fiction!.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Well, it was a relatively straightforward reply intended to bring this discussion to a close. I see you wish rather to use it as a stick to beat me with regarding my view that the Bible is not inerrant. In your long declamation about the 'document about a real event' , I was interested to note a great deal of assertion about the accuracy of this and that, but not much evidence. That some characters, events and places mentioned in the Bible are more or less accurate is not evidence that the Bible is wholly accurate and inerrant. What is the certainty that drives your conclusion that no characters, events or places were added to the Bible story? Where is the evidence, for example, that underlies your certainty that a real person called Noah existed, as described in Genesis, and lived to be 950 years old?

 

[BobRyan]

^ Well, it was a relatively straightforward reply intended to bring this discussion to a close. I see you wish rather to use it as a stick to beat me with regarding my view that the Bible is not inerrant.

"Bible is not inerrant" is your euphamism for "Bible is fiction -- similar to Aesop's fables".

Apparently you also use "a literal reading of the bible" to mean "Bible is not fiction... Bible is not simply a junk-pile of Aesop's fables" --

How instructive

L.K
In your long declamation about the 'document about a real event' , I was interested to note a great deal of assertion about the accuracy of this and that, but not much evidence.

One of the huge benefits to a discussion like this is deconstructing your assortment of euphamisms so that the unbiased objective reader is disabused of the notion that "Bible is not inerrant" is NOT simply an argument for a valid trustworthy bible where some minor items or punctuation is in error -- rather it is a massive atheist-like claim to "Bible is pure fiction along the lines of Aesop's fables".

That charctes and events are works of fiction and it is up to each reader to come up with whatever part they wish to hold as trustworthy vs just ficiton -- "cut and paste as it pleases you".

That some characters, events and places mentioned in the Bible are more or less accurate is not evidence that the Bible is wholly accurate and inerrant.

THis is how the atheist would argue the case -- where each time an Ebla tablet discovery debunks their imaginative list of just-say-nay arguments they simiply move those arguments over to the "Bible is more or less accurate on some points as it turns out".

What is the certainty that drives your conclusion that no characters, events or places were added to the Bible story? Where is the evidence, for example, that underlies your certainty that a real person called Noah existed, as described in Genesis, and lived to be 950 years old?

The sequence of "debunking events" where just-say-nay atheist arguments fall to the discoveries in history such as the Ebla tablets.

True Believers in Atheist Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism -- arguing that the Bible (as a kind of a-factual Aesop's fable text) is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, characters etc! http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

Bob

 

[Orion]

Again, Bob, it SEEMS to me that you are continually suggesting that anyone who does not see the entire Bible as being inerrant, must therefore be an "atheist Darwinist". I see the Bible as having many errors (not just punctuation), yet am far from being either an atheist, nor one who sees the Darwinian theory as being air tight.

lordkalvan has made some very good observations in this post, and I have been following it for a while. To be honest, I see questions asked, yet page after page, they go relatively unanswered. I would wish that all the posturing would be laid aside and everyone just come out and blatantly state what it is they believe!

 

[BobRyan]

Orion -

In answer to you post...

Since clicking on the links does not seem to be popular "due diligence" when arguing the other side of this topic --

It is possible to be a Christian and look on the Old Testament as moral allegory and an explanation tailored to the understanding of peoples whose knowledge of the workings of the natural world was far less than ours.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32847&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p388756

Same Aesop’s fables argument that Atheist’s make for scripture –

True Believers in Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism -- arguing that the Bible (as a kind of a-factual Aesop's fable text) is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, claims about the CREATOR
http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

The “Corrupt text†that results has corrupt defined as “Errors, Ambiguities, absurdities, creative story telling in efforts to come up with a better story…â€Â

5. The OT was compiled several thousand years after the events it purports to recount in a language almost certainly different from that in which it was originally conceived and subsequently requiring translation into English for us to understand.

That
- errors,
- Ambiguities
-and downright absurdities might be incorporated over the centuries

as a result of
-mis-rememberings,
-mistranslations,
- innocent copying errors
-and the desire to tell a better story

seems inevitable to anyone with even a passing understanding of the vagaries of the oral record

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32847&start=60#p390319

Anything "else"???

When you do the smoke-and-mirrors of "I am simply not a Bible literalist" the readers do not immediately get that BY THAT euphamism you REALLY mean the text is loaded with "down right absurdities, story telling in an effort to come up with a better story, errors..." and that copy errors have it so far from the original that we can not be sure what the original text even said.

They do not get the sense of your recent "David not the real historical David" arguments etc.

However when we use the term "Corrupt" ALL of those ideas immediately come to mind!

My point remains.

That was from
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=90#p395472

'Trying to tell a better story' = suggests efforts to improve the story in the way it is told and the dramatic impact it carries, perhaps by adding minor characters and scenes, without in any way disturbing the nature or message of the story; in other words and put simply, it expands but does not alter the plot.

'Trying to come up with a better story' = suggests to me creative manipulation of the story as a whole in an attempt to change the nature of the story so that a quite different story from that originally told or intended is the result; in other words and put simply, it alters the plot.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&p=396005#p395998

Added Characters - makes the story fictitious.
Added events (scenes) makes the story "fictitious"

It turns a document about a real event into pure "Aesop's fable FICTION".

As wikipedia notes - that is "CORRUPTING" the text!

". Ehrman theorizes that it was more often the Orthodox that "corrupted" the manuscripts, altering the text to promote particular viewpoints."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Notice that "corrupt" is defined as making L.K's claims about the Bible text ;-)

Now watch as Atheists are shown on 2 minute video asking for the SAME approach to the Bible!!

True Believers in Atheist Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism -- arguing that the Bible (as a kind of a-factual Aesop's fable text) is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, characters etc! http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Again - I point out that a key benefit here is to deconstruct the euphamisms as employed by L.K's just-say-nay to scripture argument.

1. "Bible is not innerrant" means that it is just a bunch of Aesops fables - nice morals but completely without integrity when it comes to characters and events since it is loaded with fiction and there is no place you can be certain that an event or a character is "real" until you find them in the dirt.

2. "Bible is not to be read literally" means don't actually believe any event it describes -- nor should you trust that the characters it speaks of actually existed. Nice morals but lousy facts!

A good atheist position as the previous video demonstrated where they themselves make that very claim!!

If you are honest with yourself you know that this is in fact the ONLY solution for an atheist if they are willing to be chartiable at all to the Christian POV.

Bob

 

[Orion]

Sure, the video that you posted shows how SOME of those, who are staunchly atheist, MAY have an underlining agenda of limiting the scope of religion, but not everyone who sees the Bible as NOT inerrant holds those same views. I am one who would not ditto what they say. But where science has discovered something, and obtains evidence for, and is repeatable, . . . AND just happens to contradict something as stated within the Biblical passages, then it is a pretty good step to take in saying that the Biblical text is either wrong, or it was meant as an analogy. Unless the Bible is specifically meaning to deceive, then those are the only two options available.

Now, the video would conclude that religion is A source of hope, for which I would agree, but also A source for many of the world suffering, and religion CAN be seen (and rightfully so) as "evil". One only need to look at fundamentalist extremists of any religion. But moreso, when misinformation, misinterpretation, and analogy transformed into reality trumps how the actual world works, then even the best notions can cause a society and/or group of people to stagnate along with scientific advancement.

 

[BobRyan]

Sure, the video that you posted shows how SOME of those, who are staunchly atheist, MAY have an underlining agenda of limiting the scope of religion, but not everyone who sees the Bible as NOT inerrant holds those same views.

I agree.

There is an entirely legitimate form of "Bible is not inerrant" and "Bible texts are not always to be taken literally" that is valid and is nothing like the deny-all and just-say-nay arguments of Atheists when it comes to the Bible.

The whole reason I am engaged so heavily on this is that there are those who try to mask the "Bible is Aesop's fables and fiction" argument under those same terms.

I am simply pointing out that when they do that - and can be coaxed into coming out and admitting it -- we can then SHOW that their position is in complete agreement with the Atheist approach to the same problem.

For example in John 10 Christ said "I am the door" and in the book of Judges the son of Gideon tells a story about "the trees going out to elect a king" -- not much "debate" as to whether the Bible authors intended these texts to be read as symbols, parables and illustrations of some moral point.

But there are other cases (the creation account summarized into LEGAL CODE, the resurrection of christ, virgin birth etc) where the Bible authors clearly intended for their readership to "believe" what they were saying "Was actually true".

But the doubt-the-bible first model of atheists would say that the default position is "none of it is true" until you can prove otherwise.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Orion
I am one who would not ditto what they say. But where science has discovered something, and obtains evidence for, and is repeatable, . . . AND just happens to contradict something as stated within the Biblical passages, then it is a pretty good step to take in saying that the Biblical text is either wrong, or it was meant as an analogy.

True. But to be cerain about your position you would need to be very clear on TWO points.

1. What does the bible say? (No bending it to fit your bias or conjecture).

2. What is the REAL "substance" in your "science evidence" for example is it a case of the shifting sand of "Nebraska man" CLAIMED by Osborn as "irrefutable" evidence of ape men -- only to find out later that it is the tooth of a pig??

1. How could you have known the level of smoke and mirrors they were using in that case until enough time had elasped to fully debunk their so-called "science" claims about that pig's tooth?

2. What about the so-called "science claims" for Neanderthal ages (20,000 years old) that has stood up for 30 years only to be completely debunked 2 years ago by atheist darwinists themselves?

Orion
Unless the Bible is specifically meaning to deceive, then those are the only two options available.

I agree that they are the only options -- IF you had all the facts before you.

But the problem of "guesswork being presented AS IF it were solid science" that get's debunked by atheist darwinists themselves given enough time - - could easily result in your trashing-then-accepting various parts of scripture with every twist and turn in the Darwinist guessing game.

Orion
Now, the video would conclude that religion is A source of hope, for which I would agree, but also A source for many of the world suffering, and religion CAN be seen (and rightfully so) as "evil". One only need to look at fundamentalist extremists of any religion. But moreso, when misinformation, misinterpretation, and analogy transformed into reality trumps how the actual world works, then even the best notions can cause a society and/or group of people to stagnate along with scientific advancement.

Horrendous crimes of the The pagan system of the Germanic tribal invaders into Europe can not be ignored. The Horrendous crimes of the Atheist communists and Nazi's can not simply be passed over.

It turns out that it is Christianity that argued for the freedom of slaves for the fair treatment of citizens for respect for others to the point of "loving your neighbor as yourself" whether that person is man or woman -- and for preparing the lost to live forever.

While we see that an abuse of the Jewish religion leads to the Crucifixion of Christ and abuses of the Christian religion lead to the slaughter of millions of the saints in the dark ages -- that does not mean that you can simply turn your back on the teachings of Christ.

After all we both agree that He is the "savior of the world" not simply a good man who had ideas that were "a little better than atheist moral values". In other words Christianity is more than "a better form of humanism".

He died for our sins and rose again that we might live forever.

Bob

 

[Orion]

Well, I can see their point, though. "Prove the Bible is true, else it isn't" has been used before in forums. The "since you are stating it as truth, the burden of proof is on you" type of argument, and it holds validity. No one can prove or even test the hypothesis or theory of literal Genesis 1 accounts. It would rest on the shoulders of those who deem it AS truth to give good evidence of their case. Because this will not happen, the atheist does pose a good argument in their favor. Now, in turn, you could say that no one can test the theories of +-60 million years ago to any real conclusion. So, then basing what we currently know about the universe, assumptions can be made that can and DO tend to call into question the vality of any religious belief, namely an earth and entire universe coming into existance only 6-10 thousand years ago.

I don't necessarily hold the stance of "the Bible is as Aesop's fable". I don't think that LK does either, though I would not want to speak in his behalf. But even in the examples you gave, there are those who would debate some topics, even within Christian circles, ie., the "virgin birth" or the "literal Genesis reading".

As for your other post, . . .

1. "What does the Bible say?" That is the problem that I'm talking about.

2. "What is the REAL substance .....evidence...." I'm speaking more about my problems within the biblical text, not of evidence of evoltionary finds.

So as was agreed upon (relatively) you have those two options (the bible is wrong, or was meant as an analogy), . . . . . . When I say "the bible is wrong", that doesn't mean that "God is wrong", however. When man is thrown into any endeavor, you will ultimately find error.

What I am speaking of goes beyond any guesswork and lies within the text itself, which is why I can conclude that either the bible was wrong (mostly the person who actually wrote it), or the story was meant to be metaphorical. The PERSON of the story may have existed, but were placed in a metaphorical story.

Lastly, yes, this world has seen horrendous things done by many cultures, many religions (or lack thereof). It is called, . . . the human race and centers around the ego of man.

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Well, it was a relatively straightforward reply intended to bring this discussion to a close. I see you wish rather to use it as a stick to beat me with regarding my view that the Bible is not inerrant.

"Bible is not inerrant" is your euphamism for "Bible is fiction -- similar to Aesop's fables".

'
Bob, you seem determined to drive anyone who disagrees with you in any way and doubts that the Bible is wholly inerrant into the arms of agnosticism or even atheism on the subject. If the only choice lies between an obsessive refusal to admit there is factual error where factual error so clearly lies, or a complete rejection of the Bible in its entirety, because the existence of factual error overwhelms spiritual and moral truths and renders them worthless - which is the choice you appear to wish to force on people - then I begin to wonder what your real purpose is in posting in these threads.

As to the remainder of your post, I note again that there is a great deal of assertion and bluster, but not much evidence. For example, I notice that you dodged these questions:

What is the certainty that drives your conclusion that no characters, events or places were added to the Bible story? Where is the evidence, for example, that underlies your certainty that a real person called Noah existed, as described in Genesis, and lived to be 950 years old?

by referring to the Ebla tablets as if the phrase 'Ebla tablets' is a powerful mantra that all by itself absolves you of any requirement to answer specific questions with relevant and specific answers.

Your response is a pre-eminent example of your preference for bluff, bluster and rhetoric over reasoned argument.