Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I am open to the idea that the Bible is meant to be read according to its categorical classifications, and that the Bible itself is the best method of interpreting its intent.
Stop hedging. Is this a 'yes' or a 'no?'
Of course, I am referring to passages which might at first blush be
taken literally; that is, I know that you don't think Jesus was being
literal when He said 'I am the vine...'. I am referring to, say, a literal
reading of Creation or the Flood, as examples.
Are you opened to the idea that these passages might be
figurative? 'Yes' or 'No' will suffice.
Let's take a page from your playbook, now. How about you answer the question put forth previously?
Which of the dozen or so irrelevant questions are you asking me to
answer?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI am referring to, say, a literal
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I am open to the idea that the Bible is meant to be read according to its categorical classifications, and that the Bible itself is the best method of interpreting its intent.
Stop hedging. Is this a 'yes' or a 'no?'
Of course, I am referring to passages which might at first blush be
taken literally; that ...[text shortened]... ich of the dozen or so irrelevant questions are you asking me to
answer?
Nemesio[/b]
reading of Creation or the Flood, as examples.
Are you opened to the idea that these passages might be
figurative? 'Yes' or 'No' will suffice.
Asked and answered, I'm afraid. Unless a particular passage lends itself to an interpretation otherwise, it is to be taken literally. In the passages you describe, Creation and the Flood, everything within the Hebrew demands a literal translation. Moreover, there is nothing within the realms of science (or common sense, for that matter) as we have ever known it which would contradict a straight-forward reading of the text in both of the passages.
Which of the dozen or so irrelevant questions are you asking me to
answer?
Your charm knows no bounds. Here's the question I would like you to answer:
What type of incontrovertible evidence are you imagining as able to offer the proof you are suggesting?
Originally posted by NemesioGreat diversionary tactics. Claim the other party is beholden to an inflexible viewpoint (presumably un-progressive and therefore bad) while holding to the same yourself (as revealed in your immediate acceptance and approval of the first random citation which supports the idea that the Bible is fallible) . When confronted, side-step the issue and condescendingly attack the other with petty put-downs.
More breath-control play...
You horn dog, you!
Something tells me the mirrors in your house may require substantial cleaning.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Asked and answered, I'm afraid. Unless a particular passage lends itself to an interpretation otherwise, it is to be taken literally. In the passages you describe, Creation and the Flood, everything within the Hebrew demands a literal translation. Moreover, there is nothing within the realms of science (or common sense, for that matter) as we have ever known it which would contradict a straight-forward reading of the text in both of the passages.
So the answer is: 'No.' You are not willing to consider the possibility
that the 'Creation' or 'Flood' are metaphorical.
By contrast, I am willing to entertain the possibility that they are literal.
However, scientific evidence to the contrary makes such a possibility highly
improbable.
Here's the question I would like you to answer:
What type of incontrovertible evidence are you imagining as able to offer the proof you are suggesting?
I'm not proposing any. My question was whether you were capable of
imagining a situation so compelling that you would be forced to read the
aforementioned passages of Scripture figuratively rather than literally.
You've answered this with a resounding 'NO.'
Again, by contrast, I am capable of imagining both scientific and
supernatural evidence which would compel me to understand those
passages literally rather than figuratively. Such evidence, as far as I
can tell, does not exist, which is why I take those passages as metaphorical.
I find it amusing that you are accusing me of projection.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMy conclusion that the Bible is not an accurate history book is not
...as revealed in your immediate acceptance and approval of the first random citation which supports the idea that the Bible is fallible...
based on the 'first random citation' but from years of study of its texts,
the ways in which its texts (and those of other ancient documents) were
transmitted, and the cultural environment which conceived, created,
and (ultimately) adopted those texts.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioBy contrast, I am willing to entertain the possibility that they are literal.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Asked and answered, I'm afraid. Unless a particular passage lends itself to an interpretation otherwise, it is to be taken literally. In the passages you describe, Creation and the Flood, everything within the Hebrew demands a literal translation. Moreover, there is nothing within the realms of science (or common sen ical.
I find it amusing that you are accusing me of projection.
Nemesio
My conclusion that the Bible is not an accurate history book...
My aren't we a bundle of contradictions. On one hand, you are open to the possibility that the Bible's accounts of Creation and the Flood are meant to be taken literally, and then on the other you find such a position improbable. Is you is or is you ain't?
Amusingly, you infer that only your years of study are worth anything, and only your conclusions are valid. Must be that gigantic gap of intellect between you and all the other people who are actual experts in the languages involved that sets your opinions aside, makes them holy. Surely, all of those others--- including me--- are idiots. Oh, wait! I know: everyone who wishes the text to be the word of God superimposes the same upon the text, thereby rendering their conclusions biased. Forget the fact that a great many of the people who hold to the inerrancy of the Bible had, at one time, held to the errancy of the Bible... it was only their careful study that stripped them of such a position.
Moreover, your position that "scientific evidence to the contrary" makes it "highly improbable" that the accounts are literal. Really? Perhaps this is what I was alluding to when I suggested the scenario that either our science is wrong, or our understanding of the Scripture is flawed. Specifically, your understanding of what the Scripture says is flawed (in addition, quite possibly, to the science upon which your opinion is based. But we'll stick to the verifiable part here). You have already opined on how you have reached your conclusion, comparing Scripture with science. Care to clarify your position on this specific account, giving us your breakdown of the Genesis account and contrasting that with 'known' science?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHave you grown obtuse or something?
My aren't we a bundle of contradictions. On one hand, you are open to the possibility that the Bible's accounts of Creation and the Flood are meant to be taken literally, and then on the other you find such a position improbable. Is you is or is you ain't?
It is a possibility that I will flip a coin 100 times and have it land heads, but it is
improbable. The two do not entail a contradiction.
My conclusions about the 'literality/figurativity' of the Creation/Flood stories are based on
what information I can gather from the world around me. On the one hand, I have this Book --
a very important Book in the history of humankind and a very important Book for me in particular --
on the other, we have scientific evidence which runs in contradiction to a literal conclusion.
The next question is: Does the Book demand a literal reading of the story? A study of
2500 years of Jewish interpretation yields an unquestionable 'NO!' Before the Bible was 'hijacked'
by the Gentile population in the context of Christianity in a pagan culture, such stories were never
viewed literally. That is, they were all taken with highest degree of seriousness, but never, ever,
ever with the presumption that a single reading (literal OR figurative) was the right one.
When you learn what 'possibility' and 'probability' mean, let me know. (Also, look up 'closed-minded' where you will learn that someone [like you] with a position from which they are unwilling
to yield fits the definition.)
If you want to compel me that the Creation story is indeed a literal one, please compel me to
such a position with evidence. As I said, I am opened to the possibility.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioHave you grown obtuse or something?
Have you grown obtuse or something?
It is a possibility that I will flip a coin 100 times and have it land heads, but it is
improbable. The two do not entail a contradiction.
My conclusions about the 'literality/figurativity' of the Creation/Flood stories are based on
what information I can gather from the world around me. On the on ...[text shortened]... uch a position with evidence. As I said, I am opened to the possibility.
Nemesio
So I have options? I'll take the 'or something,' part, because the 'obtuse' part doesn't sound too complimentary.
It is a possibility that I will flip a coin 100 times and have it land heads, but it is
improbable. The two do not entail a contradiction.
What part is improbable: the flipping part or the landing part? Either way, your illustration does not shed light on the contradiction you are offering in your earlier post.
on the other, we have scientific evidence which runs in contradiction to a literal conclusion.
This is the part upon which you have been called to task. It is now your duty to either provide the proofs of such a baseless claim, or fade away with attacks on me (I already have a hunch which of those you'll choose, but feel free to surprise us by going with the first option).
That is, they were all taken with highest degree of seriousness, but never, ever,
ever with the presumption that a single reading (literal OR figurative) was the right one.
Of course. And you're basing that on... what exactly? There is nothing in either of the accounts discussed which begins to hint at allegory and/or metaphor, and moreover, it is just that view which plunges the accounts into the realm of absurdity. Not to mention, every bit of established science agrees with the literal take of the accounts... insofar as those accounts are allowed to speak for themselves. Your restrictive persepective of the accounts is what is keeping reality from shining.
When you learn what 'possibility' and 'probability' mean, let me know.
Hey! I figured it out! To show my mastery of the words, I shall here use them in a sentence. Ahem:
"While it is a possibility that Nemmy will face the facts of reality, the probability of such a scenario is near zero."
How'd I do?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What part is improbable: the flipping part or the landing part? Either way, your illustration does not shed light on the contradiction you are offering in your earlier post.
Of course it does. It demonstrates that possibility and high improbability
are not mutually exclusive. Consequently, there was no contradiction.
This is the part upon which you have been called to task. It is now your duty to either provide the proofs of such a baseless claim, or fade away with attacks on me (I already have a hunch which of those you'll choose, but feel free to surprise us by going with the first option).
So, you want to turn this thread into a Evolution/Creation war? You
want to assert that the claim on Evolution is 'baseless?!?!' What a joke!
I don't have proofs, only evidence; this evidence consists of
conclusions drawn from the sciences of chemistry (radioactive isotope
dating), biology (genetics), and paleontological anthropology. The
combined evidence from these sources (each of which support the
conclusions of the others) leads me to conclude that humankind as we
see it today was vastly different (i.e., physically, mentally, and socially)
from the (proto-)humankind that existed 2 million years ago (or longer).
This topic has been pounded to death. Do you deny the existence of
Lucy, say? Or do you deny that she came from the homo genus
of the animal kingdom? Or do you deny that she is as old as she is
said to be?
I mean, if the Creation story is to be understood literally, don't you
have some sort of compelling proof that would make any arguments
to the contrary moot?
Of course. And you're basing that on... what exactly? There is nothing in either of the accounts discussed which begins to hint at allegory and/or metaphor, and moreover, it is just that view which plunges the accounts into the realm of absurdity. Not to mention, every bit of established science agrees with the literal take of the accounts... insofar as those accounts are allowed to speak for themselves. Your restrictive persepective of the accounts is what is keeping reality from shining.
Um. What reason to I have to take it literally? Is there a pre-Christian
account from a devout Jew that does so? (No.) Is there any history of
any tradition within Judiasm of taking this passage, or any 'story'
passages literally? (No.)
"While it is a possibility that Nemmy will face the facts of reality, the probability of such a scenario is near zero."
What are these facts? The denial of fossil record?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioSo, you want to turn this thread into a Evolution/Creation war? You
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What part is improbable: the flipping part or the landing part? Either way, your illustration does not shed light on the contradiction you are offering in your earlier post.
Of course it does. It demonstrates that possibility and high improbability
are not mutually exclusive. Consequently, there was no contra ...[text shortened]... o is near zero."[/b]
What are these facts? The denial of fossil record?
Nemesio[/b]
want to assert that the claim on Evolution is 'baseless?!?!' What a joke!
The whole e/c (so-called) debate is about as tiring as watching Giligan's Island re-runs: no matter how many times you watch it, no matter how much hope you put into it, those morons ain't getting off the island. As has been extensively shown, evolution has no mechanism and is not a force, thus rendering it the mythical perpetual motion machine and therefor certainly not worthy of the effort given it to date.
What you were asked to do is give your account of creation and compare that with known science with the intent of showing the contradiction. It is my contention that you are reading the Genesis account wrong.
Is there a pre-Christianaccount from a devout Jew that does so? (No.) Is there any history of any tradition within Judiasm of taking this passage, or any 'story' passages literally? (No.)
Whoa. So, you're suggesting that the "devout Jew" held the creation and Flood (and Babel and Moses' miraculous salvation from the river, for that matter) as totally metaphorical? Again, I gotta ask: based on what?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are extensively incorrect. Evolution does have a mechanism: genetic variation via mutation and/or other means combined with natural selection.
[b]So, you want to turn this thread into a Evolution/Creation war? You
want to assert that the claim on Evolution is 'baseless?!?!' What a joke!
The whole e/c (so-called) debate is about as tiring as watching Giligan's Island re-runs: no matter how many times you watch it, no matter how much hope you put into it, those morons ain't getting off the ...[text shortened]... e river, for that matter) as totally metaphorical? Again, I gotta ask: based on what?[/b]
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWe agree that natural selection is considered evolution's mechanism. But as natural selection is, itself, a non-sequitur, evolution is left holding the bag, so to speak.
You are extensively incorrect. Evolution does have a mechanism: genetic variation via mutation and/or other means combined with natural selection.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As has been extensively shown, evolution has no mechanism and is not a force, thus rendering it the mythical perpetual motion machine and therefor certainly not worthy of the effort given it to date.
Um. Who has extensively shown this?
What you were asked to do is give your account of creation and compare that with known science with the intent of showing the contradiction. It is my contention that you are reading the Genesis account wrong.
Well, for starters, one problem is the idea that plants, animals, and
the human animal are demonstrably different ages rather than having
been created two or three days apart.
There's always the problem of man's being created before vegetation
as per chapter 2 of Genesis or animals (as distinct from chapter 1), a
contradiction which you haven't explained.
Whoa. So, you're suggesting that the "devout Jew" held the creation and Flood (and Babel and Moses' miraculous salvation from the river, for that matter) as totally metaphorical? Again, I gotta ask: based on what?
I'm suggesting that the 'devout Jew' clearly didn't hold that it was
necessary to believe that it was definitely literal or definitively figurative.
It was not an dogmatic element of faith to accept the story specifically
as one particular way (that is, until Gentile Christianity).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioUm. Who has extensively shown this?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As has been extensively shown, evolution has no mechanism and is not a force, thus rendering it the mythical perpetual motion machine and therefor certainly not worthy of the effort given it to date.
Um. Who has extensively shown this?
What you were asked to do is give your account of creation and compare ...[text shortened]... pecifically
as one particular way (that is, until Gentile Christianity).
Nemesio
Various folks. It's all over the internet. Check it out!
plants, animals, and the human animal are demonstrably different ages rather than having been created two or three days apart.
Based on a specific reading of the fossil record, correct?
There's always the problem of man's being created before vegetation as per chapter 2 of Genesis or animals (as distinct from chapter 1), a contradiction which you haven't explained.
Didn't know we had a contradiction. Be more specific, if you don't mind.
It was not an dogmatic element of faith to accept the story specifically as one particular way (that is, until Gentile Christianity).
Still isn't a dogmatic element of faith. According to orthodox Christianity (no, not the Greek Orthodox), all that is required for salvation is an acceptance of the work done on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ on the part of the individual. Creeds are not required.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Various folks. It's all over the internet. Check it out!
That's interesting. The vast majority of what I find on the internet
lends support to the idea of evolution's veracity. And, those few I
find that don't begin with the a priori position that the Genesis
text is literal.
Did you have a particular source in mind?
Based on a specific reading of the fossil record, correct?
Well, based on the normative reading of the fossil index, one which
is independently verified by geology and chemistry.
Are you suggesting that the reading of the fossil record is 'subjective'
(amusing, since you opine that the Genesis story is 'objectively' true)?
What reading are you using and what scientific evidence (and community)
supports this reading?
Didn't know we had a contradiction. Be more specific, if you don't mind.
Genesis 1:11-13 speaks of the creation of vegetation on the third day.
Genesis 1:20-22 speaks of the creation of water creatures and birds on the fifth day.
Genesis 1:24-25 speaks of the creation of various land creatures on the sixth day.
Genesis 1:26ff speaks of (then) creating humankind on the sixth day.
Genesis 2:4b-7 speaks of no shrub or grass (and, as we find out, no
animals) before creating humankind.
Genesis 2:8-9 speaks of the creation of the garden in Eden.
Genesis 2:18-20 speaks of the subsequent creation of animalkind
(birds and land animals simultaneously, this time).
A literal reading of these two stories yields contradiction. Indeed, they
are in total discord with each other.
It was not an dogmatic element of faith to accept the story specifically as one particular way (that is, until Gentile Christianity).
Still isn't a dogmatic element of faith. According to orthodox Christianity (no, not the Greek Orthodox), all that is required for salvation is an acceptance of the work done on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ on the part of the individual. Creeds are not required.[/b]
Well, if it's not dogmatic, then why are you insisting on it?
Nemesio